England and Wales Gets Marriage Equality


Marriage equality has come to the UK, led largely by the Conservative Party and Prime Minister David Cameron. The first same-sex marriages took place just the other day after the law recognizing those unions became official and several couples were married immediately.

David Cameron has hailed the first same-sex marriages in England and Wales as sending a “powerful message” about equality in Britain.

The law changed at midnight, with a number of gay couples vying to claim the title of being the first to be married in Britain by trying to time it perfectly so their vows were said just seconds after the clock struck midnight.

The prime minister said the reform was necessary because “when people’s love is divided by law, it is that law that needs to change”.

Writing in Pink News he said “this weekend is an important moment” because “we will at last have equal marriage in our country”.

Cameron, who has faced opposition from some in the Conservative party about his backing for the change, said: “This is something that has been very important to me…

“The introduction of same-sex civil marriage says something about the sort of country we are.

“It says we are a country that will continue to honour its proud traditions of respect, tolerance and equal worth. It also sends a powerful message to young people growing up who are uncertain about their sexuality.

“It clearly says ‘you are equal’ whether straight or gay. That is so important in trying to create an environment where people are no longer bullied because of their sexuality – and where they can realise their potential, whether as a great mathematician like Alan Turing, a star of stage and screen like Sir Ian McKellen or a wonderful journalist and presenter like Clare Balding.”

Of course, all straight marriages in the UK have now lost their sanctity and dogs and cats will begin cohabitating as a result.

Comments

  1. Nentuaby says

    Sadly, I can’t really get behind calling the bill in England* “equal marriage.” It contains a couple of big ol’ screw-yous to trans people. Sarah Brown breaks it down pretty bluntly here: http://www.sarahlizzy.com/blog/?p=139

    * Not sure if it’s the same one in Wales; it’s NOT the same as the Scottish equal marriage law, which actually does deserve the name.

  2. eric says

    Is Scotland absent because they’ve already legalized it? Because they are resisting it? Or are they doing the same thing in parallel and it just didn’t make the news?

  3. says

    @#3: Scotland already passed SSM a little while ago, so that’s probably why it’s not in this article. England and Wales in this case is a singular entity “England and Wales” (hence Ed’s use of “gets” in the headline, I assume) due to weirdness with the UK government and levels of autonomy it gives to its different countries, so “England and Wales,” Scotland, and N. Ireland have some slight differences in their laws and how they pass and administer them.

    IIRC, although Scotland passed SSM first, same sex couples can marry in England and Wales before they can in Scotland, due to the wording of the respective laws.

  4. dhall says

    #4: It’s not really “weirdness with the UK government.” It’s the results of different processes. Wales was annexed by the kingdom of England in the late medieval period and disappeared as a separate political entity, and Northern Ireland is also the product of conquest by England. However, Scotland is an entirely different story. Scotland and England voluntarily merged their governments in 1707, to become the United Kingdom, after they shared Stuart monarchs for about a century (with a break during the time of the Commonwealth). Technically, Scotland is not subordinate to England, although in many practical matters, it has been, which has been a source of friction off and on since then. But Scotland has had its own Parliament for quite awhile once again. It’s still part of the UK, but it is not part of England, unlike Wales. Hope that explains the differences.

  5. JasonTD says

    There those Brits go again, not understanding how to correctly use the English language. How dare those that sign on to the homosexual agenda call themselves “Conservative”?!!?!

  6. marcus says

    @ # 2 Not sure if it’s the same one in Wales; it’s NOT the same as the Scottish equal marriage law, which actually does deserve the name.”
    So, if it’s not Scottish… it’s CR-R-RAP!!!

  7. zmidponk says

    dhall:

    Scotland is an entirely different story. Scotland and England voluntarily merged their governments in 1707, to become the United Kingdom, after they shared Stuart monarchs for about a century (with a break during the time of the Commonwealth). Technically, Scotland is not subordinate to England, although in many practical matters, it has been, which has been a source of friction off and on since then.

    Yep, to such a degree that the establishment of the separate Scottish Parliament was an attempt to give some autonomy to Scotland in order to prevent them leaving the UK entirely. This wasn’t entirely successful, as can be seen by the fact that the Scottish Government is holding a referendum this September on full independence, and, going by opinion polls, although the campaign in favour of independence are still behind, they’ve narrowed the gap quite significantly, so it’s now a 39%-46% split (from a 32%-52% split a year ago).

  8. coryat says

    There are always tensions. Wales has the Welsh Assembly Government in Cardiff as part of devolution. Growing up, I noticed there were plenty of people grousing about England but never any real desire to break away. I hope that the Scots feel the same way. I can’t believe that they’ll destroy their economy, have to create their own currency and re-apply to join the EU as well as trash our beautiful United Kingdom for the braveheart fantasies of zealots like Alex Salmond.

  9. fmitchell says

    American conservatives will argue that England and the rest of Europe fell to Sharia and Mooslim domination ages ago, so same-sex marriage is no big deal there. (Whoops, missed the scare quotes.) Same-sex marriage (forgot the scare quotes again) in ‘Merica is differnt. ‘Merica is always differnt. ‘Merica is exceptional, doncha know. We’re Number One! (Except in health care, education, and income equality … but hey, we’ve got the highest GDP, military spending, and prison population per capita! Well, I’m not sure about the GDP.)

  10. dingojack says

    According to the World Bank:
    GDP [United States/China; China as percentage of USA]
    2009 14,417,900,000,000 / 4,991,256,406,735; 34.6185%
    2010 14,958,300,000,000 / 5,930,529,470,799; 39.6471%
    2011 15,533,800,000,000 / 7,321,935,025,070; 47.1355%
    2012 16,244,600,000,000 / 8,227,102,629,831; 50.6452%
    Dingo

  11. dingojack says

    IF China can keep up this rate of growth* by 2020/2021 the Chinese GDP will exceed that of the USA.
    Dingo
    ——–
    * and that’s a mighty big IF, personally I doubt it, as much of this growth is apparently due to debt-fuelled infrastructure spending, rather that consumption

  12. jonathangray says

    Of course, all straight marriages in the UK have now lost their sanctity

    The point is not that marriages will be in any way affected by this law but that society will be affected by the new paradigm of marriage the law attempts to enshrine. (The Christian position, of course, is not that same-sex marriage should be prohibited but that it is impossible.)

    and dogs and cats will begin cohabitating as a result.

    How about human-animal marriage?

  13. dhall says

    zmidponk #8: I understand what you mean. Seems a bit daft from most perspectives, but I’d hate to try to predict either the outcome of the referendum, or the consequences of either result.

  14. says

    @13:

    Well, you’re wife is already in one…wait a minute, I misread that. I thought you typed “human-asshole marriage” and I’m sure that your wife is/would be a wonderful human being, asshole.

  15. AsqJames says

    @jonathangray,

    This change in the law was only made possible by changes which had already taken place in society, but I certainly hope society is affected in turn. Just as every other legal change to the marriage laws (or their application) was prompted by changes in society and each in turn prompted further changes.

    One might, for example, point to the Marriage Acts of 1753 and 1836, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857, the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860, the Married Women’s Property Acts of 1870, 1882 and 1893, the Ages of Marriage Act 1929, the Marriage Act 1949, the Divorce Reform Act 1969, the 1991 decision of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in the case of R v R and the Civil Partnership Act 2004.

    Each and every one of them a recognition that the law was out of step with society and needed bringing up to date. Each and every one of them helped solidify and widen acceptance of the societal changes which prompted it. And each and every one of those societal changes were good.

  16. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    England and Wales Gets Marriage Equality

    World goes on much as before except a lot more people are that bit happier and more secure. Marvellous news.

    How much longer can it be before the rest of the world, the USA (some slower states) and my land of Oz follow suit now? Time the homophobic holdouts against equal marriage caught up.

  17. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    There those Brits go again, not understanding how to correctly use the English language. How dare those that sign on to the homosexual agenda call themselves “Conservative”?!!?!

    Yeah, seriously. At the very least it needs a silent “u” somewhere.

  18. matty1 says

    @13

    The Christian position, of course, is not that same-sex marriage should be prohibited but that it is impossible

    I can almost accept this if you mean. “Whatever the law says God will not use the word marriage to describe those relationships and neither will I”. That’s fair enough provided you accept that the law of the land disagrees with your god and does grant people in same-sex marriages the same legal rights as those in what you consider real marriages. In a similar way I’ve been known to refer to the Queen as Ms Windsor to make the point I believe Britain should have an elected head of state but I know this doesn’t affect what powers she has under the law.

    Incidentally you are wrong that this is the Christian position, as Ed has written many times there are as many Christianities as there are self described Christians and many of them are fine with ssm. Unless you can prove some kind of copyright claim in court you don’t get to tell those people they can’t use the name.

  19. anubisprime says

    jonathangray @ 13

    Of course, all straight marriages in the UK have now lost their sanctity

    Explain how straight marriages are in any way affected?..you ‘Of course’ will have no problems in a cogent response!

    How about human-animal marriage?

    How about you growing up a tad and debating the point with intelligence…or is that beyond your capability?

    It ir getting really tired and demeaning countering such dumbfuck self invented ‘Christian’ issues

  20. matty1 says

    I must say it is good to see Jonathan Gray out on the most appropriate day of the year.

  21. eric says

    nkrishna @4 (and others) – thanks for the clarification on Scotland.

    Jonathan gray @13;

    “The point is not that marriages will be in any way affected by this law but that society will be affected by the new paradigm of marriage the law attempts to enshrine.”

    What effects do you predict socety will undergo? Keep in mind there are about fifteen countries that have had it before this, some for over ten years.

    How about human-animal marriage?

    Do you not understand the role of informed consent in sexual relations?

  22. matty1 says

    Do you not understand the role of informed consent in sexual relations?

    The short answer is no he doesn’t.

    A longer answer might be that Jonathan looks at sexual relationships, in fact all human activity from a rule based perspective. You either follow the rules, all of them, or you reject them all and the fact that you appear to be complying with some is just coincidence. From this perspective informed consent is just another rule for human relationships as arbitrary as the one against same sex couples and once you let one rule go you are saying none of them matter.

  23. Red-Green in Blue says

    @jonathangray:

    The point is not that marriages will be in any way affected by this law but that society will be affected by the new paradigm of marriage the law attempts to enshrine.

    But existing opposite-sex marriages will be affected. By endorsing marriages between people who cannot conceive children together (though the day when biotechnology could solve this problem is not far off), the State is clearly indicating that marriage is not primarily about procreation, but about committed, loving relationships. Soon, even heterosexual couples will come under societal pressure to not get married unless they love each other. My wife and I were talking the other night, and we came to realise that soon we will have to do this regularly or risk being ostracised. It’s awful.

  24. jonathangray says

    matty1@21:

    I can almost accept this if you mean. “Whatever the law says God will not use the word marriage to describe those relationships and neither will I”. That’s fair enough provided you accept that the law of the land disagrees with your god and does grant people in same-sex marriages the same legal rights as those in what you consider real marriages. In a similar way I’ve been known to refer to the Queen as Ms Windsor to make the point I believe Britain should have an elected head of state but I know this doesn’t affect what powers she has under the law.

    Yes, that’s what I mean. I would add that I regard attempts by Christians to lobby for changes in the law are likely to be futile and counterproductive in a pagan society, serving only to provoke baffled hostility. Christian law is only going to be effective in a Christian culture.

    Do you also accept that Christians have the right to publicly denounce certain societal trends and should not be coerced into facilitating them?

    Incidentally you are wrong that this is the Christian position, as Ed has written many times there are as many Christianities as there are self described Christians and many of them are fine with ssm. Unless you can prove some kind of copyright claim in court you don’t get to tell those people they can’t use the name.

    I’m a self-described social justice activist, fervently believing as I do in inequality and that justice entails treating the unequal unequally.

    anubisprime@22:

    Of course, all straight marriages in the UK have now lost their sanctity

    Explain how straight marriages are in any way affected?..you ‘Of course’ will have no problems in a cogent response!

    The words you quote aren’t mine; they’re Ed’s from the OP. (He was being sarcastic.)

    How about human-animal marriage?

    How about you growing up a tad and debating the point with intelligence…or is that beyond your capability?

    It ir getting really tired and demeaning countering such dumbfuck self invented ‘Christian’ issues

    If I were to wake up in, say, 1973 and seek out someone of the time with impeccable radical-progressive opinions and tell him that in the Year of Our Lord 2014:

    – Same-sex marriage would be enshrined in law
    – White ethnic Britons would constitute a minority of the population of London
    – A US college would allow a grown man with functioning genitalia to use the girls’ changing room on the grounds that he’s a ‘trans woman’ who chooses not to have gender reassignment surgery
    – The most popular boys’ name in the UK would be Mohammed
    – A respected moral philosopher, whose books are set texts on academic courses, would publicly advocate infanticide with no adverse professional consequences

    — he would stare at me as if I had two heads and angrily accuse me of irresponsible scaremongering and paranoid slippery-sloping.

    “Cthulhu always swims left.”

    eric@25:

    “The point is not that marriages will be in any way affected by this law but that society will be affected by the new paradigm of marriage the law attempts to enshrine.”

    What effects do you predict socety will undergo? Keep in mind there are about fifteen countries that have had it before this, some for over ten years.

    I imagine the social effects will be the further normalisation of homosexuality and further decoupling of marriage from procreation.

    How about human-animal marriage?

    Do you not understand the role of informed consent in sexual relations?

    Anyone who’s ever owned a cat or dog is well aware that they are perfectly capable of expressing consent or refusal at a pretty sensitive level of communication, in addition to unambiguous expressions of sensual pleasure. In any case, why should consent matter in this case? We don’t seek animals’ consent when we kill and eat them.

    What about marriage between adult human siblings? Or between a parent and his or her adult child?

    Chiroptera@26:

    (The Christian position, of course, is not that same-sex marriage should be prohibited but that it is impossible.)

    And yet it happened.

    “A handful of senators don’t pass legislation …”

    Red-Green in Blue@28:

    But existing opposite-sex marriages will be affected. By endorsing marriages between people who cannot conceive children together (though the day when biotechnology could solve this problem is not far off), the State is clearly indicating that marriage is not primarily about procreation, but about committed, loving relationships. Soon, even heterosexual couples will come under societal pressure to not get married unless they love each other. My wife and I were talking the other night, and we came to realise that soon we will have to do this regularly or risk being ostracised. It’s awful.

    – Human life is essentially social; man requires a social context in which to flourish.

    – To a certain extent social life requires individuals sacrifice immediate personal gratification for the greater good. Sometimes these sacrifices are particularly onerous – for example in wartime.

    – For this reason, society has a legitimate interest in curbing hedonistic excesses: a widespread obsession with personal gratification imperils the culture of communal self-sacrifice necessary to keep society afloat.

    – Sex brings this tension between gratification and sacrifice into particularly sharp relief: sex is intensely pleasurable yet its consequences – children – demand considerable sacrifices on the part of individuals.

    – Modern man thinks he has resolved this dilemma through contraceptive technology; contraception removes the burdonsome consequences of sex, allowing its pleasurable aspects to be freely indulged.

    – Those who hold the traditional position point out that this “uncoupling” removes a desirable check on socially corrosive hedonism. (The same obviously applies a fortiori to homosexual relations.)

    – Moreover, society has a legitimate interest in privileging the procreative aspect of sex; it supplies the next generation of the community.

    (Regarding the latter point, it is generally acknowledged that Europe is currently facing a major demographic crisis: not enough babies are being born. And while Europeans are busy aborting and contracepting themselves out of existence, governments are busy importing unassimilable immigrants in an attempt to plug the resulting gap in revenue needed to support an ageing population. A decivilising ratchet.)

    marcus@29:

    Yes, civilization as we know it is certainly doomed.
    DOOOOOOMED I SAY!!111!!!11!

    What civilisation?

  25. Owlmirror says

    (The Christian position, of course, is not that same-sex marriage should be prohibited but that it is impossible.)

    “…with God all things are possible.” — Some Jewish rabble rouser who lived a long time ago and who I’m sure you don’t believe ever said anything important.

    It occurs to me that same-sex marriage is actually better supported under Catholicism than under any other Christian sect. A priest marries the Church (i.e., an organization made up entirely of men) when ordained, so that’s not just homosexual marriage, but homosexual polyandry. Jesus is invited to the carnal union of man and wife, making even a standard marriage a polyandrous institution.

    And even the Trinity itself can be seen as an incestuous homosexual polygamous union.

    How about human-animal marriage?

    The Incarnation proves that God approves of the higher mating with the lower. Whether this extends to the case you suggest is an exercise left to theololgians.

    Say, where did Cain get his wife from?

    Do you also accept that Christians have the right to publicly denounce certain societal trends and should not be coerced into facilitating them?

    Yes, Christians do have the right to be assholes.

    I’m a self-described social justice activist, fervently believing as I do in inequality and that justice entails treating the unequal unequally.

    Since same-sex equals same-sex, you should be supporting same-sex marriage as being necessarily just.

    If I were to wake up in, say, 1973 and seek out someone of the time with impeccable radical-progressive opinions and tell him that in the Year of Our Lord 2014:
    […]
    – White ethnic Britons would constitute a minority of the population of London

    Tch. Racism is so unsurprisingly petty of you.

    The most popular boys’ name in the UK would be Mohammed

    Why are you lying to your putative interlocutor?

    A respected moral philosopher, whose books are set texts on academic courses, would publicly advocate infanticide with no adverse professional consequences

    Do you mean Moses, here, or God himself?

    What about marriage between adult human siblings?

    Note that the original putative marriage, “and they shall be two in one flesh”, was a man marrying his own reverse-sex clone sibling.

    Where did Seth, and Enos, and all the rest get their wives from?

    Or between a parent and his or her adult child?

    The Incarnation also proves that God approves of parental incest.

  26. anubisprime says

    jonathangray @ 30

    I would add that I regard attempts by Christians to lobby for changes in the law are likely to be futile and counterproductive in a pagan society, serving only to provoke baffled hostility.

    This ‘Pagan’ society…is it a time related phenomenon or are you accusing the UK as being ‘Pagan’ ?

    If that is the case then the Lords Temporal in the HOL would be intrigued by your claim seeing as their prime excuse for being there in is because they represent a Christian land!

    Christian law is only going to be effective in a Christian culture.

    Christians do not make the law. although they might well have an influence on their clones that do so.

    ‘Christian law’ do you allude to Canon law?…because under the articles of parliament Juris prudence as practised in the UK has the ascendancy over Canon law that can only rule on church or theological argument and certainly not the law of the land.

    Do you also accept that Christians have the right to publicly denounce certain societal trends and should not be coerced into facilitating them?

    They can denounce all they want, but the law of the land is the law, they have no standing to refuse to comply, they are after all citizens of that country and all citizens must comply with that countries laws, that is the basis of law.
    Bigotry, intolerance or even ignorance are not a recognized caveats in order not to do so…

    The words you quote aren’t mine; they’re Ed’s from the OP. (He was being sarcastic.)

    Yes but it seems you tend to support the notion that heterosexual marriage is in some way diminished.
    Which is your freedom to do so…but what exactly is diminished…there has never been a cogent argument put forward to address that claim.

    Besides you fail to mention your comment…

    How about human-animal marriage?

    This sort of rhetoric might hold in awe and scandalize the brain dead…but the premise is not an impressive analogy nor it it, or ever will be, a valid one.

    If I were to wake up in, say, 1973 and seek out someone of the time with impeccable radical-progressive opinions and tell him that in the Year of Our Lord 2014:………*– he would stare at me as if I had two heads and angrily accuse me of irresponsible scaremongering and paranoid slippery-sloping.

    Yes maybe social equality has moved on and so? it is what society does as techniques and engineering advances it is inevitable and it is how humanity develops to encompass the ever changing and advancing world…not everyone on the planet wants to maintain a 1973 society.
    When Orville and Wilbur seemingly defied gravity was that envisaged as a possibility a decade before?…or even a year before?
    Maybe folks with a phobia of flying would demand that the world reverts to pre-1903 state of being.

    When Fleming discovered Penicillin was that a slippery slope?
    When Einstein wrote E= mc^2 was that a backward step for civilization?
    When Galileo wrote the ‘Dialogue…’ was that a regressive action?
    Armstrong took a small step and advanced humanity by bounds, which are still being realised and built on but by your reckoning we are all doomed to be pleased we can get to the next village in hours and not days!

    None of those were seriously considered possible before they happened…but they were and they are….did they in anyway harm society?

    Your point is a fatuous and ridiculous argument and ultimately reverting to a previous time it is the item at the top of a theological wish list ..if only hey?

    I imagine the social effects will be the further normalisation of homosexuality

    I imagine you seem to regard homosexuality as a lesser state of being…should people be prevented by the law or more draconian steps to not be with the one they love?
    And who the fuck are you to demand that of anybody…and what is more what has it to actually do with you?

    and further decoupling of marriage from procreation.

    Based on what evidence?…You do realise of course that Regnerus has been fully debunked…did you get that memo?

    So how on this planet do you equate human-animal marriage, which has never been a feature of human animal relations in thousands of years of domestication with human adult marriage now…absolutely barking mad…to borrow the idiom!

    What about marriage between adult human siblings?

    Incest is not encouraged not because it is unnatural per se, happened in pre-history as a matter of course in some societies, but that the genetic problems it can raise is detrimental to the individual conceived and debatably society in general.

    Or between a parent and his or her adult child?

    Same reason…

    “A handful of senators don’t pass legislation …”

    And yet it still happened.

    it is generally acknowledged that Europe is currently facing a major demographic crisis: not enough babies are being born.

    In financial difficulties, especially if it is a global meltdown, birth rates decline, the same phenomena occurred in the great depression…some people think ahead…
    Birthrate is declining everywhere…including the USA, and has been since 2008, which coincidently gave first warnings of a possible large scale problem, although the banks ignored it a lot of other folks did not.

    And while Europeans are busy aborting and contracepting themselves out of existence, governments are busy importing unassimilable immigrants in an attempt to plug the resulting gap in revenue needed to support an ageing population. A decivilising ratchet.

    Immigration into Europe, especially employment based has always been so, although now the applicant has to be in possession of certain skills applicable to the employment market…it is not a free for all. but one thing is for certain it has absolutely nothing to do with ‘aborting and contracepting themselves out of existence’…which is a rather bitter little insult to literally thousands of people for reasons you have not one clue about….but more succinctly it is just utter ignorant ego based dogmatic bullshite!

    What civilisation?

    The civilisation that the majority of reasonable folk wish to be part of but less so for the loony tune kooks lobbing fistfuls of dung at it because their demands and special privileges are not catered for when the civilisation is based on sanity and a lot less on the sexual inadequacies of old men and their fairy stories.

  27. jonathangray says

    [Owlmirror]

    ( ̄‿ ̄)y~~

    “…with God all things are possible.”

    “With God” being the operative qualifier. (“…Without me you can do nothing.”)

    — Some Jewish rabble rouser who lived a long time ago

    Interesting that you should feel the need to specify “Jewish”. They do seem to exert a world-historical influence out of all proportion to their numbers.

    … under Catholicism than under any other Christian sect.

    As Lenny Bruce (a Jewish rabble rouser who lived a long time ago) is alleged to have said: “The Catholic Church is the church people mean when they say ‘the Church’”

    A priest marries the Church … when ordained

    Nuns are said to be brides of Christ but I’ve never heard of a priest “marrying the Church”. It makes sense, though — after all, a priest is an alter Christus and the Church is also the Bride of Christ.

    (Of course, a priest is also a son of Holy Mother Church, which means … crikes!)

    the Church (i.e., an organization made up entirely of men)

    You appear to have missed the distinction between “Church” and “ordained priesthood”. That’s forgivable — as the late, great Peter Cook put it, “it could confuse a stupid person”.

    And even the Trinity itself can be seen as an incestuous homosexual polygamous union.

    Sure. And sodomy “can be seen” as a demonic deposition of human seed in anal filth.

    The Incarnation proves that God approves of the higher mating with the lower.

    Whaddya think the ‘V’ in BVM stands for, numbnuts?

    Yes, Christians do have the right to be assholes.

    First they came for the bigots

  28. jonathangray says

    [cont.]

    Racism is so unsurprisingly petty of you.

    If I thought “racism” here had any more semantic content than “great big poopy head”, I would essay a serious reply. As it is, here’s some singing ponies. (Trigger warning for pony racism.)

  29. jonathangray says

    @anubisprime:

    are you accusing the UK as being ‘Pagan’ ?

    In the loose sense of being non-Christian/Jewish/Mohammedan. (Real pagans can be wise.)

    If that is the case then the Lords Temporal in the HOL would be intrigued by your claim seeing as their prime excuse for being there in is because they represent a Christian land!

    Irrelevant, hollowed-out constitutional arrangements are not the best guide to a nation’s character.

    Christians do not make the law

    They do in a Christian country.

    They can denounce all they want, but the law of the land is the law, they have no standing to refuse to comply, they are after all citizens of that country and all citizens must comply with that countries laws, that is the basis of law.

    Would you say the same to a civil rights activist or draft-dodger in 1960s America?

  30. jonathangray says

    [cont.]

    Yes maybe social equality has moved on and so? it is what society does as techniques and engineering advances it is inevitable and it is how humanity develops to encompass the ever changing and advancing world…
    When Orville and Wilbur seemingly defied gravity was that envisaged as a possibility a decade before?…or even a year before?
Maybe folks with a phobia of flying would demand that the world reverts to pre-1903 state of being.
    When Fleming discovered Penicillin was that a slippery slope?
When Einstein wrote E= mc^2 was that a backward step for civilization?
When Galileo wrote the ‘Dialogue…’ was that a regressive action?
Armstrong took a small step and advanced humanity by bounds, which are still being realised and built on but by your reckoning we are all doomed to be pleased we can get to the next village in hours and not days!
    None of those were seriously considered possible before they happened…but they were and they are….did they in anyway harm society?

    I think you’re too quick to equate scientific/technological progress with moral progress. Barring a major civilisational upheaval, one can reasonably expect science and technology to ‘progress’ indefinitely, but what has that to do with ethics? You think a technologically advanced society can’t be morally squalid?

    (You also ignore the fact that scientific/technological advances can have negative consequences. Or are you a AGW denier?)

    So how on this planet do you equate human-animal marriage, which has never been a feature of human animal relations in thousands of years of domestication with human adult marriage now…absolutely barking mad…to borrow the idiom!

    See what you just did there? When I listed some radical social changes of which you approved, you retorted: “So what? There have been plenty of radical social changes which could never have been predicted, and they were beneficial. That’s progress!” Now when I float a hypothetical radical social change of which you apparently disapprove, you cry: “Impossible! Such a thing has never been seen before. Scaremonger! Slippery-sloper!”

    Well there have been sheep-shaggers and dog-botherers for as long as there have been homosexuals. Perfectly natural. Since consent isn’t an issue in such cases, on what grounds can you possibly deny these people their rights to live and love as they please? Is it in fact anything more than a visceral ‘ick factor’? How irrational. How bigoted.

    Remember, a progressive of 1973 would be condemned as a reactionary today, but he couldn’t have foreseen that. How can you be so sure you won’t find yourself in the same position 40 years from now? Hell, a couple of centuries ago, white European nationalism was considered a thoroughly progressive cause. That’s the problem with progressivism — how do you know when you’ve progressed far enough?

    Incest is not encouraged not because it is unnatural per se, happened in pre-history as a matter of course in some societies, but that the genetic problems it can raise is detrimental to the individual conceived and debatably society in general.

    What century are you living in? In case you didn’t get the memo, marriage no longer has any necessary connection with procreation. It’s all about love. And if an incestuous couple find companionship insufficient and choose to exercise MUH RIGHT to fuck, well there are ways and means of ensuring there are no dysgenic consequences. Contraception. Sterilisation. Abortion. No problem. (If they want to exercise MUH RIGHT to a child, there’s always adoption etc.)

    And of course the problem doesn’t even arise in the case of same-sex incestuous relationships. Surely you can’t object to that?

    “A handful of senators don’t pass legislation …”

    And yet it still happened.

    Ink on a page. Legislators could introduce a bill repealing the law of gravity tomorrow if they wished.

  31. jonathangray says

    [cont.]

    The civilisation that the majority of reasonable folk wish to be part of but less so for the loony tune kooks lobbing fistfuls of dung at it because their demands and special privileges are not catered for when the civilisation is based on sanity and a lot less on the sexual inadequacies of old men and their fairy stories.

    The past isn’t over yet

  32. Owlmirror says

    “With God” being the operative qualifier.

    Or in other words, opposing marriage equality is opposing the will of God.

    I’ve never heard of a priest “marrying the Church”.

    I understand that it can confuse a stupid person.

    (Of course, a priest is also a son of Holy Mother Church, which means … crikes!)

    *raises eyebrow*

    You appear to have missed the distinction between “Church” and “ordained priesthood”.

    So a priest marries an organization made up of many men and women? Polymorphous polysexual polygamy!

    And sodomy “can be seen” as a demonic deposition of human seed in anal filth.

    So Catholics should approve of and encourage condom use and enemas. A priest can bless the enema water, if they’re afraid of imaginary demons.

    Whaddya think the ‘V’ in BVM stands for

    Valedictorian? Vespertine?

    God — the Father — must have mated with Mary — the daughter — because Jesus was begotten.

    Say, did God marry Mary? If he didn’t, then he and she committed fornication, and Jesus was a bastard. If he did, then Mary committed bigamy and/or adultery when she married Joseph.

    Informed consent between two adult same-sex persons.

    Problem?

    “this is my body, which shall be delivered for you”

    Problem?

    If I thought “racism” here had any more semantic content than “great big poopy head”,

    So you’re not using “White ethnic Britons” to refer to a race?

    are you accusing the UK as being ‘Pagan’ ?

    In the loose sense of being non-Christian/Jewish/Mohammedan.

      “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.”

    I bet Humpty Dumpty was also Catholic.

    Well there have been sheep-shaggers and dog-botherers for as long as there have been homosexuals. Perfectly natural.

    And there have been assholes for as long as there have been Catholics. Perfectly natural.

  33. jonathangray says

    So the Catholic Church is an organisation whose priesthood is in a polysexual polygamous relationship with the laity and which venerates an incestuous gay threesome one of whose members was the bastard offspring of adulterous/bigamous fornication and became the victim in a consensual act of cannibalism periodically re-enacted by its members.

    No wonder liberals love it so much.

    So you’re not using “White ethnic Britons” to refer to a race?

    I would say white ethnic Britons are a people or close confederation of peoples. I would say a people is defined by those distinguishing features which they have in common — eg a shared language, shared history, shared culture, shared geographical location and, yes, shared physical appearance. (All due proportion kept.)

    Believing that such a people or confederation of peoples exists makes me a racist. Believing that these peoples have a right to continue in existence — to preserve themselves from extinction — makes me a super-racist. What does that make you — Anti-Racist Hitler?

    Well there have been sheep-shaggers and dog-botherers for as long as there have been homosexuals.

    And there have been assholes for as long as there have been Catholics.

    Poor phrasing on my part.

    “Sheep-shaggers and dog-botherers have been around as long as homosexuals have.”

    Better?

  34. Owlmirror says

    No wonder liberals love it so much.

    Is that what you’re calling yourself now? Like your self-described “social justice activist” label?

    Your justification of your racism is very amusingly typical of the kind of shit you have always thrown. . .

    “Racism is just a random insult! Well, maybe white ethnic Britons are kinda sorta like a race. . . Well, maybe thinking that white ethnic Britons are in danger of extinction because non-white and non-ethnic Britons happen to be in the same country as the white ethnic Britons is kinda racist… Hey, you know who else was against racism? Hitler!”

    The only thing missing is that some of your best friends are non-white or non-ethnic Britons. But perhaps you don’t have any.

    “Sheep-shaggers and dog-botherers have been around as long as homosexuals have.”

    Paranoid massacre-supporting religious bigots and bloodthirsty racial bigots have been around as long as Catholics have.

  35. jonathangray says

    Your justification of your racism is very amusingly typical of the kind of shit you have always thrown. . .

    “Racism is just a random insult! Well, maybe white ethnic Britons are kinda sorta like a race. . .

    I prefer the word “people” because it’s less chillingly abstract. Whatever you call it, you presumably accept that “white ethnic Britons” corresponds to a reality — or is it “racist” (in whatever pejorative snarl-word sense you give that word) to believe that peoples really exist?

    Well, maybe thinking that white ethnic Britons are in danger of extinction because non-white and non-ethnic Britons happen to be in the same country as the white ethnic Britons is kinda racist…

    I concede “extinction” was a mite hyperbolic. I don’t believe it is hyperbolic to speak of severe cultural dislocation resulting from immigration of unprecedented size and scale, exacerbated by some immigrants’ aggressive refusal to assimilate and white elites’ cringing ethnomasochism. Not extinction then, but quite possibly balkanisation. I object to this not only on account of its inherent injustice (after all, it’s not as if anyone was actually asked if they wanted the blessings of diversity) but because a likely consequence is a race war — something this ”bloodthirsty racial bigot” is keen to avoid, although I fear it may be too late.

    Incidentally, it’s curious that Leftoids never accuse, say, indigenous Africans or Chinese of exhibiting an unacceptable degree of black or yellow privilege. No-one suggests Africa or China would benefit from a healthy dose of multiculturalism and demands they open their borders accordingly.

    You say my fears are ”paranoid” — I call it science.

  36. jonathangray says

    Hey, you know who else was against racism? Hitler!”

    Hitler was, by all accounts, a fanatical racist. The point of that intermittently amusing skit was that fanatical racism and fanatical ‘anti-racism’ could tend towards the same end — the dispossession and displacement of a ‘race’.

    Equestria erwache!

    The only thing missing is that some of your best friends are non-white or non-ethnic Britons. But perhaps you don’t have any.

    Not only do I count non-white or non-ethnic Britons among my friends, I would class myself as such, or almost. At any rate, most WNs would balk at classing me as white, and who am I to argue? Nevertheless, some of my best friends are white ethnic Britons.

  37. jonathangray says

    No wonder liberals love it so much.

    Is that what you’re calling yourself now?

    As a liberal, I’m frankly shocked at your refusal to show solidarity with your brothers and sisters in the zoophiliac and homodigestive communities. : 0

    Having just completed a three-year degree course in Grievance Studies at Anacharsis Clootz Community College (under the respected social scientist Professor Seymour Lipschitz) I now know that these marginalised groups have to daily endure a toxic blizzard of intersectional microaggressional oppressions at the hands of the Hateriarchy.

    And that is not OK.

    Your persistent evasiveness on this matter clearly marks you out as a bigoted douchenozzle incapable of acknowledging the fluffy white clouds of humanosexual and phagotypical privilege that swaddle your precious little snowflake self. : (

    Basically you need to shut the fuck up and try, you know, actually listening to what these marginalised groups have to say about their life experience. Fucking educate yourself. Read a fucking book (Prof Lipschitz’s pioneering study Unpacking the Invisible Ballbag: Whitey’s Systemic Erasure of Interspecies Intimacy would be a good place to start).

    And no, cupcake, do not expect to get a fucking cookie for doing so. (Mmmmmmmmmmmm … cookies … cupcakes … )

    Repent, miserable sinner! Repent, pray for the grace of tolerance and you may yet be spared the cleansing fire of social consequences. (I’m what the Dominican Sisters of St Guinefort the Nonjudgemental* call a liberal “in the Catholic tradition”.)

    *The 13th-century patron saint of the FLGTLB** community.

    ** Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad.

  38. Ichthyic says

    Yes, that’s what I mean. I would add that I regard attempts by Christians to lobby for changes in the law are likely to be futile and counterproductive in a pagan society, serving only to provoke baffled hostility. Christian law is only going to be effective in a Christian culture.

    and Sharia Law in a Muslim culture….

    I’m kinda shocked you haven’t been universally banned from FtB in general, Pilty.

Leave a Reply