The right to marry – anything and everything
In his post of 8 January Rigby asked “When and where will the sexual revolution end?” and gave some graphic illustrations. I would like to reflect on a number of the issues he raises.
But first I would like to point out that the number of people with a genuine interest in homosexual ‘marriage’ (or as I see David Cameron now calls it “equal marriage”) is astonishingly small. This point was made by Graeme Archer in a Telegraph blog. Archer is an apologist for homosexual ‘marriage’ but was happy to state that only a small percentage of homosexuals campaigning for homosexual ‘marriage’ would wish to take advantage of it: many were satisfied with ‘civil unions’, many had no interest in any sort of formal union. His point was that since the numbers were so small there was no harm in a small tweak to the law to accommodate their wishes. The true response, of course, should be to say that the “small tweak” would in practice be a legal and moral revolution which should not be undertaken precisely because the numbers “benefiting” are so tiny. Homosexuals only make up 2-3% of the population; those wishing to take advantage of homosexual ‘marriage’ are a small percentage of that – rather than being accommodated they should be told firmly to, how shall I put this politely, find another interest...
And so to the nub of the issue – the definition of marriage. In so far as those promoting the urgent necessity for homosexual ‘marriage’ have been able to present a unified view, their understanding appears to be that marriage is the union of two people “in love”. The consequences of the 1960s anthropological revolution with its insistence that “all you need is love” are all too clearly seen. Of course, the previously accepted definition of marriage in fact had little to do with love. Marriage was/is a public contract freely entered into between a man and a woman, consummated by an act of vaginal intercourse and open to the procreation of children. The key point was the free contract between a man and a woman. But for the homosexualists there are two key points – there should be two people (sex immaterial) “in love”. But this is an unstable definition: are those two points really of equal weight? In fact, when pushed most supporters of this revolutionary change end up saying that the key defining point of marriage is “love”. And this is where they also start to get very shirty, if not downright shifty. For if the key defining feature is “love” they have no logical grounds for restricting marriage to a union of two people (of whatever sex).
Now, it is very evident that some of the propagandists for homosexual ‘marriage’ have an agenda which goes far beyond a definition of marriage as love between two people but they certainly do not want the British public to know this until homosexual ‘marriage’ is firmly embedded in law, precisely because we get into some very murky and perverted waters indeed. Instead, the homosexualists wish to dangle before the British public a “heart-warming” vision of same-sex conjugal bliss no different from the saccharine version of heterosexual married joy so often purveyed by our shallow vehicles of popular culture.
So what are some of the consequences of a definition of marriage whose key concept is “love”?
Firstly, there is no reason – other than “prejudice”! – to restrict marriage to two people who love each other. If three, four or more people (of the same sex or whatever mixture they wish) love each other, and are freely prepared to make a public profession without coercion of their love, why should they not marry? In fact, although the contracting of a polygamous marriage in the UK is currently unlawful, being in a polygamous marriage is not – if it was contracted outside the UK. That is why even now, a surprising number of Muslim polygamous “families” who have moved to the UK are in receipt of multiple state benefits paid for each party to the ‘marriage’. The fact that any new definition of marriage is likely to be challengeable in law when it comes to the question of “numbers” has already been spotted by proponents of polygamy and polyandry: what is the betting that when the legal challenges start to be made most of them will be paid for by the long-suffering British taxpayer through legal aid?
Secondly, there has already been an insidious and wicked campaign waged by some homosexualists to lower the age of consent for sexual activity to whatever they feel they can get away with – and remember that the purpose of lowering the age of consent for some of these campaigners is so that they can pursue sex with children who are under the new age on the basis that “I had no idea he/she was so young; he said he was older and certainly looked it”. This will be linked to a new campaign to lower the age at which marriage can be lawfully contracted; yes, the parties will have to give their consent but those thrilled at the idea of marrying and therefore having lawful sexual relations with very young people will always be able to find at least some youngsters able to fool themselves that they are “in love” and are “ready” for a long-term “relationship” etc, etc.
And so we move to the joyful subject of bestiality! Homosexualists have been frothing at the mouth at the suggestion that their new definition of marriage will licence man/animal relations. But if the new key term in the marriage contract is “love”, why not?
Consider: a man wishes to marry his dog – and let us be truthful, this need not necessarily involve sexual activity, he, or indeed she, might just feel very sentimental about the dog. And it seems increasingly likely that David Cameron’s marriage legislation will drop any requirement for consummation – the subject being too difficult and too distasteful to define. But nevertheless marriage in the UK requires consent. How can an animal give consent? The answer of course is negatively. By which I mean, that over the years those interested in man/animal “love” will promote a definition of marriage which drops the concept of equal consent. The man (and as I have already noted it could be a woman) obviously has intellectual faculties well in advance of those of an animal and therefore a test of consent normally applicable to a man cannot be expected to be relevant to an animal; further, the man (it will be claimed) has emotional/sexual needs and a “right” to their fulfilment well in excess of those of an animal. These arguments will be used to develop an argument of “presumed consent” on the part of animals. If the man’s emotional or sexual attentions do not appear to distress the animal it will be presumed that the animal has given its consent to “marriage”. And if the animal benefits from this arrangement by way of being well cared for, well fed, looked after in sickness or old age and having an estate settled on it should the man die first, why should it be presumed that it has any objection to ‘marriage’? Of course, things get a little messier should the man wish to divorce the animal...
One could go further, particularly in the case of men/women who wish to have sexual relations with their animal “spouses”. Brain science is a wonderful thing. A brain scan could be made of an animal whilst it is receiving the non-sexual attentions of a proposed “spouse”. If the scan records no response or a positive response it might be assumed that the animal has given “consent” to marriage. The same principle applies to sexual activity. If a brain scan shows no response, i.e. distress, or even a pleasurable response during sexual activity then it might be presumed that the animal has given consent. Of course, if one insists on no sex before marriage things will be a little trickier!
But I trust you see my argument. A lower level of “consent” will be required of animals – if they do not show positive distress their consent will be assumed.
And by the way, Rigby in his post which prompted these reflections suggests that animal charities will jump to the defence of animals subject to the attention of “animal lovers”. I am not so sure. It is becoming ever clearer that social and political activists have seized control of many of our large and previously impeccable charities – the RSPCA springs to mind. These charities with their large incomes and extremely attractive salaries and pensions at least for their upper echelons are providing both a springboard and cover for those who previously might have pursued an activist career in one of the more overtly political organisations supported and funded by the post-1960s social order prior to the collapse of Communism in the 1990s and more generally socialism in the 2000s. (Think what has happened with the some leading children’s charities which in effect promote sodomy with adolescents via their campaigns to equalise the age of consent and to enshrine the child’s “right” to make “informed” sexual decisions.) I suspect that some animal charities will develop “animal rights” agendas in the next few years which will make the eyes of the old breed of animal liberationists water at their radicalism. Bestiality? No problem, although, strangely, the mass slaughter of animals for halal food will be swept under the carpet.
Life will be even easier for those who wish to argue their right to ‘marry’ non-animate objects. If no harm can be seen to be done to the object and if the man/woman is prepared to state publicly that he “loves” the object and his well-being will be harmed if his “right” to marry it is denied, then on what logical basis will David Cameron’s new, improved ‘marriage’ law refuse wedded bliss?
This brings me to my paradoxical final point. David Cameron may think he is tidying up an anomaly in the marriage law but in fact because of the likely vacuity of the new definition he will create a minefield of new anomalies. Will the things I have mentioned above come to pass quickly? Perhaps not but those with such proclivities will be very persistent – think of the proponents of abortion and euthanasia – and the propensity of human rights legislation to produce perverse outcomes is all too evident. I suspect that rather than putting this issue to bed (appropriate term) and so proving his modernizing credentials, David Cameron will open a sore which will run for years.
By a Prayer Crusader