Wednesday, June 29, 2005


Originally posted by The Realist

Ha ha. Another victory for liberalism and another blow for the christian right. I’ve ranted about this before. God is dead, therefore anything is permissible. The Canadian christian websites are suspiciously quiet on this one. I’d like to think that the US would be next, but somehow I doubt it. The first gay marriage is happening here in the UK at the end of the year and we will then be the sixth country to fall in line. The rest of the world will, over time, fall in line, with the exception of the two bigoted religious idiocracies: Nigeria and America.


Joe said...

Somehow, i can't see Saudi Arabia legalising gay marriage either. Or Iran. Or the UAE.

Or the Isle Of Man.

ph said...

On the subject of marriage, I am somewhat confused by the government's wish to give co-habiting heterosexuals the same rights and responsibilities in law as those who chose to get married. I assume that those who choose not to get married do so because they do not want all the legal palaver that goes with it, but now it seems that the goverment has taken this choice away - and you are effectively married whether you like it or not.

Anonymous said...

Spain joins the coalition of the fabulous.

Anonymous said...

Gay "marriage" is not marriage - I don't mean to demean it, but marriage is a very specific thing -a union between a man and a woman.

Gay partnerships, life long committment etc are one thing; marriage, though, they are not. Gay couples can not have children together (no, I don't count someone else carrying it), and it is ultimately what stems from marriage - children growing up in a family environment - that is the bedrock of any society that needs to survive.

It is a seperate point I admit, but the insitution of marriage is constantly undermined at the moment - usually by those who have benefited from it the most, afraid of shaking their liberal credentials.

Citizen Sane said...

What about married couples who cannot have children? Should their marriages be annulled?

Laura said...

Anonymous number two. This from please note points three and four. Definitions shift all the time! Try shifting with them a little!

mar·riage Audio pronunciation of "marriage" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

2. The state of being married; wedlock.

3. A common-law marriage.

4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

Anonymous said...

What about when Lesbians can have children together (from cloning) - it will happen soon. Where is your argument then, freak man?

Anonymous said...

Citizen Sane - classic, tired Liberal diversion tactic - always happens when they're dumbfounded! The religion one - "well, who created god?" is my favourite.

A complete red herring - they are a man and a woman in a union. If they want to adopt or not, fine. Likewise, the small minority of couples who don't want children.

Ms Jones - so a dictionary feels obliged to incorporate the catch-all PC revision of marriage. I couln't give two fucks. Makes no difference to what I think.

Anonymous said...

"What about when Lesbians can have children together (from cloning) - it will happen soon. Where is your argument then, freak man?"

Thank you for your valuable contribution. Always makes me smile when those on the left, forever banging on about 'power to the people' become so angry when they find someone challenging their views.

If that happens, then fine. Does not equal the benfits of being brought up in a heterosexual, two-parent family.

Laura said...

Two things:
1. You were talking about a specific definition of marriage: a union between a man and a woman. I simply offered another.

2. The vast majority of children who suffer abuse (emotional, sexual, physical and neglect) suffer it within a "traditional" nuclear family unit. Now, I'm not trying to say that all heterosexual married couples abuse their children. Far from it. But being born to a heterosexual married couple does not by any stretch of the imagination guarantee you a happy and secure childhood. My own view point is as follows: It is not the nature of the union that impacts positively or negatively on the child. It is the strength of the union, the balance of personalities within it and the stability offered that will impact on the child's development.

The Realist said...

I can understand two parents being better than one, but why does the family have to be heterosexual? The implication there being that homosexuals are in some way deficient?

Citizen Sane said...

It's not a diversion tactic and I'm not dumbfounded - it's just your argument inverted: you said it's all about children and the perpetuation of society. In which case childless couples are as redundant as gay couples by your 'logic'. In any case, this line of argument was actually made put by the writer Andrew Sullivan: a gay, Catholic conservative. This is not just a 'liberal' issue - it's about equality in the eyes of the law.