Yes, another marriage rant…
In case you haven’t spotted the extensive anti-marriage tirade on my blog, I feel that I should inform you that I don’t like marriage. I’m not about to go into details as to why right now, because you can go away and read for yourself, should you feel so inclined. However, I do believe in gay marriage. How? What? Why? I hear you ask. Why exactly?
I’m not suggesting that it should be the other way around. I don’t propose that straight people shouldn’t get married and that gay people should – it was never a case of “should” or “shouldn’t” and more a case of “why would you?” In this instance, the point I’m trying to make is that if straight people are able to do it, then gay people should bloody well be able to do it too.
The government praises the married; the married get tax breaks for conforming to what society deems as the ideal model; the government encourages people to marry. The married live longer, apparently. That seems unlikely to me, but the stats never lie, do they? So why wouldn’t the government encourage gay couples to marry? If marriage is the be all and end all of the good moral codebook, then surely any couple, regardless of their race or sexuality should be pushed down the aisle, not prevented from it.
This country prides itself on being a compassionate and humane land where everyone should be treated with equal measures of respect. As far as I can see, saying that gay people cannot marry is exactly the same as saying that black people cannot marry. Ludicrously, gay people can marry, but only if they marry someone of the opposite sex, so the government endorses loveless marriage between a man and a woman, but doesn’t endorse a love-filled marriage between two members of the same sex.
If you oppose gay marriage, what exactly is the brunt of your disagreement?
IS IT THAT PEOPLE SHOULD MARRY SOLELY AS A REASON FOR HAVING THE BABIES?
I know plenty of people who are married and do not / never want to have sproggers; so you would have to deny all couples who cannot have / do not want to have children the right to marry if this is your argument. Sex for our race is no longer just an act of procreation and marriage is not just about sex.
I know couples who have had babies without getting married. I know couples that aren’t married and have had kids and stayed together, I’ve known couples that have kids and have been married and divorced. Marriage is not an absolute anymore – hasn’t been for hundreds of years.
IS IT BECAUSE MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN IN THE EYES OF GOD?
Then you would have to deny all straight atheists and agnostics the right to marry too.
IS IT BECAUSE MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN?
Who says…? The bible*? See the v.last point in this post. You? Who the fuck are you in the grand scheme of things? The state? The state can and should adapt its laws – that’s how we evolve as a civilisation. The people who create laws know this; that is why new bills are passed all the time.
Define man. Define woman. Is it ok to marry if you were formerly in a same sex relationship and have transitioned from one sex to the other? Is it ok to marry if you were born a hermaphrodite and have been brought up as a man and wish to marry a woman? What about a gay man trapped inside a woman’s body who wants to marry a man? What if you look like a man, walk like a man, talk like a man and nobody knows that you’re a woman? What if you are a woman with facial hair? What if you are a man with a clitoris of a penis? We try to clearly define everything in this society, but the boundaries we place on things never quite encapsulate everybody. Suggest you read Jackie Kay’s fantastic book, Trumpet, and for the more adventurous out there, Angela Carter’s book, The Passion of New Eve.
We now have secular marriage where once we only had religious. There was a time when divorce wasn’t allowed. There was a time when a man was allowed to beat his wife. The boundaries of marriage have changed with time and should continue to do so as our society improves.
IT IS BECAUSE YOU THINK IT WILL “CONFUSE” GENDER ROLES?
Gay people are not confused about their gender; they are just attracted to the opposite sex. Bisexuals aren’t confused either; they are just attracted to both sexes (which, incidentally, does not mean that bisexuals are all about threesomes, that bisexuals are attracted to more people than straights or gays, or that bisexuals are homophobically denying that they are just plain gay. Bisexuals are just that. Bisexual).
Having clearly defined gender roles has its own issues. We feel that we’ve failed as a woman or a man if we don’t look a certain way, if hair grows in certain places, if we don’t have washboard stomachs or tiny little fanny flaps or massive cocks. We’re told how we should be and we all fall short of that definite mark, because there is such a thing as man and there is such a thing as woman, but life is not clean cut into black and white, and there are exceptions in varying degrees; to deny this is to oversimplify it.
ARE YOU JUST PLAIN WORRIED ABOUT REDEFINING MARRIAGE?
Then someone should have had a word with Henry VIII.
IS IT MAYBE THAT GOD WON’T ACCEPT GAY MARRIAGE?
Lots of people (including me) don’t accept god, and I don’t think atheists should be treated like second class citizens either.
I know a few gay people who are religious. That seems rather topsy turvy to me, but it’s not for me to judge and gay people should also be allowed to have their faith. If you believe in god, presumably you believe god created all things, including homosexuals. Do people really believe that gay people have been influenced by the devil? Is it because they’re utter morons? If the devil existed, do you really think that all he’d do is pop up to make some people love some other people?
“I have a cunning plan to visit the Earth! I could make blood run down all the walls in Christendom! And I could maybe send round some scary demons too… yes… horrible torture for everyone’s a possibility and what about a plague of locusts? Wait – was that me? I can’t remember. Just let me consult my reference book… oh what is all this confounding nonsense? Lying?! I’m pretty sure I’ve done worse than that… just skip a few hundred pages… oh, curse it, where is Lilith when you need her? What’s this then: ‘Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in the midst of you and sons shall eat their fathers… I will send famine and wild beasts against you and they shall rob you of your children; pestilence and blood shall pass through you; and I will bring a sword upon you. I, the Lord, have spoken…’ man, that God bastard is twisted. Um… ooooohhhhh, Sodom and Gomorrah – that was a scream. Yes… yes… I shall recreate Sodom and Gomorrah… but with more rainbows and a lot more dancing and I’ll only go for a certain amount of people because last time it got just a tiny bit out of hand… this is the way – nobody will ever know… until they let the homos marry and then it’ll be Noah’s ark all over again… mwuahahahaha….”
Sounds like a pretty shit devil to me.
Incidentally, having just started to read the bible again, cover to cover, I’ve discovered that there was no mention whatsoever of homosexuality in either Sodom or Gomorrah. That was written later on many thousands of years after the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah had already been told, sans bum sex.
I have also discovered that the devil doesn’t exist in Genesis, which is when Sodom and Gomorrah was smitten by God for wicked deeds. The devil is a fallen angel and came later in the bible. Should you choose to ignore the fact that the original story of S&G has no mention of anal sex, you should note that the devil could not possibly have possessed the Sodomites – he just didn’t exist in the book at that point. The angel had not fallen.
IS IT THE ANAL SEX THING WITH MALE GAY COUPLES AND THE FACT THAT FEMALE GAY COUPLES HAVE NO PENIS?
We’re talking about marriage here. For a start, I’ve been told by married couples over and over again that they no longer have sex. If you want gay people to have less sex, marriage is probably a good starting point.
Anal sex. I have been in straight relationships where the men not only wanted anal sex, but liked me to reciprocate. With digits and toys and all manner of objects. I don’t think for a second that these exes of mine are the only men in the world who enjoy a bit of arse action. I also know full well that women can also enjoy some anal attention from time to time. What does it matter whether it’s two men, two women or a man and a woman?
No penis. Believe me when I say that a woman may not have a willy, but two women can still v.much have sex. The things a woman can do to sexually satisfy another are abundant.
People should be allowed to do whatever they like with their bodies as long as it’s wholly consensual all round.
IS IT BECAUSE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICAL MECHANICS OF THE THING?
Then you would have to deny marriage to all people who like to have sex in any other way than the missionary position. I doubt for a second that you know the ins and outs of the sex lives of all your friends, so to speak. A friend of mine likes to have his balls stamped on with stiletto heels, for example. I really don’t understand the mechanics of that, or why it gets him off, but they’re his bollocks and he should be able to do what he damn well pleases with them. Would you condemn him also, given that the stiletto wearer in question is female, thus making this a straight relationship of sorts?
You don’t have to understand the mechanics of it, because you’re not being asked to be a part of that relationship. Do you imagine your straight friends having sex? Probably not. Then why would you imagine a gay couple having sex?
You may not understand the love between two men or two women, but then how much of any relationship other than your own do you understand?
IS IT BECAUSE IT LOOKS DIFFERENT OR WORKS ANOTHER WAY?
Then you would have to deny marriage to the disabled. And interracial couples. Oh, and the ugly, which would be nigh on impossible because if someone wanted to marry someone else, they obviously wouldn’t consider them to be ugly. As I’ve said before, somebody married Nick Griffin, which I don’t understand; the man’s a repulsive slime-ball with the opinions of a soaringly dim-witted warthog on dope, but his wife clearly loves him. And what about really short men marrying really tall women? Doesn’t fit into the societal vision of a perfect coupling – would you deny these people marriage on the basis that it didn’t look “quite right” in your head?
IS IT THE FEAR THAT HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE COULD LEAD TO BESTIALITY, PAEDOPHILIA OR POLYGAMY?
Polygamy. Well, actually, I don’t have any problem with polygamy between three or more consenting adults, if that’s what makes them happy – who am I to judge? Who are you to?
Paedophiles are people with mental issues. Children are physically sexually undeveloped and are not emotionally mature enough for sexual intercourse – that’s the problem. Some paedophiles like the innocence; some like to make children do things because they don’t understand and because it’s a forced act. It can be about control. It can be about doing something that they know is wrong. It can be about the power trip. It can be because the paedophile him/herself was abused as a child. Paedophilia can be about many things. It can even just be a quirk of sexuality. Our laws are put in place to protect our children from physical and mental illness that could, and probably would, be caused by being abused as a child. There is nothing abusive about sex between two consenting men or women.
Bestiality. A person may claim to be in love with a horse, but I don’t think that they should be allowed to marry it… because it’s a fucking horse. Homosexuals are human beings. The horse may even bloody well love a person back, but it cannot convey that information in any intelligible way and so the marriage would not be between two consenting adults. Nobody is going to pass a law endorsing bestiality, the same way that nobody is going to pass a law endorsing paedophilia. Those laws are in place to protect animals and children, and they do more good than harm. In case you hadn’t noticed, it is no longer illegal to be gay – that’s because a gay couple has as much right to be considered a unit as any other couple.
IS IT BECAUSE THOSE GAY MARRIEDS MAY WELL ADOPT A CHILD?
A household that doesn’t have contact with members of the opposite sex is probably not the optimum environment for any child, but that household would also have to be in the middle of fucking nowhere for that to happen. But even if there were a gay couple which lived in a hovel on the furthest reaches of the world away from any outside contact, surely an orphaned child would be better with any parents than none – and whose right is it to say that those homosexuals wouldn’t make damn good parents? Any child trapped in a domestic unit that never saw another living soul would be in severe danger of winding up a bit peculiar, but that would have nothing to do with the sexuality of the adoptive couple.
Let’s consider this scenario for a moment: a straight married couple have eight female children. The man of the house has barely been home for most of these children’s childhoods because he works abroad a lot, and then he tragically dies, leaving nine females to rub along together. The mother never remarries. Would you say that that mother was unfit to call herself thus because she had no male figure in the home? Women are allowed to inseminate themselves even if they are single, thus creating a single parent family – are you outraged by this too?
IS IT BECAUSE YOU FEEL IT IS A THREAT TO THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE?
Um… what the fuck are you on? I may well be a threat to marriage because I don’t want it. People who want to marry are not a threat to marriage because they want to get married. Look, I done some right good thinking there! Try it some time.
ARE YOU UNDER THE ILLUSION THAT HOMOSEXUALITY DOESN’T OCCUR IN ANIMALS?
Then you need to get your facts straight. It does take place in the animal kingdom. Often. Start with giraffes.
ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT EVERYONE SUDDENLY REALISING THAT THEY’RE GAY IF IT’S SOCIALLY ACCEPTED, THUS ENDING PROCREATION?
Then you’re probably gay.
Think about it. It is already “ok” to be gay… thankfully. Does the idea of it being “more ok” make you feel gay? If the answer is “yes,” then you are definitely gay. If the answer is “no,” are you now suggesting that you would be the only straight person in a world of gays? Do you realise how stupid that sounds? Anyway, if everyone realised that they were gay that would make it the “norm” and you would be the minority, so presumably you would then deem it acceptable for them to treat you like a second class citizen, because that’s what you did when it was the other way around.
And I’m pretty sure we know how to make the babies without having the sex, so it wouldn’t end civilisation at all.
IS IT BECAUSE IT WILL CHANGE SOCIETY AS WE KNOW IT?
Well, yes, it will. It will mean that gay couples can marry. We cannot have a civilised society without change, otherwise women would never have got the vote, black people could still be enslaved, we’d still have capital punishment and the poor would still work in poorhouses.
ARE YOU BOTHERED THAT MY FRIEND LISA MARRIED MY FRIEND TIM?
Then why the fuck would you be bothered that my friend Jessica married my friend Stephanie? It has absolutely no bearing on your existence.
The simple fact of the matter is that a man can be sexually attracted to another and can love him; a woman can be in love with another woman and they can share a v.fulfilling sex life. I may not like the fact that we celebrate love in this country with marriage, secular or religious, but everyone else seems to. If two people love each other, then why should they not be allowed to marry?
Get a clue. The world is changing. There are no more gay people than there were before; there is merely more acceptance and a less repression. We are becoming more open to different ways of living and that means that we’re all freer to do our own thing. Forcing one way of living will only make the world an unhappier place. And if people want to get married, just bloody well let them. It’s none of your business!
IS IT BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS IT’S WRONG?
The bible says it’s also wrong for women to speak in church… so how the fuck anyone’s supposed to even have a straight Christian wedding, I do not know.
The bible also says that it is wrong to eat shellfish. And pig meat.
The bible also says that it’s wrong for women to wear trousers.
The bible also says that it’s wrong to wear jewellery.
The bible also says that if a woman’s husband is arguing with another man and the woman intervenes by grabbing the other man’s balls, he has every right to cut her hand off.
The bible also says it’s ok for a man to beat his maid as long as he doesn’t kill her.
The bible also says that if a group of children call someone with no hair “baldhead” then two she-bears will come out of the woods and kill forty of the fuckers (children, not baldheads – although, I presume this only happens if the baldheadded one is male given the point below).
The bible also says that women should have long, abundant hair and that for a woman to shave her head is wrong. It also says that men shouldn’t have long hair.
I want to stop, but I can’t. This is precious!
The bible also says that giants existed.
The bible also says that sex before marriage is wrong.
The bible also says that men with genital injuries can’t go into churches. So I hope those post-testicular cancer Christians weren’t thinking of going to church now!
The bible also says it’s wrong to work on the Sabbath. In fact, if you are ever caught working on a Sunday, the bible suggests stoning to death as a suitable punishment.
The bible also says it’s wrong to get remarried after divorce.
The bible also says that a man rules over his wife’s body, for it is not her own.
The bible also says that it’s wrong for a woman to be a teacher.
The bible also says that any faeces on the ground should be covered up because God likes to have a midnight stroll from time to time, and he doesn’t want to step in poo.
The bible also says that heaven is in the sky and that some people tried to build a tower to reach it once… honestly, they did, right.
The bible also said that someone built a massive boat, there was a flood and all the animals survived because the man who built the boat took two of each with him. Hm…
The bible also… hahahahaha… the bible also says that one may not wear a cotton and polyester blend. That sounds like one homosexual-friendly God to me.
The bible says that if a woman gives birth to a daughter, she will be unclean for sixty six days.
The bible prohibits tattoos.
The bible prohibits piercings.
The bible says that you should throw your babies around to discipline them… you know – dash them against some stones.
And if you’re disabled – forget praying. That’s right out. Well, you’re blemished, aren’t you?
The bible says that if a man so much as fancies a woman who isn’t his wife, then he has committed adultery.
If you have looked at another woman and thought: “I fancy a bit of that” then you should probably cut your eye out because it has sinned against you (no idea why you just need to cut one out, but it’s what the bible says and who is anyone to question such teachings?)
The bible also forbids men to come into contact with women while they’re on their periods.
Black pudding is evil. Consumption of blood is a sin… even the blood that you get in any meat that you might eat, which would make eating meat a bit difficult, really.
The bible also forbids interracial marriage.
The bible says that bastards cannot enter a church.
The bible says that heaven is in the sky and that the stars are lights – you know, as in: “Turn t’ big light off!”
The bible says that not only do witches exist, but that they should be punished.
There’s definitely the avocation of the eating of human dung and the drinking of human piss, but I’ve been unable to find the context of this – I’m not that far into the book yet and I can’t remember from the last time I read it.
There is some mental suggestion that a woman nicked a man’s gold jewellery and made a dildo with it.
Incidentally, the bible endorses polygamy, adultery, incest and paedophilia quite early on.
And if you don’t believe me, you can Google that shit.
The bible is a minefield of bullshit. You cannot use “because the bible says it’s wrong” as an argument against something as modern and forward-thinking as gay marriage. The Old Testament is laughable – one argument is that it’s an outdated way of thinking and that the religion has adapted to the times with the New Testament. Has it? Adapted to suit the society in which we live, you say? One form of belief… adapted to suit… yes… and it should continue to adapt as society changes. When new laws are passed, for instance!
Who is to say how anyone should live if it doesn’t harm anyone else? Here’s an idea: consider a world that doesn’t revolve around you!
* I did once read the bible from cover to cover because I wanted to know what I was up against in anti-religious arguments, but I was v.young (I think I was about 14) and it was exceptionally dull to me then. I’ve just started to read it again, and am actually enjoying it immensely, but already I have questions:
1. Where did Cain’s wife come from?
2. Where did the giants come from and where did they go?
To name just two.