It makes me wonder what they’re scared of.

V wanted to get married. He had plans to have some big ‘do’ in Eastnor Castle or somewhere similar. He decided we would wed in white suits and he had chosen who was going to ‘give him away’. It was fantasy, of course. By the time there was the ability to have a civil ceremony, I was already certain that I wouldn’t marry him.

Personally, other than for the benefits it gives your partner (in terms of when you die, etc.), I don’t see the point. It doesn’t seem to be able to keep people together much more than normal couples (with the divorce rates rising year on year); and if it is meant to be significant – in what way is it? Other than to tell the rest of the world that you have a partner (for the moment). It seems a strange, outmoded thing and, I suppose, that is why some people are frightened of it becoming available to all. They WANT to keep it elitist – a club where not everyone can get in. That would, in their minds, make it more precious.

Would I marry F (should the law here change, however unlikely)? Yes, if he wanted it. I am ambivalent about it. It wouldn’t change how I feel about him. It wouldn’t really make any difference to me, inside. I don’t really need the presents or the party. We have our ‘anniversary’ and that’s good enough for me. I don’t really keep our relationship a secret and I’m sure that most people at work know. Our relationship is our business and we don’t need to have anyone else’s acceptance to make it more real than it is. I suppose I might change my mind if something happens where I feel discriminated against. But for now it’s OK as it is.

That’s not to say that I don’t want other people, currently denied the opportunity to marry, to be allowed to marry. If they want it, it’s fine by me.

But what I don’t understand is the hatred (from both sides) and the stupid arguments made for and against.

So, this person, a leader of an organisation that has harboured paedophiles for years, probably centuries, thinks that making marriage legal for homosexual people “madness” and a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.

Excuse me? What ‘accepted human right’ is he talking about*? And why is it ‘madness’?

No it doesn’t make any sense at all. Was this the same church that, for years, opposed inter-racial marriage? The same religion that assisted Hitler and Mussolini with the deportation and gassing of Jews? The same church that actively kept paedophiles safe from the police and courts?

How is anyone from that religion permitted to offer their thoughts on anything at all?

Now that, to me, is where the madness lies and that is a grotesque subversion of human decency and morals.

And, if you want to read more from crazy people, see the comments below this article, in the Independant.

* In fact he is talking about Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, where marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women.
In fact, the UDHR, article 16 is defined as:

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

This is disingenuous on his part since he totally twisted the wording. Article 16 gives the right for men and women to get married – nowhere here does it define marriage as specifically restricted to between a man and a woman. As with most religious nut-cases, he takes something and applies it in the way that he wants rather than fully comprehending its meaning. Stupid man, Keith O’Brian