The end of civilization as we know it

France’s first gay wedding.

Armageddon lurks right around the corner. If you are married yourself, prepare for catastrophe as the sacred institution of marriage is threatened. The Peking Duck recommends that Europeans remain indoors until further notice, and for God’s sake watch the children. We’re all at risk; no one is safe.

The Discussion: 18 Comments


What exactly is wrong with wanting to preserve marriage as a ceromony between men and women. I understand the need for property, inheritance and next of kin rights for same sex couples but marriage is marriage. Can’t you have a legal status that allows this without having to call it marriage.

Half of the anti gay marriage demonstraitors are not worried about two men in bed rather they are worried that the word marriage is used.

If you called it a civil transferance of inheritance rights or some other bland non imotive word then half of the right wing bigots would snooze through it and it wold barely raise a whisper until half the gay population had gone through the ceremony.

This isn’t about civil liberties, if it was you’d have two million homosexuals marching on Washinton demanding shared morgage and property rights. No they are demanding marriage simply because somebody says no marriage is for conventional couples.

June 5, 2004 @ 7:21 pm | Comment

I don’t lobby or argue for gay marriage on this site, although I comment on news about it from time to time. All I am saying here is that there are many, many outspoken people who are calling gay marriage exactly what my mock headline does — the end to civilization as we know it. They say it is like licensing incest, pedophilia and bestiality. This is well documented; I’m not exaggerating.

My point is a simple one. Here is gay marriage in all of its horrors. Here is the threat that might undo the sacredness of marriage and cause the very fabric of American society to unravel. Here’s the threat — two people in love, celebrating their vows to one another. In other words, these alarmists who insist it will destroy us are idiots and bigots.

You say: ” No they are demanding marriage simply because somebody says no marriage is for conventional couples.” (I presume you mean to put a comma after the word “no.”) You’ll have to prove this assertiom to me; I don’t believe it. I know several same-sex couples for whom marriage is of the utmost importance and has been for years.

Why shouldn’t it be called marriage? Why don’t you believe gays should have the right to marriage the same as straights? I suspect your aversion to it is because you feel it sounds icky. But that won’t hold up legally, as more and more states recognize gay marriage and the FMA is voted down.

June 5, 2004 @ 7:43 pm | Comment

Err actually I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, if it is between two people of the same gender it should have another name.

I do think that the “agenda” of gay marriage is being spearheaded by “non conformists” people who have to be different and who have to have something simply because “conventional opinion” says no to them.

If president Bush were to stand up on Monday morning and announce that homosexual couples would have all of the legal rights, protections and privileges of heterosexual partners, but that it would be called “A gay pledge” and not a “gay marriage” these people would still protest and demand that it be recognised as marriage.

Incest is between two relatives it has its own name, why can’t a homosexual marriage have its own name, not of course that I am comparing the two, I just can’t think of any other situations.

I’m not against two homosexuals having the same rights as two heterosexuals, but I am against them using the same name. This is something new, why can’t it be called something different.

I don’t much care if two people have the same wants and desires as heterosexuals decide to get into the same bed at night or if they have a mutual relationship that has all of the same features as a heterosexual relationship, what don’t like is for it to be called a gay marriage.

A new situation must have a new name.

On the front of it destroying civilisation, I can’t have two wives, or two husbands, or even one wife and one husband. I might love them in the same way that somebody loves one person. I also can’t have sex with a child, they might love me and I might love them just as two homosexuals love each other. I “know” that it is wrong to marry two people and that it is wrong to have sex with children. Likewise opponents of gay marriage “know” that it is wrong to have sex with another man or woman.

What people are afraid of is that this is the first step into declaring other things that we “know” to be wrong as legitimate relationships.

It is not a big leap from gay marriage to lowering the age of consent, or to liberalizing the laws on sex with children. Right now very few men are ever put before a judge for having “consenting” sex with a minor even through many states declare this as rape, what people are worried about is that this opens up a dark precedent.

I know that is it scare mongering but many people are worried about their daughters being seduced by older men, and are now being presented with the a situation when they will also have to worry about their sons being coerced into gay relationships. It might be a huge leap in reality but in peoples minds the connection is very real.

“Any relaxation of the rules could open the door” is the real fear, not homosexuals with joint pensions.

I don’t think that homosexual marriage sounds icky, it is true that I do hold the belief that sex is wrong between two homosexuals, but I don’t think that they are incapable of having exactly the same emotional bonds as conventional couples and I think that any partnership should have legal protection, just so long as whatever is decided upon also come with the same restrictions, gay parents who divorce should have the same child support rules as heterosexual parents, and property laws that govern divorces should also apply to homosexual couples same privileges same barriers, no affirmative action, no hatred.

In spite of all of the legal and moral arguments we must realise that America is a country where those who are for and those who are not have an equal voice. If the majority vote against gay marriage then we must also respect that, just as we must respect any law that is voted for by the people that permits gay marriages.

June 5, 2004 @ 11:41 pm | Comment

What people are afraid of is that this is the first step into declaring other things that we “know” to be wrong as legitimate relationships.

Well, many years ago we “knew” it was wrong to let a white person marry a black person. We “knew” it was wrong for a Christian to mary a Jew. The same with “knowing” that sex between two members of the same sex is wrong. It’s founded on intolerance and closed-mindedness.

We made it legal for blacks to marry whites. Did it open the door to incest? To having sex with children? That is something illegal, truly wrong. People under a certain age don’t have the judgement or experience to make important decisions and they can easily be expolited. So adult sex with children has always been illegal and always will be.

Gay people above the age of consent can be given the same rights as straights without opening the door, as you say, to child sex, incest or bigamy. To put them in the same category is offensive.

…I do hold the belief that sex is wrong between two homosexuals

I’m afraid we may not have much to say to one another on this topic. I wanted to believe that attitudes like this were outdated, at least among educated people. I won’t try to sway you, as i suspect it’s not possible, but I will suggest we drop the conversation as it won’t lead anywhere productive.

June 6, 2004 @ 12:29 am | Comment

i pray everyday that my country will come to its senses and give its many gay children what they deserve (i.e. not caning or imprisonment!).. and that one day i may be able to hasten the “end of civilization” myself.

June 6, 2004 @ 1:17 am | Comment

I put know in quotations because what we “know” means what we believe and don’t want to let go of.

Why is believeing that same gender sex is wrong outdated, but believing that having three husbands is ridiculous considered to be normal.

Maybe we should look at the situation in China where we “know” that there aren’t any homosexuals..

While France is acknowledging that gay love is the same as conventional love and America is morolising over wherether it should ban gay weddings, there are a few million people here who are being forced to hide their sexuality every day. People who would like to be able to profess their feelings but can’t because society won’t allow them to.

At least in America this issue can be broadcast openly, in China you can’t have a gay wedding because “there are no gay people” according to Beijing.

In the midst of China’s social revolution, those with different sexualities are being left in the mud.

June 6, 2004 @ 1:21 am | Comment

En tout cas moi j’dis, vive la France ๐Ÿ™‚

I don’t know how this gay marriage thing will work out in France, it is still illegal and the government said they’d do something against it … oh well, on verra.

Angry Chinese Blogger : I don’t know about calling it by a different name, it’s two people loving each other that want to share their lives, “pledge” just doesn’t sound the same. After all, it *is* the same thing, whether it’s gay or straigt marriage. Marriage is not about children, it’s about love (You wouldn’t come up with another name if one of the people getting married is sterile, would you ?)

June 6, 2004 @ 2:54 am | Comment

I’m soooo happy to be a Belgian ๐Ÿ™‚

But the point I actually want to make: it just so happens that this week I read an article in a local paper how much of a non-issue same-gender marriage has become here now that it is legal.

It’s true: these days, in Belgium it is a tiny minority that has any problems with it. Even the extreme right, racist party we unfortunately have is making a turnaround these days (elections! even they stand to *lose* votes over it…).

June 6, 2004 @ 4:32 am | Comment

I have been a lurker here for some time (I live here in New York and have found this to be a wonderful blog, very intelligent and very informative). But I feel I must respond to the postings about same-sex marriage.

If same-sex marriage were permitted (in whatever country), it would begin to normalize that gays and lesbians are a legitimate part of the societies they live in and that their needs and desires and rights are the same as their heterosexual brothers and sisters (including the desire to have their relationships validated… socially, religiously, and as citizens in exactly the same way).

And although the earlier blogger has the right to his opinions about what is right and what is wrong, it is always troubling when peoples’ opinions are about what people OTHER than themselves should do and should not do. Speak for yourself, and rather listen to those that are different than you, honestly and genuinely trying to understand who they are and what they want for themselves. It is not about YOU. And why does it upset you so much that they want the same things that you have, based on your privilege as a straight person?

Whether it is Americans dictating the way that other nations should be (or the rights they should have or not have…), or whether it is white people doing the same towards people of color, or men doing the same towards women, or straight people doing the same to gays and lesbians, it comes down to the same thing. The dominant group is setting the rules, and the rules usually benefit themselves and leave others out.

June 6, 2004 @ 7:01 am | Comment

I want to marry a cow.

June 6, 2004 @ 11:20 am | Comment

It seems that people who oppose gay marriage say any one of the following things, or all of them – if we allow gays to marry, where do we stop? People will be allowed to have 3 husbands? 4 wives? 7 goats? What about all of them altogether?

I don’t quite follow this logic. I think I’ve ranted about it extensively though.
It only follows if one is honestly of the opinion that homosexuality of any sort is indicative of debased moral behaviour in the same league as bestiality or polyamory (and then again, why is it that gay people always get the mud for that? aren’t heterosexuals just as capable of polyamory?)..

I don’t see why calling it by another name would do any good but serve to acquiesce to those who stubbornly hold the opinion that ANY heterosexual alliance is far superior to gay relationships which have weathered decades. Love is love is love. It stinks that I could be in a committed relationship with a woman for years, and am not allowed to marry her, have a child with her, and when I die the law does not recognise us to have any legal ties – and yet I could pick up any strange man off the street, I could marry him in a Las Vegas church Britney-blitz style, and it would be perfectly OK.

I may be biased to think there is some lunacy to stubborn insistence on the gay-marriage=end of civilization/ start of polyamorous freeforall lovin’, but if our presence defiles the institution of marriage – why are we fighting tooth and nail for it? And for some of us, it isn’t even a “ceremony” between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. It is the right to finally be able to say “This is my wife, and we have a life together” that finally makes the lifetime of struggle seem a little more liveable.

June 6, 2004 @ 11:56 am | Comment

Adri, Stephen, Emile, thanks for the great comments. It is truly reassuring to see that alll kinds of people, gay and straight, can look at this emotionally charged issue with objectivity and common sense. And compassion.

Adri, your last comment is an inspiration. It is so important that people realize the mind games they play. Without any critical thought, they put same-sex sex in the same category as incest and pedophilia. And this betrays their inherent bigotry.

The true threat to marriage, of course, is divorce. If the self-righteous and morally superior opponents to same-sex marriage truly cared about the sanctitity of marriage, they’d be channeling their energies into ways to keep marriages intact, not into preventing people who are in love from marrying.

June 6, 2004 @ 12:33 pm | Comment

I’ve noticed that no one has commented on this:

… they will also have to worry about their sons being coerced into gay relationships.

WTF? Being homosexual is not a choice, nor can it be forced on someone.

Marriage is a legal union between two people, and whether or not it’s man-woman, man-man, or woman-woman, it implies the same rights and responsibilities – why should it have to take on a different name just because the parties are not what you are socially trained to accept?

To belabour the point, homosexual marriage can never be put in the same category as incest, bigamy, or polygamy. That is just flawed and dagerous logic.

If two people who love each other want to commit by getting married, let them. They’re not hurting anybody.

June 7, 2004 @ 12:21 am | Comment

I’d like to say that I’m not anti gay, I don’t want to bar homosesuals from society or prevent them from expressing their love, BUT we have the words hetrosexual and homosexual to describbe two different states of sexuality so why not two different words to describe hetrosexual and homosexual marriage.

Marriage is a tradition, we need a new tradition for a new situation not a directors cut of the old ceremonies.

Many of the protests that we see have three angles

The Bigot. “No to gays, they’re dirty and revolt us”

The conservative “If we say yes to Homosexual marriage today what will we agree to next, lets ban change”

The pro marriage (me) “Let them be gay and have legal protection, but don’t call it marriage, new idea, new name, same values”

June 7, 2004 @ 8:17 pm | Comment

Sorry, but you’re splitting hairs and being disingenuous (with all due respect). Like, it’s okay if you’re gay, and you can have the same rights I have — but you have to call it something else. Uh-uh. All they’re asking for is equality and legitimacy. Equality means the same rights, and one of those rights is the right to marry. Should we have to call it something different if a black man marries a white woman. Of course not. This is what equality is all about.

June 7, 2004 @ 8:24 pm | Comment

I see that your tired of me splitting this hair so I’m going to stop, as a famous man said “it doesn’t matter if a cat is …”.

Putting the argument over names and semantics aside, it is interesting to see that the debate appears to cross several divides with national governments and people.

I am writing from what I see in the media in most instances so please excuse me if I am off goal on anything.

Both Holland and France now recognise civil unions for gay couples and there is strong support for full recognition of gay marriage, yet one is a liberal democracy with a mixed religious mix and the other is a secular socialist democracy with a fierce nationalist side and a history of discrimination (opinion).

In France opposition appears to be coming from the political left and the nationalist parties of France. Legal action is not being greatly pursued in Holland and is being pursued by the Government in France. Campaigning in France is to boost the status of the existing civil union into marriage. In France and Holland the majority of people appear to be for gay marriage

Britain has a liberal socialist democracy but is looking to jump straight into recognition of gay weddings with little opposition, and what opposition there is apparently coming from the right side of the country rather than from religious groups or the major political parties. Lobbying is in progress in England but I am not aware of any substantial legal action. Campaigning in England doesnโ€™t differentiate between the legal and the relationship aspects of gay marriage. In Britain the majority of the people donโ€™t seem interested in the issue and campaigning groups are largely homosexuals and center/far right parties.

America has a secular conservative democracy and a strong religious center, the majority of the people โ€œappearโ€ to be against both gay weddings and civil unions and opposition is coming from both the religious groups and the political right. Legal action is coming from all sides both pro gay marriage and anti gay marriage. Campaigning in America covers the legal and the relationship aspects of union or marriage. Campaiginging in America appears to come from all sides of society and has a strong element of โ€œif we allow this what will we allow afterwardsโ€, and there is a fear that if homosexuality becomes normal (accepted) then it will lead to other barriers for acceptable conduct being altered.

Japan has a liberal democracy and a religious society, yet the sexual aspect of homosexuality is being openly promoted and the relationship aspect is being ignored (by non homosexuals). Civil union and gay marriage arenโ€™t being (actively) considered or protested for or against.

China has a closed nationalistic hybrid society with strong traditions; it is ignoring the issue while homosexuality is relegated to an underground groups as with most religious and political groups. Campaigning would be seen as anti Government rather than anti marriage or immoral.

June 7, 2004 @ 10:49 pm | Comment

Not quite sure what your point is, ACB. Nor am I convinced that this research or observations will hold up to more intensive scrutiny.

June 9, 2004 @ 9:05 am | Comment

Hey, do you know where I can find the photos of David Beckham standing on the balcony in his skimpy underpants? Beckham in briefs — how nice.

June 13, 2004 @ 4:30 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.