Features

We've got gay rights, now let's have gay responsibility

Monogamy matters, and not just for straight people

5 April 2014

9:00 AM

5 April 2014

9:00 AM

As inexorably as night follows day and push comes to shove, so the words ‘Tory’ and ‘scandal’ seem destined to conjoin with ‘Brazilian’ and ‘rent-boy’. Yet the main response to the allegations about Mark Menzies MP last weekend was neither laughter or condemnation, but pity. The tone was similar to that recently adopted by Jeremy Paxman when interviewing the disgraced former Co-op chairman Paul Flowers. How sad, it seemed to sigh, in this day and age. Is there anything we can do?

Well yes, in fact: it has just been done — and among other things it is likely to prove this sighing a phase. Because although there certainly was a time when gay people could be the objects of pity, viewed as tragic individuals weighed down by society’s unjust attitudes, all this has changed. The most recent change is that since last weekend gay men and women are now allowed the right to full and equal civil marriage in Britain.

I was one of those who argued for this and I did so, among other things, because it seems to me not just wrong but actively cruel to condemn people for behaviour for which you deny them the solution. When being gay was illegal, many gay couples did form long and lasting relationships. But society was stacked against them. It was not just that the encouragement and support that public vows and commitment provide was not available. Even the most basic financial and civil rights were refused. Partially as a result, for many years gay relationships were characterised by their brevity and gays condemned for the resulting promiscuity.

Unlikely to be introduced to suitable partners by friends, let alone family, people sought love in what the pop star Rihanna would describe as hopeless places. As many straight people have also discovered, bars, nightclubs and the like are not the best places to find long-term commitment. But recognition of this historical fact means that in high-profile gay scandals, a different moral standard now emerges. It manifests itself in an uncertainty about criticising any gay behaviour. For instance, first the Co-op and then the media were unsure of how to deal with Flowers’s conviction for gross indecency in a public toilet 30 years ago. This moral uncertainty is an uncertainty many gays are also finding their way through.

In time, gay marriage will fundamentally change this, allowing young gay people to aspire to a more stable, accepted and, yes, conservative future. Down the road they will find themselves judged by the same norms as everyone else.


But this fact is more contentious than many people know, and a divide over it exists even among gay people. It is a divide I would characterise as between those who are ‘gay’ and those who are (and I put no negative connotation on the word) ‘queer’. Perhaps it is simply a manifestation of the left-right divide. Those of us who are gay believe that being gay is simply something some people are: there are no further items on the agenda. Queers, on the other hand — and I count many among my idols — hold a different view. They believe that being born gay is a sign — that, as the superb Julie Bindel wrote here last year, ‘being gay is a fabulous alternative to heterosexuality’. This view regards marriage as part of the straight, normative, patriarchal hierarchy, part of a system to be resisted and even pulled down.

One of the many things I dislike about this is the way in which the argument mirrors and embeds the opinions of certain homophobes who claim that gays are dangerous precisely because they are somehow going to ‘gay up’ wider society.

To which queers say, ‘Too right we are.’ They view heterosexual weddings as part of a loathsome norm and believe being naturally attracted to their own sex is merely the starting block to oppose this as well as engage in a wider agenda ordinarily including green, far-left politics and opposition to the ‘bedroom tax’.

I am sure that queers will continue — and good luck to some. But for the rest of us, being gay is not a political statement, or if it is, is a very different one. Rather than making ordinary society ‘gay’, it makes gays part of ordinary society, free to enjoy the same security, frustrations and blessing that marriage already grants to millions of our fellow citizens.

But there must be a flipside to such rights. In these pages Charles Moore was one of the very few to notice something that the gay marriage bill unwisely avoided. For it tellingly failed to include a clause allowing for divorce on the grounds of adultery. This is strange. Charles Moore wrote that this was possibly to do with an interesting legal wrangle over what constitutes adultery in a lesbian marriage. But I have long felt that it was to do with something else.

Because there are those — and I suspect they got the ear of government — who continue to say that there is something different about (mainly male) gay relationships. Most likely caused by two helpings of testosterone, the argument goes that men are somehow predisposed to greater promiscuity, that two men are even more so inclined and that promoting monogamy in gay relationships is therefore a restrictive step.

For my part, I am sorry that the government did not put in the adultery clause. I hope they still do. Because it seems to me that if you are to have equality it must be the whole shebang — good and bad, for better and worse. It may well not be for everybody — just as straight marriage seems not to be for everybody. It may be an aspiration that some gay marriages fall short of — just as many straight marriages do. But monogamy should be from the outset the undeniable aspiration on which gay marriage — like all others — is based.

Which brings me back to the issue of judgmentalism. Gay marriage is the answer to a gay dilemma. But if you do not wish to be prejudiced against, then you should have no prejudice in your favour. If you do not want to be condemned unduly heavily, then nor should you be let off lightly for things which others would be condemned for heavily. So come on gays, we’ve got gay rights. Now I’m afraid we’re going to have to accept gay responsibilities.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • Chris Bond

    Gay marriage is beginning to strike me as a form of religious persecution. It was/ is dreamt up by Marxist feminists and socialist in the UN and EU and pushed without any democratic oversight. Gay people had equality of relationship in the form of civil partnerships did they not? and marriage is a religious ceremony which has reproduction at it’s core- so Gay marriage was redundant on that front. The only purpose I can see is to rub religion’s (all of them) nose in a Marxist feminists model of society which has no logic underpinning it (moral relativism is a joke).

    • Beelzeebub

      “Gay people had equality of relationship in the form of civil partnerships did they not?”

      No they did not, there were hundreds of legal differences, pension rights being one of them

      “and marriage is a religious ceremony which has reproduction at it’s core”

      Not it is not and never has been.

      Religions hijacked “marriage” which pre-dates the Abrahamic religions by millennia and by your reckoning anyone who cannot have children cannot get married and that is NOT the case as well you know.

      ” The only purpose I can see is to rub religion’s”

      The Church is banned by law in effecting gay marriage, ergo your statement is false.

      Could do better.

      • The original Mr. X

        “Religions hijacked “marriage” which pre-dates the Abrahamic religions by millennia and by your reckoning anyone who cannot have children cannot get married and that is NOT the case as you well know.”

        Wait, since when has “religion” become “Abrahamic religions”? And given that both marriage and religion long predate recorded history, how on earth do you know that religion “hijacked” it (and what did this “hijacking” even look like)?

        Also, marriage does have/has had reproduction at its centre. That’s why even today non-consummation and infertility are both grounds for annulment.

        “The Church is banned by law in effecting gay marriage, ergo your statement is false.”
        There are more ways of rubbing somebody’s nose in something than just forcing them to participate (although that’s happening too — see, e.g., what happens to bakers who don’t want to cater for same-sex weddings), so your rebuttal doesn’t follow.

        • Beelzeebub
          • NotYouNotSure

            Beelzebub you did not answer the question, can you point out any non Abrahamic which endorsed homosexual marriage, even further can present any antropological evidence were any society endorsed it ? Trying to make this into some kind argument about “Christians banned it” is nonsense, the reason it did not happen in the past was because of the absurdity of a man marrying a man, even in societies were homosexuality was openly accepted was this ever considered.

          • Chris Bond

            Examples where pederasty and homosexuality was conducted and accepted included Greek, Middle east and some African kingdoms, but never became marriage as this is illogical. Marriage is clearly a contract designed for procreation. I personally think some very clever people created the codes of morals and rights contained in all the religions working on the only true constants in human life – we live, procreate and die and the only way mankind can continue is by protecting this accordingly. Moral relativism by being employed refutes this, then claims that the new left dogma is morally right, which is contradictory and illogical, and pretty much annuls itself immediately. What is even more ridiculous is the claim that marriage and gender is a social construct and is not natural. This is then reversed when discussion of gay marriage is made, as homosexuality, and gay marriage are claimed to be natural by all accounts and cannot be altered.
            The Christian scapegoating is reaching massive proportions as well. I think about 7 Baptist priest are being blamed for the Ugandan and Russian position on same sex marriage to cover the fact that it is actually a response to EU and UN pressure on same sex marriage under the Gender Mainstreaming policy. The Ugandan president, Zimbabwe and Nigeria have all come out against what they claim is moral imperialism and have re-affirmed bans. India and Russia’s recent bans can also be seen in this light. It’s an utter mess, but no one is reporting it accurately on purpose. – http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/african-caribbean-pacific-countries-threaten-eu-summit-boycott-over-gay-rights-sanctions2103

          • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

            Your argument depends upon a definition of marriage that is no longer in effect, and hasn’t been for some time in Britain. Marriage is no longer about dynastic inheritance, it is about a loving union of equals. It would of course not make sense for an infertile couple to engage in a dynastic union, but that’s not what we’re talking about. There are plenty of examples, from blood-brotherhood in Germanic and Mongol societies, to he Theban band in Greece, to unions between warriors in feudal Japan that would count as the sort of life-bonding we are talking about.

          • Since when was love ‘logical’? Yet you expect the concept of marriage to abide by your sanctimonious definition. If the EU and UN ‘pushed’ this idea then it seems it was at roughly the same time that many people felt and wanted the same thing. The EU and UN isn’t some off world entity, it’s the collective consciousness of people who live in the EU. It may not represent your views but it is representative of a pretty large bunch of us.

          • Chris Bond

            Not at all. 1985 women’s conference in Beijing appears to be when the hard left feminist element won support in the UN for this policy. EU subsequently adopted it as it has decided to use the UN as it’s policy source. This has been enshrined in the Lisbon treaty I believe. There was, and is, no popular support for it, or large group of people clamoring for it. That’s why they need to run pressure group bullying campaigns, propaganda runs and “education” – because when your legitimacy comes from “the people” and the people do not yet agree, then you need to “make” them agree just as Hitler, Stalin and all other dictators claiming popular ascent needed to do.
            It’s the mark of a totalitarian state.

          • Sarka

            (Timidly)…there’s interesting stuff about male-to-male marriage in ancient China. And I believe various other ancient or modern anthropological examples can be found.
            A lot of societies have had forms of contractual and/or sacred relationships that are not directed to procreation, as well as procreation customs not within marriage, whether monogamous or polygamous. So its all rather hard to keep hold of exactly what we mean by marriage.

            Just keeping the discussion to Western relatively modern experience, what has happened is that marriage/immediate family has become less central to many aspects of social organisation…(economic chances and even survival of individuals, politics macro and micro, inheritance, networks for work and welfare, prestige, legitimacy etc etc…), while at the same time its romantic and companionate aspects have been stressed ever more…This inevitably led to the increasing acceptability of divorce even without adultery (why should people who are not getting on have to stay together if the main point of marriage is becoming companionate mutual support?), and – if marriage is mainly an emotional companionate bond, not necessary to the economic and social basic mechanisms of existence – then obviously why should we deny that public expression of private bond to people of the same sex?

            One slight irony is that companionate heterosexual couples are in fact increasingly abandoning marriage as “unnecessary”…(it’s not just what Douglas calls the “queers” – I know many highly respectable long-term couples with children who are not married, though to all intents and purposes they behave as if they were).

          • Chris Bond

            The real issue is that we are not ancient China, a Polynesian tribe etc. We are a country with roots in Christianity and a social structure centered around marriage. The call of moral relativism is deeply flawed, because if you bring it to the table, then you cannot claim your model is better, more suitable or more acceptable then the present one, because of the moral relativism you are using. It is basing a system on nothing. Literally nothing. No certainty other than uncertainty. The Christian marriage system is based around procreation clearly and the invocation of a God. That is something.
            As for equality, again, this is incoherent. Religion has marriage as between man and woman. no ifs, no buts – man and woman. For people to claim there should be equality of man and man, or woman and woman to this religious organization holds no logical basis. It’s not good enough to say “why not”, you have to explain why. Why should man and man, or woman and woman have equality in regards to marriage?. At least the religions recognized this issue and invoked a god as a backing for this position, and I would argue a gounding in biological reality (procreation and survival of mankind) – what do the moral relativist have? an invocation of equality when it suits them? bizarre claims to moral relativity, which is then jettisoned the minute they get their way in favor of claiming moral superiority?
            It is as if we are running around tearing down 2000 year old buildings with no actual justification other then the cry of “the future, modern, progression” and then replacing them with structures made of a couple of sticks and tarpaulin.

          • Sarka

            I’m not a moral relativist – for just being aware of the differences in value frameworks between different societies and periods does not make one a relativist….it’s saying that they are all equally valid that makes one a relativist…

            And I dont think that gay marriage is something primarily supported by moral relativists…I.e. most such supporters regard it as a moral good – no relativity – that gays can marry…so even if you disagree with them, that is not a moral relativity issue, but a moral disagreement issue.

            So I can’t argue with you from some moral relativist point of view – since I don’t hold one.

            As a social historian (originally) I can see that the functions and context of marriage have changed down the centuries with the whole changing social, cultural and economic framework. There has also been some continuity, based among other things on Christian tradition, even though that too changed and the Church (churches) have always been moving in their interpretations… BTW, though not a practicing Christian I was brought up Christian and am sympathetic to many Christian points of view, including the very Christian doctrine that the Church is a historical project – a pilgrimnage through history if you like, which does not and cannot stay still and just “defend” stuff like a besieged fortress. And my own view of Christianity at its best is that it is about things like love and salvation and compassion and not about shoring up a particular social or gender order.

            But perhaps I’m old fashioned.

          • Adrian Morgan

            I’m old fashioned too, Sarka. But much as I think it is imperative that marriage rights of gay couples are respected as being legally providing the same rights as traditional heterosexual marriages, I also think that gay “marriage” is for those that really want it. There are many people who would happily shag around, both heterosexual and homosexual, for as many decades as they can, before they feel that they want to settle down with one partner. And I hope the “legitimacy” of gay marriage does not encourage what I think Douglas Murray is trying to do, to corral people into “moral” behaviour.

            I think AIDS taught the gay communities who had come out in the 1970s and early 1980s that irresponsibility in sexual matters could be disastrous. But I do not want to see a new self-righteous morality emerge that starts to frown n those who like to see sexual freedom and hedonism as something to be enjoyed for its own sake.

            If that were to be the case, then I think advocates for gay marriage would be quite upset. The pursuit of hedonism, in the form of drunkenness, sex with strangers etc. is currently far more of a social problem for young heterosexuals.

            Until Britain reverts to a nation when towns are no longer covered in vomit and police and hospitals are not being wasted by drunken clubbers, I find Douglas’ calls for “responsibility” amongst the gay community to sound rather shrill, parsimonious and pompous.

            Everyone should behave with some respect for their fellow human beings. But that starts with having some respect for oneself and one’s own actions.

            But just because some gay people are now going to get married should not mean that gay people should stop being sluts if they want to be sleeping around – and without being given a stupid label – as Douglas does – of “queers”. How bloody insulting can you get, Mr. Murray?

            I would welcome a drive from politicians to enforce laws about being drunk and disorderly – and cleaning up the appalling activities on most British towns’ streets at weekends – long before I see some sort of orthodoxy being held up as the paradigm all homosexuals must live through.

            So many heterosexual marriages are bloody disasters, and were it not for the sake of kids there would be plenty more divorces. And if Douglas wants to moralise about gay marriage and responsibilities, perhaps he should be insisting that people who marry today in a romantic haze of happiness must be prepared to accept that if things go wrong, divorces are emotionally, socially and financially crippling.

            Just because one has the right now to be chained to someone else in a marriage does not mean one should be running around throwing guilt trips onto the people who are not in chains. As long as they don’t harm anyone, and they don’t divert police resources, people, gay or straight, should be free to sleep around.

            Being married does not make one morally superior. More stable and grounded, perhaps, but never morally “better” than anyone else.

          • Sarka

            Well, though in favour of gay marriage rights including gay adoption rights, I agree with you…and of course note the degree of paradox in gays putting so much stress on rights to marry at a point where heterosexuals are increasingly deserting the institution and where there is decreasingly any serious social disapproval of or consequence to the alternatives of either some freewheeling sexual lifestyle or what looks much like marriage but without the piece of paper.

            In longterm I was even quite surprised = while in no way not supporting = the sudden mania for gay marriage…which seemed to me to go beyond the natural and legitimate desire of gays for some of the legal, practical aspects of marrriage (as next-of-kin, residence and migration, property and other stuff) since I had somehow expected all that to gradually be entailed by registered partnership. Just objectively, I put that down not completely to some sudden emotional rush of desire for marriage among gays, and at least in part to an ideological desire to put the boot in the often unsavoury grollies of the cultural conservatives and religious.

            Gays are as varied as anyone else, and should have a right to be as stuffy and respectable as they please. But there is something just very slightly comic – and maybe a loss as well as gain, if gay becomes the new wholesome!

          • Chris Bond

            “In longterm I was even quite surprised = while in no way not supporting = the sudden mania for gay marriage”

            You seem like a very observant person. I personally became curious when I woke up one day, turned on the tv, and saw a news report regarding parliaments around the world legalizing gay marriage and hugging each over as if they had just signed a proclamation freeing slaves. Prior to that day – not a peep about this issue in my whole life, after that day – constant bombardment. Suddenly it was accepted fact that this was right, every one just knew it was right. Except they didn’t before that day. Then countries across the world spontaneously saw the light. odd no? Have you ever seen the Matrix?

            So personally, I started getting curious, and began digging. I came across a funny term called ‘Gender Mainstreaming’ in a bizarre Guardian article about teaching nursery children about homosexuality in Poland and kept digging. It turns out, our policies are designed by groups of “experts” at the UN, and that countries appear to have devolved their policy making to the UN (the UK has done this via the EU). Poor old Monbiot at the Guardian has fallen over the truth here – http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/08/corporations-public-life-unilever
            and then got confused, dusted himself off, and stumbled off mummbling about “big business”. (note Facebooks gender antics, M&S and gender neutral toys in response to “pressure from consumers” (yeah right) etc

            These policies are then collectively rolled out. What is even creepier is when you read how these policies are rolled out. They refer to using “responsible” corporations to influence norms (see M&S, Unilever, Facebook), they refer to using “media professionals” and “education” (propaganda), and they discuss using NGO and pressure groups as watchdogs (roving bullies making examples of people ala ‘brownshirt’ – see motzilla’s recent run in). They seem (if you approach this neutrally and without emotional baggage) to inadvertently refer to setting up totalitarian style propaganda machines. Here is a nice little EU/UN report from 1998. I recommend page 9 and pages 35 to 38 in particular. – http://www.unhcr.org/3c160b06a.pdf

          • James Lovelace

            “I think AIDS taught the gay communities who had come out in the 1970s and early 1980s that irresponsibility in sexual matters could be disastrous.”

            You clearly have no idea of how much bareback porn there is (gay and straight).

            Can you show us where the stats for the occurrence of HIV among men who have sex with men has flatlined?

          • Adrian Morgan

            What has bareback porn got to do with reality?

            And who the f*ck are you to state what I may or may not know about red herring subjects, introduced by you in the same trollish manner that you use on Harry’s Place comments section?

            But before protease inhibitors were introduced and after a lot of people died, the rate of new HIV transmissions did decline. Safe sex campaigns were only shown to work in the late 1980s, and that knowledge did save lives. And even then – without “gay porn” as an “example” (what bloody planet do you live on?), there was still a small section who went bareback just for the risk.

            So don’t ask me for statistics to validate your own bloody points. If you have anything valid to say (which I doubt) provide your own f*cking statistics to prove your case.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Sit down, take a deep breath and relax. The country existed for a thousand years without women having a vote. The thye did and the sky didn’t fall in. Ditto without women having any right to their money. But now they do and things are …. OK. It’ll be fine. Don’t worry.

          • Chris Bond

            You see, this is how you people work. You shift the argument to a completely random issue and fall back on your mystical progress/ providence. You never answer the questions posed because you have no answer. This is because your views and belief are not based on rationality, reality or any such solid basis – they are based on faith, providence and equality. In short, they are based on religious principles. You are a religious fanatic.

          • Fergus Pickering

            You people ? Religious fanatic. Are you talking about Christians? Muslims? There’s a religion for the likes of you. You are a silly little man.Run along now.

          • Chris Bond

            Let me guess – Atheist liberal progressive? Go have a look at Quakerism. non theist? believe in the inner light (equality)? acceptance of same sex marriage based on the inner light (equality). Notice any similarities? Here’s a wiki page – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaker#Universalist

            How about liberal Christianity? or progressive Christianity? go look them up and see come back and explain how calling yourself not christian validates you not falling under any of these categories? Quite wonderful isn’t it? How to get people to become part of your religion – don’t call it a religion. call it, erm, progressive liberal atheism. yeah, that will do.

          • Kitty MLB

            Utterly erroneous in every possible way. You are making yourself seem very asinine. Now would be the right time to
            hold thy tongue and stop being so foolish.
            Are you American, Mr Bond ??

          • Fergus Pickering

            Oh. He’s American, is he?

          • Kitty MLB

            Probably, they are very loud and judgemental and have ‘pals’
            I am also furious with what disgusting thing ‘ icebow’ has been
            saying about Homosexuality. Both he and Mr Bond might be friends. Some people are totally ignorant, empty vessels and all that. Best not to answer such ignorance, Fergus.

          • Chris Bond

            I’m British.

          • Kitty MLB

            Well act like it then, show some decorum.
            And silence is the art of conversation something you should
            pay attention to..

          • Chris Bond

            Your silence with regard to an answer is as loud as a scream.

          • Kitty MLB

            No, I am not going to give any credence to your mumblings. Now just toddle off. I think you must be an exceptionally young chap.

          • I picked you for british. Completely unable to let an argument go. My dad’s the same. Nothing i could say would convince you of the flaws in your arguments. So let’s just leave it that we all think you’re awesome and your position is completely right, and thanks for letting us all know how wrong we all are

          • Chris Bond

            Good thing you explained my errors using some form of proof or coherent argument. Almost as if you just know that I’m wrong – almost as if you have… faith?

          • Fergus Pickering

            What an extraordinary man you are. I would call myself a reactionary conservative. My religion is none of your business but it is the religion proper to a reactionary conservative. You live in a world of your own.

          • Chris Bond

            Reactionary? I’m sure that does not mean what you think it means.

          • Fergus Pickering

            My dear chap.let me assure you my command of the English language is far better than yours. Why don’t you tell me what you think reactionary means in that context and I will do my best to put you right.?

          • Kitty MLB

            Its imperative for you to put him right.’ Ignorance is the
            curse of god ; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven’. As Shakespeare once said. I assume the little cub will return, unless you have frightened him away, Fergus.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Our duty is to serve, my dear Kitty.

          • If you feel that two same sex people expressing their love for each other formally somehow threatens your ideal of marriage, does that not say more about just how tenuous you think your position is? Last time I checked, the only person that could affect my marriage was my ex wife….for obvious reasons.

            Marriage does not derive its meaning from the state or from church. As much as the state and church would like to own marriage, it’s just an extension of two people’s will to express their love for each other formally. Nothing more. The state and church just offer the recognition (or withhold in your view).

            If you confine marriage to your definition you have to ask, why is your view better? Who does it serve? Why is the world a better place for denying people the same rights that you enjoy? Other than offering you the ability to look smugly at others and say ‘I stopped them having the same rights as me’. Again, this says far more about you than it does about gay couples wanting to be married.

          • James Lovelace

            “Beelzebub you did not answer the question, can you point out any non Abrahamic which endorsed homosexual marriage, even further can present any antropological evidence where any society endorsed it ?”

            Read and learn from a scholar whom you could only dream of aspiring to be.

            “Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People In Western Europe From The Beginning Of The Christian Era To The Fourteenth Century”
            http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christianity-Social-Tolerance-Homosexuality-Fourteenth/dp/0226067114

            “The Marriage of Likeness: Same-sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe”
            http://www.amazon.co.uk/Marriage-Likeness-Same-sex-Unions-Pre-modern/dp/0002555085

            You homophobes are like KKK members who deny that Jesus was a jew.

          • Chris Bond

            Firstly, wikipedia does not constitute a valid point of reference.
            Secondly, I would be very happy to agree with your points, however, I have come to my view from a position of complete neutrality and have assessed it on what I see are the results and the motivations. I noticed the fact that out of the blue parliament from the UK to New Zealand were legalizing same sex marriage following no democratic consultation or discussion. I have since learned it has been pushed by UN women which as you will appreciate is filled with Marxist feminist, and then pushed by the EU which is full of Marxists.
            These people are hostile to religion. The logic for same sex marriage equality is non existent. The application of moral relativity to claim it is just as valid as traditional marriage instantly annuls the validity of same sex marriage. It has no basis, reason or justification. hence my coming to the conclusion that it is merely a tool to rub religions nose in left wing dogma.
            This is added extra weight by the actions of gay pressure groups in the example of the St Patriks day parade in the USA, and other such examples. These are nothing more then attempts at forcing a perceived enemy to be humiliated and ground down. It seem to all intents and purposes as if it is religious persecution, and I fail to see how religious institutions will not be forced to bow down to Marxist Feminist dogma. They have to be, it is only logical in this scenario.

          • Colonel Mustard

            Ah, yes, Wiki. Rapidly becoming the preferred reference of the lefties who “revise” it to support their reinvention of the English language to mean what they want it to mean.

      • Conway

        If there were legal differences (I suspect ‘hundreds’ is a bit of an exaggeration) then the way to go was to tweak civil partnerships, not create a new definition of marriage.

      • Lindum

        The pension rights issue is a red-herring as this was sorted by civil union.

    • Bob Jones

      “It was/ is dreamt up by Marxist feminists and socialist in the UN and EU and pushed without any democratic oversight.”

      I can see why this would involve feminists, but what does this have to do with Marxism? How does it deal with the supposed plight of the proletariat at the hands of the bourgeoisie? Would you be so kind to me to cite the illogical arguments brought up by these Marxist Feminists that made it such that Capitalist Feminists did not come up with the idea?

      Also, could you explain why this is religious persecution when there is literally no non-Abrahamic religion that explicitly condemns homosexuality (many of which perform wedding ceremonies) and even some denominations of Abrahamic religions that do so as well? Why should the rights of one religion supersede the rights of another?

      I’d appreciate it if you’d be so kind as to help me understand these sticking points. Have a wonderful day!

      • Chris Bond

        “I’d appreciate it if you’d be so kind as to help me understand these sticking points.”
        That’s the problem, I don’t understand them at all, and I am certain no one else has the answer either, hence why I think the creators of religions just went “meh – because God said so”, but at least had the obvious goal of preserving the family structure and further progeny. The moral relativist have just stated “because why not”, in which if “why not”, then “why”.

        And is there such a thing as a capitalist feminist? The whole point is that it is based on the Marxist dialectic model of the oppressor (men) and the oppressed (women) intertwining to create the new level of being as per hegelian dialectic (equality non man/woman gender whatever the UN women feminists have in their minds) . Marxism long ago moved from the bourgeoisie and proletariat, or should I say, they changed whom they place in the categories.
        And I think Buddism does condemn homosexuality, I recall them protesting about same sex marriage. Sikhs I believe have also come out against it.

      • Moa

        > “but what does this have to do with Marxism”

        Actually the key words are “Cultural Marxism” of the Frankfurt School. Cultural Marxism is the “Matrix” that is all around you, especially in Britain. It controls the memes you think about, your universities and all who have passed through them (eg. your politicians and journalists).

        Have a Google about the “Frankfurt School” and people like Antonio Gramsci. This is a century old project to defeat the Free People of the West by changing the culture gradually. The Homosexual ‘Rights’ movement is simply one aspect of Cultural Marxism.

        Another symptom is Cultural Marxist Political Correctness (which often goes under the deceptive euphemism of “PC”). Notice how it re-defines concepts to be the opposite, for example, “Social Justice” favors non-Europeans in a discriminatory way and is the opposite of “Justice”, yet they are now used interchangeably.

        Then we have Cultural Marxist Critical Theory – which simply criticises the West for *everything*. If Islamists slaughter each other, or us, then we must have been at fault for something our culture did or did not do within the last two thousand years. Think about it, when was the last time you saw an article in a newspaper exhalting the achievements of Enlightenment Civilization? or a movie in which the “noble savage” was actually the bad guy and white men were not the evil ones or deficient in some way? you ought to also consider the more than 23000 attacks by Islamists around the World since “9/11” (2001) yet Islamists are *never* the bad guys in Hollywood – baddies are Chinese, robots, aliens, Russians, conservatives, industrialists, more aliens etc etc but never ever the real guys who have been mercilessly slaughtering for the last 1400 years and whose political ideology (called “Islam”) has not been misinterpreted in any way, but authentically calls for the slaughter and subjugation of all non-Muslims.

        Think about why your media has never mentioned Cultural Marxism to you, why it lies about Islam, why it never praises Enlightenment Civilization. You can escape The Matrix if you do your homework. The Truth is not hidden, most people just never think to look.

        ps. another great article by Douglas Murray!

    • wchancellor

      Quite true. I opposed SSM in these and other blogs on the basis that it was embraced by Feminists and an Enlightened Right as an extension of the State into regulating sexuality, sex and the Male of the Species. Like some 1930s Hollywood (comedy-not) fantasy.

    • Alyson Cruise

      the appeal to marxism is a sign of a belief in “cultural marxism”. Cultural Marxism is Stormfront rhetoric. Do not respond to racists.

      • Chris Bond

        I take it you found my logic and argument to be quite devastating.

      • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

        Exactly what I’d expect a member of Common Purpose/the Frankfurt School/Interdimensional Space Lizard to say! 😉

        It is amazing how arguments and rhetoric that were once the preserve of that site and similar cults have leaked into mainstream conservative discourse.

    • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

      The Quakers see no difference between same sex and opposite sex marriages. In the previous legislation they were banned from having same sex weddings in their Meeting Houses. Now they can.

      Why do you not want them to have this religious liberty?

      • Chris Bond

        Funny you should mention the Quakers. I was reading a theory the other day that progressive liberal are nothing but Quakers. It confirms my long held suspicion that progressives with their mystical progress, adherence to ideologies founded on nothing short of faith were fundamentally a religious movement. It just gets creepier and creepier with each bit of information I come accross – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_of_equality

        How do you get the recalcitrant population to follow your religion? —> present it as not a religion.

    • Jethro Asquith

      Gay people have always been able to marry. In fact many have. A gay man to a woman and a gay woman to a man. There has never been any inequality as when getting married a persons sexuality is never asked.

      Liberals love using the word equality to guilt others into following their views. Clegg is one of the worst.

  • Framer

    The failure to allow for adultery as a ground for divorce with gay couples was to do with the need to prove vaginal intercourse as per case law and precedent. It, by definition, is impossible at least between two males. It wasn’t because of Tory double standards.
    It is however true that gay men are men and promiscuity thus has no gender barrier given that the other partner can’t get pregnant and usually has the same male sexual trigger.
    It was ironic that we had a Tory rent boy scandal on the same day as gay marriages commenced which threw the whole issue into relief.
    The gay marriage debate and the huge support for the concept was because it wasn’t about sex, but love. The Tory MP proved there was and is another (unspoken) dimension.

    • Conway

      I never subscribed to the “it’s all about love” argument. Marriage carries more baggage than that. If it was really just about love, then one could make equally passionate arguments for marrying one’s dog or cat, or marrying two or three people.

      • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

        Find me a cat or dog that has legal standing to sign a contract and we can have a discussion.

  • Average Leeds Student

    Today is the 3rd not the 5th

  • davidshort10

    Push probably does come to shove in such unions, and it’s ‘matters to’ not ‘matters for’.

  • Megan Lynn Mcbride

    Marriage was always about property and still is, little to do with feminism. 70 years ago in america women couldnt get their own bank account without being married, in america. People before marriage would just mate for reproducing, and everyone worked together in that tribe to raise that child. Has nothing to do with reproduction, in some cultures you are married if you just literally tie a knot and divorced if you untie it. jesus in Christianity was never against gay marriage he was against divorce, which most christians are okay with. It was not until paul that homosexuality is mentioned as being extremly bad, which he was not even a jew or knew jesus but supposedly saw him. Science proves there are people born with brains of men and born with a womens body or vice versa. They are born that way, and their brains think just like the opposite sex. I think people like chris bond judge people by what they think their perfect world entails and not by the true history of their religion and humanity, which they do not investigate or question the real history. These people are brainwashed and believe whatever their cult leaders say. Not what their true savior said.

    • Chris Bond

      Firstly, I’m agnostic, not christian, as I have no faith. I do believe that religious moral codes are worthy of respect, (especialy Christianity as that is the basis of my culture) as they have been in gestation for thousands, of years and have held humanity together very well considering (our periods of utter self destruction were under atheist/ anti religious government – make of that what you will). I certainly think they have more value and validity then the incoherent sputtering of feminists, sociology professors and Marxist socialist in general playing at third rate philosophers. Secondly, you make some very odd claims, I am under the impression that homosexuality was linked in with the story of Sodom and Gomorah from Genisis? which predates Christianity? and the assertion that people just mated in tribes fails to note what tribes, where in the world, what proof is there of this, why it is relevant to our culture etc As for the biological determinate model of gender you are putting forward, this is unproven and is merely a hypothesis, the best we have is that transsexuals have slightly larger hypothalamus I believe? But it seems as if science is being used to advance politics in this case ala scientific racism.
      And if you want to see brainwashed cultist, then may I direct you to liberal athiests. Reason and critical thinking are definatly not welcome with them.

      • Megan Lynn Mcbride

        The S. And g. Story got changed over time to fit what the church wanted original story was not about gay people. I was not calling you christian. First Christians were agnostic. A lot of the bible stories are from myths like psalms are Egyptian poems the most famous poem was of is is and Osiris but Christians are taught that it’s of their God and Israel or whatever theory you believe. These people do not believe that the bible can be altered. In jesus culture they read the torch for themselves that’s how Jews read it now to. I just don’t think you should base opinions off a book that has contradictions because it had many authors and was written in the name of god. Some of these people spread hate and that’s the last thing that their messiah wanted

        Sent on the new Sprint Network from my Samsung Galaxy S®4.

        ——– Original message ——–From: Disqus Date:04/03/2014 1:19 PM (GMT-05:00) To: ironbaby200@hotmail.com Subject: Re: New comment posted on We’ve got gay rights, now let’s have gay responsibility

        Chris Bond wrote, in response to Megan Lynn Mcbride:

        Firstly, I’m agnostic, not christian, as I have no faith. I do believe that religious moral codes are worthy of respect, (especialy Christianity as that is the basis of my culture) as they have been in gestation for thousands, of years and have held humanity together very well considering (our periods of utter self destruction were under atheist/ anti religious government – make of that what you will). I certainly think they have more value and validity then the incoherent sputtering of feminists, sociology professors and Marxist socialist in general playing at third rate philosophers. Secondly, you make some very odd claims, I am under the impression that homosexuality was linked in with the story of Sodom and Gomorah from Genisis? which predates Christianity? and the assertion that people just mated in tribes fails to note what tribes, where in the world, what proof is there of this, why it is relevant to our culture etc As for the biological determinate model of gender yo u are pu
        tting forward, this is unproven and is merely a hypothesis, the best we have is that transsexuals have slightly larger hypothalamus I believe? But it seems as if science is being used to advance politics in this case ala scientific racism. And if you want to see brainwashed cultist, then may I direct you to liberal athiests. Reason and critical thinking are definatly not welcome with them.
        Link to comment: http://redirect.disqus.com/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnew.spectator.co.uk%2Ffeatures%2F9174391%2Fthe-campaign-for-real-gay-marriage%2F%23comment-1317050283%3Ah6aCokgfL8L0aTP_qv9Dss81cjA&impression=0078dc10-bb54-11e3-bd84-003048db5eee&type=notification.post.registered&event=email&behavior=click

      • Bob Jones

        To be 100% fair, appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. Yes, the fact that an idea or institution exists after much time has passed does imply that it is something stable and worthy of merit, but single fact of such an entity’s age is not enough to prove this; to do so, more than this single fact is needed.
        Also, stereotypes are also illogical. Yes, a group may involve a significant number of members who are likely to be defined by a trait, but unless a member is only allowed to join the group if and only if they exhibit this trait, then there is always the possibility that at least one member does not exhibit this trait, so the implication is not necessarily valid. I am open to the possibility that modern liberalism prevents any sort of critical thinking (though I am dubious of this claim) it should also be noted that a lack of critical thinking does not, in turn, automatically imply modern liberalism, so the condition of “if and only if” fails, so asserting that “reason and critical thinking are definatly (sic) not welcome with them” (and by them, I’m assuming you mean the members of this group, but please correct me if this assumption is incorrect) may not be true because there might be at least one person who does retain logic and critical thinking skills.

        • Chris Bond

          All people called Dave are plumbers, but not all Plumbers are called Dave?
          My experience is that all people identifying themselves as liberal hold set beliefs which don’t derive from logic and are set in stone. I personally find the premise of assertion of the non existence of something which cannot be proven to exist, or not exist to be illogical (atheism).

      • Kitty MLB

        You have No faith, really I am not in the slightest surprised.
        And you speak far too much and far too often.

    • transponder

      Wrong: Marriage, first and foremost, was always about a human bond that typically gives rise to new life. With or without attendant property, dynastic succession, political power, etc.

      • Megan Lynn Mcbride

        is that coming from your opinion on marriage, or what our ansesters ceremonies from archaeological evidence actually shows?

        • transponder

          Why do think archaeology (rather than history) would show anything?

          • Megan Lynn Mcbride

            Archeology and history go hand and hand. Physical evidence left by our ancestors helps us understand what really happened in history. Also who was in charge of keeping tabs on history were usually the ones who won the wars. So archeology fills in the blanks sometimes discovering what really happened rather than written recoreds.

            Sent on the new Sprint Network from my Samsung Galaxy S®4.

            ——– Original message ——–From: Disqus Date:04/07/2014 10:45 PM (GMT-05:00) To: ironbaby200@hotmail.com Subject: Re: New comment posted on We’ve got gay rights, now let’s have gay responsibility

            transponder wrote, in response to Megan Lynn Mcbride:

            Why do think archaeology (rather than history) would show anything?

            Link to comment: http://redirect.disqus.com/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnew.spectator.co.uk%2Ffeatures%2F9174391%2Fthe-campaign-for-real-gay-marriage%2F%23comment-1323334824%3A900LCWsNL4NmsylFbioIbMR2_Wo&impression=c7035a7e-bec7-11e3-9b75-00259035e646&type=notification.post.registered&event=email&behavior=click

          • Kitty MLB

            Superbly and very patiently explained Megan.
            How on earth are history and archaeology not linked.
            Parts of history where we learn the practices and thoughts of others would be hidden away. If someone had not discovered
            some ancient scroll or book that was buried away somewhere,
            I would not be able to translate and explain our ancestors.
            And you are absolutely correct in your opinions regarding marriage.

          • Megan Lynn Mcbride

            Archaeology and history go hand and hand. Physical evidence left by our ancestors helps us understand what really happened in history. Also who was in charge of keeping tabs on history were usually the ones who won the wars. So archaeology fills in the blanks sometimes discovering what really happened rather than written records. Archaeology is the medical examiner for the corpse history.

          • transponder

            Yes, I’m quite familiar with the purpose of archaeology, thanks. But that has nothing to do with the meaning of marriage.

          • Megan Lynn Mcbride

            archaeology shows how marriage started, when farming became dominant. people didnt share anymore, they wanted to label their property, land, children of that blood got that land, and than so the wives sexuality could be controlled because back then they could not tell who the father was through dna, so the best way to tell if that was your real son who is in line to get the land is through marrying a woman who has never had sex. thus marriage was born, and thats why lines in western culture are patriarchal names.

  • Craig Ewen

    Bullsh*t, tiresome article by gay Tory apologist. To paraphrase Murray – “We’ve been indulged by the nice, tolerant straight people and must be graciously polite and well-behaved or they’ll be upset. No more sleeping around now that we’ve been offered (hetero-normative) respectability – you know we only did it before because we had low self-esteem as social pariahs, not just because we could for fun!” Unsurprisingly as a gay Conservative, Murray has no idea what Queer is; it’s nothing to do with making society more ‘gay’, certainly nothing to do with inviting homophobia and everything to do with preventing gayness from being made more blandly, ‘respectably’ straight.

  • Terry Carlin

    Gay marriage could have existed 1000 years ago, or 500, or 5. In fact 5 would have been good because civil partnerships were around then. Why didn’t society just invent a ceremony that supported civil partnerships and gave some spiritual element to the proceeding? I suspect that there would be many vicars, priests, etc who would have given their blessing. But no, it was all about rubbing the face of those that disagreed. Shame on everyone who connived in this shotgun wedding.

    • transponder

      Exactly. The ancient Greeks were hardly prudish about man-on-cough-boy love, were they? Yet one shudders to think of their reaction should one, slightly in one’s cups in the agora, have suggested marriage to dignify it.

      • Kitty MLB

        No indeed they were not S, I can assure you.
        Just ask Socrates.( although that was not quite the truth)
        I don’t think they would have made such a fuss about gay marriage though. Only idiots thing it will bring down society- don’t you agree.

  • MikeF

    It’s not gay ‘rights’ or ‘responsibility’ that are the issue but gay acceptance of the sort of ‘diversity’ they seem to have difficulty with i.e. diversity of thought and belief in a pluralistic society. This seems to sum up where thing are going but what are the gays going to do if they stop being a ‘preferred minority’:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26868536

    • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

      A CEO being sacked because he had become a net detriment to the company in that position isn’t about sexuality it’s about capitalism.

  • davidshort10

    I don’t really follow much of what has been written here. Simply put, married people are in general happier than non-married people. They plan ahead and have stabler lives.

    • transponder

      True. However, marriage has lots of problems of its own: no heaven, this. And: the question is not whether marriage is good but what marriage is and who can claim to be ‘married’.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    “For it is an abomination unto the Lord.”
    Works best in a Welsh dialect.

  • “Monogamy matters, and not just for straight people”

    The caption should read, “Marriage matters, and not just for straight people”

    But first, is there an attack on the concept of marriage I haven’t heard about? I don’t detect it. In fact, while co-habitation is more common than it was fifty-years ago, those who co-habit have nothing against marriage, they’re simply too scared to get divorced, thanks to an “age” that makes us disposable like an empty can of Coke.

    Back to the main point…

    Marriage is for the rearing of children into the worlds of both man and women, where the critical 24/7/365 interplay between the father and mother socializes the otherwise uncivilized child to the norms of society. As such, the concept of same-sex marriage is not only a ludicrous concept, but a knife pointing at the heart of any civilization, which is why the Communist elite* within the West fosters the policy. It should be added that on-demand divorce is a destroyer of civilization too, destroying the child’s view of his/her society; the child reasons, that if his/her parents can divorce for the least of reasons, and the institution of marriage is the greatest of all social institutions, the child comes to see marriage as a joke, and transfers that sentiment to civilized concepts in general…the fall of the civilization will naturally follow.

    ——————————————–
    * While we don’t know when exactly the Democratic Party was co-opted by Marxists, thanks to the peculiar historical nature surrounding the founding of the Republican Party, we do know when exactly the party of Lincoln was co-opted…

    Marxists/Socialists who after the failed 1848 revolution in Germany came to the United States. Upon arrival to the United States they infiltrated the embryonic Republican Party, many forming voluntary Germanic Union Armies and becoming General Officers themselves within the Union Army, such as…

    (1) Brigadier General Joseph WEYDEMEYER of the Union Army was a close friend of Karl MARX and Fredrick Engels in the London Communist League (Assistant Secretary of War Charles A. DANA —close friend of Marx, published with Joseph Weydemyer a number of Communist Journals and, also “The Communist Manifesto,” commissioned by Karl Marx. As a member of the Communist/Socialist Fourier Society in America, Dana was well acquainted with Marx and Marx’s colleague in Communism, Fredrick Engels. Dana, also, was a friend of all Marxists in the Republican Party, offering assistance to them almost upon their arrival on the American continent.);

    (2) Brigadier General Louis BLENKER, Union Army—radical socialist/Communist from Germany—was remarkably successful in encouraging German immigrants to join the Union Army and the Republican Party;

    (3) Major General August WILLICH—often called “The Reddest of the Red ‘48ers” was a member of the London Communist League with Karl MARX and Fredrick ENGLES. Before seeking refuge in the U.S. Willich was a personal acquaintance of Karl MARX;

    (4) Major Robert ROSA, of the Union Army, was a proud member of the New York Communist Club;

    (5) Brigadier General Carl SCHURZ –as a young socialist, was noted for helping Gottfried Kinkel of Bonn escape from Spandau while imprisoned there for his socialist activities in the ’48 Revolts. Schurz came to America in 1848. He was a forty-eighter who became very active in the development of the Republican Party and in politics. He was given a high position by Lincoln in the Union Army;

    (6) Brigadier General Alexander Von Schimmelfenning, like most of the other MARXISTS /Socialist/Communists who came to the U.S. after their failed uprising in 1848;

    (7) Major General Franz SIEGEL, thought to be one of Lincoln’s most controversial and the poorest of his generals;

    (8) Commander Friedrich Karl Franz HECKER, (exact military title not known) known as “Red” and “Flagrant Friedrich.” Educated in Germany, received his doctor of law degree in Munich. He was expelled from Prussia. Arriving in the U.S., he took part in the creation of the Republican Party, encouraged the proliferation of German newspapers carrying the Socialist propaganda, aided in the election of Lincoln, and propagandized heavily among German immigrants for volunteers for the Union Army. He was named Commander of a regiment he raised of Germans;

    (9) General John C. FREMONT was noted for his close association with all of the socialist/communists whom Lincoln placed in positions of command in his army. Fremont was the first Republican candidate for president. He was considered to be the “darling” of the most radical socialists. His chief of staff, early in the war, was Hungarian socialist revolutionary;

    (10) Brevet Major General Frederick Charles SALOMON, one of a group of four radical socialist brothers, with highly similar names– three of whom were in the group of Socialist 1848ers. Frederick began his career in the Union Army as a Captain in MO, wound up as a Colonel in the Ninth Wisconsin Volunteer Regiment, then a brigadier general and a brevet major general;

    11. Brevetted Brigadier General Charles E. Salomon, also started his American military career with a bunch of MO volunteers. Born in Prussia, he, also, was one of the radical socialists arriving in the U.S. after the 1848 Socialist uprising failure and was a brother to Frederick Charles;

    12. Governor Edward Salomon, a third Salomon brother, also born in Prussia, did not do military service, but ran for political office in Wisconsin, was elected lieutenant governor, becoming Governor of Wisconsin when the elected Governor “drowned”; and

    13. Colonel Fritz ANNEKE/ANNECKE was a Forty-eighter, with a strong leftward tilt. He was a Communist League member and a Baden Revolt veteran…the list goes on…

    • transponder

      With you up until the footnote and then my post-midnight sleepiness kicked in….

      • “With you up until the footnote and then my post-midnight sleepiness kicked in….”

        No matter. The footnote is clarification for those who really need it.

  • Anglichan

    Murray wrote, ”When being gay was illegal, many gay couples did form long and lasting relationships. But society was stacked against them. Even the most basic financial and civil rights were refused. Partially as a result, for many years gay
    relationships were characterised by their brevity and gays condemned for the resulting promiscuity.”

    First of all, ‘being gay’ assumes that which has never been proven, namely that there exists some kind of ‘gay gene’. In fact, scientific studies of twins, where genes are identical and where one of the pair claims to ‘be’ homosexual, conclude that homosexuality is not innate.

    Second, ‘being gay’ has never been illegal. Sodomy, and its accompanying perversions regarding male to male [and female to female] sexual activity was rightly against the Law for many hundreds of years in the UK and in many, if not all, Western nations and it still is in other nations.

    Third, when Murray tries to convey the idea that homosexual promiscuity is partially a result of societal disapproval of homosexuals then he is just indulging in fanciful speculation. Just because there may exist monogamous homosexual partnerships, despite supposed societal disapproval, does not mean that the absence of opposition to these kinds of couplings will result in more monogamous partnerships in the future. Promiscuity and rapid ‘turnover’ of partners is at the heart of most homosexual liasons and this will, I suspect, continue to be the case in the future, even if, God forbid, homosexual behaviour continues its relentless rise to ‘respectability’.

    • Hugh_Oxford

      The obvious problem with Murray’s thesis is that, if it were true, we would already have seen an amelioration in homosexual promiscuity and associated problems as society has come to tolerate and celebrate homosexuality, and indeed create legal structures around it. But the opposite has happened…

      http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/MSM_global_1667_24845.shtml

      The idea that conflating homosexuality and marriage within a single law will suddenly “fix” anything is bonkers, as though the state itself has any power over sexual dynamics through its legal constructs.

      Only about 2% of gays and lesbians took up civil partnerships, and the number continues to collapse. There’s absolutely no practical reason for two people of the same sex to legally commit to one another: why would they? And when I ask that, I’m not passing judgement, simply asking an obvious question.

      It seems to me one of the sad – if inevitable – problems of conflating homosexuality and marriage in a single law is that homosexuality as a phenomenon will come under greater scrutiny. But whose fault is that? It’s not the fault of most gays. It’s not the fault of most conservatives. It’s the fault of our demented political class.

      • James Lovelace

        “as society has come to tolerate and celebrate homosexuality, and indeed create legal structures around it.”

        Would that be the same tolerant society that did nothing about east London being plastered 3 years ago with signs saying “Gay Free Zone”? The same society that permits muslim preachers to say “gays should be killed”? The same society that did nothing over the new homophobic laws passed in Russia (if comparable laws had been passed against muslims, many western countries would have boycotted the Winter Olympics).

        The first gay marriages happened last week, and already you are demanding gay people use your time machine to go back 30 years and change their past.

        • In fairness he statement that this is the fault of a demented political class would answer your response. They have a values system not based on reason, but on how virus you feel when you espouse an argument. Being anti homophobic good, being anti islamophobic good. When the two conflict. you’re not going to feel good about challenging one so they fold.

      • Fergus Pickering

        My, my. Promiscuity! There’s been a lot more of that since the swingng sixties. So what exactly?

      • DavEd CamerBand

        I don’t think it’s a question of “why would they”, why would anyone, not every married couple has children, should they not be allowed to marry?

        • Hugh_Oxford

          We don’t “let” people marry or “not let” them marry. Men and women marry by creating biological unions. The state can then recognise or not recognise those unions.

          • DavEd CamerBand

            So by that notion rather than being bound by the idea of children, it should be decided by genitalia?

            How is that not pure bigotry?

    • James Lovelace

      “Promiscuity and rapid ‘turnover’ of partners is at the heart of most homosexual liasons ”

      What a load of crap you write. I’ve been with my partner for 10 years. I was with the partner before him for 20 years. For most of that time even civil partnership was not available. Next week I will be seeing two friends who have been in a relationship for 20 years. Two lesbian friends have just split up after 25 years together. These are better odds than 50% of straight marriages.

      In 50 years time we would have data to make comparisons about whether or not gay marriage has transformed the behaviour of gay people. Until then, all you’ve got is your bigoted, uninformed views.

      • bermeir

        You’re obviously the exception that proves the rule.

        • Fergus Pickering

          The exception that proves the rule? What does that mean? I’ve often wondered. Do you know what it means? Errol Flynn fucked anything that wasn’t actually dead. Was he proving some sort of rule?

      • Anglichan

        You may, or may not, be telling the truth about your ‘relationship’. You may also have been with your ‘partner’ for the total number of years you assert, but I have no way of knowing if you are telling the truth or even if you and your ‘partner’ have not taken other casual partners for sex during that time.

        What I do know for sure is that, as I wrote, promiscuity is at the heart of most homosexual liaisons. According to The SIGMA project, the leading research project into homosexual lifestyles in the UK, which was conducted by researchers sympathetic to gay rights, this study found that most homosexual men had casual partners, on average seven per year.

        The study also stated, ”There is a widespread expectation among gay men that relationships will not be monogamous since this is widely seen as a means of combining the security of a long term commitment with the excitement of new encounters”

        It would seem, Mr ‘Lovelace’ [is that really your name?] that, if you are telling the truth, and the whole truth, that your experience is, as ‘bermeir’ says, ‘the exception that proves the rule’.

        I’d also point out that the dictionary definition of ‘bigoted’ is ”having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of
        one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others” I wonder which one of us really holds the bigoted viewpoint about homosexual ‘relationships’? Will you retract and apologise?

    • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

      ‘Monogamy’ only ever applied to women who were part of the oikos (yours or that of another man). Slaves, prostitutes and women of lower social orders didn’t count. This goes right back to the start of the Western canon. Odysseus is not an adulterer for sleeping with Circe or Calypso, and Abraham is not an adulterer for sleeping with his slave girl.

      • Anglichan

        You should be addressing this comment to the author of the article and not to my post. In case you didn’t read it, the subtitle is, ”Monogamy matters, and not just for straight people”. Try to follow the arguments, there’s a good chap.

        • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

          You’re the one harking back to a golden age that never existed.

          You haven’t made arguments, just rantings based on your Bronze Age cult. Now scuttle off back to the trash heap of history old chap.

          • Anglichan

            ‘Rantings’? ‘Harking back to a golden age?’ Where did ‘Bronze age cult’ come from? Now you aren’t even reading the comments never mind the article before commenting. Post away, Sammy boy, you won’t get any more response from me to your inanities.

    • Ty Kendall

      You’re quite the ‘twat’ aren’t you?
      You massively overuse inverted commas, it stops having the desired effect after two or three times, much less for tenth time, moron.

      • Anglichan

        Give us a kiss, ‘handsome’.

        • Ty Kendall

          No thanks, ‘keyboard warrior’.

          • Anglichan

            ‘The keyboard is mightier than the sword.’

  • Hugh_Oxford

    Monogamy really only matters for mothers and children. Marriage only matters for mothers and children. Matrimony (the maternal state) only matters for mothers and children. The legal recognition of marriage only matters for mothers and children.

    Trying to describe the paradigm of homosexuality with the vocabulary and grammar is nonsensical. They are, in anything other that a superficial sense, completely different phenomena. That is not a statement of prejudice, it is just a statement of fact, of reality.

    I believe in live and let live. I believe people should be able to live their lives however they want without prejudice or discrimination. But I also believe that SSM is a monstrous lie, an impossibility and a denial of biological reality.

    • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

      What term would you use for a same sex couple bringing up a child?

      • Hugh_Oxford

        Probably “a same sex couple bringing up a child”.

        • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

          So why do we need a special term for an opposite sex couple bringing up a child?

  • Evergreen Fields

    Liberty empowers us to choose which goals to work toward, which efforts to undertake, and how to adjust our ways when confronted with dynamic circumstances we could not foresee.

  • bermeir

    No man-gay or heterosexual- favours monogamy as much as females. Most men-gay or heterosexual- are more able to detach sex from love. FACT.

    So this idea that gay men will now ‘reign it in’ is a heterosexual liberal fantasy.

    And why should they? Monogamy is important only in heterosexuals.

    This writer knows NOTHING about male behaviour in spite of being one.

    • Fergus Pickering

      Define natural, old fruit. And while you’re about it, define unnatural. Marriage is man-made. It is not natural.

  • Marcus

    This is precisely why Jan Muir’s comments on Steven Gatley’s sad death were not nearly as homophobic or out of line as was stated at the time.
    She was just applying current heterosexual morals to a gay union.

    • bermeir

      Exactly. And all those heterosexuals who support gay marriage will do the same. Of course, gay men -like all men- ultimately value sexual freedom more than they do the opinions of those who want to ‘welcome them into the fold of marriage’ so potential for conflict there.

  • Observing from London

    Let me state first that Douglas Murray is normally a reasonable and respectable commentator on current affairs. Unfortunately, that is why I was puzzled by the striking lack of common sense in the headline of this column. Asking homosexuals to suddenly become more responsible now that they can legally marry is rather more optimistic than wise. Since when did any aggrieved minority group start to behave better once the state had caved in to its demands?

    No, another outcome is altogether more likely. The recognition of gay marriage will be seen by members of the ‘homosexual community’ (an oxymoron if I’ve ever seen one) as an official act of approving their sexual relations as they are, not as an injunction to prefer monogamy.

    • bermeir

      Sexual relationships between gay men have been legal for decades; society, as a whole, has accepted homosexuality towards men. This is not just some London elite thing, either: go to a village in deepest Wales and two men living together is no longer a controversial thing: ‘Oh well Dai and John are allright, not sure about what they get up to in bed, but each to their own’. OK, not exactly, brimming with ‘they’re just like us’, but a sign that it is, and has been, OK for two gay men to live together for quite some time.

      So why do so few of them as a percentage do it? Because it’s not natural for men-of any sexuality- to embrace full-on monogamy as whole-heartedly as women.
      Even amongst the gay men who couple up, the notion of sexual monogamy is not deemed to be that important to them as it is heterosexuals. Why should it be? There is no risk of pregnancy with homosexuality.

      All those nice ‘straight’ liberals will have quite a shock when they discover that the norms they apply to their relationships don’t quite fit the norms that gay men apply to their’s.
      Ultimately any backlash will come from such people and gay men will resent the pressure to ‘heterosexualise’ their relationships.

      Gay marriage is-and always was- a bad idea based on some half-baked notion of equality and fairness (particularly idiotic when a viable system that sorted out pensions etc was already available in the form of civil partnerships). As absurd as saying that roses and potatoes should be treated in the same way.

  • jmjm208

    Many Christians quote the Bible justify disagreeing with homosexuality but even if the Bible didn’t say it’s wrong, then nature itself says so.
    It is fine to for two men, or two women, to have a close friendship but sexual relations between such is against nature. Men and women are made for each other, that is how they are built.

    • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

      The existence of homosexual relations in many species, including in our closest relatives bonobos, would indicate you are wrong.

      And men and women were not ‘built’.

      • “The existence of homosexual relations in many species, including in our closest relatives bonobos…”

        You have chimpanzees for relatives? No wonder you see nothing inherently wrong with Natural Selection!

        • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

          I do, and so do you.

          • Really? Can I have photos of yours, please? Or a simple sketch of the chimps will do.

          • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

            As opposed to creation of all animals by a sky wizard who hid all these fossils to trick us?

            Btw, it’s bad form to copy and paste whole bits of text without attributation. Out of interest, did you lift that dreck directly form the Creation Research Institute or from the repost on Infowars? Given your rather zany views on international relations I’m guessing the latter.

          • “As opposed to creation of all animals by a sky wizard who hid all these fossils to trick us?”

            Fossils? What fossils are you referring to? Obviously monkey fossils mistaken for “Early Man” fossils, since I already proved Natural Selection can’t lead to new species.

          • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

            No, your post is copied from this ICR article from January last year http://www.icr.org/article/7872/

            Since you can’t be honest about your sources, I have no reason to believe you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and few come bigger than the idea that all of biology, geology, archaeology, palaeontology and a host of other disciplines are engaging in a 150 year conspiracy.

            Evolution is simply a variation in allele frequencies in a population over time. Every subsequent organism will only ever be a modified version of what it’s parents were. If you could see ever generation you would most likely detect no change, but these hinges add up over millions of years.

            I await the nonsense about ‘micro evolution’ and ‘kinds’, and how the Grand Canyon was carved by Noah’s flood.

          • “No, your post is copied from this ICR article from January last year…”

            Really? Where’s the following…

            “Each of these eight distinct and general physical characteristics of the Human hand have further sub-characteristics that would have needed to also appear via mutation in order to provide the final form of the Human hand (new ligaments, muscles and blood vessels, including “successful” mutations of the dimensions of “Early Man’s” hand matching “Modern Man’s” hand dimensions); that is, “successful” mutations taking place within each of the eight general characteristics. But according to Natural Selection, “Over time, unsuccessful traits will disappear, advantageous traits will become more common, and, if and when the differences are great enough, new species will evolve.”

            Until all eight unique characteristics of the Human hand have arrived (along with the other additions mentioned above), the previous seven characteristics provide “Early Man” with no advantage in his new environment on the ground, and will have him falling out of the trees more frequently when he runs back to them for safety (“Early Man”, in fact, wouldn’t make it back to the trees, being overtaken by the much faster quadrupedal hunters, who smelled him before he even knew they were around!). That is, “Early Man’s” hand is a malformed/handicapped hand for its environment (as such a hand would be today missing any of the eight characteristics, etc.), and by the time the eight and last “successful” characteristic has arrived, the initial characteristics have disappeared because, according to Natural Selection, “over time…unsuccessful traits will disappear”.

            Sorry to upset your odd wish that you descended from chimps, but I recently threw a yet undiscovered monkey wrench (pun intended) into the less than rigorous doctrine of Natural Selection–an organism’s equilibrium status with its hostile environment…

            An organism’s survival in its hostile environment affirms its equilibrium with that environment, hence any claimed “beneficial” mutation the organism develops by chance occurrence is in fact a negative mutation placing the organism into a disequilibrium state with its hostile environment.

            This discovery is what I call, “The Law of Species Equilibrium”.

            Now let’s take Natural Selection to its absurdest level…how did animals evolve in the first place? Imagine animals existing minus their yet to evolve internal organs!”

      • jmjm208

        Men and women were designed as they are because they are meant for each other, It is grossly unnatural for people of the same sex to engage in sexual activity.

        • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

          Who designed them? And if same sex activity is unnatural, why do we see it in hundreds of species, particularly our closest relatives the bonobos?

          • jmjm208

            Clearly you are following the devil’s agenda. The devil has blinded you to the truth.

          • Kaine

            If I am made in the image of God I must assume me liking other men is part of that intention. Who are you to gain-say the almighty?

          • jmjm208

            You are heading for the flames of Hell; repent or perish, turn or burn.

          • Kaine

            Sorry, the epileptic ravings of John of Patmos have no power over me.

          • jmjm208

            The devil has power over you, that is why you are an unsaved sinner on the way to Hell.

          • Alias Darker

            we are not bonobos, we are human beings, bonobos follow their primal instinct, we follow our intellect and choices. cant you see you re insulting yourself ? lol

          • Kaine

            No, because if you actually read the context of the discussion, it was alleged that homosexuality was unnatural. It’s existence in other social mammals demonstrates this is not the case.

            If you want to shift the goal posts to some other basis then you need to lay out your axioms darling. Of course, that would require some intellectual effort.

          • Alias Darker

            oh please, everything on this earth with a pulse is natural , we agree on that , so please also agree thats not what that person you were talking to meant . when people say that homosexuality is unnatural, what they mean is that they don’t find it “normal” . and normal is never static , this notion changes with each generation that passes. yes, fifty years ago homosexuality was not normal (not in the norm , it was hidden ) , but today , a lot of people , even if they don’t like seeing two gay men kiss, are not shocked as they would have ben fifty years ago, meaning it is normal today to a lot of people , even to those who don’t agree with it . basically , people can still hate you today, but they don’t think you re not normal , and most “anti gay ” people i meet and know, are really against the politic of it all , they don’t care to live in a world full of homosexual men and women (that are out) as long as they don’t hang out with them, don’t watch TV featuring them, or whatever . its a complex matter . all i know is that i find it degrading to all human beings to go dig for such an example (bonobos do it, so its ok) to justify gay sex , its insulting , because there are tons of other “natural” thing animal do and that we (all humans included) find repulsive, and just plain wrong , like when they killed their cubs, or eat their own f……

          • Kaine

            No, when people say “it’s unnatural” they’re trying to say that it’s a chosen, moral failing. It isn’t. People also claim homosexuality to be some evolutionary ‘dead-end’. It isn’t. People also claim that they’re aversion to homosexuality is somehow ‘innate’, well as you say even if it were they should get over it.

            We can forward reasons why infanticide is wrong. I’ve yet to come across one as to why homosexuality is wrong that didn’t involve some desert deity or antediluvian notions of clam-based matchmaking.

          • Alias Darker

            some gay people say thay want to be like straights , others say they want to be accepted for who they are, it is very confusing for john and jane doe who just want to deal with “persons”.

          • Alias Darker

            instead of insulting me like an ignorant bigot that you are maybe you should read more of what i wrote, and youll see that i do not believe homosexuality is unnatural , but your eyes are so full of your own SH that you cant see clearly anymore . get lost . if i was gay, id be very careful not to insult the people defending me, after all , you guys need all the allies you can get, no matter how much tv is telling you that like 99% of the people are ok with what you do

          • Kaine

            I simply pointed out that you hadn’t bothered to read the context in which the point was made.

          • Alias Darker

            indeed, sorry for that

    • Though you failed to explain why same-sex relations is deleterious to civilization, you nonetheless are correct in your observation!

      See my comments below…

    • Fergus Pickering

      Meaningless. Against Nature. Law is against nature. Civilisation is against nature.

      • mrflint

        If it occurs in nature, it is natural. Homo sapiens don’t have a monopoly on homosexuality.

        • Fergus Pickering

          Either way, M Flint, the fellow is talking bollocks.

          • mrflint

            Couldn’t agree more. Sex is not a political issue. Plenty more to worry about.

        • Alias Darker

          but they do have monopoly on giving birth naturally , it is a gift from nature ( not from science or some catastrophically liberal government)

  • Treebrain

    “For it tellingly failed to include a clause allowing for divorce on the grounds of adultery.”

    Tellingly is the key word, for the supporters of gay marriage knew that if the promiscuity that is an integral part of the majority of gay relationships were to become known, it would undermine the whole campaign!

    Only after the event will the real basis on which so many gay marriages are conducted become public, and widespread promiscuity is only one of them.

    Fidelity, sexual or otherwise, is absent in most gay relationships and the same will apply to gay ‘marriages’!

    Responsibility is most certainly not a concept that gay activists advocate!

  • DrCrackles

    Douglas

    I resent being divided into this ‘straight’ group of people using the jargon of the homosexual rights movement. This new jargon is as perverse as the people who wield it. It creates a division where non used to exist and further creates an equivalence where the is none. I would still maintain that ‘I am not straight, I am married’ in spite of the pernicious assault on the institution.

  • mrflint

    What an absolute crock of an article. Nothing like a pseudo-libertarian self-hating homophobe telling other gay men who they are and their life choices are wrong.

    • Alias Darker

      what ticked you off ?

  • Hugh_Oxford

    The grammar and vocabulary of “same sex marriage” activists betrays a basic ignorance of what marriage actually is, how it works, and the state’s relationship to it.

    “Same sex marriage” has never actually been “illegal”. Until very recently, there is nowhere in the canon of law that even mentions it as a concept. The law has been as silent on the matter as philosophy and literature. Rather, “same sex marriage” has always been physically impossible, something unnecessary either to proscribe or prescribe. It has been physically impossible for two people of the same sex to physically marry, to enter into a biological union. That is why the concept was, quite literally, a joke, an absurdity, a Pythonesque gag like jumping the English Channel, or a killer rabbit.

    When the redefinitionists talk about “allowing people to marry”, or “denying access to marriage”, they are making a number of brand new ontological claims about the nature and purpose of marriage. First, that marriage is something that is permitted, rather than something that inheres outside of the law and is recognised by the law. Secondly, that the government actually marries people, rather than that men and women physically marry one another. Third, that the nature and substance of marriage is defined by the state, rather than by biology.

    For the state to deny the legal recognition of “same-sex marriages” is to simply recognise the truth: people of the same sex are biologically incompatible, they cannot physically marry.

    “Same-sex marriage” activists make brand new and radical claims about marriage: claims so radical that it is perfectly reasonable to say that they are not actually talking about marriage at all in any established sense of the word. None of the historical and universal vocabulary of biological marriage apply to their construct: consummation (completion), extra marital sex, adultery, being born within and outside wedlock, the wedding night, the marital act, matrimony (the state of motherhood), the wedding bed, husband and wife, bride and groom, and so on.

    It is as though they are talking about extending pregnancy to oil exploration, or dentistry to maize cultivation. This is one of the many dishonest aspects of their campaign: they deny the radical nature of of their claim, they try to minimise it or trivialise it.

    The question about “same sex marriage” is not “should it be legal”, but “is it physically possible”. Can the state actually make it physically possible? Is marriage something within the state’s purview?

  • Alias Darker

    im sick of gay people comparing humans to animals just to justify their sexual activities. enough already, we are not bonobos, we are human beigs, we do not follow our primal instincts, but our intellects and our choices . One may not choose to be gay ( im not God i have no way of knowing that for sure) , but one certainly chosse to have gay sex, its a choice , sam as straights , im straight, i know i like boys , but it doesnt mean im going to sc*** every guy i see “because i cant help it, i was born that way” come on people !

  • Sonali Chandna

    I think gay marriages are as real as any other marriage, it involves commitment, time, dedication, and the promise for the bond to be forever, I think to be able to be a parent in one way or the other is good enough, just like it is for the straight couples. Meanwhile for the gay singles who want to get married and are looking for options can browse through http://www.meetoutside.com, where they can meet eligible gay men looking for dating and marriage without having to spend any money.

Close