It's clear that civil partnerships, while offering all the legal benefits of marriage (as far as I understand anyway) do create a kind of "back of the bus" situation. The back of the bus still gets to the same place, but who wants to be forced to sit there?
But now I see that Cameron, despite being firmly in favour of gay marriage, is going to make it illegal for the CoE to marry gays. He's not even going to allow the CoE to marry gays if they want to.
As we say in Topeka, Kansas: "Da fuque?"
This is ostensibly being done to prevent further schisms in the CoE. To which I say: "Who fucking cares?"
I'm pretty sure there must be a number of homosexual vicars in the CoE, some of whom would like to get married. Why is it being made illegal for them to marry in their own fucking church?
I instinctively despise this kind of bullying and it all just seems like a complete nonsense.
Ultimately, I believe that there is no need for the state to get involved in the business of any two consenting adults. Or even three or four or five. Any voluntary arrangement is none of the fucking government's business.
15 comments:
The reason it is being done is because the Church is linked to the state. In return for the CoE to be granted X Bishops in the House of Lords and other privileges, the state gets to appoint people to the Synod which decides what happens in the CoE.
Therefore the state cannot ignore the position of the CoE on Gay marriage, as if it were an independent institution; it must specify in the legislation what the CoE must do.
Of course the alternative is that the church is disestablished.
What is now wrong with getting married in a registry office, you pissy little snob?
It is perfectly good for many people I know, perfectly good for many homosexuals and is only "confused" by a media that wants to equate marriage with "church," for the sake of shit-stirring an issue that has otherwise been perfectly and fairly solved: The state recognizes gay marriage in the form of a registry office ceremony.
The problem for the whinging elements of the gay rights movement is that then puts them out of a job. What do they do now? Why, you redefine your position as now feeling hard done by and disadvantaged not because you can't get married at all, but because you can't marry "in a church."
Please do not insinuate that it's some sort of rubbish, second class option, at the same time as insisting that religion is a pointless irrelevance and doesn't matter. It clearly matters to you as it has snob appeal.
The back of the bus is where all of the interesting and hard people sit. Fuck gay people who want to get married in church as their shittiness in their insistence upon it now imposes upon other people's consciences, damages the overall cause of acceptance of homosexuality, as well as openly insulting the religious beliefs of others by insisting upon making a mockery of them in their own place of worship.
Na. Coming from a gang of idiots that think some fucking hippy that hung around with a bunch of dodgy sailors all his fucking life is a "God" of some sort, is a bit of a fucking cheek if you ask me.
Have these cunts never heard of "Irony"?
Or do they think it's what their "Mummy" does to their "Shirty" every evening?
Fucking shower of tosspot wanking cunts.
"Ultimately, I believe that there is no need for the state to get involved in the business of any two consenting adults. Or even three or four or five. Any voluntary arrangement is none of the fucking government's business."
But we want the state to get involved. We want our marital status legally recognised, we want our pension and inheritance rights underwritten by the state. We want power of attorney when our spouse gets senile dementia. We want that in our later years, because in our salad days, that same state held us to our promise to provide and care for that spouse, and our offspring, and we duly did so.
Monty
"The problem for the whinging elements of the gay rights movement is that then puts them out of a job."
'Spot' and 'on'!
"What is now wrong with getting married in a registry office, you pissy little snob?"
Is this aimed at me? My first marriage was in a church (to please her parents), the second in a registry office and both of them ended equally well, the registry office was definitely less of an arse ache.
As I've stated many, many times on Twitter, it's funny that if you worship a sky fairy it automatically opts you out of being subject to the same equality legislation that the rest of us have to comply with.
Church, bed and breakfast. What's the difference?
I actually respect anyones views as to religon and their beleifs. Forcing those religons to 'marry' poofters however, against those beliefs is wrong. Registry office allows the legal entitlements for all the sausage jockey's & Pan-Yan pirates that they deserve. At the end of the day they are freaks and shouldn't be treated differantly to all outside society freaks, lepers, etc
Jesus Christ (as it were). What is wrong with gays getting married?
Maybe we could add a new phrase to the dictionary: Les Mis - for married lesbians? ;o)
Let them choose if they want to refuse gay marriage, fine, they can start paying their taxes. Otherwise they can shut the fuck up.
'What is wrong with gays getting married?'
Why are they even allowed to breath our air?
The good christian knights of those great Crusades against the muslims, the Templars,etc had the answer. Any sodomy resulted in execution.
"Why are they even allowed to breath our air?
The good christian knights of those great Crusades against the muslims, the Templars,etc had the answer. Any sodomy resulted in execution."
When are you going to be honest with yourself and come out of the closet?
You swine, so now I must come out and tell how I was raped/sodomised by homosexual underground pedophiles all those years ago. It has been my lifes work to remove all poofters from this world and I thought I'd succeded when I invented the AIDS virus, but it didn't work as well as I thought it would. Now I have the assistance of the muslim assassins I am gradually getting rid of them. 'Tomorrow Obo, we take over the world'.
> Anonymous said...
>
> "Ultimately, I believe that >there is no need for the state to >get involved in the business of >any two consenting adults. Or >even three or four or five. Any >voluntary arrangement is none of >the fucking government's >business."
...except that they don't allow me, my mum, my mate, my mate's mum, and my dustman to get married... that's the problem... they are making yet another special case. Why should I have to push my prepuce up my mate's bum just to prove that my love for him is of equal merit to deserve the access and property rights that marriage gives? The problem with "gay marriage" is that it's only for "gays", and everyone else is exluded, which is unfair.
The second point about trying to convert the church into an extension of Studio 54 is this:
If you had a vegetarian club, where everyone was a vegetarian, and the whole point was to celebrate in indulge in vegetarianism, why would then try and make it totally inclusive to non-vegetarians as well? What would be the point in it? If they want a religion for bumming, then why don't they write their own book of fairy stories and do their own rituals and stuff?
Perhaps they just want the church's assets and buildings, in which case we could turn them into museums and let people do religion in portakabins where nobody need be bothered by it.
So speaketh the prophet Rinky,
If your against gay marriage, just don't do it!
Post a Comment