Mark Steel, The Independent.
Fagburn's a bit burnt out with gaymarriage stuff at the moment - other things suddenly seemed more important.
And there's a limit to how many press releases from MPs and Sir Peter Tatchell telling us how wonderful they are you can read in one day.
But Mark's wonderful demolition job on the antis made me honk like a clown's horn.
• Cake toppers model's own. etc etc etc etc
PS Anyone remember The Independent's Equal Partners "campaign"? Nope, nor me. But we signed a petition...
PS Please also read Frank Furedi on terrorism as media spectacle.
Posts
OK, while I think that it is ridiculous to suggest that heterosexual marriage will be destroyed by gay marriage- indeed, I find the idea laughable god knows they've done enough to wreck it themselves!- there is a grain of truth in the stick of rock idea.
ReplyDeleteYes it is ridiculous to suggest that people will eventually be able to marry inanimate objects and, yes, marriage will always be between consenting adults, however, as a neutral observer, it is hard to refute the idea of polygamy becoming legal.
I mean if marriage is ONLY about consenting adults and romantic love, if that is the only criteria for it, then what is so special about the number 2? What is so special about only two people being allowed marriage?
We will have polygamy in 20 or so years in this country. I don't really care if we do, but it's a cert all the same.
I usually have respect for Mark Steel but his sneering is misplaced.
Why do you think it's sneering?
DeletePS I can't really see anything wrong with polygamy - they're big on it in the Bible.
It's sneering-and in my opinion just as bad as the right-wingers who vehemently oppose same-sex marriage- because it automatically assumes correctness on his part. When, in fact, he's talking through his arse. Of course, if the right-wingers had any sense, they'd stop the marriage to children/inanimate objects comparison because, crucially, these things cannot give consent.
DeleteThe point is this-and I'm afraid that a neutral person can see this as true-once something is altered fundamentally one time, it gives 'permission' if you like for it to happen again.
So all this liberal mocking is bullshit.
I've no problem with polygamy, either.
But I am yet to see a debate about gay marriage that asks the fundamental question: what the (expletive) is marriage actually for?
Tax breaks, tradition and prestige?
ReplyDelete