Ahh.. gay marriage. Is there anyone who should really have an opinion about it other than gay people?
Well, it turns out that everyone has an opinion on it because, thanks once again to the state, it’s become everyone’s problem.
Some people think it’s a disgusting, disgraceful, sinful calumny. Most of those people take advice from a man in a dress, with an imaginary best friend, who thinks that contraception is a sin, and a woman should not be allowed an abortion even when her life is in danger, or when the spawn is the product of a rape, yet who is also an alcoholic abuser of young boys.
You know what, though? If those people want to think that, it’s fine with me. So long as I’m able to point and laugh, and call them on their small-minded hypocritical idiocy.
I have no problem whatsoever with gay marriage. I understand that there are sound legal reasons for equalising rights between gay and straight couples, in terms of the legal protections and entitlements that are accrued by married people, but not currently by those in a civil partnership.
That said, I think marriage is mainly a ludicrous construct. To involve the state – or the frontmen of a sky pixie – in one’s personal relationships is a need which baffles me to this day. This is all by the by though. If people want to get married then whatever… and the legal benefits, if you’re prepared to play the game, are plain to see.
The current public debate about gay marriage, though, isn’t about gays or marriage. That’s just a smokescreen. The debate is about whether the state should be able to force private institutions to undertake ceremonies which, rightly or wrongly, they hold to be immoral.
The answer to this is simple: Of course they fucking shouldn’t. The state should have no business in dictating to any religious institution about what they must and must not undertake within the bounds of natural law.
Sure, there’ll be some religious organisations that will be prepared to perform gay marriage ceremonies – good for them. But the corollary must be that there’ll be those which refuse to do so, for whatever reasons they choose. There are always non-religious wedding options as well.
Why cannot this be the status quo? If you want to get gay married, you should be able to get gay married. If you want to perform this marriage service, fair enough. If you do not want to perform the service, fine. Everyone actually gets what they want in this scenario.
But oh no. This isn’t good enough for the ‘liberal elite’ (perhaps the most disingenuous two-word phrase in the English language). They want to make the pious suffer for their foolishness and ignorance. If the irony of secular liberals imposing an orthodoxy on dissenting religious groups is lost on you, by the way, you’re a fucking idiot. Go away.
Gays: shop around. And what are you even doing wanting to get married in the church/mosque/temple of a creed that holds your very being in such contempt? Is it really a victory for anyone if you FORCE them to marry you. Your wedding vows overseen by a man under duress who holds you in contempt? Wow – you should be so proud.
Settled? I think so.
AJ
Al Jahom's Final Word 
“But oh no. This isn’t good enough for the ‘liberal elite’ (perhaps the most disingenuous two-word phrase in the English language). They want to make the pious suffer for their foolishness and ignorance. “
Well, actually, it’s more a case of the tiny percentage of militant gay rights activists wanting to force the acceptance they know they can’t get at the point of the State’s gun…
Are there any legal differences between civil marriage and civil parternship? I got the impression that though they are called different things, in terms of legal rights etc, there is no difference. Inheritance, sharing of income, etc are enjoyed by both types.
The only reason the state needs to get involved in marriage is for the legal bits of inheritance, etc. They shouldn’t be involved in using it as a method of social control like encouraging breeding with child benefit or encouraging marriage with tax benefits.
Gay don’t need to shop around. They can set up their own shop. Why not start a new branch of Christianity which has no issue with sexuality? And when everyone flocks to them then they will know that they are right. But if new church fails due to lack of interest, then they should shut up and just accept that religious people are homophobic and entitled to their view.
And a way of satisfying everyone except the offence seeking and those who are never satisfied (such as #ukuncut and Starbucks) is to separate religious marriage with legal marriage. If a Christian wants to get married they have to have two marriages – one legal and in a registry office, the other religious and in a church. Equality with other religions then like Muslims whose religious marriage is not recognised in this country. And no, there shouldn’t be a shortcut of allowing priests to perform the civil marriage so that only ceremony is required. There must be total separation.
XX If a Christian wants to get married they have to have two marriages – one legal and in a registry office, XX
Which is exactly the way it is done here, and in Sweden.
The only “rule” being, the registry office bit MUST come before the sky pixie bit.
Gay marriage in a mosque? Let’s not be naive here.
” Most of those people take advice from a man in a dress, with an imaginary best friend, who thinks that contraception is a sin, and a woman should not be allowed an abortion even when her life is in danger, or when the spawn is the product of a rape, yet who is also an alcoholic abuser of young boys.”
You want to be carefull offending muslims and Jews like that……oh, wait!
JuliaM: “Well, actually, it’s more a case of the tiny percentage of militant gay rights activists…”
Tiny percentage yes, but definitely not more. The vast majority of us (of the fairy persuasion) don’t give a damn. We long ago ceased to feel represented by those gobshites that claim they speak for us. We don’t want special rights or privileges awarded by the State, that kinda defeats the object of equality. But then the State involves themselves in way too much of our lives… gay or straight.
SadButMadLad: “Gay don’t need to shop around. They can set up their own shop…”
You know, I’ve often wondered too why the issue hasn’t simply been left for market forces to solve.
Al Jahom: “The state should have no business in dictating to any religious institution about what they must and must not undertake within the bounds of natural law….”
Agree absolutely. I’m happily civil partnered and don’t feel the need to be furthered blessed by institutions that were all too willing to snuff out your life not so long ago… State and Church.
Well said though AJ, great post
With the ease of, and increased willing ness of people to get divorced, “marraige” appears to be meerly a paper exersize any way.
My view is pretty similar: the only way to sort things out here is to completely remove the State from religion. Set up a legal definition of marriage being a legal partnership of two (or more) people in which all must be of sound mind and able to comprehend what they are doing, and leave it at that.
Then, you simply let the sky-fairy believers do whatever else they feel necessary for a marriage, and even go so far as to let these lot combine the two ceremonies into one, with the signing of marriage papers being an integral part of proceedings (the congregation being witnesses).
If gays want a sky-fairy version for themselves, then by all means let them set up their own church, religion and whatnot and do it. Just don’t try forcing religions (which are by definition social clubs with irrational rules) to do the deed; their perogative to say no here.
I always see the same rhetoric from atheists-in-denial: “sky pixies” is a classic your teachers, like Dawkins, having implanted in your subconscious. And you don’t need a “man in a dress” who abuses children to be able to know your Creator.
It actually gets embarrassing reading the same old tripe from otherwise seemingly intelligent people.
The entire PC agenda is for one reason only. Yuri Bezmenov, former KGB subversion agent, talks about the equality hoax (from 26:02 mins). He said 30 years ago that the ideology of “equality” is being spread so we build our society on sand so it will collapse to be taken over. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8gI