Some time in the early years of the 20th century a British lawyer tried to demonstrate the absurdity of the principle of the “Sovereignty of Parliament”, which allows the British Parliament to pass any law no matter how absurd, and no matter how perverse. Trying to illustrate his argument with an example how absurd this principle is, he said:
“If the Parliament wants to make a law which will turn women into men and men into women, it can pass such law. And that law will be valid until repealed by the Parliament itself”.
At the time this example was indeed an example of absurdity. But today it is reality itself. The Parliament is indeed discussing a law which will turn men into legally recognised “mothers”, and women into legally recognised “fathers”.
Yes, the Mother of Parliaments is discussing a law which will make two homosexual men (or women) living together into a legally recognised family for the purpose of adoption of children. And those who are in favour of such law are appealing to the “social conscience” of the Members of Parliament to support this legislation. They say that, young children would continue to “languish in care”, if adoption remained restricted to married couples [of opposite sex].
So let us have a closer look at the issue of adoption of children by homosexual couples from prime principles.
To begin with, no child has ever been born yet as a result of a homosexual relationship. And to develop normally a child needs a father and a mother. And a father must be male, while a mother must be female.
Men and women are different not only in their sexual roles, but in their behavior, attitudes, bodily structure, voice, smell, softness of skin.
A man who becomes a homosexual does not become a woman, nor does a homosexual woman become a man, they are just people satisfying their sexual and emotional needs in a perverse, unnatural way. So a child adopted by two homosexual men will still be deprived of a mother, and a child adopted by two women will have no father. And children need both a father and a mother not only to be conceived, but for their normal emotional and psychological development.
Not only a child adopted by a homosexual couple will be deprived of a normal relationship with a parent of the missing sex, but he will also live in an atmosphere of a perverse, unnatural relationship. And this will have its “social” consequences.
In spite of the enormous amount of taxpayer's money being spent by the British government on education and various “social services”, crime, alcoholism, drug addiction and sexually transmitted diseases among adults and children keep spreading. The reason that so many children are in care in Britain today, is not due to wars, earthquakes, or volcanic eruptions. It is the result of the corruption of moral values, which leads to social irresponsibility, breakdown of the normal family — and more children “in care”.
And as far as justification of homosexuality by “modernity” — sodomy has existed from times immemorial, but was condemned as sin by Moses, Jesus and Muhammad for the purpose of the moral and physical well‐being of Mankind.
A law which makes sexual promiscuity and homosexuality still more “socially acceptable” is still another step towards sodomisation of the British society. It is just another example of the use of the word “social” by political demagogues to justify corruption of the society so as to put themselves into positions of power and to promote their political careers. Although some of the politicians promote such laws “sincerely”, because they themselves are morally corrupt.