The Government consultation on equal marriage has been launched.
Marriage is between one man and one woman. If two men or two women are allowed to marry, the fundamental nature of marriage as an institution will be irrevocably and completely changed. So straight people will be unable to marry, and the human race will die out.
Marriage is an ancient institution, as old as civilisation and older than any existing society. So the laws of any current society should not change it. Or the death penalty. Or war. Or prostitution.
Marriage is a sacrament. God hates queers, who should be denied access to the sacraments, because Jesus says so, and all Jesus’s true servants agree.
Here’s an interesting one. Marriage is a matter of power and property. Gay people, being equal, should use civil partnerships instead, because they symbolise true equality. No woman can marry without vowing to “love, honour and obey” her husband and lord. And the Married Women’s Property Act 1870 should be repealed.
It is the top of the slippery slope. If we allow gay marriage, people will want to marry their siblings, their cars, or their dogs. And if marriage is open for a woman to marry a woman, it cannot be limited to prevent a woman from marrying her dog. Or if marriage is open to people whom a tiny, shrinking minority find disgusting, it cannot be restricted at all.
Oh yes, and marriage is for the procreation of children. Infertile people should not be allowed to marry. No-one who does not want children should be allowed to marry.
Weird, isn’t it? The Republican party in the US is an alliance of rich people who want to cut taxes on rich people, who promise to persecute gay people and restrict women’s control over their own bodies, to please poor people who say that these “family values” are more important than economic interests. Newt Gingrich is prepared to say his own sister is the end of civilisation as we know it, in order to gain power and, er, reduce taxes on himself and his cronies. At least Dick Cheney does not betray his daughter in the same way, but Mr Cheney is no longer running for office.
The only thing wrong with the Government’s marriage proposals is that churches who wish to do so, will not be able to celebrate gay marriages. Perhaps this is to draw the sting from the churches’ objections: it is a civil matter, nothing to do with the churches. This does not stop churches objecting. But Quakers, Unitarians and liberal Jews wish to celebrate gay marriages. I think that soon those churches who want to will be allowed to solemnise marriages.
No church which objects should be forced to solemnise gay marriages. I would not want the British National Party banned, and as long as they keep their beliefs among consenting adults in private, they should be allowed to hold them. Soon, the homophobes will have to retreat to the closet, there to gnash their teeth in rage and fear lest their peculiar beliefs become known.
I am sorry about the sarcastic tone of much of this post. Marriage equality is right, because people wish to celebrate and proclaim their life-long commitment to one another, and the State should support that. It makes a minority happy, and hurts no-one.
I agree! The whole argument against equal marriage is just so senseless to me. It really isn’t about the “institution” of marriage at all. It is completely about power. Those who oppose it the most ardently couldn’t give a crap about “the institution of marriage!”
Power. That is a good way of looking at it. “My prejudice should trump your happiness”. Readanddestroy’s rant shows a good example of an objector, and how empty his rhetoric is; and introduced me to this UK petition.
Don’t apologize for the sarcastic tone! I love it! In fact, I think you should go further. How about:
Tony: Mary, I know we’ve been married for 35 years, we have three children, 5 grandchildren. We’ve spent a lifetime together and it’s about to end.
Tony: Yes, our lives are meaningless now.
Tony: Haven’t you heard? The owner of the salon you go to is marrying his same-sex partner.
Tony: Don’t you get it?
Hello and welcome, Rick Santorum’s (and Franco’s) worst nightmare!
Yeah. I hear lots of whining, mean-spirited opposition. “Hey! There are these guys we want to look down on and be nasty to! The Government must not take away our bullying fun!”
Clare Flourish, Rick Santorum has said things that I both agree with and disagree with. So, I would advise you to not be too quick to dismiss everything he says, because he has valid points to make in some regards.
He does not interest me enough to worry about what he says. I only know he was wrong about equal marriage.
Clare Flourish, when I said that gay people can’t help the way they are on your Shame of the Lesbians post, you said that some people are attracted to members of the same sex. You also said you could dismiss my comments from your blog at any time. Now, I will abide by whatever rules you have, however, what are some tips that you have that I should pay heed to just so I remain in your good graces?
My only rule is “Don’t bore me”.
Clare Flourish, I will do my best to abide by the rule not to bore you. I know that you will tell me if I was being boring to you, however, I hope that I have not been boring to you presently.
You are not at all boring, so far.
Clare Flourish, a simple rule like not boring you will be easy to remember.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good luck! Good luck! Good Luck! I do hope your government pulls its head out of its arse and allows lesbian, gay, trans and bi folks the same opportunity to marry as everyone else.
From the perspective of an American, it’s a nightmare when certain states allow the privilege but the national government doesn’t (and currently California has three classes of citizens – straight folks who can marry, GLBTQ folks who married when it was legal and are now married even though it’s not anymore, and GLBTQ folks who cannot not married because it’s not legal now). As a lesbian living in a state (and under a religion) that doesn’t recognize same-gender marriages, my partner and I are having a devil of a time trying to plan our late-October ceremony.
While I can’t say what might happen across the pond, in America I believe it’s just a matter of when, not if, same-gender marriages will be legal. We have so many states trying to add “marriage-clauses” to their state constitutions (like my home state of North Carolina is proposing on the May 8 primary ballot) because the states know that the federal “Defense of Marriage Act” that restricts marriage to one man and one woman is likely to fall in the next few years.
So again I say, good luck, please do keep us (me) updated on the progress!!
I am very glad to have you here.
You will get married sooner or later.
A woman I met cannot work in the US. I suggested she marry her partner, and she said that all the marriage laws were State laws, and Immigration is a federal matter, so it would make no difference. Another woman told me how she had had to sever her partnership and enter a new one, when she moved from state to state within the US. Bizarre that States do not recognise each others’ partnerships. But the British law is only a matter of time.
“Defense” of Marriage. I hate the opponents. I just do. Pretending there is an appalling attack on our sacred institution by depraved, slavering, maddened, violent, er- ordinary people who want to get married. Marriages should be a source of joy, mainly for the couple of course, but for their friends and family and everyone who hears about them.
The arguments against gay marriage really are pretty bizarre. I agree with 2GirlsGettingMarried that it’s just a matter of time. Hopefully soon. Todd and I wanna be 2BoysGettingMarried….
One strange thing is that it is a thing “conservatives” should support. Stable partnerships are a building block of society. People are happier and more productive.
A very reasonable discourse here, which I’ve enjoyed reading! If the “Haters” were made to accept the falseness of their “for the good of society” arguments, I fear they will all self-combust in a big POOF! “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire” and all!
Welcome. There is no Biblical Christian support for slavery now. There will, shortly, be no Biblical Christian condemnation of homosexuality, and everyone will be happier.
I confess I went hunting for blogs about Hawaii because my Clustrmap said I had visitors from 45 States and DC, and I want the full set: an I am delighted to have found your blog. You say some profound things.
Thank you for your kind thoughts, Clare! I hope that my words find some usefulness in the lives of others. I, too, am enjoying the way you look at certain things!
You do both of those blogs, do you? I am so glad I hunted for Hawaii blogs. Lovely to net-meet you.
I love your sarcastic tone, as I am sarcastic also. Things like this deserve sarcasm because they simply do not make any sense. I am a lesbian and have been living my life openly and out of the closet for over 26 years. In those 26 years, I’ve heard just about every single stupid comment and senseless argument that people could make against gay marriage and gay lifestyle. I’ve yet to hear an argument that made any sense at all. It isn’t a “lifestyle” in the first place. I’ve never heard anyone refer to being black as a lifestyle? Eventually people will get it. I think that the majority of people are getting it now. The ones who are clinging to their archaic views and insisting on interpreting the bible in the way in which they want will eventually, as you say, be driven into closets of their own. I for one, will never go back into a closet again.
When I said we were “born that way”, an Evangelical sarcastically accused me of “Hate Speech!!” as I implied that being gay is not a lifestyle anyone would choose. What can I say to such a man? This is a possibility: perhaps you find every single woman in the World attractive, and so proposing to your wife was a choice. But if that is not true, there are women you have found attractive (whether you think that sinful or not) and women whom you have not. Being gay is as much a choice as proposing to a woman you find attractive rather than to a woman you do not find attractive, with whom there is no spark, no interest.
How to get them to see?
Clare Flourish, as far as gay marriage goes, no government has the right to deny gay people the ability to marry. In all honesty, even though I am not into the gay lifestyle,I say leave the gay community in peace. People who are not into the gay lifestyle need to mind their own dam business. Maybe I am oversimplifying it, however, if gay marriage is not going to adversely affect people who are not gay, people who are not gay need to mind their own damn business.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Clare Flourish, the thing I find to be most absurd is the talking point among some people that there is a changing of the definition of marriage. Those people seem to subscribe to a legal definition, not the Dictionary’s definition.
How would you define marriage, Ragnar?
If the law on marriage changes, so that same sex couples can marry, should the dictionary change its definition? Google’s dictionary defines it as “the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).”
Clare Flourish, as I understand it, the Dictionary defines marriage as an interpersonal union. Defining it as an interpersonal union negates the claim that it should be restricted to members of the opposite sex.
It depends which dictionary you use. Before I had a computer, I bought the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the 1993 edition, which has 3767 pages of definitions, which says a marriage is between a man and a woman. The campaign for equal marriage began by the 1970s, Denmark established gay “Registered Partnerships” in 1989, and the Netherlands established gay marriages in 2001.
But it’s not a question of definitions. It’s a question of morality. Do you recognise gay people and our relationships as of equal value, or not? I don’t get my morality from my language, but the other way about. So we create words and terms like “homophobia” or “equal marriage”, to easily refer to things we find morally good, or morally bad. Language can restrict the way we think- see Orwell, 1984- or liberate it.