A wholesome message was part of an advertising campaign for Honey maid. The video features families and includes a gay couple and an interracial couple. It also includes heterosexual families, white families, black families etc. Just normal diversity that occurs everyday.
The video resulted in many negative comments and nasty feedback from narrow minded individuals that seem to think everyone should behave according to their own beliefs and opinions. You know what? We don't. And, more to the point, the human population doesn't conform to that type of individualistic bigotry. The diversity you see in this video is pretty much the diversity you find in a normal western society, full of variety but with the same common theme. People loving one another. In the end, love is probably one of the most fundamental parts about being human. Providing all parties consent it really doesn't matter how that love is shared.
There was a response to the negativity, shown in the video below. One day, tolerance will win out over intolerance. It is already starting.
This is an announcement that a bill will be brought forward to the Scottish Parliament, not that the law has changed as yet.
At present, civil partnerships have the same legal rights as religious marriages. I see no reason not to extend the option of religious marriage to same sex couples, and thus I am very much for the proposed legislation. The sooner it occurs the better.
However, there is a sour note rings with regard to this latest proposal. There was a public consultation, with 77,508 responses (according to the link above), 64% of which were against same sex marriage. So what is the right thing for elected officials to do? Make a moral judgement based on principals of equality that goes against the opinion of the populace, or to follow what the electorate want and make a choice that maintains discrimination? Who are the politicians to make that subjective judgement? What if the situation were something different, such as conscription of the populace to fight in wars. Should the opinion of voters be ignored?
We all reply on others to make the best choices for us. Whether it is our parents during formative years or officials in various guises making judgements that affect our well-being on a daily basis. Food standard agencies, health officials, police and law enforcers, even bus or taxi drivers and a myriad of others. We select our politicians to make certain decisions for us as part of a democratic process. We put them in power, but then we must trust that those with the power wield it correctly and leave them to make the necessary decisions. They are human and likely mistakes will be, and often are, made along the way, but it is still their role to make these type of judgements.
As already indicated, I think the right decision is being made. That said, I also think they are walking a fine line. If this was the decision they were going to make anyway, why pursue a consultation in the first place? By doing a consultation they were specifically asking for voter's opinions in order to facilitate making a choice about a controversial topic. I can't help but feel that the consultation was a bad idea that ended up with a negative result and now going against the majority of opinion will not help the cause of homosexual equality.
Perhaps a better, but possibly less headline-grabbing, method (following the consultation) would have been to go down the route of education and winning voters opinions to the cause. Perhaps the Scottish politicians wouldn't then get ahead of those in England and Wales with regard to legislation, but listening to the opinion they have requested would be the better course of action to take.
Legislating that marriage could be available for gay couples within the next 3 years or would, according to the church of England, damage the institution of marriage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18405318The main basis of the argument appears to be the definition of marriage as being between an man and a woman and for procreation. By allowing gay marriage it would undermine the CofE and its "vast" importance to society.
Yet again, a religious institution fails to move with the times and progress naturally. Rather than being at the forefront of change, leading the world to a better place and potentially bringing more people together, it hangs back, clinging with all its might to outdated notions about what the right thing is to do. The right thing is equality for the legal status of people who chose to share their lives together. It is clear that the sex of the individual is insignificant, it will not damage society nor will it undermine anything for anyone. It merely is an extension of rights to those who are different. There are religious organisations and leaders that support gay marriage (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17796511) and they certainly seem to be moving in the right direction. It is a shame the people who issue the statements and policies of the CofE are not progressive enough to embrace the change that will come, and it will, sooner or later.
Good news about Obama's changed stance on gay marriage has rippled across several news outlets. It is positive news and again brings this issue to the public arena. Unfortunately, I can't help also thinking that this was just a political move forced by the Vice-president's expression of support for gay marriage. I also doubt it will have much impact on the presidential election as the general polarisation of opinion on this issue between voters appears to be along party lines anyway. The announcement came just after North Carolina became the most recent of the 31 states banning gay marriage. I am not sure what the government can do anyway, unless the power to ban gay marriage is removed from individual states. I don't know enough about how politics works in the US to comment on how feasible or what repercussions such a move might have. Anyway, there is a vast difference in stating an opinion and making it legislature.
Fundamentally, this is a civil rights issue. The banning of gay marriage is part of continuing discrimination against LGBT individuals. What does it matter what sex partner someone chooses to commit to and spend the rest of their life with? That is no one's business outside of the couple concerned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18014102The BBC news article I have linked to gives an overview of the story. The comments below the piece show how religion is often used as a reason for denying others the same rights. People are different for so many reasons. Why can we not just embrace those differences? There is not a limit on how many marriages can be handed out each year!
This video is a few years old now and stemmed from when California passed proposition 8 banning gay marriage. I think it has a lot of important points to make.
Skeptical kinkster musing on whatever takes my fancy!