Sunday, 4 March 2012

Gay 'marriage' and talking dogs

In the Molly houses of eighteenth century London gay men would meet to undertake parodic weddings, one dressed in veil and apron in the manner of a bride, as a fake minister joined them in matrimony; frequently the 'marriage' would be 'consummated' in a screened off part of the Molly house, and sometimes the 'bride' would even enter a parody of parturition to produce a doll from under her apron. All fine with me; I'm not out to stop inverts having their bit of fun with the traditions and rituals of the normal world. 

That's why I'm not overconcerned with Cameron's proposals for 'gay weddings'. He can legislate for dogs to talk, too, for all the difference it will make. 

You see, marriage is a sacrament. You can go through the ritual, and you can even go through the ritual in a proper church with an ordained priest saying the words, but unless the two participants are a man and a woman, who come before God's altar with the right disposition, it isn't a sacrament, and it isn't a marriage. It remains a poor parody, a sad leaden little thing, sans God's grace and bereft of any value, of no more worth than those pathetic parodies of the Molly house.

8 comments:

Greg Tingey said...

One slight problem, perhaps two
What is this "sacrament" then?
[ Yes, I DO know, being an escaped christian] but that was one of the vile Ann Coulter's classic lies - she claimed atheists had sacraments.
No

What is this "god" thing ....

Meantime, I'm moost amused by the lying hypocrisy of an RC Cardinal on this ...
It is presumably all right for the RC priests to rape little boys, but not for adult males who want to join up, is that it?

Lou said...

Agreed. However there are many wider issues to consider such as pension entitlements (and that can crucify the few remaining private pension schemes). Those in the public service are of course still on a final salary scheme of sorts. then there's the "widows pension", then their right to adopt children.

No problem with civil unions to sort out inheritance between gay couples, however this is in fact way bigger than many, including Cameron, have thought through.

25% of straight marriages end in failure and we frequently have to pick up the legal tab when they get spiteful with each other. It's higher amongst those in gay unions and we're being set up for some serious bills if we go this route.

Many things are being overlooked and I have great sympathy for those with deep religious beliefs, yet it seems that Joe Public will be affected in the wallet.

lilith said...

At a wedding I attended a long time ago (when 8 1/2 months pregnant and unwed) the vicar announced that "the purpose of marriage is to bring forth children in the sight of God." I remember blushing in my pew.

FrankS said...

I think there's a bit more to marriage than a ceremony, Raedwald - that could be why so many of then don't last the course.
And you don't have to be in the least bit religious to question the notion of gay marriage.

Anon 2 said...

I agree with your closing paragraph Raedwald.

In our traditional setting, most kept their pledge before God as they should. Among those who married their soulmates, and/or who participated through the transcendent love of God, there would be no call for change.

Those who found their soulmates later understood well enough the importance of upholding God's Law, regardless.

Part of that Law pertains to the construction of society, of course. The practicalities of patrilineage and patrimony carry some weight yet. Even the bi-valent 'playboy' types can still relish having all that behind them!

However, Cameron and his kind have much in common with the Jacobeans (don't these boys pride themselves on descent from such?). If we look more closely at the records, though, those Jacobeans (strong europhiles, to boot) show us where institutionalized decadence leads. It's no prettier now than it was then.

Anonymous said...

Take Christianity to bits for your own good and desire and you will find that Islam will fill the vacuum

Raedwald said...

Anon 22.41 - It's not I who seeks to cleave the faith, but those who wish to subvert the faithful with this proposed grotesque parody of the sacrament of marriage.

G. Tingey said...

Anonymous
STILL doesn't get it .....

islam is where christianity was 622 years ago, and it shows.

NO RELIGION AT ALL is much better
(and, before anyone brings up the usual lies, remeber that communism is a classic religion)