I received an email from someone called Kevin accusing me of having refused to state my position on gay marriage. I have never been asked, but am in fact entirely in favour. I think human relationships are essential to human happiness, and I am not in the least concerned about the gender combinations or sexual practices in which people find happiness. Nor am I obsessed with the number two. I have no objection to polyandry or polygamy (or the gay equivalent) either. The key thing is that people enter and leave relationships entirely consensually, once of an age to consent. I do not believe in matters of tax, immigration or any other governmental sphere, any combination of family life should be favored over any other.
My own family life is “conventional” and very happy, but I do not make the mistake of believing one model fits all.
Sexuality is the joy of living. Perhaps sensuality is the problem?
Hear, hear! I do wish we could get politicians to understand this, and to ignore the bleatings of the Daily Mail crowd.
What troubles me about this issue is the staggering intolerance shown to anyone who expresses even the mildest doubt or uncertainty about this major redefinition of the concept of marriage.
The very fact that NomadUK uses a lazy slur like “the bleatings of the Daily Mail crowd” to encapsulate a large swathe of public opinion (by no means restricted to religious zealots or political reactionaries) does not bode well for genuinely civilised debate.
Who, in OUR democracy, voted for it ?
The more we allow the government to licence our lives, the less freedom we have to live it.
“The key thing is that people enter and leave relationships entirely consensually, once of an age to consent”
That’s a good argument for avoiding marriage altogether because with marriage the key thing is that you make a commitment. Doesn’t the Civil Partnership Act mean that all civil liberty issues are now covered? Why mess with the ancient tradition of marriage?
I find it very odd that, a few months ago, Cameron and Obama both came out in support of gay marriage within a few a days of each other. What a coincidence. It set the alarm bells ringing in my neck of the woods.
A very sensible and enlightened attitude. If only more would share it. By the way, have you seen this excellent article by Glenn Greenwald? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/12/raddatz-debate-objectivity
Civil partnership doesn’t deal with the question of same-sex partnerships. They are not open to people of opposite sexes, who may not want the tradition of marriage to affect their relationship. Moreover they are still not, I think, allowed to take place in buildings licensed for religious marriages and religious language is not permitted. While I’m not in favour of forcing any religious group to conduct same-sex partnerships or marriages, it means that members of my own religious group (the Quakers) and of several others do not have equal rights. Quaker Meetings in Britain have already celebrated same-sex marriages but these are treated differently from opposite-sex marriages celebrated in the same way. This is, of course, only one way in which the law is unequal.
It might be worth considering why marriage is seen as the business of the state but it was, I think, a secular matter before it became a religious one – and more a matter of contract than of theology. I’m not wild about marriage for myself but I know a number of people of various sexual orientations who have happiness from relationships which look to me like good marriages, whether the law terms them “marriage” or “partnerships.” The denial of the term marriage to people on the grounds of gender/sexual orientation seems pretty offensive to me – and a democracy has to be careful to ensure the rights of minorities in order that it is not governed by violent and unthinking prejudice.
Kathz wrote:
“The denial of the term marriage to people on the grounds of gender/sexual orientation seems pretty offensive to me – and a democracy has to be careful to ensure the rights of minorities in order that it is not governed by violent and unthinking prejudice.”
Pederasts are a minority. Shouldn’t we prevent them from having the ‘right’ to practice their perversions?
Once they have the statute licence of marriage, they will have the automatic ‘right’ to fostering; else it would be ‘unthinking prejudice’.
Any person with the capacity to think rationally and logically would reach this conclusion, the fact that this position does not have an overwhelming majority is frightening. The amount of people without the capacity to think rationally is frightening.
OT – A film called “99 Percent: The Occupy Wall Street Collaborative Film” is taking legal action against an occupy supporter who has posted videos to youtube, vimeo etc. for copyright infringement.
http://pastebin.com/w9uPWQhA
“Hi Jordan,
I don’t have time for silliness. Just let me know if you’re removing our footage, or if I’m forwarding this to our attorneys. I’m not interested in your creative commons bs (which those of us who actually work in media refers to as amateur licensing) and I have told you that we do not want our work in any of your videos. Let me repeat: we want NONE of our work in ANY of your or any third party videos, and our exclusive licensing agreements exist specifically so that is enforcable.
Again, just let me know if you’re going to respect our wishes or if I’m handing this to our lawyers.
(Williams, please go ahead and forward this to the attorneys now, and tell them we’ll either be following up on this with them, or will let them know if our footage was removed.)
Audrey Ewell”
The elitist tone to her email is sickening. I hope her movie bombs and she has the mortgage riding on it, that might bring her thinking around.
To Michael Stephenson:
Don’t you think you’re begging the question (in the old, robust sense of this generally misused expression) in asserting (i.e. stating without argument or supporting evidence) that anyone who holds an opinion different from your own must necessarily lack “the capacity to think rationally and logically”? In which case, you’re guilty yourself of the very thing of which you accuse others.
Neil Saunders, The argument for gay marriage is simple if it causes you or anyone else no harm why would you seek to prevent it. Only the irrational do this, and they use irrational and supernatural justifications for doing so.
Such as gay marriage causing natural disasters. Present to me a rational argument against gay marriage that doesn’t invoke God. Or some vague family values BS that is nothing more than conservatism and is not backed up with any evidence.
“Any person with the capacity to think rationally and logically would reach this conclusion”
That is a priceless opening line.
O/T sorry – Occupy – 1 yr anniversary today London 2pm – 5pm plse bring a saucepan and a wooden spoon…
http://globalnoise2012.occupylondon.org.uk/
Thanks folks any type of support appreciated.
Craig, agree 100%. The reactionary argument against samesex marriage is just a rerun of the pre-civil liberties era argument against marriage between people of different coloured skin. The reactionaries have a need to regard society as an arrangement of boxes that we get put in and from which we should not stray. Screw that.
Dear Craigmurray,
Thanks you for your post, Good thing that Canadians laugh at bigots and get great joy out of evil homophobe bigots that want to live in a Theocracy!
People against gay marriage are sad Canada has equal rights, and Canadians are happy that those sick pathetic bigots are sad!
Thx.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SIR-JIMMY-SAVILE-SIGNED-AUTOGRAPHED-AUTOBIOGRAPHY-AS-IT-HAPPENS-HB-DJ-1ST-1974-/251166576179?pt=UK_DVD_Film_TV_Autographs_CV&hash=item3a7ab1ce33
His Autobographty:
AS JimmyGiro points out, we are being required to conform. We are out on licence.
We are now required to have a “position” on every subject and woe betide you if you have the “wrong” position. The “Land of The Free” has gone further down that road than we in Britain but it will not be long as we are surely heading down that road.
My stated position on gay marriage in future will be “Double egg and chips with extra mushrooms”
I agree with Neil Saunders. On the one hand, I have no desire to intefere with anyone’s right to live together – whoever they may be.
On the other hand, “marriage” is a word that has meant one thing for centuries: a formal union between one man and one woman, an important part of which is the bearing and upbringing of children.
Why extend a clear, precise word like that to include other things that are different?
I believe the historical origins of Homophobia lie in colonialism, empire and militarism. The sergeant who addresses his recruits as ” ladies”, in an ironic attempt to masculinise his charges, exemplifies the idea that there must be a penalty WORSE than death with which to threaten and intimidate. The continuing anti homosexualism in western culture as expressed by the refusal to extend the umbrella of marriage, emphasises the second class, inferior status of the Civil Partnership, which I personally heard described by one ignorant Council Official as C.P.,also the abbreviation of corporal punishment. Symbols are the control mechanism of culture. Creating and maintaining marriage only for heterosexuals is clearly antediluvian and discriminatory. Craig is absolutely spot on in his views. Gaia
I have no problem with any form of consensual sexual activity, having experimented with most of them, but I can’t join this argument until someone defines what ‘marriage’ means. What is distinctive about marriage, that we must not deny it to all? What privilege is being withheld? It’s a serious question, and I’m hoping for helpful answers.
So my position on gay marriage is ‘of course, why not – but why does it matter?’
For some It seem,s by taking their sole concept of marriage away, you maybe be denying them, there right to formulate their idea, of what life to them, holds most dear. That right may be that, they want to be how they instictively as feel well as religiously is to get married and partner for life.
It is not about the `homosexuals`, it is about the `heterosexuals.`
Forget about tolerance and all that what about the wants of most heterosexuals.
As long as its called a gay marriage. Heterosexuals should call theres a `consumate marriage.`
Many families are insular and claustrophobic. The extended family structure of the past is less common now; affluence increased mobility, pressure of employment caused many people to relocate, and extended families became dispersed. If you’re part of a good, functional, supportive family, consider yourself lucky; it is an accident of birth.
Politicians like to advertise their “support of families”. They are considerably quieter about support for community. Community is empowering; you can choose to partake in and contribute toward community, whereas your family circumstances are mostly beyond your control.
Aldous Huxley’s last book Island explores alternatives and improvements to family structure.
“God”, of course, is a vengeful watcher of pornography. With His omniscience, He watches all our sexual antics, and gets very upset if we deviate from the sexual practices which He prefers.
Sorry `consummate`
Neil Saunders – Well said!
Vronsky wrote:
It’s amazing what you can train animals to do, but they may refrain from incest. People, however, are the craziest animals.
Vronsky wrote:
What stopped you from performing all? Was it your sense of disgust, or your sense of fear? And where did you get those boundaries from?
Vronsky wrote:
Interesting that not knowing your moral sexual boundaries, didn’t stop you from experimenting. Hence what use would it be to you to have a ‘standard’ definition, when you live your sexual life by disregarding moral standards?
Vronsky wrote:
It is the privilege, and responsibility, to raise YOUR children, in a natural, heterosexual family. A cultural safety net within synthetic society, to preserve the naturally evolved order of humanity.
Vronsky wrote:
To help you for what? To help you expand your sexual perversions to beyond your fears?
Vronsky wrote:
And here is the the heart of the project: ‘why does [marriage] matter’. The gay marriage debate is about diluting the ‘cultural’ sanctity of marriage and the family; which is one of the core themes of every totalitarian government. It is even written in the pamphlets of the Fabian society and other evil Marxist groups.
I agree with Craig completely, but I think also that our proud and righteous liberal attitude has a moral blind spot, and that moral blind spot is the children that tend to pop out of heterosexual relationships.
Children are a blind spot because in our free ‘hippie’ attitude toward relationships, we often tend to forget about them, and just expect that they are to tag along for the ride, whatever form that ride should take.
Far be it from me to sing the praises of the nuclear family, but I do feel sorry for children caught up in the selfish and self-obsessed me-generation of our adult world, and I do feel sorry for children who grow up without the love of a mom or a dad, as a result of being brought up in same-sex households.
While we don’t want to deny anyone the joy of having children, I don’t see why pausing to consider how children might be affected by our decisions should be so politically INcorrect.
From JimmyGiro:
Ah, possession or ownership of children, marriage as an assurance that the youngsters a man raises actually do carry a portion of his genetic material. But wouldn’t such a standpoint render gay marriage irrelevant?…
Jimmy may have been sitting in on God’s discrete DVD evenings.
@Clark
I’m strictly ‘old atheist’.
So what, Jimmy? You’re still making the same mistake that God is commonly imagined to be making.
The thing that gets me is that homophobia is wilful. People may imagine or visualise sexual acts that other people are said to perform; such fantasising is a popular kink. But to deliberately imagine or visualise other people’s sexual activities just to get upset about it goes right over from being a kink to a perversion.
From ‘straw-man’ to ‘god-man’.
Try quoting me Clark, that way you seem so much like an hysterical guardian reader.