According to my calendar it's 2013, but today MPs were voting on whether grown-up people should be allowed to marry other grown-up people. I feel embarrassed for our country that there is any legal impediment on this issue at such a late stage in history and even more embarrassed that it required a discussion. That anyone could think anything other than, "Yeah, obviously if two people want to get married they should be allowed to, what business is that of mine?"
I mean ideally I'd like to live in a world where every potential marriage is vetted by me and I get to decide if two people are suitable to get hitched. I'd have vetoed at least half of the weddings I have been to mainly because I couldn't believe the bride had chosen the idiot they were with over me. I am clearly the best. In fact if I was in charge I might make a rule that all women are married to me, though I will allow them a second husband (or wife) that I have approved and that I take precedence over. I also don't think anyone should get married until they're at least 30 because making that kind of decision when you're such a baby with no clear concept of how you will both change is clearly madness.
But until my correct system is finally instituted then the second best option is that if you're over 18 you get to choose who you get get married to and no one else can stop you. One group of people doesn't hold dominion over how everyone else should conduct their relationships. I don't really like Tories very much and I'd prefer it if they didn't breed for fear that more Tories might be created. Also I follow the teachings of Jesus and think it's abhorrent that people who only care about themselves and accruing wealth and not helping the needy are allowed to get hitched, even though all those things are heavily criticised in the Bible. But reluctantly I accept that if I want to live in a civilised society I have to stop thinking about Tories in bed, fucking each other with their withered Tory genitals and just accept that being a horrible person and marrying another horrible person are choices that they are allowed to make.
If this debate was about whether Tories are allowed to get married I admit that I might find it hard to make my own decision, but I would have to overcome my moral repugnance towards something that is nothing to do with me and that I will never have to witness and that will have no effect over my life and agree that Tories should be allowed to marry.
Half a century ago (and less) people would have been debating the issue of whether it's right that black and white people should get married and would be predicting the knock on effect on the institution of marriage if such a thing became accepted as normal. I wonder how many of the people who voted against gay marriage would vote against interracial marriage if their vote was secret.
If marriage is a holy or a Christian thing then God must already be furious about all the atheists, agnostics and non-Christians that have tied the knot. But it isn't. My wedding was in a registry office and we were specifically forbidden from mentioning anything of a religious context in the ceremony (which was a shame because I wanted to say "By Lucifer's Cock, I do"), so we're already in a place where it is accepted that marriage is not by definition a religious thing. Of course it can be and again although I am not religious I would fight to the death if anyone proposed that religious weddings were now illegal. Because you have the right to marry the person you love (or who you wrongly think you love, or who you don't actually love but feel pressured into marrying for whatever reasons). It's such a simple and obvious truth that I genuinely am bamboozled that anyone could think anything different without admitting that the issue is to do with their own latent homosexual feelings. I really can't see any other motivation but denial and jealousy.
I can understand it. I am furious myself that the government look set to legalise gay marriage just ten months after I married a WOMAN. Thanks a lot guys. I got the best woman, but she is still worse than ANY man (including Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer the Milwaukee cannibal, either of whom I would have preferred to make my bride - shut up Hitler, I'm the postman, not the letterbox, deal with it).
I had some fun with my followers on Twitter tonight with the Biblical arguments against gay marriage, largely revolving around the phrase, "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."(I believe that Peter Baynham claims he invented this for the Alan Partridge script - anyone know if it existed before? It's certainly been used unironically since). If something rhymes then it must be true QED. But you're not allowed to reverse the rhyme obviously to "It's Adam and Steve, not Adam and Eve". Only the first rhyme counts.
I started my anti gay marriage argument with the solid logical fact, "It's New Year's Eve, not New Queer's Steve - which is the best argument I've heard for keeping marriage between heteros only."
I think that convinced most pro-gay marriage people to change camps (no pun intended). You can't argue that it is New Year's Eve and it isn't New Queer's Steve. QED.
Then I tried "It's Adam and Eve, not two blokes going at each other." Again check the Bible. I am right about that. That one didn't rhyme which slightly took the shine off the argument but sometimes (very occasional) facts don't have to rhyme. That's certainly true of most of the orange facts I know.
Having convinced myself of the rightness of the anti-gay marriage people I suddenly had a crisis of faith. Didn't Adam and Eve openly disobey God? Were they the best people to use as an example here? If we follow Adam and Eve then we should rebel against God's homophobic wishes and allow gay marriage. Also I started to wonder about God's part in this. If he didn't like gay sex and gay marriage he could easily have invented a system where there were no gays or where the insertion of a penis into anything but a vagina was impossible (if He had just done away with the anus all together and instituted my belly button poo drawer then none of this would be an issue). A few people pointed out that Adam and Eve weren't even married and that Eve was Adam's second (or possibly third wife) and that Eve was a technically a clone of Adam which suggests that if we follow the Bible you can only marry your own sex-changed replicant. Plus their children were all related to each other but presumably had no one to marry but themselves so the early Bible seems to be an advert for incestuous marriage (great news for the people of Somerset - vindicated at last).
We should move away from the whole Adam and Eve thing. It seems to be suggesting a very unChristian world. I came up with, "It's Lot and Lot's Wife, not Lot and lots of men" which could perhaps become the new slogan of the anti-gay marriage closet homosexuals. But then Lot was raped by his own daughters who became impregnated by him. Again what example is that to young families? Though at least he was raped by his daughters not his sons, suggesting once again that God is against homosexuality. Though the brackish end of Lot's Wife suggests that maybe God thought it was best to be gay after all.
But then I realised my main error. The Bible is all made up. Why was I trying to justify something via the confused instructions from a fictional man in the sky. Especially one surrounded by loads of men in dresses, playing harps and wearing angel wings.
I needed science. How about, "It was 1 amoeba dividing into 2amoebas, not sexual intercourse. Marriage for single-celled creatures only (+ only if they marry themselves)". Or "It was the Big Bang, not the big gang-bang" which is more of an argument against polygamy than gay marriage. I just don't know what to think any more.
Maybe we should just go back to using common sense and the fact that getting married is usually quite a pleasant and life-affirming thing and that allowing people in love to make a commitment to each other if they want to can't really have any negative implications for anyone not involved. And just agree that whatever the case God fucking hates Steve.
By the way I know it should be equal marriage, but it's much more annoying to those opposed to call it gay marriage, so I will continue to do so. If I can wind everyone up with an argument, even the people I agree with, then ultimately I am happy. The main thing for me is this whole stupid thing is ripe for piss taking and gives me an easy blog.
