I would not wish the loathsome old crone a “happy” anything. I would simply recommend that anyone standing too close to her should watch out for falling houses…
Simple truth. In the UK you are just as “married” if you have a ceremony in a cathedral in front of a bishop or on the penalty spot at Old Trafford with a secular celebrant. Marriage is NOT a christian/religious institution, no matter how hard wingnuts like her try to claim otherwise.
That she invokes bestiality is just further evidence of her intellectual dishonesty. If she cannot see the difference between a consenting adult and an animal then there is no point in debating her.
“children need to be brought up by the two people who created them.” Oh so single parents are also the devil incarnate then Melanie? Typical Daily Heil bile.
children need to be brought up by the two people who created them.” is she saying she is against adoption then too? MORON.
Happy Valentine’s Day, Melanie!
What a SWEETHEART.
To quote the brilliant Suzanne Moore on Twitter (who, ironically, also writes for the Mail – presumably as their sole voice of sanity): “[I'm] confused by Melanie Phillips’ desire for ‘Biblical sexual standards’? Marriage at 12?”
Just to nail the final angle for the ‘two people who created them’ arguement, is she also against couples who have children but choose not to get married? Would they somehow be worse off with unmarried parents?
Melanie is an inbred harpy.
I was disgusted after i read that comment of hers yesterday and i notice my comment was removed aswell.
Just die already Melanie, the world would be a better place
What must it feel like to be so full of hate? She must be a very miserable person.
I thought I’d start the links to the Melanie Phillips depreciation society.
Just bringing em them all together.
This woman abuses her position as a national journalist by spewing her bile across the public sphere.
Well lets spew her own words and thoughts right back at her.
No hate. No vindictiveness.
Just rational analysis of her own comments, laid bare for all to see.
I love this article!! More calm destroying of arguments like this please!!
“children need to be brought up by the two people who created them” wtf???
“children need to be brought up by the two people who created them.” is the most ridiculos thing I have reasince her last article. I assume orphans should just be killed or go ferral? is genocide next?
Take heart from the Daily Mail web site – she’s taking a hammering there as well. For once.
It’s bizarre, but I quite like having Mel around, kind of like a Mary Whitehouse figure – all reaction, little substance but with far more inconsistency. It’s also daily confirmation of what a rational, thoughtful, decent, caring and accepting human being I am.
I’d never let her near my children!
“Take heart from the Daily Mail web site – she’s taking a hammering there as well. For once. ”
Tell me about it.
I had actively avoided the comments section(s) on the DM for this story.
Trying to keep my blood pressure down for an operation, you see.
But I eventually toddled in and found myself shocked at the comments of those against her diatribe.
There is hope yet. Maybe?
I did notice the little byline story of the “gays” caught talking pictures at some swimming pool for porn sites though. ( No Comments Allowed )
Those jolly DM editors do love a good
knife twist don’t they.
Surprised they haven’t pulled the Melanie Phillips story.
They tend to do so when the readership disagrees with the poison some of their “Journalists” spew.
The #BiblicalSexualStandards hashtag on Twitter has been very revealing today. Melanie Phillips is simply a wrongun if that’s what she wants us to return to.
How is marriage “universal” if it excludes a section of society? It’s impossible to understand how dinosaurs such as this creature are seen as being of an intelligent species when their opinions are based on moralism rather than reason. The lunatics have surely taken over the asylum!
It’s a bit late for them to pull it, the Bengal tiger is very much out of the bag. What I can’t understand is why they still employ her – she’s even falling foul of DM readers.
I am actually surprised by a lot of the Daily Mail forum messages. There seem to be more and more who are seeing sense and dissociating being ‘gay’ from ‘being gay according to the Bible’. Ok, I’m not going to exaggerate, there are still a fair few comments from the Bible-clutching fundamentalists and the dense. But, all-out hatred by the majority does seem to be diminishing and now seems to be resting largely on the interference by gays in traditional marriage (whatever that is). Few seem to have a problem with people just simply being gay, it’s quite specific stuff.
The gay voyeur story is a bit scaremongering, but still, that stuff is going on and not being noticed. The net is full of it. Worrying.
And to think the old bag had a little boo-hoo recently because she was branded homophobic. Oh, the humanity!
Only a truly stupid person would think marrying “Fluddles the Hamster” would be the natural conclusion of allowing gay people equality. Seriously, this woman should focus more on the appalling state of education if she is a product of it.
Someone ought to suggest to her that now her children can legally look after themselves, and she is (presumably) unable to produce more, that her marriage should be declared void, since it’s fulfilled it purpose of raising children.
To be fair, Melanie has an incredibly valid point.
Marriage is, and always has been a specific union joining together a male adult member of the human race with a female adult member of the human race. (Hence the sole relationship permutation with which offspring are yielded without medical/clinical assistance.)
By legalising same-sex marriage, we are eroding away the criteria which define marriage and inserting new arbitrary criteria which reflect current societal attitudes.
When, in 20 or 30 years time, we have Peter Tatchell’esque advocates for polygamous relationship rights and ‘Poly News’, pressuring the government of the day to legalise polygamous marriages, what leg will any opponent have to stand on? Surely, in the same way as is being done now, marital law will be modified once again and new arbitrary criteria inserted to reflect the then societal attitudes!
Possibly, when scientific research develops, and animal consent is detectable, we will have similar pressures to legalise inter-species marriages! Who knows?! Somebody arguing in favour will merely state ‘You changed marital law for same-sex couples and polygamous relationships, so why not us?!’ And in fear of being labelled ‘bigoted,’ any weak government will give in!
Many people may believe that legalising same-sex marriage will be the furthest deviation from original marital law with which society will reach. So, they believe that their own attitude/view towards sexual tolerance/liberalisation is in effect a limit with which societal attitudes in general with converge to. If you believe this then you are incomprehensibly ignorant! Societal attitudes evolve exponentially. They have done significantly since 1967 (when homosexuality was legalised) and will continue to do.
I, too, believe that children who have abusive biological parents are much better off if they are raised by the people who created them as opposed to a loving and protective adoptive family.
“To be fair, Melanie has an incredibly valid point.
Marriage is, and always has been a specific union joining together a male adult member of the human race with a female adult member of the human race.”
I think you will find that is not true.
It would appear to be that way if you only gleen your history from the dogmatic christian view of history.
Research wider and open your eyes to the truth.
Oliver – I would disagree with you. In order to try and see what she was trying to argue, I tried to piece together in my head just what exactly ‘traditional marriage’ was. And I struggled.
Does ‘traditional marriage’ therefore entail that only white women may marry white men and only black women may marry black men? We wouldn’t see it like this, but if we are looking at the ‘traditions’ of marriage, this is only a relatively recent change.
Does ‘traditional marriage’ mean that marriage is, at basic level, a business contract between a father and a new son-in-law, in which one man hands over his ‘property’ (his daughter) to the other? We would see this as outdated, and yet, again, it falls within the remit of what ‘marriage’ traditionally was.
In other countries and our own country, many centuries past, marriage was the binding of one man, yes, but with as many women as he so chose to bind himself with. I do believe that a figure in the Bible himself had 700 wives. If we’re looking for, not just tradition, but ‘biblical tradition’, then this seems to contradict everything.
The bible also states that marriage in the ‘traditional’ sense incorporates the fact that a man’s penalty for raping an unmarried woman was that he had to marry that woman (which I’m pretty sure she would have been thrilled about).
How can we in anyway claim that what Melanie Phillips is advocating is ‘traditional’ marriage, when ‘traditional’ marriage in itself has changed so drastically in the last hundred years (especially so in the last century, with women gaining the right of property and inter-racial marriage being legalised).
Marriage, as a legal and binding thing, is about love and relationships, not what is between your legs. That we have denigrated marriage to something defined by genitals and sex is the thing that has demeaned and destroyed the true meaning of marriage more than a gay marriage could ever do.
idk how to say what i think about this so i will do it this way
dear melanie phillips
i am a single parent and im also way in the closet. people like you worry me not for myself but for the future of my children, because they will have to leave home one day and face a world that has people like you in it.
people who think they have a right to act like god and belittle others, as far as i am aware god has never said he has a problem with gay people loving the way they do and why would he, he made them to be that way.
im trying as i write this to not get angry but the constant way people like you are allowed by goverments to get away with what is basicly nothing but bullying and hate spreading is offenive to all those people with open minds
im not a hater im a parent, so i will do the adult thing and wish you happy valentines day and pray that ones like you educate yourself on the lives of others.
no one living on this earth today has the right to tell two consenting adults that they cannot be married in the eyes of god.
because no one can speak for god
to all those who are in love and have found
i wish you all the best, maybe one day we will realise that it doesnt matter if your straight or gay what matters is that you are loved and love
im sorry if my comment doesnt make alot of sense but im not used to leaving comments
take care all of you
Melanie Phillips wrote that extending marriage rights to same sex couples is EXACTLY the same as extending marriage rights to zoophiles and their anilmal partners.
She then says she does not suggest that same sex couples are on a moral par with zoophiles
So in what way is she suggesting that extending marriage to same sex couples is the EXACT equivalent of extending marriage to zoophiles then?
Melanie, she’s as mad as a snake and looks rather like a rodent with mange and although I am not suggesting he is a zoophile maybe that’s why Joshua Rozenburg married Melanie (for her mind and for her looks I mean).
Just waiting for her skeleton to come out of its cupboard because with the evil bile she spouts then without doubt like Stephen Green she has a big guilty secret.
Bring back the docking stool
Melanie, she’s as mad as a snake and looks rather like a rodent with mange and although I am not suggesting he is a zoophile maybe that’s why Joshua Rozenburg married Melanie (for her mind and for her looks I mean)
2 X & why not
Someone should toss Melanie a nice bone to chew on for Valentine’s Day…she deserves one.
Now I’m not suggesting Melanie is the equivalent of a dog…
People can legally wed animals already as illustrated by the fact that Joshua Rozenberg clearly married a bitch.
What the hell is a ‘docking stool’? Is that when one docks to the mother ship, like in Star Trek? Or is it some sexual practic that I’m not aware of?
Dunno, I think maybe he meant a dunking stool…does that help?
Or maybe ducking stool?
I was teasing him, he’s insulted me for just about everything this week and I was just in the mood for a pop.
Blame Melanie Phillips for stirring up hatred.
What a horrid freak she is.
Would never wish for a bus to hit someone …. But well there ya go.
I hope that if this vile harradin has any children, that they have been removed by the government to a place of safety.No one with the evil heart that this person has should be let within 100 miles of impressionable children. They should be brought up by a kind loving married gay couple……..
She is so ignorant and stupid that it’s actually embarassing.
I’d like to ask you as someone who (presumably) supports modifying marital law to accomodate two men or two women whether you also support modifying it to accomodate three men, two women and a hermaphrodite?! If not, why the inconsistency?
Why monogamous same-sex marriage but not polygamous same-sex marriage or polygamous mixed-sex marriage?
Also, do you support permitting marriages between mother and daughter, or great-uncle and nephew?
May I add at the end of this that I hugely support civil partnerships and imagine in future generations, civil partnership/union law will be modified to accomodate polygamous relationships.
However, my belief is that marriage should be reserved for the sole relationship permutation out of which offspring can be conceived without medical/clinical assistance!
If it is discovered in the year 2111, that a combination of six men, two women and three hermaphrodites are collectively able to procreate ‘naturally,’ I would be in full support of permitting this relationship permutation to join in marital union and would hope you would too!
‘However, my belief is that marriage should be reserved for the sole relationship permutation out of which offspring can be conceived without medical/clinical assistance!’
So IVF and egg/sperm donation are out of the question then?
‘If it is discovered in the year 2111, that a combination of six men, two women and three hermaphrodites are collectively able to procreate ‘naturally,’ I would be in full support of permitting this relationship permutation to join in marital union and would hope you would too!’
Kurt Vonnegut suggested something like this in ‘Slaughterhouse 5′.
To think, we assumed it was all science fiction!
Oliver I blame heterosexual couples for setting the precedent… you let heterosexual couples marry and what do you expect? the next thing people will be demanding to marry their wardrobes, coffee tables, parrots etc…sheesh!
‘So IVF and egg/sperm donation are out of the question then?’
Um….yes! As these are methods of conception which require medical/clinical assistance!
Secondly to Pavlos, the whole point is that marriage be reserved for the relationship permutation out of which offspring can be ‘naturally’ conceived.
Why deviate from this for monogamous same-sex relationships, yet not for polygamous same-sex relationships or polygamous mixed-sex relationships?
You make this common error by believing that your own personal views/attitudes towards sexual tolerance/liberalisation are the limit to which societal attitudes in general will reach!
Oh dear the poor woman is a moron! You know if it wasn’t for here I wouldn’t even know who she was. Is she really this desperate for fame that she’s write this crap? And she calls herself a journalist.
Oh, too right, Pavlos! The other day a straight couple who live near me got married and now the price of milk has gone up 5 pence. I mean the two things are so obviously connected, aren’t they? ;)
Oliver – what you say sounds familiar. Yep, you’re spouting the very same arguments as those used to try to stop interracial marriage. Nasty then, nasty now – and completely ridiculous. Not that that will concern you because you know that, don’t you?
“The argument – that people with different sexual lifestyles must be treated identically – is exactly the same [as the argument for legalising bestiality]“.
Then Melaine says
“Before the hate mail starts, I’m not suggesting gays are on a moral par with zoophiles.”
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Melanie over steps the mark then steps back from her comment, but Melanie had already insinuated that we are animals.
Iris, with respect you’re missing the point.
A relationship permutation’s racial pigmentation does not (as far as I’m aware) impact its fertility ability!
If you support marriage between two men, yet not between three men, then we have an inconsistency. You may say that marriage is acceptable so long as it is between two adults. However, this is merely an arbitrary clause which reflects your attitude/view. Your grandchild may disagree that ‘between two adults’ is a necessary clause for a marriage to take place. In all likelihood, they will regard your opinion as ‘backward’ or ‘bigoted.’
As I’ve said before, I fully support civil partnerships for monogamous same-sex relationships and I’m sure in future I will be equally supportive of introducing civil unions to recognise polygamous relationships (whether same-sex or opposite-sex.)
However, marriage is a different kettle of fish and should be preserved for the sole relationship permutation out of which offspring are known to be conceived without medical/clinical assistance!
“However, marriage is a different kettle of fish and should be preserved for the sole relationship permutation out of which offspring are known to be conceived without medical/clinical assistance!”
. . . . . . . . . .
So heterosexuals who conceive by IVF, in your view should not be allowed to Marry?
Marriage should be reserved for relationship permutationd which offspring can be conceived without medical/clinical assistance.
Whether this be monogamous opposite-sex, monogamous same-sex, polyamorous mixed-sex, polyamorous same-sex, whatever!
It happens that monogamous opposite-sex is the sole permutation to fit this criteria!
Finally, with reference to your last point, if you are referring to lesbian couples who ‘conceive’ via IVF, then I don’t believe they should be permitted to marry, any more than I believe seven people who collectively ‘conceived’ via IVF should be allowed to collectively ‘marry.’
A question for some of you here:
If you consider it ‘homophobic’ to oppose monogamous same-sex marriage, is it also ‘homophobic’ to oppose polyamorous same-sex marriage?
Are you a Christian?
A humble agnostic/deist – I definitely believe a deity/god exists, however do not know whether it be Yahweh, Allah, Loki, Zeus etc…
What makes you ask?
Oliver when you say
“Marriage should be reserved for relationship permutationd which offspring can be conceived without medical/clinical assistance.”
I really do not think heterosexuals are going to accept this idea.
I am however curious why you think heterosexuals who receive IVF, should not be allowed to marry
Heterosexuals who receive IVF adhere to the relationship permutation out of which offspring have been produced without assistance, so of course they should be permitted to marry!
In the same way, if three women are able to collectively produce a child without assistance, I will be fully supportive of allowing any relationship comprising three women to collectively marry. There may be instances of relationships comprising three women which are not able to conceive without assistance, however they still adhere to a relationship permutation which has been observed to conceive naturally.
Anyway, I have school tomorrow, so had better go to bed, so nighty-night.
@Oliver . . . so why are heterosexuals so special in your view, that they should only warrant IVF treatment?
However, marriage is a different kettle of fish and should be preserved for the sole relationship permutation out of which offspring are known to be conceived without medical/clinical assistance!
@ Oliver: that is your definition of marriage and, if I may say so, a rather old-fashioned one.
I take it you seriously believe the Prince of Wales – to use an obvious example – shouldn’t have married Mrs Parker Bowles, then? Or Harold Pinter and Antonia Fraser?
all sounds a bit medical to me…I think I prefer the love and marriage idea… you can’t have one without the other… try to seperate them, it’s an illusion, try and you will only come to this conclusion…
Whilst here in Australia “A new national TV ad campaign for marriage equality was launched today on Valentine’s Day, celebrating true love.”
I like Tom Sutcliffe article better
Why are opponents of gay marriage so obsessed by sex and so little concerned with love?
Why does this Olivier cretin keep using the term “relationship permutation”? I really do not think you know what this means.
You say marriage “should” be reserved. Why? Who says it should?
Does allowing gay people to marry affect the fertility of straight couples? Or lessen their ability to conceive?
What about if a lesbian couple conceive?
You see Oliver, despite using mathematical terms in here out of context, you are adhering to religions propaganda and rather lame rationale, and I suspect despite your use of flowery language, you are in fact driven by homophobia.
I have seen your same postings on another site thestudentroom. co. uk
Its fairly clear by the same use of incorrect terminology that you are Jonbc. To others, I can’t post the link for some reason, just search “Banning homosexual couples from adopting” on this site and you will see the same misuse of “relationship permutation” term and the same lame arguments.
I see on this site you refer to the “duration of relationships” of gay couples as a reason for your bigotry (and be clear, this is what it is)? Since when is NARTH research of any consequence to anyone with a scientific mind? You claim to be agnostic, but you clearly have absorbed less then scientific propaganda of the religious, Hardly says much for your independent state of mind, but a discussion or another day.
This is my favourite line is “statistical evidence which shows that children adopted by same-sex couples will on average live inside this relationship for a third of the length of time that they will live inside a married heterosexual relationship”
This is right from the Family Research Council “studies”…. FRC “studies” are as scientific as using tarot cards to get an answer, so forgive me if I assume you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about, or you prefer to believe tripe from a biased and flawed religious organisational to validate your bigotry…. either way, its not flattering to your intellect, nor do I hold your opinions in high regards.
By this perverse and ill conceived logic, the potential of divorce precludes straight people getting married too, no, given “First marriages ending in divorce last an average of 11 years for both men and women.” [Advance Data, National Center for Health Statistics (May 31, 2001)]
We see a lot of your types in here, not very bright, and not too high in the education department when you scratch the surface of their “research”. Why not run along to a christian site where you poorly though out views and mathematical expressions might impress them to no end, eh? There’s a good chap.
Dear Joshua, do something about your dog, she’s barking!
You’re right Will, nothing worse than a bigot who thinks he’s not a bigot. I love Oliver’s grandiose language with regards to who “should” be entitled to marriage and how isn’t – as if he has some say in dictating his wished to others. Delusions? Perhaps. Although I smell an imposter here, all his language is the same lies used by bigoted right wing Christians, and yet he claims to be agnostic. Yeah, right.
she refers to animals and falls into the trap of the “slippery slope” fallacy, she does the typical homophobes trick of lying that animal sex will be ok yet don’t heteros already marry animals and have sex with them so she should really condemn heteros and be encouraging LBg folk to marry if she really cared about marriages the homophobes are getting thumbed down in the comments whilst the non-homophobes get all the best comments
@oliver – marriage started out as for same-sex couples actually before the christian homophobes stole it and redefined it
Oliver clearly doesn’t understand his own criteria. “Marriage should be reserved for relationship permutation which offspring can be conceived without medical/clinical assistance.” Any multi-gender polygamous permutation would qualify. Two lesbians with a turkey baster and a gay male friend (who isn’t a medical professional) would also qualify. A sterile, menopausal or celibate mixed-gender couple would not qualify. And, since no configuration can prove that it qualifies until after it has produced offspring, no permutation could be allowed marriage until after offspring has been produced and they prove it was produced by the permutation. Most importantly of course, where does this definition come from? Certainly not from any legal statutes anywhere in the world.
The Daily Mail is a truly awful newspaper, how many more homophobic columns need to be printed before action is taken against them? Philips views are so backwards. Why shouldn’t gay people have exactly the same rights as any other normal person. Being gay is a normal natural phenomenon, it isn’t something we can help, or have a choice in. Emotions and feeling are in built and can’t be changed, so why should we be punished for them?
@Oliver — “… the whole point is that marriage be reserved for the relationship permutation out of which offspring can be ‘naturally’ conceived.”
Reserved by whom ? So what you’re saying is that a man and woman can get married, but if they’d not produced children within twelve months the marriage should be revoked ? And men and women who can’t conceived should be prevented from marriage ?
Just to be clear — you’re hetrosexual and married yourself ?
And the winner of the thickest person on earth goes to….
@Oliver — “May I add at the end of this that I hugely support civil partnerships and imagine in future generations, civil partnership/union law will be modified to accomodate polygamous relationships.
However, my belief is that marriage should be reserved for the sole relationship permutation out of which offspring can be conceived without medical/clinical assistance!”
5. (following on from the four questions of my last post) Apart from the people you’ve decided should be eligible, what are your definitions of marriage and civil partnership ?
6. What’s the benefit of having different terms ?
7. What do you think would happen if the word marriage was used for male-male and female-female ceremonies as well as male-female ceremonies ?
I take it that you believe monogamous same-sex marriage should be allowed. But why not polyamorous same-sex marriage or polyamorous mixed-sex marriage?
Surely, it is ‘homophobic’ to oppose polyamorous same-sex marriage if it is ‘homophobic’ to oppose monogamous same-sex marriage? Right?
Secondly, permutation is usually used (in statistics) to refer to a specific arrangement. Hence, a monogamous opposite-sex relationship is a permutation, as is a polyamorous same-sex relationship etc. Get it?!
Let me reiterate the point regarding marriage once again:
Marriage should be reserved for relationship permutations out of which offspring can be conceived without assistance.
Hence, if three women in the future are collectively able to collectively conceive without assistance, I would be fully supportive of modifying marital law to allow 3 women to collectively marry, and hope you’d join me.
With regard to IVF:-
A relationship comprising three men, four women and sixteen hermaphrodites may be able to have IVF and collectively raise a child with 23 ‘parents.’ However, I would not support their rights to ‘marry.’
The reason for this, before I am accused of ‘bigotry’ (which by the way is a meaningless tautological excuse for terminology,) is that this relationship permutation has not ever been observed to conceive without assistance!
You see it is all about consistency. You make the catastrophic (although terribly common) flaw in believing your own attitude/view towards sexual tolerance/liberalisation to be a limit with to which societal attitudes in general will reach.
In a similar vein, many of those campaigning in the 1950s and 1960s for the legalisation of abortion did so (in large) with the intent of offering safe abortions to women for whom giving birth would have carried a dangerous health risk.
If you’d asked these campaigners fifty or sixty years on whether they believed an abortion should be permitted on the grounds of a suspected cleft palate or as a means of contraception, do you really think they’d have agreed?
These campaigners made the same error in judgement as you. They believed that their attitudes were a limit with to which societal attitudes in general would reach. They believed that abortion would only ever be allowed if it fitted their criteria. They believed that society in general would never become more ‘liberal’ to the issue of abortion.
(May I add I’m pro-choice and fully support a woman’s right to choose, although would like to see a cut in the time limit.)
Just asking you to confirm the ‘point’ you made in your post at 09:27:
You believe that two lesbians and a gay man are able to collectively conceive without assistance? Would you be able to shed any light on this sexual phenomenon?!
I think what you actually mean is that one lesbian and one gay man are able to produce a child together, with the other lesbian partner acting as a ‘bystander’ and hence not participating.
However, if two women and a man are collectively able to conceive, then any combination of two women and a man should be able to collectively join in marital union!
I also fully support the rights for a gay man to marry a lesbian as this fits the relationship permutation/model out of which offspring can naturally be conceived!
“I also fully support the rights for a gay man to marry a lesbian as this fits the relationship permutation/model out of which offspring can naturally be conceived!”
What a truly stupid statement to make.
What about Caesarean, what about medical treatment for Ectopic Pregnancy and Preterm Labor?
Are all these medical procedures “natural”? They’re as “natural” as IVF.
You make a critical and common fallacy, the naturalistic fallacy. By very definition, what exists, is essentially natural. You think you have authority on what is “natural”? I think not.
Your post and lack of ability to address any other points made to you, combined with your inability to see the flaws in your own so called logic, only show you up for the religious propaganda peddling buffoon you are.
“Secondly, permutation is usually used (in statistics) to refer to a specific arrangement. Hence, a monogamous opposite-sex relationship is a permutation, as is a polyamorous same-sex relationship etc. Get it?!”
I understand science better than you do, obviously. Where do statistics apply here? Are you using mean or standard deviation to prove a point, and if so, get to it. If not, you are not using the term with any relevancy. Get it?
“Marriage should be reserved for relationship permutations out of which offspring can be conceived without assistance.”"
Who said? You? Where is that definition, and how has validated it?
“If you’d asked these campaigners fifty or sixty years on whether they believed an abortion should be permitted on the grounds of a suspected cleft palate or as a means of contraception, do you really think they’d have agreed?”
Irrelevant comparison. Stick to the point, this is not about abortion, its about equality. If you cannot put proof to back yourself up, then don’t bother with statement that comply with a correlative fallacy. It looks weak and foolish.
Oliver – I actually feel embarrassed for you. I doubt you’ll believe me, but I do. You’re making yourself look stupid. People have said that in a ruder way than me and maybe that’s caused you to ignore what they’re saying but their curtness with you doesn’t make what they’re saying untrue.
Your comment about race was either pig ignorant or purposely facetious. I used to try to explain to commenters like you, but today I’m not in the mood to waste my time. You’re ignorant and a bigot. You think you’re being clever but you’re not.
“You said: “If you support marriage between two men, yet not between three men, then we have an inconsistency”
That’s an absolute non sequitur. That’s like me saying that if YOu support marriage for the purpose of procreation, you must also support men going round raping as many women as possible because procreation is good. As I’m presuming you DON’T support rape then stop using stupid ‘proofs’ that only serve to show your immaturity and ignorance.
Gay people are no more or less fertile than anyone else and we can choose to have or not have children just as straight people can. Children need one thing as regards parents – GOOD ones.
Oliver, no one here really gives a fcuk what you think. You’re not exactly the first preachy little twat to come into a gay site and start spouting pseudo-religions nonsense like we need a lesson on “nature” from an idiot. As far as I’m concerned anyone addressing you like your an equal to us or deserving of a civilised response is wasting their time. Suffice to say, in language that I’m sure you’re used to with that uneducated attitude:- fcuk off and get a life.
Oliver – just go away!
why would a gay man and a lesbian want to marry and even have kids? marriage is about love and not how many kids you can spawn
Caesarians (whilst incredibly useful) are not relevant to this debate.
The point is that the only relationship PERMUTATION out of which offspring have been OBSERVED to have been conceived without assistance is the monogamous opposite-sex model.
When two women are OBSERVED to conceive collectively without assistance, then I will support the rights of any two women to collectively marry.
Secondly, the abortion debate highlights your (lack of) knowledge on the evolution of societal attitudes.
Let me ask you once again why if you believe that two men should be allowed to marry, you don’t believe four men should be allowed to marry?
You have merely eroded the need for participants in a marriage to be of opposite sexes from the original marital criteria and inserted new arbitrary clauses to reflect your view.
Perhaps, in 30 years time, the next gen will erode away the need for there to be 2 participants in a marriage.
Using your own logic, there’d be no rational objection to this, except ‘bigotry’ and polyphobia.
Actually, that’s a good point Iris, both on the rape and the choice. I wonder how our erudite friend here thinks that one can prove that a couple are fertile, able to bear children without any “unnatural” medication or intervention, and then say with all certainty that they WILL have children, BEFORE they marry? Should they have the marriage annulled if they don’t have children, as Harry quite rightly pointed out?
The stupidity of this statements are unusually below par, even for the nutters that regularly come in here.
Please answer the question which was:
“If you support marriage between two men, yet not between three men, then we have an inconsistency.”
You evidently see the requirement for there to be 2 participants in a marriage to be an essential clause in marital law. I personally see the requirement for the participants in a marriage to be of opposite sexes.
Someone in 30 years time may see the requirement for 2 participants in a marriage to be ‘restrictive’ and ‘out-dated.’
Campaigners for eroding away the requirement for 2 participants in a marriage will merely state to the government that marital law was modified once, so why not again?
With respect, Iris, you are catastrophically naive.
“been conceived without assistance”
Caesarian is not conception without assistances. Hence your whole logic is flawed.
“Secondly, the abortion debate highlights your (lack of) knowledge on the evolution of societal attitudes.”
My knowledge on these matters is clearly greater then yours, from your comments. Abortion is irrelevant. If you cannot stick to the topic, then bow out gracefully, before you make a bigger fool out of yourself.
“You have merely eroded the need for participants in a marriage to be of opposite sexes from the original marital criteria and inserted new arbitrary clauses to reflect your view.”
Really, so not the “original definition” is what? Tell me where the definition is stated.
Pleased, you keep mentioning this, but are refusing to verify. More likely your are unable to do so.
Also, you stated that the “definition of marriage” was defined to “produce offspring naturally” only. You now ignore this point. Adding mathematical concepts into your statements doesn’t actually make it more correct. Quite the opposite.
Iris is right, if you do not think you are a bigot, then you have deeper issues than initially obvious.
I like how you italicised ‘that’ – it really emphasised your…ahem…’point!’ Lol
Please, however explain why you view marriage between 2 men as acceptable, yet not marriage between 10 men? Surely this is ‘homophobia’ and ‘bigotry’ as it is denying ‘equality’ to those in polyamorous same-sex relationships.
What;s wrong Oliver, can’t address the point put to you?
Where’s your answer for “I wonder how our erudite friend here thinks that one can prove that a couple are fertile, able to bear children without any “unnatural” medication or intervention, and then say with all certainty that they WILL have children, BEFORE they marry? Should they have the marriage annulled if they don’t have children, as Harry quite rightly pointed out?”
Please enlighten us. I crave a bit of amusement.
Is that the best you can do? A “lol”? Indeed, the universally recognised response of the intelligentsia, I’m sure. I notice you avoid any questions put to you. How bizarre.
“Caesarian is not conception without assistances”
Correct! What ‘point’ are you attempting to make here?
Conception without assistance has only ever been OBSERVED in the monogamous opposite-sex relationship model.
Let us imagine for a minute, that actually, ‘natural’ procreation solely occurs between fourteen women.
Hence, marriage should be reserved for relationships comprising fourteen women only.
There may be instances of the fourteen women requiring assistance. However, this is irrelevant, as a relationship comprising fourteen women has in the past been observed to procreate without assistance.
Relationships comprising 1 man and 1 woman may well be able to conceive with assistance, as can relationshpis comprising three women, yet marriage? Really?
And finally with reference to ‘bigotry.’ This term is meaningless in itself. It merely means intolerance/hostility/disagreement with the opinions/views of others. So while I am a ‘bigot’ in your eyes, you are equally a ‘bigot’ in mine!
Oh dear – don’t even try insults, Oliver. I almost spilt my coffee laughing at that.
Right, let’s try again – do not use non sequiturs to prove an argument. It doesn’t work and makes you look stupid. An example: Bert says it’s wrong to make a law allowing women to vote because before we know it we’ll be allowing amoebae to vote.
See how stupid that supposition is? Yours is the same. There’s no proof that allowing one thing (equal marriage between two adults) will lead top another (polygamy). As we’ve had marriage between one man and one woman in the UK for hundreds of years without polygamy happening, then it’s only YOUR bigoted mind that sees that allowing same sex couiples to marry would somehow alter that situation and mean polygamy was allowed a few years later.
We ‘spoke’ before, didn’t we? You’re the one who was so rude about my (lesbian) friend who has children, I believe. Nasty and patronising as I remember.
If you make up your own rules, then of course you ‘win’ every time – but only in your own mind. There is NO compulsion for two people in a marriage to have children to make it a marriage, nor do marriages only happen in churches or other religious buildings. Marriage is both a religious AND a civil idea.
Your attempts to limit marriage to religion/straight people scream ‘major insecurity issue’ to me. If I was married to my girlfriend it wouldn’t make the SLIGHTEST bit of difference to your life.
Are you married? Do you have children? I don’t know and I don’t care. I don’t need to interfere in other people’s lives to validate my own. Unlike you and your ilk. You’re not religious, you’re using religion to compensate for your own feelings of inadequacy.
Correct me if I’m wrong David, but a large proportion of your post appeared to be attempted insults accompanied by several references to French Connection UK!
What ‘point’ were you trying to make?
(14 February 2011, 10:39pm)
“Anyway, I have school tomorrow, so had better go to bed, so nighty-night.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It appears that we are chatting with a school boy . . . maybe?
Who is this Oliver??! You need help, mate!
Very much so, JohnK. Oliver is a school boy.
“Correct! What ‘point’ are you attempting to make here?”
I beg your pardon? Are you senile? YOU are the one stating that marriage is for those who can produce offspring “naturally” (as you put it by your definition). So, married people should not use caesarian, or any “unnatural” methods” to assist in procreation. By your definition. Explain please.
“Hence, marriage should be reserved for relationships comprising fourteen women only.”
Why? You still are incapable of explaining where these definitions come from. Now, what does that lend me to believe?
“However, this is irrelevant, as a relationship comprising fourteen women has in the past been observed to procreate without assistance.”
In the past? In the past people lived to 30. Should we bring in euthanasia too, as living beyond 30 didn’t happen in “the past” and is “not natural”? Stupid argument again by you.
“And finally with reference to ‘bigotry.’ This term is meaningless in itself.”
No, you’re a bigot all right. You have no rationale. By definition, thankfully not by you, you’re particularly weak in definition, you are everything a bigot is. Does that offend you? Its should. I’d be mortified if I was one.
I don’t remember speaking to you before!
This is a serious point. You evidently view ‘need for 2 participants’ as an essential requirement for a marriage to take place. However, this isn’t fixed and other people may disagree with you.
You mention that if you were to ‘marry’ your girlfriend, this would have no bearing on me.
What if I wanted to ‘marry’ my two girlfriends and four boyfriends? This wouldn’t directly affect you (or have any bearing on your lifestyle,) so I guess you’d have no grounds for opposing me to get married?
Why the hatred – I merely form my views on the basis of consistency. I don’t believe three men should marry, and hence don’t believe two should either.
As I’ve said before I’m all for civil partnerships, and also believe we should stop the discrimination against those in polyamorous relationships by allowing them to join in civil unions to legally recognise their relationships.
Anyway, lunch is almost over and I have a lesson to go to!
Catch up soon guys.
“It appears that we are chatting with a school boy . . . maybe?”
You are correct John, on the other site I found him ranting the same rational way, he stated he was 18.
How can someone be such a fool at 18? Oh, yes, sorry, not evacuation yet. Silly me.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Oliver, you really are a bit of a twit aren’t you?
“However, my belief is that marriage should be reserved for the sole relationship permutation out of which offspring can be conceived without medical/clinical assistance!”
This, as many others have pointed out previously, is YOUR OWN ENTIRELY ARBITRARY DEFINITION. What you are saying is nothing less than “marriage should be defined exactly how I and nobody else defines it”. Again, as you have repeatedly been told, marriage has never, not once in the history of the world, ever been defined like this. There is not a single society that has EVER used your definition. But that’s somewhat irrelevant, because words are our tools, not our masters. We created the institution of marriage for our own ends, and we have been constantly adapting it to better fit with our moral ideas as the zeitgeist has changed. Marriage means whatever we say it means as a society, because it’s a human social construct and we can alter it however we like. There is no idealised Platonic Form of marriage out there somewhere.
you also say:
“You make this common error by believing that your own personal views/attitudes towards sexual tolerance/liberalisation are the limit to which societal attitudes in general will reach!”
I don’t think anyone here except you makes such assumptions. It seems to me that you are desperate to stifle progress and change just for the sake of it. If, in a century or two centuries’ time, people have made significant advances in moral thinking, why the hell should they not apply the results as the laws of their time? Why should the moral hang-ups of the early 21st century be any barrier to progress in the 23rd? How could we stop this anyway? And more importantly, why does it worry you to think that those who come after us might do things differently to the way we do? If people in 1700 had thought the way you do, we would have made little moral progress at all by now. Why are you so keen to arrest and fetter the process of moral advancement? Do you arrogantly believe that your own, little, parochial take on things is the transcendent be-all and end-all of human moral thinking?
The bottom line is that “people might want to do it in the future” is not a valid moral argument. If it causes some specific harm, you must point out what that harm actually is. If you cannot point to such a source of harm, you cannot argue that something is immoral.
Which is how one should take your fatuous comments about polyamorous marriage. You dangle polyamorous arrangements as if they are somehow universally reviled – the trump-card example of something everyone can be guaranteed to oppose. Well I have news for you – just because the majority disapprove of something that doesn’t mean it is morally suspect. You’re going to have to actually make arguments that it is morally suspect, rather than relying on popular prejudice. But that’s a different argument altogether. I can think of several ways in which polyamorous arrangements might be harmful to the participants, including perhaps a disparity of emotional or financial support, but I have not considered the issue deeply. Should there be no actual harm caused by such arrangements, and should the lack of legal and societal recognition for them be a source of harm in itself (as it is for gay people) then I see no reason why we are not morally obligated to extend marriage rights that way too.
As ever, the principle “where’s the harm?” should be applied.
“Oh dear – don’t even try insults, Oliver. I almost spilt my coffee laughing at that.”
Okay, last post before this evening.
The term ‘bigotry’ in general is totally subjective.
All people’s opinions will differ and hence what people view as constituting ‘bigotry’ will differ.
If you’d accused me of ‘bigotry’ towards monogamous same-sex relationships, then that’d be far more accurate.
You are ‘bigoted’ towards polyamorous same-sex relationships and polyamorous mixed-sex relationships.
Also, Will, do you believe a mother and daughter or uncle and nephew should be allowed to ‘marry?’
At present, they are not permitted to on the basis of procreation.
However, once we modify marital law to accomodate same-sex couples, we effectively render the procreative nature of marriage obsolete.
So, unless it is rooted in ‘bigotry,’ what rational objection to incestuous marriage is there?
@Oliver — I notice I’m the only one you’ve not replied to. I’m sure that’s because you’re busy preparing an articulate and coherent response to them. But the delay does mean I’ve a few more questions, which I know you’ll be glad to give your attention to:
8. You keep using the word natural, but what do you actually mean by this ? If something occurs in nature, then be definition, it’s natural.
Successfully bring offspring to the point where they can reproduces requires two steps. Conception, and rearing. Now as you’ve pointed out repeatedly, conception requires male and female — in many species.
9. Why does rearing require male and female ?
10. What has any of this to do with marriage ?
The only species that gets married are Homo sapiens.
11. Does this make marriage unnatural by your definition ?
“Conception without assistance has only ever been OBSERVED in the monogamous opposite-sex relationship model.”
Not quite true.Parthenogenesis is a form of asexual reproduction found in females, where growth and development of embryos occurs without fertilization by a male.
12. Do you think this is natural ?
A last meta question.
13. Do you think ignoring people’s questions and saying the same thing again and again is an effective strategy ?
“If you’d accused me of ‘bigotry’ towards monogamous same-sex relationships, then that’d be far more accurate.”
No, I just accuse you of bigotry, full stop. You do not set the levels, thankfully.
I read you postings on another side the thestudentroom, where you launch a bigoted (yes, correct term used here) attack on why sexuality might be changeable, against gay adoptions, and all other manner of neo-religious anti-gay nonsense – all strangely similar to NARTH research. Funny that.
Here’s a piece of scientific study for you to read: a study recently has shown the more homophobic you are, the more likely you are a homosexual, albeit closeted ones.
Summary: In 1996, a controlled study of 64 heterosexual men (half claimed to be homophobic by experience and self-reported orientation) at the University of Georgia found that men who were found to be homophobic (as measured by the Index of Homophobia) were considerably more likely to experience more erectile responses when exposed to homoerotic images than non-homophobic men [Adams HE, Wright LW, Lohr BA (August 1996). "Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?" - American Psychological Association press release]
Given you are 18, confused about a lot of things you claim to support (obviously), and not very bright, I suspect you presence here and other sites with such virulent irrational aggression towards gay people, you may harbour some of your “own unresolved” issues.
Poor you. You have our pity. Here’s hoping you get to comes to terms with yourself soon, otherwise its a Stephen Green path of life for you…. lets face it, its not natural for any 18 year old to obsess like you do over homosexuality. Protest too much?
@Oliver — sorry, just read again something you’ve written:
and I’ve another couple of questions.
14. Why do you think a relationship is necessary for conception ?
I have news for you — relationships aren’t necessary for conception.
15. Would it be useful for me to explain the ‘birds and bees’ to you ?
Conception without assistance has only ever been OBSERVED in the monogamous opposite-sex relationship model (Oliver)
How has this pearl been allowed to slip past unnoticed?!
Oliver, poor dear, what in the wide world does monogamy have to do with anything? Have you never heard of married people with children from extra-marital relationships? Or Muslim dignitaries with 4 wives?
I’m afraid slips like these don’t really support the idea you’re capable of joined-up thinking.
@Oliver — I am so sorry it’s not true. Just read something else you’ve written:
“… I merely form my views on the basis of consistency”
16. Do you think rationality and humanity would be better bases for your views ?
17. When Emerson wrote:
‘A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.’
what do you think he was driving at ?
“I’m afraid slips like these don’t really support the idea you’re capable of joined-up thinking.”
Quite right, Rehan, I’d say joined up writing might be a challenge for this one :)
“However, once we modify marital law to accomodate same-sex couples, we effectively render the procreative nature of marriage obsolete”
No, we don’t! Do grow up, Ollie! I know you’ve said you’re 18 but I’m finding that hard to believe.
You asked “why the hatred”: I don’t hate you, I PITY you. You’re a child (maybe not technically, but I’d be concerned for your wellfare if you were my student) and you’re eaten up with self-hate. Yes, I mean ‘self’ there.
But the main reason I feel sorry for you is that you’re making an utter fool of yourself. Yes, I can laught at you when I get exasperated, but in all honesty you need help and counselling to talk through your problems. I’d lay money on the fact that your school is aware of your issues. Is there anyone there you can talk to?
Seriously, I think you should. You’re clearly a very unhappy person, and I worry about you. And, I repeat, that’s a SERIOUS comment. I hope that having received the information, your school will help you and that you’ll become a happier, better adjusted person soon.
The fact of the matter is, bigots such as Phillips just don’t get it. Civil marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion in any way shape or form. There is NO religious component or reference to any deity let alone procreation. I suppose in her twisted view of the world and of marriage, an infertile straight couple should also be barred from marrying, or straight foster parents should be barred from adopting since they are not the procreative parents of the child they adopt.
Religion does NOT own marriage, most definitely NOT civil marriage. The sooner the hypocrites and bigots in all of the religious cults understand that the better. If Spain, Argentina, Portugal and Belgium, four heavily catholic countries can do it, I see no reason why we can’t and…..Cameron et al can’t use the “offending religious people” mantra to justify maintaining the ban on marriage for gay couples. Its a red herring and a convenient way to avoid dealing with the issue of repealing the ban and pacifying the bigot clerics in the anti-democratic House of Lords.
If Cameron and his party really are committed to full equality, he should be the first to support our right to civil marriage without exception. I’ll hold my breath on that one and I’ll remain unconvinced.
@Oliver — “However, once we modify marital law to accomodate same-sex couples, we effectively render the procreative nature of marriage obsolete”
No ! Marriage is not necessary for either procreation or child-rearing.
18. Why do you think marriage is necessary for procreation ?
19. Do you think marriage has any purpose than procreation ?
“Religion does NOT own marriage, most definitely NOT civil marriage”
Well said, Robert.
Oliver, I think you should have a good look at yourself. Will hinted that your homophobia may be based on some repressed issues you have about your own sexuality – that’s more than possible, in my opinion.
Nobody ‘hates’ you, they can’t believe that you keep on making a point that’s based on a fallacy. You’ve just said the same thing over and over again without thinking about what you’ve said or listening to points others have made.
You might not remember me, but I remember you. You were making the same argument then as you are now, and using the exact same precocious tone.
I am deeply embarrassed at what I’m reading from someone who is supposed to be 18. You would not expect that level of irrational prejudice from someone so young. His full name must be Oliver Twisted. I’d be embarrassed to be associated with him, and his parents must be a travesty if he is the result of their “natural” union.
Do you gatecrash every wedding to make sure people are marrying for the right reason?
No. Not only because you weren’t invited but also because other peoples wedding/marriage has nothing to do with you.
So you feel a marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman. Big deal, thats your belief but whose taking that away from you? No-one thats who because what you believe and will still believe no matter how many men/men or women/women get married.
Not 1 same sex couple getting married will have any affect on you, so why the need to butt in?
Couldn’t be a typical bullying responsible of an abusive person?
Gays not doing what you say, Lesbians not conforming to your beliefs? Therefore you throw your toys out of the pram.
None of this is anybody elses business, no matter how much you want to paint it. No matter how ugly or offence you want to put it.
What is the point is every consenting couple should have the right to love and marry who they choose to be with. That has nothing to do with you, your bible, your neighbour… The only people it matters to is that consenting couple and the people they invite.
The one thing I have discovered in life is that many bigots enjoy the entertainment of the overly camp TV personality because it means they can distance themselves and label. The minute it is shown that Gays/Lesbians are just like anybody else bigots start to feel threatened. It then becomes not so much the fear of anybody else but the fear of questioning themselves. They don’t want to see Gays/Lesbians are ‘normal’ people because then their own bigotry shows through, which is of course what’s happening now.
@Oliver – you ignored me which doesn’t surprise in the slightest,
“@Oliver – you ignored me which doesn’t surprise in the slightest”
Chester, its not surprising really, is it?, Anyone with such weak and flawed logic, such as our erudite child-pal Oliver, ranting on a gay site (but they’re “straight”, of course! *rolls eyes*), has never shown themselves to be able to address anything that challenges the fragile argument they make. Its the their version of putting their fingers in their ears and screaming “I can’t hear you”. This is the one thing that unites all the bigoted individuals that seem to have so much time on their hands to visit us here.
Oliver…you said…”However, once we modify marital law to accomodate same-sex couples, we effectively render the procreative nature of marriage obsolete.”
Really? Then tell me why millons of straight couples are continuing to marry and have children, in fact too many in some societies. Name one instance where a gay married couple has rendered procreation obsolete? Holland has had same sex marriage for ten years. Provide the evidence with documentation to prove your claim. If same-sex marriage were so bad, straights wouldn’t bother to marry, let alone procreate. Another error you make is to assume that procreation and should only be confined to marriage. Since when? People have been procreating long before the abrahamic cults came along and artificially altered it much to the benefit of men and religious cults. Marriage has evolved for millenia and forms of it existed long before religious cults started tampering with it and manipulating it for its own ends. You’re an idiot!
@Oliver — I’m again so sorry, but I’ve another question for you, which I’m sure you’ll be able to answer. You said:
“However, once we modify marital law to accomodate same-sex couples, we effectively render the procreative nature of marriage obsolete.”
20. Doesn’t allowing unmarried mixed sex couples to procreate ‘effectively render the procreative nature of marriage obsolete’ also ?
Look, I have to confess that I’m very confused about just what your point is. But I’m sure this will lessen once you’ve considered my questions.
There are no places in the US where “zoophilia” as this disgusting person puts it, is being considered for legalization. She is quite incorrect. Her comment about “upholding the bible’s sexual standards” is fine, FOR HER, but is not to be confused with someone else’s life. This is too typical of the sorts of people that believe such nonesense. Outrageous beliefs and being in a position where others see her in a position of some authority should be mutually exclusive things, but, sadly, are not. This woman is just like the self-identified Christians in the US who say they just want the best for society when in fact, they are truly bigoted against gays-they do not speak in ways one could consider kind and offer nothing but suffering to innocent gay people. Their ‘interests’ in gay people’s sex lives is rather unwholesome and certainly unwelcome-it is none of their business and they need to do something more positive with their free time, really.
Perhaps she’s just attention seeking. I certainly don’t take her seriously.
I think Oliver’s “Heterosexism is very interesting, especially since it appears not to be motivated by religous fundamentalism!
Cristina Odone writing in the Telegraph about marriage argues Gays are fakes, and that the marriage ceremony is really for a certain type of heterosexual couple. Curiously, I think there are some similarities between her argument, and Oliver’s; since both are deeply heterosexist.
Cristina Odone writing in the Telegraph says
“For the real thing, you have to be the real thing: for a real church wedding or a real synagogue or mosque wedding, you have to be a good practising Catholic, Jew or Muslim. Gays, and those who, like me, marry divorcees, don’t qualify. To foist ourselves on a religious community is to pretend that we belong there. That is disrespectful to them, but also to ourselves. I stand by my choice of husband; and they should stand by theirs. How ironic that gays, who have fought for hundreds of years to be true to themselves, should now wish to fake it.”
I hope nobody’s considering Oliver (in either his points or style of debate) as typical of this generation.
It isn’t; I’m 19 and debate a lot better than adults I often find myself arguing with on the internet (it is fun to invade American Christian right websites with the sharpened sword of logic).
(it is fun to invade American Christian right websites with the sharpened sword of logic).
Oscar . . . I so argree
Come and join us on “banned from the Christian institute” on face book, and sharpen your logic with our resident Fundamentalists; posting on this site.
Christina Odone is another journalist like Melanie Phillips who probably should have gotten wed in a kennel.
I actually agree with Cristina Odone, we shouldn’t been demanding that we are included by that prejudiced establishment. Why would we want to be associated with such an awful club?
However, I am not sure if she is just talking about religious marriages or all marriages (including civil). If it’s just religious ones, I’m with her, if it’s all, nah, I am all for civil marriage.
Why would we want to be associated with such an awful club?
I don’t want to join any club that will accept people like me as a member
Actually here in Australia some of the senators (Catholic!!) argue that giving gays marriage will lead to a free for all and all types of other marriages….the fact that we’re talking about a no cost partnership/marriage between 2 people with no additional pension , tax etc cost to the state seems to shut them up a bit, the other one is that if people want another form of marrige ie a marriage between mutliple partners or with their sister or with their dog then it a completely different piece of legislation and if any mp or senator who is dumb enough to go down that road and alientate his voters then it’s up to them to get support for it but it’s not what the gay community are all about, they’re simply seeking marrige between 2 people. Gay marriage is the proposed legislation only , equlity between same and opposite sex couples only!!, and has the support of a vast majoirty of mps etc and that’s what we are pushing for not any other form of marriage which has NO support…
Giles Fraser writing in the Guardian , has an interested argument why we should by included in religious marriages; from a point of view of equality freedom and justice.
. . . . . . . . . .
Giles Fraser – 500 years of church intolerance.
The church resists use of the Bible in gay marriage for the same reason it burned a 1526 translation
A snippet from his argument
“But the resistance of the C of E and the Catholic church to the incorporation of religious readings and prayers in civil marriage ceremonies is quite another matter, for either straight or gay couples. When it comes to civil marriage, the government must ignore these objections and proceed on the basis of the core principles of justice and freedom: justice that insists gay and straight couples be treated equally at the altar rail of the town hall; and freedom to allow them to use religious readings or prayers for their wedding.
No church has intellectual property rights on the idea of God . . .”
Marriage and children – this is the other very big thing they argue about in Australia – the AME argue this back….It seems the arguments and replies are always about the same , ultimately if there isn’t anough mps to support it it will never happen, I think everybody knows the anti marriage arguments by heart , now it means writing to mps and getting them to do it!!!
“There is no legal requirement or expectation that married partners must have children. That is why the law allows partners to marry if they are infertile, past child-bearing age, or just don’t want children.
We should apply the same standard to same-sex couples. Their incapacity to conceive through their partner is not a reason to deny them the right to marry.
However, there is a widespread belief in society that marriage benefits children by providing them with a greater sense of security and recognition. Again, this should be applied equally to same-sex couples and their children. Roughly 15% of male same-sex couples and 25% of female same-sex couples are raising children. These children should have the same opportunity as other children to enjoy the security and recognition that comes with having married parents.
The American and Australian psychological societies have reviewed the scientific literature on same-sex parenting and concluded that children raised by same-sex couples have the same level of intellectual, emotional, social and sexual adjustment as their peers.”
Civil marriages v cp and religious services
“In short what makes a civil marriage civil is that it is ‘solemnized in the (office of a superintendent registrar / presence of a superintendent registrar)’ (Marriage act 1949), however as civil partnerships are not solemnised but formed through a signature the corresponding clause in the civil partnership act 2004 reads ‘the civil partnership registrar is officiating at the signing of a civil partnership document’. It is abundantly clear that any religious service would compromise the role that a superintendent registrar plays in solemnising marriage, since this would either require them to adopt a religious role or for there to be two simultaneous solemnisations occurring in the same place at the same time. However this need not, and in practice, does not extend to the signing of a civil document. A civil partnership registrar can officiate the signing of a civil partnership document at a religious solemnisation of the union between two people without either contradiction or confusion.
This is not a theoretical point for lawyers, it is an extremely practical point that already affects the civil partnership ceremonies of thousands. Whilst there are currently strict rules to prevent religious services of any kind taking place whilst the civil partnership document is being signed there is considerably more leeway in adding religious elements to a civil partnership ceremony then are available to couples having a civil marriage. It appears that the only thing the act explicitly excludes is the sort of religious witness that matters so much to those groups who want a change in the law, simple expressions of religious commitment or spirituality are not excluded, in theory or practice.
Whatever the intention, or the churches’ expectations, of this legal distinction may have been its effects at present are to create a clear way in which religious organisations can take a full role in witnessing to the legal union of same sex couples without blurring the distinction either between civil and religious marriage or civil partnerships and civil marriages. We will still be left with marriages that can be solemnised either in the presence of a religious gathering or a superintendent registrar and partnerships which can be signed in the presence or a registrar and solemnised, or left unsolemnised, in whatever way the couple choose. This is a useful distinction, and the government should think twice before throwing it out.
maybe melaine phillips should move to Uganda, I’m sure she’d be much happier there.
Christina Odone is another journalist like Melanie Phillips who probably should have gotten wed in a kennel
I don’t think what Odone’s saying is akin to Phillips’ witterings at all, she’s just saying she doesn’t believe people – herself included – should treat a religious ceremony as an opportunity for a make-believe event when it’s contrary to the rules of the respective organisations; and that it’s not for the state to legislate in such matters.
And fair enough too – personally I think gay people who want their marriage recognised by institutions that have been so hostile to us, the Catholic church for example, are bonkers!
“And fair enough too – personally I think gay people who want their marriage recognised by institutions that have been so hostile to us, the Catholic church for example, are bonkers!”
Quite right. Getting any old git to bless you is easy, the hard part, and the most important part, is getting the legal rights and recognition by the state, not a church.
Thanks for the link, excellent article
Did poor Oliver dissatisfy without being able to answer any of the points put to him over his silly statements? What a surprise…. we’ve never seen THAT behaviour before in here :)
(Opps, meant “disappear”… stoopid spell checker)
Maybe one of his school friends spotted how much time he was spending on a gay site, Will ;)
What are you saying Iris ? Nothing odd about a straight 18 year old spending a lot of time on a gay website’s, writing on a thread about a right-wing columnist.
Not unusual, and very cool.
I’m sure Oliver will be back shortly with a reasoned response to all our questions.
“An unjust law is (one that a) majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. … “Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up there privileges voluntarily.”
Martin Luther King, Jr. in a letter from a Birmingham jail.
“A loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs, no matter what their relationship, are not allowed to marry. How should society treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As dogs or as humans?”
Blackburn Bishop wlecomes “Gay Marriages” in his church
@ Pavlos: I would add that, actually, any unattached man and woman can marry (unless they’re close relations of course).
Despite what they may choose to say in their vows, love, commitment and fidelity are not prerequisites (as the present divorce statistics might indicate).
Quite right Rehan,
but regarding Christina Odone her comments are unfounded because I don’t think it is the case that gay people are trying to force church’s to marry them…are they?
Where a church wishes to marry same sex couples is the only time it will happen and it would be incorrect to call these marriages fake or any less real than any other marriages with a religious element, we can interpret religion individually, though I have no use for it myself.
Beyond all above, no church holds the franchise on scripture or on it’s interpretation nor on “faith” and if a same sex couple want to have a religious element in their marriage ceremony then religious freedom laws must support their right to do so, no question about it, religious freedom is not just for heterosexuals .
but regarding Christina Odone her comments are unfounded because I don’t think it is the case that gay people are trying to force church’s to marry them…are they?
Maybe I misread it Pavlos, but I thought her point is that the state shouldn’t force sects, in the name of equality, to perform rites that counter their own beliefs – inasmuch as the catholics don’t allow remarriage for divorced people. It’s a club and they’re entitled to their own rules (so long as they don’t object to the word ‘marriage’ being used in a non-religious context).
Which, since it’s a club I have no wish to be part of (apart from being a chorister when I was younger), I think is fair enough, really.
In addition to the general inconsistencies in Oliver’s arguments (which I don’t intend to comment on, as they’ve already been effortlessly debunked by many commenters here), he mentions “hermaphrodites” several times.
As far as I am aware, there has never been a recorded case of true hermaphroditism in humans; nor is it likely that there ever will be – our developmental biology doesn’t easily allow for two disparate but functional reproductive systems to come about in a single individual.
I wonder if he is actually attempting to refer to intersex people? If so, he should be aware that many such people find the term ‘hermaphrodite’ extremely stigmatising when used in relation to them.
Rehan, If I even cared about a religious element to civil partnerships or possible same sex marriage!!!
However there has been no suggestion that churches should or could be forced to provide same sex marriages…so Christina Odone’s article seems to me to be general scaremongering based on a lie… purely so that she can get a dig in at same sex marriages not being the “real thing” and continue the pretence that gays and lesbians are persecuting christians.
The reality is that in the liberal churches that want to provide religious cp’s and religious same sex marriages, there will logically not be that clash with rigid anti-gay dogma and biased interpretation of scripture, same sex marriages there will not need to be pretend ones.
Christianity is all about conditional love.
so Christina Odone’s article seems to me to be general scaremongering based on a lie… purely so that she can get a dig in at same sex marriages not being the “real thing”
Maybe there’s a bit of scaremongering, but I think you’re being unfair to Odone – my interpretation of what she says is that the “real thing” she talks about it the religious sacrament, which excludes her too – it’s that rules-of-the-club thing again.
Maybe she’s being disingenuous by mentioning the good gay unions she knows, but I didn’t read it as patronising or snide à la Melanie Phillips.
Religion isn’t owned by straights..we all have a right to it…we don’t all intepret religion in the same way..no church of England or catholic church should be allowed to interfer in what the Quakers etc intepret relgion, it’s nothing to do with liberalism or quakers being nice guys simply becuase they have a different intepretation , how patronising is that!!…The C of E and the Catholic church are doomed in this argument , if they require freedom to do what they want then they should also allow other relgiouns to do what they want..if the C of E wasn’t the state relgion and the Queen head of church and govt then I can’t see what righ they had in any law making —– and by the way there are a lot of gays who are Christians and want relgious marriages/CPs….
My horrible dread on thursday is that somehow there is going to be some counter attack on the line in the CP act
“no religious service is to be used while the civil partnership registrar is officiating at the signing of a civil partnership document”. – as far as I know this is still in the act – why didn’t they get rid of this?
I deffo think she leaves comments on pink news. I wonder what her pinknews name is?
To argue with this Oliver cretin, who has just discovered a new and very long word is to give his argument credence. He has been reading the Daily Wail and now thinks this Philips yokels vomit is gospel. Best way to deal with this shyte is to totally ignore it To do otherwise is to give the cretins solace and convince them they have a valid arguement.. I also apply this argument to those who believe that theres a pixie dude with a white beard up in the sky creating universes in a few days. Just laugh and walk away.
……quite possibly Oliver, Cameron…….
Frankly i am disappointed by the number of gay people (if in fact they are gay) who whine on about not being allowed a religious marrige. I have lived for the last 50 years under the illusion that gay people were that little bit more enlightened than the average breeder. How wrong was i?
Why is that a lot of gay people seem to think that if you are gay you must agree with everything a gay man or women says if it is the opposite of a straight critic? its not true that just because i am gay i must agree with gay marriage, i dont agree i with it,
Allow me to quote from the most celebrated of gay human rights champions, Peter Tatchell, and allow him to guide you smoothly to where Section 202 of the Equality Act 2010 will lead.
In “Beyond Equality” he writes:
“In many ways, our transcending of heterosexual mores is a positive and immensely liberating experience. Compared with most straights, queers tend to be more sexually adventurous with a wider repertoire of sexual behaviour, less bound by the strictures of traditional morality, and more experimental in terms of relationships. We don’t need a marriage certificate to validate our partnerships”
“Although getting rid of homophobic discrimination is a laudable aim, it doesn’t go far enough. Ending anti-gay bias will not resolve all the problems faced by lesbian and gay people. Some of our difficulties arisenot from homophobia, but from the more general eroto-phobic and sex-negative nature of contemporary culture.”
“We get equality, but at a price. The cost to our
. The cost to our community is the surrender of our unique, distinctive queer identity. The unwritten social contract at the heart of law reform is that lesbians and gays will behave respectably and comply with the heterosexual moral agenda. No more cruising, orgies or sadomasochism!”
In “Teenage Sex- What Should Schools Teach Children?” he writes:
“Until very recent times, all sex education was overwhelmingly biased towards promoting heterosexuality, marriage, parenthood and traditional family life. Anything outside this exclusive framework was either ignored or condemned……”
“This old-style monocultural sex moralism is now totally out of sync with our modern multicultural society where there is a great diversity of cultures and communities, lifestyles and love-lives.”
…..” Nothing must be off limits.”
“Sex education, to be effective, needs to start at a very early age, beginning gently in the first year of primary school and gradually becoming more detailed and explicit at secondary
“The best way to persuade teenagers to adopt oral sex and mutual masturbation is by making them look and sound sexy.”
A few years ago two millionaires, Barry Drewit and Tony Barlow showed us where queer marriage will take us and our children.
Britain is already broken and past repairing.. The thought that queers will rescue marriage would be laughable if it were not also profoundly tragic. It is queer ideology, the denial of a binary world and the denial of absolutes in morality that has eroded the bonds of marriage over the last fifty years. British society will collapse and either Islam or Chinese Marxism will take over, neither of which are exactly friendly towards queers.