Monday, 26 March 2012

Sex = sexual intercourse = intercourse between the sexes

SHARE
A kind friend brought me a copy of the Spectator from England and I read it with huge delight in CIsmigiu on Sunday. The standard had slipped a couple of years ago but this edition is a corker. Amongst other good things I found this by one of the greatest living Englishmen, Piers Paul Read, in the letters page.



Unmentionable question

Sir: Peter Hitchens is no doubt right that the collapse of marriage among heterosexuals is a more serious matter than extending marriage to same-sex couples (‘The gay marriage trap’, 17 March). The damage to the family started with the removal of stigma from having children out of wedlock and divorce on demand; and the redefinition came with same-sex adoption, which in human terms was more radical than same-sex marriage, because there were no long-term studies of what the psychological effect on the adopted children would be. Beyond the issue of the effect on society of the extension of gay rights, however, is the question as to whether conjugal sex and gay sex are morally equivalent. I suspect that most of those who oppose same-sex marriage believe that they are not but dare not say so for fear of being deemed bigoted, judgmental and homophobic. Yet this has been the view of the religious and irreligious alike from antiquity until the present day. 

Piers Paul Read London W6


And this, even better:

Above politics

Sir: Hugo Rifkind is surprised at the influence of religion in the gay marriage debate (17 March) but that is because he misunderstands its contribution. The Church is not a political organisation, and does not ‘oppose’ gay marriage as a lobby group. It just asks that our state should recognise what every child recognises: that men and women are different, and that only men and women can be married. 
James McEvoy  Chertsey, Surrey



My take? Sex = sexual intercourse = intercourse between the sexes. 





And also I feel homosexuals should drink absinthe in strange drinking clubs, read decadent 1890s French poetry, not want to marry. What is wrong with the honourable estates of bachelorhood and spinsterhood, perfectly compatible with intense same-sex friendship, another honourable thing?

 

I admit I like to outrage the bourgeois, but mostly I just like ideas which seem to me true. Increasingly the truth outrages people and as I grow older I care less and less about the internal policeman who doth make cowards of us all. It is so remarkable, future historians will find, that this vast change to the most fundamental institution in society is one which British people, indoctrinated by the ideas of equality and non-judgmentalism, feel it is outrageous even to question, let alone oppose.  Of course, wise homosexuals agree that marriage is for men and women.

1 comment:

  1. Paul: Read Cyril Connolly's "Enemies of Promise" and his Bohemian take on gays. Thinks the great advantage of being gay is not having to be part of the drearier elements of "bourgeois" society and all its ghastly conformities.... Mary Kenny

    ReplyDelete