To one, she was a wife.
To two, she was a mother.
And to an entire nation, she was a leader.
Today marked the grievous end of Margaret Thatcher’s momentous 87 years. Her legacy, however, which still perseveres throughout the United Kingdom, will, undoubtedly, live on in a society indebted to her strength.
Perhaps more worldly recognised as the first female British Prime minister, I feel that it would be fair to say that this was the least of her triumphs. In only eleven years she lead her country to countless victories which leaders before her premiership would not have been prepared to achieve.
It was in 1982 when she led Britain to an unlikely victory in the Falklands, a victory that has been compared even to those of Winston Churchill, and it was also at this time she proved that ‘this lady is not for turning’.
Also notable was her leap towards peace between the countries of Ireland and Great Britain that had been amidst tension for hundreds of years. In the face of strikes and critics she remained strong and in turn led to what would become an end to the ‘troubles’.
Even to this day, however, her critics remain just as fierce causing what is, perhaps, one of the greatest divides in public opinion. Indeed, to some, she was considered evil but, to even more, she is a hero.
Although, what this split cannot deny is how Margaret Thatcher, undeniably, put the ‘Great’ back into Great Britain.
There are a number of nonsensical and short-sighted arguments in favour of the discrimination against homosexuals but what my eyes fell witness to the other day may have just have topped them all…
In the form of a questionable advertisement that recently made tracks across the internet, an argument was advocated against homosexual parents. However, despite its clear homophobic incentive, the only possible insight that was gained on my behalf was that the people who are dumb enough to create and deliver such tragic arguments are generally the ones ignorant enough to hold such views in the fist place.
In short, the scene depicted two children playing at a park before each succumbed to a fate of falling off a climbing wall and hence brought about the concerned attention of the aforementioned children’s parents. Obviously one child was to be met by a generic and squeamishly-sensitive mother who, after noticing his solitude, questioned the other child with ‘where’s your mommy?’. It was then he became shadowed by two seemingly cold-hearted silhouettes (of which I presume were his fathers) who simply on-looked the hurt child before the ad ended with the painfully misguided sentiment; ‘Marriage, One Man One Woman’.
So taking the advert’s claim that a child can only expect to be cared for if he or she is fortunate enough come from a ‘nuclear family unit’ then what about all the children brought up by single parents? Grandparents? No parents?
Are we really expected to believe that the 21.8 million children in the U.S.A. who are being brought up by a single parent are simply not receiving necessary care? That they are even perhaps in danger of neglect?
Of course not.
For what this advert is singularly attempting to insinuate are the flawed perceptions that a child brought up with two parents who happen to be of the same gender ultimately (because of that factor alone) are ineffective and even negligent as parents when there is simply no evidence to support this at all.
There are currently 60, 000 children living in care homes in the U.K. alone. That is 60,000 children without a secure home and that perfect and apparently necessary ‘one man one woman family unit’. And let me tell you,
not a single of those children are living with such deprivation because of negligent gay parents.
There are so many other flaws within this argument that my threateningly-frozen fingers would be at risk of simply breaking off if I were to continue stamping out my outrage via the pressing of computer keys.
Nevertheless please don’t be afraid to tell me that my points suck and that I should rethink my entire life! Thank you for reading! 🙂