Implications

Marriage is now in the process of being redefined with huge implications.

Here are a couple:

A man can marry a man, or a woman a woman. They do not have to be lesbian or homosexuals in order to do so. All they have to do is want to be 'loving' or committed and to marry.

The Government have invented, as well as 'same sex marriage', asexual marriage, since there is no duty to consummate the marriage.

This means that two friends of the same sex can marry and not consummate the relationship. They can, however, commit adultery or be unfaithful with someone of the same sex, or the opposite sex, and this is not grounds for divorce.

If the two parallel marriage of 'heterosexual marriage' and 'same sex marriages' are 'equal' then why are they so different?

In theory, the legislation paves the way for me to ask George, Jason, Ben and Daryl (all friends of mine) to marry me because they are friends of mine who I 'love'. There is no duty for us to consummate the marriage, which is fortunate since I do not want to have sex with any of them. When my request is refused I can take my cause to the European Court of Human Rights and claim discrimination on the grounds that these are all people of the same sex that I want to marry. Now that marriage has been redefined to mean 'two people of the same-sex', then why should it be limited to two? Surely, to those who wish to marry more than two people of the same sex, for purposes of love and commitment, this is a discriminatory law.

Since marriage no longer means children, or even sex, but just 'love' and 'commitment' I fail to see how five people all loving and committed to each other should not be able to get married since we all love one another, just not in a gay way.

This has been portrayed as a fundamentally 'gay' law, when in fact, it is not, since there is no legal duty for the couple to unite at all, nor is there any grounds in infidelity to divorce. It is not a 'gay/lesbian' law at all. It is potentially a bill that promotes not only homosexual and lesbian marriages, but the marriages of all batchelors who fear commitment to someone of the opposite sex and would rather stick with their own gender, not for sexual purposes, but for beer and good times. They can still be 'unfaithful' to the marriage and have their end away outside of the marital arrangement and we'll forgive them and welcome them back into the house.

Would it not be discrimination of our 'human rights' to deny George, Jason, Ben and Daryl and I to get married since all we wish to do is live a committed and loving marriage and share a house together? You think that's wrong? Well, surely that's just bigoted.

Comments

pelerin said…
What worries me is the ease with which this has been passed despite more Tories voting against than for. I fear legalised Euthanasia will be next and I understand it is already allowed in Belgium - another member of the EU.

As a non productive senior citizen who is taking up space on the buses, in the doctors' waiting rooms and occasionally in a hospital bed how long will it be before we are persuaded that Euthanasia will be the best thing for us and our families?
The Bones said…
Naturally, having given people the 'right to marry', the 'right to be born' the 'right to die', that will be birth, marriage and death all catered for by the glorious State.