I have to take task with the statement by Sir Brian Souter this week with regards to the question of the law changing to allow gay marriages to take place.
During an interview with The Sunday Times Sir Brian said:
“We are arguing here about what kind of society we want to live in.
“Are we going to be in a Babylonian-Greek type of society, where sex is primarily a recreational activity, or are we going to stick with the Judeo-Christian tradition, where procreation is something that we want to put within a marriage context?
“These two different philosophies are beginning to emerge and quite honestly the issue about gay relationships is a small side-product from that discussion.”
Now I may be wrong, but I thought the whole point about gay marriages was not about recreational sex, but about two people who love each other sufficiently that they want to make a public commitment of fidelity to that other person?
It seems to me that Sir Brian is getting his Babylonian/Greek/Judeo/Christian cultures wrongly used in this argument. If it’s about recreational sex v fidelity, then this applies to heterosexual couples just as much as gay couples.
Marriage is marriage. It’s about relationships, commitment, love, selflessness. And if within that solemn undertaking couples enjoy having sex without the intention of creating children, then that’s great. (Even hetersexual couples who do have children enjoy having sex for just the damn fun of having sex!)
Yes, I accept that part of the basis of the religious Judeo/Christian marriage is for the procreation of children, but that implies that anyone of any sexual orientation who knowingly gets married whilst being aware they cannot – for whatever reason – have children, should not really be allowed to marry. So a heterosexual couple who know that they can’t have kids would fall foul of Sir Brian’s argument too, if they want to marry.
I think Sir Brian needs to revisit his argument, or stick to running drama clubs or buses (whichever Stagecoach he made his £ millions at)!