Gay marriage isn’t something I am able to get worked up about. I simply don’t care about it one way or the other. This is possibly because I don’t believe that the state should be involved at all – so marriage would simply be a contract between two people – or more, if they so wish. They and only they are the ones who should have any say in the matter. If the Church wants to define it according to their beliefs, well so be it. No one is forced to marry in Church, after all. I didn’t and wouldn’t.
Lord Carey hits out today about the matter.
Same-sex marriage sets a “dangerous precedent” which could lead to sibling marriage or polygamy, says Lord Carey.
Ahead of the Lords debate on the bill next week, the former archbishop of Canterbury argued there could be “unintended consequences”.
Er… What? Come again? How, exactly would it mean that? And, frankly, so what if it did. Incest is an issue for heterosexuals because of the reduced gene pool. Gays don’t reproduce, so not a problem. And, frankly, if people want to enter into a polygamous relationship, that’s up to them. No one is forcing the Church to conduct such ceremonies, so it’s not really any of Carey’s business anyway. Although, I don’t suppose that will stop him poking his nose in anyway nor will it stop him making leaps of idiocy.
Daft old twat.
“Same-sex marriage sets a “dangerous precedent” which could lead to sibling marriage or polygamy, says Lord Carey.”
Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Only someone in religion could think things like that. Bring on the polygamy bit though, but without any weddings.
They assume that we are as dirty minded as they are. Pure as the driven snow, me.
Always amazes me the arrogance of Carey and co when they go on as if they own marriage. Marriage predates the church by a long time it is just that they had a monopoly on for a long time and many people, quite sensibly, did not want to be burned as heretics for opposing them.
Why not just leave it alone?
I am hostile to this idea because it is less important to me than the restoration of the liberties I have lost during my lifetime. It seems a little unfair that any rhetoric on the subject of freedom applies to extending a brand new right to a minority.
It is the quantitative easing of the definition of marriage. Carey is resorting to hyperbole, of course, but how dare the State prevent three people who are all in love from getting married? Why not?
It is even more disappointing that a party that is meant to oppose capricious new laws has been so turgid on the subject of homosexual relations. If a majority of people believes that marriage has a new definition now, well and good, but leave it to the other lot.
Er… What? Come again? How, exactly would it mean that?
Nothing wrong with Cary’s legal logic or sociology. Consider:-
At present I’m able to marry my opposite sex 1st cousin or be civil partnered to my same-sex 1st cousin.
We wink at the non-breeding CP side of it because CP is a non-consummatory legal status. I can’t marry my same-sex 1st cousin because marriage entails consummation. If the definition of marriage becomes non-consummatory, very interesting things follow:
– it is possible to marry a 1st cousin of EITHER sex without it being consummatory. The law which currently proposes to define two kinds of marriage but call them the same thing will fall at the first decent challenge on grounds of discrimination.
– If I can marry a 1st cousin in a non-consummatory legal status then I can marry any other relative. Marriage no longer entails violating the prohibition on incest which is purely a matter of not having sex with prohibited persons.
– Other relatives I might wish to marry include siblings and – my favourite – grandchildren. This will allow wealthy crinklies to marry their heirs and avoid IHT.
– It produces some interesting possibilities for families who do not have a ready supply of opposite-sex cousins as they will still be able to keep property concentrated within a family using new marriage formulae, including sibling marriage which no longer entails incest – i.e. they mustn’t have sex with each other and would have to make other arrangements in respect of breeding.
It is not on You tube, Maybe I have not got the right title, but any one remember the Monty Python scetch/quote, about sewing a pederast on to the nose of a bishop?
Just seemed apt here…. Maybe…?
It’s a little difficult to see why Carey has a problem with polygamy, that is the Biblical definition of marriage after all. As for gay marriage, it has been legalised in lots of countries already, these unintended consequences that Carey speaks of seem to have failed to appear.
The only bit I have a problem with is when someone cannot get the church of their choice (or more unlikely mosque) and then they raise a claim under the Human Rights legislation. Besides that if someone wants to marry a person of the same gender, or opposite gender or even a carrot, that is fine by me, as long as I do not have to subsidise it, or it wastes parliamentary time when the economy is buggered or there are other more pressing issues.
“…it wastes parliamentary time when the economy is buggered or there are other more pressing issues…”
Exactly. This is the heart of my whole opposition. What two (or more) consenting adults get up to in their own time and their own bedrooms (or kitchens, lounges or bathrooms for that matter) is entirely their own business – as long as it doesn’t involve children or animals.
Why should I be bothered?
Why should I even be aware of it?
The militants who try to ram it down my throat (their ideals, that is) are immensely annoying and deserving of a good smack.
I don’t approve or disapprove of what you get up to:- I simply don’t care. Please go away and let me worry about something which DOES affect me.
XX I simply don’t care. XX
And THAT is what pisses them off immensely!
The same with the sky fairy believers.
They just CAN not accept that I just do not GIVE a shit.
WHY should I give a toss about something that does not exist, merely because the “believers” say it does?
No! Not good enough, “We need to give you a label!”
“Atheist”?
No. Because that is a label given by those that can not imagine something/someone, who simply sees through their bullshit, and, unless they try and “convert” me, or my family, could basically not GIVE a toss.
They HATE that.