SOMETHING ELSE WORTH A REFERENDUM.

The weekly diet on this week's edition of 'Question Time' was surprisingly short of the mandatory 'pantomime question', but it included, and maybe correctly, a question regarding the bill going through Parliament on same sex marriage.

The author has written on the subject in the past. Homosexuality and lesbianism has been with us, presumably, since life began, and it has been ridiculed, unfairly, for far too long. In my weekly radio programme featuring old, proper songs, I mention regularly how often the excellent song writers were/are of diverse sexuality. In the past, it has driven some to a miserable existence, which has ended with, if not tragedy, certainly misery.

Conversely, I don't understand what such a law would do for the community as a whole. When same sex couples decide to live together, which is now fairly commonplace, protected in civil law, why can't we drop the subject and get on with more pressing business. There are plenty of things to consider, particularly the  question of the European Union.

The aforementioned programme tossed this 'hot potato' at the panel, most of whom, as one would expect, ran with the pro-lobby; expressing a kind of delight in recommending such relationships to be enshrined in law. One panellist was not happy, and although much of the audience appeared to be for such arrangements, the most convincing argument came from the antis, people after my own heart. What was appalling, was the fact that the chairman suggested that, because the pros in the audience were vociferous in their outbursts, this would be the consensus throughout the nation. Most of us know that anything produced by the BBC would have placements by the score, to suit their point of view. Furthermore, why is it that only a few of my friends and associates find it acceptable, when the vast majority consider it to be abhorrent? Let us therefore ask the people.


TAKING ON NATURE IS A FOOL'S GAME.