Gay marriage versus slavery: discuss


David Davis

The Catholic Church – in these modern times, being as it is, ever able to step straight into whatever dogshit has been laid before it and which everyone else looking on can see clearly – has hit out against “gay marriage”.

I, having been married to two women (and not both at once, plus having had various girlfriends in the interval) feel slightly unqualified on this ground: but to compare it to compare “gay marriage” (an oxymoron I’ll freely admit) to slavery or abortion invites ridicule, and also more assaults from those StaliNazis who’d get rid of “proper” religions (Muslims! Hear me! When they’ve finished with us Christians, you’re all, all of you, next for the cattle-trucks to Belsen! I’m not joking! really!) to replace these with their bloodthirsty, pre-capitalist barbarian Gaian unpleasantnesses.

The only problem about marriage is that states have muscled in in the last 2-300 years, probably to use it as a sort of tax-farming scam by causing the property of more people than merely the Upper-Classes to fall into the taxable-description-net. In Banks, say, in er, say, 1800, I don’t think anybody would have given a stuff about which male 14-year-old decided to shack up in a new (or old) hut or in a corner beyond the animals in either folks’ hut, with which female teen from up the pig-track thataway. They probably didn’t even know exactly how old either one was anyway. These people had nothing much in the way of goods, certainly nothing worth taxing except perhaps a boat and some string and a small patch of thatch-rushes (for the hut.)

“Gay” marriage might have bothered them, for the objective was to make as many babies as possible quickly while the female-teen was shaggable, simply to have enough hands to manage what passed for the harvest every late-August if they were lucky, and if the ice didn’t come, and if half of them hadn’t died before age 8.

I don’t think “gay” marriage bothers libertarians much: so long as the “married gays” don’t bother others by trying to get money off Christians by pretending to want to stay in their hotels where the owners don’t want them, for their own reasons. If people want to “be gay”, it’s their choice. They can even be “glad to be gay”: it’s no skin off my nose. Slavery is probably worse though, than “being glad to be gay”. I note that this churchman who was sounding off has not said anything about who is running slavery today, and where. I may have more to say later.

About these ads

21 responses to “Gay marriage versus slavery: discuss

  1. Just so people know, “Banks” is not anything to do with money-handling firms. It is a village in Lancashire, on the Irish Sea coast. It was functionally-isolated by semi-tidal waters until about 1830.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banks,_Lancashire

  2. Peter W Watson

    Homosexuals can do what they like and they already have civil unions. They should keep the hell away from the church and by attempting to pervert the term marriage which has served the planet well for thousands of years they are declaring war on God. I could not care less about their personal predilections but consider that they have now overstepped the boundaries. They will never stop until family, marriage and the Doctrines of the Church are shredded and their own sick version of society is inflicted on us. This is a tiny minority driving an agenda against a weak and morally rudderless government of louche man and women and a church which (in the case of the CofE) is apostate. Good for the Catholics – I have never seen as much spleen vented as in the colums of the Telegraph on line by the professional homosexual agitators who all seem to be at it today. Slaves? Yes – slaves to sin.

  3. In the local dialect – quite removed from the broad Lancs surrounding us here, the village is pronounced “Bonks”. (As with the threat that faces the Muslims if they don’t wake up, I’m not joking about this either.)

    To say something about Peter’s point here, the reason that “gays” have overstepped the boundaries is that they have been allowed to and in fact instructed to. I stand by my point that I have no objections to whatever it is (and i really can’t imagine) they do in private, but the rest of us should be allowed to state how repellent we think that to be, it having been explained to us.

    I never twigged that three of us four Worcester Coll biochemists from 1969 were “avowedly-gay” (that didn’t include me) until my erstwhile first wife informed me 30 years afterwards at an old-chums’ reunion “do” at her house for our year. How does one tell? I do not know, for I have only ever picked up girls.

    It explains why, in our third year, the three of them buggered off to Amsterdam for a week in the Fiat-500 of one of them, bought for £40 the week before, and didn’t invite me along! I was mortified at the time and thought I’d been caught spitting, or perhaps picked my nose in public, or summa’t.

  4. “Homosexuals can do what they like and they already have civil unions. They should keep the hell away from the church and by attempting to pervert the term marriage which has served the planet well for thousands of years they are declaring war on God.”

    I’m not sure about the last bit as I am a non-believer, however, shouldn’t it be up to the church to include or exclude whoever they please? Provided of course they don’t subsequently advocate burning at the stake for “gays”, or anyone else, come to that.

  5. “How does one tell? I do not know”

    Neither do I, but the ladies seem to have an intuitive knack for it.

  6. It just want to point out here that the govenment has no place in any marriage gay or otherwise. Marriage is a spiritual relationship, what in hell does the government have to do with that. It is wrong both morrally and from a constitutional point of view for government to favor any people just because they participate in some government sanctioned union. That is the problem. The progressives have so cleverly tricked us into believing that government must sanction somthing for it to have meaning, when really the opposite is true. Because government favors marriage and advantages those who are married, it has succeeded in forcing a whole class of people to bow before it and beg for recognition. It has perverted marriage to such a degree that it is now avoided by some who would loose welfare benefits if they got married and sought by others hoping to gain admission to the US. Because of government recognition of marriage it now has very little to do with love, committment, family, or stability. And it can be argued that government intervention in marriage the majority of children are now born to single mothers.

  7. I’m not terribly familiar with how establishmentarianism, etc., plays in English law. Here in the United States, we have theoretical “separation of church and state” — and yet some states maintain laws which prescribe jail time for clergy who conduct religious rituals (“weddings”) for people the state deem unworthy of said sacraments.

    On the civil end of things, state recognition of marriage simplifies the conveyance of certain rights, such as inheritance of property and medical powers of attorney. Awhile back, a man in Indiana died. He and his same-sex partner had taken various steps to replicate those conveyances, but the dead man’s other family intervened, and the courts upheld their claims, to keep the man’s significant other from visiting him in the hospital while he lay dying, and to ownership of half of the home they shared and had purchased together when it had been the dying man’s clear intent that his partner was to become sole owner.

    In the (today roundly condemned) Dred Scott decision, Justice Taney held that “The negro has no rights which the white man is bound to respect.” Does the homosexual have any rights which the state is bound to respect? And can he or she, in concert with another, claim those rights absent entry into state-recognized civil marriage?

  8. I think gay marriage does bother libertarians – because gay marriage is obviously a state project – an attempt to change traditional morality. Marriage is a bond for the reproduction of children – it completely subverts the meaning of marriage to say that it can be between two men. Libertarianism means 2 men can fiddle with each other in private if they want to without it being a crime – it doesn’t mean that the state should order religions to introduce services that are in fact a mockery of the marriage institution. The fact that many of these supposedly Christian groups are now pro-gay in itself reflects decades of PC propaganda by the state.

  9. DAvid, I don’t think it’s particularly a moral issue. It goes deeper than that. Marriage is ubiquitous among human societies- even ones whose other morals we despise. It has taken many forms, such as polygamy and concubinage (“sorta marriage”). It is more profound than a moral choice; it is part of our physical nature and predates humanity itself. It is pair bonding, an instinct which underpins our species’ reproductive system.

    So my own view is that governments, theorists, churches or anyone else simply doesn’t have the power to reinvent “marriage”; it is bound into nature. You can call other things marriage, but they will never be marriage, in the same way that you can call margarine butter, but it sitll won’t actually be butter.

    We know that this is all part of the Grande Project. The arguments being used are fundamentally dishonest. THere are other categories of people who might like “marriage like” status in certain legal situations; my usual example is two elderly spinsters living together who are not lesbians, but who are a “couple” to all intents and purposes. They might want to be each others next of kin, and inheritors. Nobody cares about them. So this isn’t really about the rights thing either.

    Really, the Proggies are just trying to award a status to gays which is intrinsically impossible and against nature. I have no problem with gays at all. I have no problem with them having kinship rights, and inheritance rights, and so on. But they just cannot get married, because that is just not what marriage is.

  10. I have no objection to homosexual marriage in itself. The usual argument, that it degrades heterosexual marriage, leaves me cold. It’s rather like saying that possession of a television by someone I dislike degrades my own possession.

    My practical objection is that it is being used as an attack on bourgeois civilisation. The moment it becomes legal, two ratbags will turn up outside a Catholic or a Baptist Church and demand the full works or the criminalisation of mainstream Christianity. With our equality laws, that’s how it would be.

    So, gay marriage yes – but not yet.

  11. I think Ian wins the Grand Challenge-Cup today. When I talked about the 14-year-olds in “Bonks” (Lancs) in 1800, I think that what they thought they were doing was “marriage”. Even if one of them strolled into the hut of the parents of the other, and just stayed there for the rest of his/her life. I mean, what would you do? It’s still effing cold and windy outside, even in Mid-summer, and even today, even up the road from here, when the Sun was shining properly for the first time this year.

    Yes, the GramscoFabiaNazis have been trying to hijack the word “marriage” for decades. To attempt to subvert humanity to the extent, possibly, of trying actively either to reduce population or – perhaps worse – to subvert what are “normal” human kinds of relationship and bonding, is perhaps a crime of sorts. If it is, and if it’s deliberate (I have not yet decided) then it’s heinous.

  12. On the civil end of things, state recognition of marriage simplifies the conveyance of certain rights, such as inheritance of property and medical powers of attorney.

    These are distinct issues from that of marriage, Thomas. As I pointed out above, they would be better addressed by general reform which would apply to any individuals regardless of their sexual status; a good example being cohabiting spinsters. Why should these rights be predicated on a sexual relationship?

    The point being that if this issue we have been forced to consider by the various pressure groups pushing for it were about rights, they would be seeking a general settlement. But they aren’t, because it has nothing to do with rights at all. It is about dogma, and frankly anyone who engages with the hegemonic discourse we have been offered on the subject is being a fool.

    Or, a hard-leftist entryists pretending to be something else. Take your pick.

  13. Peter W Watson

    Sean how you can equate marriage which is a relationship between two moral sentient beings and ownership of a television simply defies your usual critical logic and places you into both the gay rights camp and the heretical Anglican camp. They can call homosexual intercourse (social or otherwise) marriage; the government can legislate that it is marriage, but it will never be marriage any more than a man could marry a budgie and call it marriage. This is the madness CS Lewis wrote about in “That Hideous Strength” and the madness of fools before the destruction.

  14. Thomas, just so as we all know, and because I noe see that I don’t really know, what exactly is a “rightist”? And given that there are lots of sorts of libertarians, which is one of our main problems in this business, what is the difference between a rightist and a libertarian, and if there is one, what sort of libertarian is a rightist different from?

    (I only ask because I’m interested to know.)

    • “what is the difference between a rightist and a libertarian”

      A rightist’s primary sociopolitical values are order and tradition; liberty is only valuable to a rightist insofar as it reflects a pedigree embedded in what the rightist sees as an organically developed social order.

      A libertarian’s primary sociopolitical value is liberty; tradition is only valuable to a libertarian insofar as that tradition is built on, or serves as a seedbed for, maximal liberty. Order is a secondary value — the daughter of liberty.

      Obviously the two schools occasionally intersect on policy, but they are fundamentally opposed in principle, as this very issue illustrates quite well. Rightists oppose state tolerance of same-sex marriage because such recognition is new and contrary to established tradition (the marriages are neither — they’re as old as humankind). Libertarians support state tolerance of same-sex marriage because that tolerance serves to maximize liberty.

  15. Same sex marriage as old as humankind?

    • “Same sex marriage as old as humankind?”

      OK, I’ll elaborate, if you need me to.

      Same-sex monogamous relationships are almost certainly older than humankind, given that they are observed in other higher mammals and the genetic basis probably therefore presumably precedes the emergence of homo sapiens sapiens.

      As homo sapiens sapiens grew in numbers and began to form societies, the concept of marriage emerged, and was almost certainly practiced in same-sex form from that time on.

      If you’d like to quibble about those claims, fine, but I don’t see any reasonable argument that same-sex marriage didn’t precede both the attempts of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, Church of England, et. al to re-define marriage in accord with their religious dogmas, and the Westphalian nation-states attempt to impose licensing schemes on marriage, by a damn sight.

  16. That’s a pity. After such a strong statement I expected more.
    Tell me the Greeks,Romans, Egyptian, Assyrian,Celt,Ottoman, endorsed same sex marriage and you might have something.We know same sex-sex was practised,it always has been. Marriage,however is something different
    As it is, ‘ almost certainly’ leaves me no wiser.

    • daisy,

      The gravamen of every argument here so far, pro- or anti-, has been that it doesn’t matter a damn who did or does, didn’t or doesn’t, “endorse” it — that marriage is a thing, and that it is what it is regardless of changing social, religious or political attitudes.

      I happen to agree that that’s true — and since history makes it fairly clear that procreation is not the sole point or product of marriage (there are many childless marriages, and many marriages into which children are introduced by adoption), I reject the definition of it centered on that.

      In fact, “marriage” is historically like “sport” — there are different kinds, and each kind (hell, each TEAM) has its own fans.