Teacher: “Why is it that only two people are married at once—couples, that is to say—and not three, four, or more? Why not triples, quadruples and higher?”
Student: “Well, history has always shown it takes two to tango.”
Teacher: “Are you sure you want that as your official answer?”
Student: “Well, yes. There have been cases of one man marrying several wives, but the wives weren’t also married to each other. To a far lesser extent, I have heard of the same thing reversed. One wife and several husbands; but again, the men in those situations weren’t married to each other; just to the wife.”
Teacher: “Then I’m afraid I have to mark you incorrect. That only two people are married at a time, or rather marriage was in pairs, even though some of the pairs were shared, must and could only be the result of irrational animus, bigotry, and hatred.”
Student: “You are the teacher, so you must be right. But could you explain?”
Teacher: “Certainly. You see, when it came to pass in our culture that two men or two women wanted to claim to be married to each other, they had no logical argument to support their desire. They could not point to biology or science, for instance, for those harsh realities insisted that families were for procreation, as that subject is understood writ large. Same-sex pairs could not use history to support their desires, either. For, you see, history did support the idea that only pairs could be considered married, but history also insisted that it was only men and women who could marry each other. History is thus prejudiced. And you have to take it whole. Picking and choosing which bit of history to rely upon is arbitrary and illogical.”
Student: “I take your point. Or points.”
Teacher: “Yes. So since science was of no help, and neither history, it was judged that both reality and history were bigoted, hateful things, and that any who called to these subjects were themselves filled with irrational animus and were thus bigots. Do you see?”
Student: “Yes, I think I finally do.”
Teacher: “Now it will make sense that even prisoners—male prisoners—will be able to declare their marriages to one another. Still only in pairs, of course.”
Student: “Can you quote from a competent authority for that claim? I ask with all respect. Plus I need footnotes for my thesis.”
Teacher: “I can. I quote from the Newsmax article “Gay Marriages Now in Prison“. Ahem:
British inmates Marc Goodwin and Mikhail Gallatinov became the first men to marry one another in the British penal system last year, despite serving life sentences for “hate crimes targeting homosexuals,” the Standard reports.
According to The Guardian, Gallatinov is a convicted pedophile who was convicted in 1997 of murdering a man he met through a gay chat line. Goodwin was sentenced in 2007 for killing Malcolm Benfold, 57, in what was described by police as “a savage, senseless homophobic attack that resulted in the death of a harmless man.”
Gallatinov’s mother, Christina Williams, said she was “glad he’s found love again,” after an earlier ex-boyfriend was moved by prison officials.
Writing for the Standard, Jonathan V. Last questions if “the homophobic murders [could] have been committed by gay men — in which case, they weren’t really “homophobic,” then, were they? Or did Goodwin and Gallatinov’s sexuality evolve in prison?
Student: “Would you classify this as Love at First Sight?”
Teacher: “The evidence supports that view, but I’m afraid without knowing more we cannot say for certain.”
Student: “You don’t find that this article is, well…a tad homophobic? After all, pointing out one of the new ‘husbands’ was a pervert and murderer might lead people to think there is something wrong with homosexual acts.”
Teacher: “Oh, no, I don’t think so. It is only irrational animus, bigotry and, of course, hatred that would lead somebody to fail to praise the many benefits of, for instance, sodomy. For, you see, if sodomy is not bad—and we mustn’t say it is—then it must be good. And what is good must be praised, supported, and even encouraged. All can see this simple point, which is why the news report has done no harm in reporting the facts.”
Student: “I see. Truly you are a wise teacher.”
Your enemies have struck early in the new year with their “Gary” marriages.
You need to edit the typo in the title of this post.
As a former GAO auditor, I have learned that government would be wise to avoid tampering with long standing Christian values either conservatively or liberally. In every case more damage than good has occurred. Of course, those who agree with this type tampering would disagree. I call this the “do gooder anomaly”.
GaRy “marriages”? typo?
Emperor Joseph II of the Austrian Empire introduced in 1781 the civil wedding, he did so to allow Jews and protestants to have the same rights. Protestants and jews did marry before but these weddings were not recognised legally. Just acknowledging the fact that two same sex people can fall in love with each other and live togethere happily monogamously ever after is what gay marriage is all about, just give the other partner a legal basis of inheritance when the other partner dies. Nobody is forcing you to have a gay wedding. And there is nothing fundamental christian about a wedding.
“Nobody is forcing you to have a gay wedding.”
But they will force you to make a gay wedding cake.
This article reminds me of an old Rodney Dangerfield joke: “A friend of mine just got out of jail after 10 years. He’s doing great – in fact, he says he feels like a new woman!!”
Emperor Joseph II of the Austrian Empire introduced in 1781 the civil wedding
“Beginning around 1870, the Nation-States of Europe appropriated to themselves the power over the principles of society: the formation of marriages and the education of children. Civil marriage came to be in Austria in 1868, and its introduction seems pretty clearly the start of a much larger trend which introduced it to Italy in 1873; Switzerland in 1874; The German Empire in 1875; and France in 1881. The opening of State-run secular schools with mandatory attendance policies also dates from about this time…”
But pretty clearly people were marrying and being given in marriage long before the State stuck its nose into matters. Prior to that, marriages were recorded and registered by one’s particular congregation or parish.
If they were registered at all. The ancient Roman practice of usus required only that a couple live together openly and uninterruptedly for a period of years. That was called “common law marriage” in England, and was every bit as much a marriage as confarreatio or coemptio.
Back in Republican Rome, there were several kinds of marriage, but as the very name matri-monium declares, it was regarded as an institution for transforming a young girl (virgo) into a mother (mater). It was considered consumated when the first child was born. The institution provided protection for the mother and the raising of her potential offspring.
In Plato’s The Laws, we read that the first laws of a polis ought to be provision for the formation of families, i.e., for marriage. So Greek law took the same tack.
Roman law required consent — the maxim was “consent makes the marriage” — and the woman had to be at least twelve years old.
In Germanic tribal law, the maxim was that “the act makes the marriage,” meaning that you were married iff you performed the marital act, which was why only a man and a woman could be married. Hence, the prominence of elopement and bride-napping in German legend and princesses in towers letting down their hair for heroes to climb up… and the lively concern about consanguinity within clans living in close quarters in tribal longhouses.
“… ever after is what gay marriage is all about, just give the other partner a legal basis of inheritance when the other partner dies.”
Not at all.
Inheritance can be perfectly handled by legal means: contracts, last will, etc. So supposedly gay “marriage” is about something else and has nothing to do with neither “equal rights” nor goods.
What can not be produced by legality are the offspring and all other familiar consequences. Adoption albeit a legal tool will not take care of furthering one’s own hereditary material.
“Do not trust the newspapers when it comes to reporting matters about a crime,” They do not know the details adequately even in famous crimes. This is what a Crown Court judge said.
They are not “ahem, on the side of the angels.”
Media cannot be trusted on medical matters and on other matters where I’ve had some knowledge, they rarely do a proper job of reflecting the truth. They look to play on the emotions of the reader for all sorts of reasons, non of which are good.
It’s important to point out that the newspaper spins the story, the writer and or editor knowing that the issue of hate crime is a hot potato.
The Criminals were convicted for Murder. Their sentences reflect their crimes and danger to the public.
That the paper says they were given life sentences for ‘hate crimes’ is to introduce or overlay a category which serves as a gloat for those of a very liberal bent and a slap in the face for those who are incensed at the notion of a crime called a hate crime. The newspaper sells stories by emotion. ‘if it bleeds it leads’.
All crimes could be considered hate crimes and they should be. That way the word hate can be cancelled out as nothing unusual in crime and therefore superfluous. Crime is an adequate word.
As for the criminals themselves, they are likely to have taken this course because it affords some kind of freedom within the prison.
As for the altering preferences and understanding homosexuality, I’m not a man, I wouldn’t know. Recently I’ve been listening to Steven Fry on Gay marriage and on his views on God on youtube. He was seventeen years celibate. I do believe many men who are homosexuals are in fact celibate, Just a hunch.