Tory MP for Hendon Matthew Offord asks in Commons whether Government support for gay marriage means it will permit polygamy next. Oh dear.
— James Chapman (Mail) (@jameschappers) December 10, 2012
Offord didn’t go as far as comparing same sex unions to bestiality … like Boris did.
5 Comments
“I don’t know what to say in the House, today.”
“Don’t you, dear?”
“No. And I ought to say something.”
“What about the economy?”
“Too difficult, and anyway George wouldn’t like it.”
“Then what about this marriage thing for people who aren’t like us?
“But the workers have been getting married for centuries.”
“No, no, dear. I mean the, you-know, others.”
“Ah. Yes. I get you. Good suggestion, dear.”
“I mean, what’s next – polygamy?”
“See you at dinner, dear. Must dash!”
At least he didn’t compare it to bestiality, which some of those charming American conservatives did.
Whoops. Missed your last line…
…mind you, Stephen Fry the other day on QI did state that 97% of all animals display some form of homosexual behaviour, so if that doesn’t make it right for a Penguin to do it up a dog’s bum, I don’t know what does.
As my mate Terry put it to me:
[daily mail] I assyoom dat if none of youse inteeligent lefft-liburil wisdomists dun’t hobject to concenting odalts -{ both denizens of the lower reaches of the digestive tract, and ladies who think that “sexual intercourse doesn’t involve sexual organs, it’s all in the mind, Gary” and proceed to interfere with each other’s breakfasts }- shud be formuleyzed wivin da contecst ov a bileef sistum -{ a hobby involving a loose grip on reason, sky pixies, ritual, ornamentation, and fancy dress }- iz a lijitimut fing, den, yoose wun’t hobject to concenting odalts ov anny jender and numba frum formin’ a legul contrackt dat formuliziz dere rites, wivout dem avin’ tuh put dere ‘andz down t’ each uvvaz trouzurs, or owt, innit tho’? wy cun’t three mans get married ? ‘Ow du youse difine t’ diffrunse bitween luvz, an’ duz it mattuh, iff orl we iz torkin’ abaot iz uh leagull derrangment? [/daily mail]
I couldn’t agree less – obviously I can’t marry my best mate Simon, because he refuses to acquiesce to my confirmative demands for physical intimacy – I mean it’s only skin, and we might get more tax credits. Some people! Personally, I think they ought to be force-fed the Guardian at school, instead o’ that five-a-day cr@p they keep whittering on about. How about page 5 of the guardian for elevenses – that’ll give ‘em fibre – moral fibre. That’ll make ‘em like us. Like us! Like us! Like us! Like us! Like us! Like us! Like us! Like us! Make them all Like us! We must use these rights to protect us minorities like a big rusty spade to make sure everybody agrees with us, the little Nazi proles… how dare they use a vacuum cleaner for voting with, when they could be using it to SUCK THE DUST OFF SAUSAGES!
Good boy Matthew.
Rinky I honestly have no idea what you were trying to say there…
Would quite like it if we could stop shouting ‘no of course not’ whenever some right wing twerp goes “what next? Polygamy?!” What the hell’s wrong with polygamy or polyandry or any other configuration of people and genitals as long as everyone’s consenting to what’s going on?! Can we please stop with this idea that relationships have to be two people exclusively together and anything else is ipso facto of lesser quality? It’s puritanical bullshit!