zotz: (Default)
[personal profile] zotz
Also, I was just in the shop and the Scottish Daily Abscess Mail had a front page story about how Scotland will be the first bit to have gay marriage imposed.

"Imposed".

Obviously, while I'm in favour of people being able to marry who they want, I'm against anyone being forced into a gay marriage simply because they aren't in a straight marriage yet. I hope that makes the situation clear.

Edit: Should have known it was the Mule rather than the Excuse - it didn't mention dead princesses. Sorry for the inaccuracy, and for the inexcusable lack of a reason to despair at the Mail. I'm sure another will come along in a few minutes.

Date: 2011-09-02 12:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] recycled-sales.livejournal.com
Assuming they were quite nice and promised to wash my dishes, I wouldn't mind having any sort of marriage imposed on me.

They would of course have to learn to share, which rather makes me the think The Express is in favour of polygamy.

Date: 2011-09-02 12:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zotz.livejournal.com
That would be very open-minded of them. Signs of improvement, perhaps?

Date: 2011-09-02 01:03 pm (UTC)
ext_52479: (Default)
From: [identity profile] nickys.livejournal.com
Possibly the whole 'imposed marriage' thing could be done by a system of drawing lots? To be humane one might be allowed say two vetos before being required to take the third option, so that nobody ends up with Anne Widdecombe or the nutter with the buses... :-)



More seriously I think a poster campaign explaining that if you think having a gay marriage or a blood transfusion or whatever will stop you getting in to the heaven of your choice then it's fine for you not to have them, but that other people might prefer to go somewhere else...

Date: 2011-09-02 01:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zotz.livejournal.com
There should probably be some points system - you could reject a certain number of milliSouters worth of suitors before being stuck with the random choice.

Date: 2011-09-02 01:38 pm (UTC)
ext_52479: (Default)
From: [identity profile] nickys.livejournal.com
Yes, and perhaps the really ghastly people should be required to marry each other to save the rest of the population?

Date: 2011-09-02 01:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ghoti.livejournal.com
There was a Conservative Party leaflet once which said that the Lib Dems are in favour of compulsory gay marriage. I asked my LD then-candidate how it worked for people who were already married, and he suggested a sort of pairing of couples so you'd end up with a four-person marriage.

HTH.

Date: 2011-09-02 01:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zotz.livejournal.com
This would raise its own issues - would each person end up with one ring, total, for the marriage, or would they be expected to give one to and receive on from each other member? That's three rings each. Twelve.

I can see the nation's jewellers being right in favour of this.

Might be just what we need to get the economy going.

Date: 2011-09-02 01:50 pm (UTC)
ext_52479: (Default)
From: [identity profile] nickys.livejournal.com
It's good to know that there's a policy in place for that eventuality. :-)

Date: 2011-09-02 08:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yehoshua.livejournal.com
It's a bit dated now, and yet it almost reads like they were anticipating the Mule article: Massachusetts Supreme Court orders all citizens to gay marry.

Profile

zotz: (Default)
zotz

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9 101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 25th, 2017 04:43 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios