The determination of David Cameron to press ahead with legalising gay marriage opens up the possibility of a lesbian queen giving birth to a future monarch by artificial insemination, Lord Tebbit has warned...
"I said to a minister I know: have you thought this through? Because you're doing the law of succession, too.
"When we have a queen who is a lesbian and she marries another lady and then decides she would like to have a child and someone donates sperm and she gives birth to a child, is that child heir to the throne?"
Tebbit joked that the change could allow parents to marry their children as a way of avoiding inheritance tax. "It's like one of my colleagues said: we've got to make these same sex marriages available to all. It would lift my worries about inheritance tax because maybe I'd be allowed to marry my son. Why not? Why shouldn't a mother marry her daughter? Why shouldn't two elderly sisters living together marry each other?"
63 comments
if a queen regnant gives birth, the child is automatically in line,
All marriage does in the case of a queen consort birthing is to give the succession legitimacy (i.e. the assumption is that the child is the genetic offspring of the king or queen (regnant)
Tebbit is talking out of his arse again
and why exactly should anybody much care about the line of succession in Britain, or any monarchy? this is 2013. kings and queens are nothing but public entertainment these days, and if they grow boring, we have "reality TV" to replace them.
heck, a lesbian queen giving birth by artificial insemination at least sounds mildly more entertaining than the staid old-fashioned kind. sort of a pity that some random woman ended up on that pedestal of public scrutiny just because of who she was born to, but life's cruel that way.
Oh, how delightful! Another idiot who completely forgets about the anti-incest laws for the sake of making gay marriage look like a gateway to chaos.
Here's an idea: How about doing away with parasitic, purely ornamental figureheads who are given extraordinary wealth on the backs of the taxpayers, and use all of the millions of pounds per year devoted to their comfort and amusement to help fund the NHS?
Rule Britannia, till Londonistan rules for you.
The sun never sets on Gaytopia. As declared by official "talking points" from the Ministry of Truth.
W. Smith
If a queen is infertile and then decides she would like to have a child and someone donates sperm and she gives birth to a child, is that child heir to the throne? That question is just as valid. The sane thing to do is to get rid of the monarchy completely; stick with elected heads of states. And yes, I’m also pro in the case of removing the Swedish monarchy.
Same-sex marriage should be as "available to all" as opposite-sex marriages already are, stupid! Same-sex marriages adhere to the same laws as opposite-sex marriages. You are not allowed to get married while you're still married to someone else. You are not allowed to marry someone in your immediate family. You are not allowed to marry your dog or your car.
Marriage is a contract between two adults who intend to spend their lives together, and perhaps also create and raise a family together. Mutual attraction; physical, mental and sexual, is implied.
I say who cares? The royals are nothing more than figureheads anyway.
maybe I'd be allowed to marry my son. Why not? Why shouldn't a mother marry her daughter? Why shouldn't two elderly sisters living together marry each other?
Same old well-worn slippery slope arguments about incestual marriage. I'm only surprised he didn't throw in someone marrying a farm animal.
Like was said earlier, if these are the best arguments they have against gay marriage, they've already lost.
Since the second in line to the throne is (in the eyes of those who care) illegitimate, I think Norman may be leaving things a little late to start worrying.
Anyway, Prince Charles has already married his horse so who cares?
As an American, I may not be qualified to comment on monarchies, but it has struck me that the British, normally so kind to pets, keep these both extravagantly and cruelly. Confined to hugely elaborate fishbowls, the poor pets get never a moment's privacy; they are observed, poked, prodded, commented about, paired with mates they frequently don't like, and then, even if they do like them, their mating habits are minutely scrutinized until they fail at it altogether, while their offsprings' hairbrushes are whisked off to Rupert Murdoch's laboratories to see if the butler's DNA is on them. This is wasteful and cruel. Give them a peaceful little preserve in the country and gradually rewild them to live among their own kind.
I really never understood the inheritance tax problem.
It implies that there's a problem at the moment with men marrying their daughters to avoid inheritance tax, and women marrying their sons for the same reason. I can't say I've heard of it.
"It would lift my worries about inheritance tax because maybe I'd be allowed to marry my son. Why not? Why shouldn't a mother marry her daughter? Why shouldn't two elderly sisters living together marry each other?""
Because that's incest, not same sex marriage.
@ Mihangel apYrs
"Tebbit is talking out of his arse again"
Agreed. But no surprise there.
He fails to notice that same sex marriage in dynastic terms is healthier, however a pregnacy is obtained, than the current level of inbreeding from Victoria on down.
Somehow I think he will not have endeared himself to the present ruler or her family.
Yay! Something I submitted :D
I find the objection to artificial insemination odd. In the future there may be an straight royal couple that have trouble conceiving, does he really think people wouldn't accept a child, just because the sperm/eggs are donated :/
It's not like they couldn't just choose a donor that has a royal background if it bothers people that much.
Which I doubt it will, because this hypothetical scenario isn't going to happen for at least another 60 years.
""When we have a queen who is a lesbian and she marries another lady and then decides she would like to have a child and someone donates sperm and she gives birth to a child, is that child heir to the throne?"
Tebbit joked that the change could allow parents to marry their children as a way of avoiding inheritance tax. "It's like one of my colleagues said: we've got to make these same sex marriages available to all. It would lift my worries about inheritance tax because maybe I'd be allowed to marry my son. Why not? Why shouldn't a mother marry her daughter? Why shouldn't two elderly sisters living together marry each other?"
image
Oh, go defect to UKIP already, you senile old necrophiliac who still licks Thatcher's (*spit *) arse.
@rubber chicken
image
When we have a queen who is a lesbian and she marries another lady and then decides she would like to have a child and someone donates sperm and she gives birth to a child, is that child heir to the throne?
The child still has a mother and a father - they're just not married to each other. I don't know much about English succession rules, but I suspect the child would be considered a "bastard" and forbidden to inherit the title - same as if the queen was married to a man but had artificial (or natural) insemination by another. Have the succession laws kept up with fertilization technology?
"Tebbit joked that the change could allow parents to marry their children as a way of avoiding inheritance tax."
Norman, I'm sorry that you can't marry your daughter to keep your mansion in the family, I really am, but a change in the law won't allow you to marry your son either. Get over it, you cannot legally fuck your own kids.
I defy anyone to claim that I just called Norman Tebbit a paedophile. His kids have got to be of legal age by now.
@John:
"Have the succession laws kept up with fertilization technology?"
A quick look at English history suggests that, if the succession laws won't let the current monarch give the throne to their kids, it will suddenly become very important to the right people... I mean, they broke off from the Pope over this kind of issue. Rewriting a little law is relatively easy.
Since the Monarch of this country is the head of the Church of England, special (and sometimes stupid) rules apply to them on the subject of marriage. It's why Edward VIII had to abdicate (and thank goodness he did!), because Wallis Simpson was a divorcee. I strongly doubt they would be allowed a same sex marriage and be the reigning monarch. Yes it's stupid and yes the CofE should grow the fuck up, but it does ratherrender Tebbit's scaremongering-but-not rather redundant.
We don't let heterosexual brothers and sisters marry. Nor do we let heterosexual parents marry opposite-gender children. Care to explain why you think two sisters would marry, or a father would marry a son?
As for whether or not a child from a gay couple is an heir to a throne...why wouldn't it be?
Danarth, P-G knows nothing about anything, he's a creationist.
Isn't it funny that their beloved KJV was commissioned by a gay king?
1) Gay and pedophilia/incest/bestiality are not the goddamned same.
2) The briefest glimpse of the history of any given monarchy is rife with bastard children, inbreeding, and distant claims rising to the throne.
3) Nobody trivializes marriage nearly as much as it's self appointed defenders.
"Why shouldn't two elderly sisters living together marry each other?"
He made exactly the same argument concerning civil partnerships. The response then, as now, "no reason why not but not in this bill". It is different and would have to be like the French PACS
In the intervening 7 years he's done fuck all for the "elderly sisters"
And if a Gay Monarch marries a man, would that be a Queen Queen? Come on, Lord Tebbit, you're hardly trying!
"My Father wanted a waste paper basket." - Python, Monty
@J. James
"Oh my God, who the fuck cares about the Monarchy anymore. The UK is a parliamentary democracy. "
A week or so ago...:
image
'The Noes to the left: 57.
The Ayes to the right: 391.
The Ayes have it. Order, order.' [/Speaker of the House]
image
I refer the Swivel-Eyed Loon to the answer I gave just a few moments ago. [/Prime Minister's Questions]
I don't see how some of these would be complaints. Just because gay marriage was legal, that doesn't allow incest. The conservative party over here is so divided it may as well split itself into the 'Look, we're progressive' party and the 'Bring back the old ways' party.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
