“What Happens If We Have a Lesbian Queen in a Same-Sex Marriage?” House of Lords Asks

Whichever Lesbian shall draw forth this sword from this stone…

I assume that this would be the final Queen before the onset of the Caliphate. But meanwhile the West is taking a wrecking ball to all its values and creating provisions for their destruction.

Less than 80 years ago, Edward VIII had to abdicate because his proposed spouse was divorced. Now we’re preparing for a Lesbian Queen and her sperm donor offspring. Who will be the father? Who cares. It’s the modern world now. We’re Post-Nationalist, Post-Fatherhood and Post-Survival.

Peers have considered amendments to the law which would make clear that only Royal children born in “a marriage between a man and a woman” could be considered valid heirs to the throne.

Lord True, a Conservative peer, proposed changes to the Bill that would explicitly define an heir to the body as the product of a heterosexual marriage.

Lord True told the Daily Telegraph he was not opposed to gay marriage, but believes that Royal laws should be updated to take account of it.

He said: “What happens if we have a lesbian queen in a same-sex marriage who conceives using an egg implanted with donor sperm? The law should be clear, but this is a question that has not been thought through in the Bill.”

“My concern is that as the law arises in the future, that understanding may be challenged,” he said.

“As same sex marriage becomes part of the settled life of our kingdom, as the Prime Minister intends, the law [on successions] will inevitably evolve.”

Evolution. It’s great, isn’t it? Any day now we’ll all go back to the trees and then go for a long dip in the ocean. And then perhaps we’ll all wake up having evolved into unicellular organisms ruled over by a post-gendered entity.

  • general p. malaise

    conservatives need to stop compromising and return to solid conservative principals (many of which they have already compromised to their detriment).

    they need to stop adjusting their positions. there should only be marriage between man and woman. if the progressives want to co-habit in other ways that is fine …but they need to come up with their own definition. MARRIAGE IS TAKEN.

    CIVIL UNION WORKS FOR ME BUT MARRIAGE NOT!

  • Laurence

    Dear Daniel Greenfield,

    there are many issues on the conservatives' agenda that require urgent and thoughtful attention. On most occassions, the authors of the FPM features, including yourself, serve the conservative cause admirably well. Except one: when you need to 'deal' with homosexuality.
    You could usefully mock Lord True, his strange obssession with updating the law is indeed..well….strange.
    Instead, you make a what-amounts-to-an-argument on how post-gendered entity is bad and that the road from this to Chaliphate is short.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Isn't it short? The countries ahead of us on that road are far closer to the Caliphate than we are.

    • jay

      Do we need to "deal" with polygamy, polyamory, and consensual incest too? Afterall, we're just talking about consenting adults.

      • Laurence

        Yes, we do. We need to elaborate thoughtful positions and policies. These-positions and policies-should derive from our principles as well as from understanding of the social diversity and from the desire to avoid bigger evil in an attempt to amend the imprefect world.

        Example: I am pro-life myself. Abortion as a choice by a woman who suddenly 'does not feel like having a child' or, say, was too drunk to remember what happened to her to start with is not an acceptable moral choice for me. Yet, I know for fact (I worked in public health for a while) that outlawing abortions will only make this business illegal and illegal business is dangerous for women. Unless you subscribe to the notion that all these women deserve to die from poor aenastethic, blood loss, infection in illegal 'clinics' at the hand of the charlatans, what is a bigger evil-allowing abortion in a supervised environment, where pro-life messages can be imparted or outlawing it completely?

    • JacksonPearson

      Dear Laurence:
      On homosexuality, man's law is temporary, while God's laws are eternal, and not negotiable.

      The resurrection of Caliphate in the Middle East, has been aided by Obama's meddling in Egypt, Libya and Syria.

      • laurence

        Jackson Pearson,

        let us separate flies from meatballs, as they say :)))

        God's judgement on homosexuality is calling it 'toava' in Hebrew. The same term is applied to merchants' tinkering with weights and measures. (this is a Jewish orthodox point of view, by the way). Can you see a difference in our attitude to these two phenomena?

        And the chief driving force behind the resurrection of Caliphate is Muslim migration into Christendom. Nothing else. In absence of Muslims from the social landscape of the West, Obama's policies, whatever they are, would be of no meaning.

        • JacksonPearson

          Facts are not your best friend?

          • laurence

            in that case, you can correct me. Please do.

          • JacksonPearson

            Some people can comprehend, you apparently aren't one of them!

          • laurence

            well, I am hopeless, am I? I 've been told this in the past. Never on a conservative domain, though. Well, there is a first time for everything. It has been a pleasure talking to you, preserve your energy (and facts) for sharper conversants. Be well.

          • JacksonPearson

            Being hopeless is your problem, and not mine!

          • laurence

            agree with you fully.

          • JacksonPearson

            Good. So carry on!

  • Laurence

    Recently you also mocked the motivation of the NIH grant for research of reasons for extreme obesity among lesbians. In that one you missed on the basic premise of research that an exceptional phenomenon should be understood for its own sake but also for the sake of other subgroups in population, so interventions can be properly targeted. In that you display lack of basic knowledge in public health.
    I both features , however, you are less than eloquent and less than knowledgable. Since both have lesbianism as a common thread, I have no choice but to conclude that your attitude reflects a prejudice againt this group.
    You are entitled to your views.
    In my view, however, you do not make a great service to the conservative cause. The conservatives will be able to win soles if they manage to show that they have genuine concern for all groups in the society, that is indeed if they have that concern. I am myself a staunch conservative, but, excuse me , I start doubting usefullness of you contributions on the basis of the past two.

    • Softly Bob

      Quote:"The conservatives will be able to win soles if they manage to show that they have genuine concern for all groups in the society, that is indeed if they have that concern."

      That's the whole point. They're compromising their values to win votes. If everyone compromised their values to win popularity contests we'd all be the same gibbering liberal idiots!

      • Laurence

        Softly Bob,

        I myself support the marriage for homosexuals. But this is besides the point. I can understand the position of those who oppose it and call for a distinction (civil union, partnership etc.). It is their right. What I cannot stomach is the ridicule, unguarded and repetitive, of this group on the FPM pages, and what its existence 'represents'. Of that attitude two feature by Greenfiled serve as an example. Too much bile is spilled for nothing against homosexuals, not merely to win voters but to express some sort of 'traditional' value for their own sake. You know, there are REAL issues there: there is an obesity epidemic which is under-researched precisely and exactly because Obama-dedicated public health 'specialists' think that insurance reform will save us all. There is virulent anti-Americanism and anti-semitism from the far and not so far left and Islamists. These are really worthy causes, and urgent ones. Drop this 'homosexuals' obsession. Time change, let us learn how to live with change.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Obesity is not an epidemic, it is the outcome of a wealthy society. The fastest way to cure it is to dramatically raise food prices and cut food subsidies.

          I don't consider this much of a cure, but that's how it works.

          And obesity is not under-researched, it is over-researched.

          Mostly it's a lifestyle choice.

          • laurence

            I hope you know what you are talking about, Daniel. Whether it is a lifestyle choice or not does not change the fact that it increases health expenditure and makes people ill. Civilization develops and with advances come also disadvantages. We need to know ho to mitigate against those. Personal vehicles exist, having them is a life style choice. Yet they also cause accidents and deaths. So, instead of abandoning then we invent safety belts., set rules on drivers, signpost.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Drinking soda increases health care expenditures.

            Should we ban sodas?

          • Danny

            "The fastest way to cure it is to dramatically raise food prices and cut food subsidies."

            There you have it. Forget about eating the right food and exercising. Let's make people healthier through starvation diets.

            Haven't the North Koreans tried that?

          • Laurence

            I actually missed on this initially, I thought it was Daniel's joke. Re-reading it I can see that it is not. Well, well, quite unbeleivable to see a conservative proposing price controls as a policy mechanism. Good days for Marxists if conservatives now agree with them on this point. Who would have thought…..:)

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I'm not proposing it, because I don't think obesity is an epidemic that requires government intervention…

            …but Obama is hiking food prices, so who knows…

          • JacksonPearson

            Burger meat, will soon rival white house Japanese $120.00 a pound beef. /S

          • laurence

            so , price controls would be effective and necessary, if it indeed was an epidemic?

            well, I am interested to hear what Thomas Sowell has to say on that one:))

          • trickyblain

            Or you could have leaders suggest that people eat right and exercise. Wait. They do. And are mocked for that, too.

            Besides, Rush Limbaugh is not the typical obese individual. Most educated, wealthy people treat their bodies fairly well. The bulk of obese folks are poor.

        • Drakken

          Ypu want to know why lesbians are fat? They eat too much, so where is my research grant ?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I imagine the differing rates of promiscuity are a wider factor, but I doubt any study will come out and admit that.

          • Laurence

            are you saying , in fact, that more research is needed of this 'over-researched' subject?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            If anyone wants to research promiscuity rates, it's up to them. Just not on the taxpayer dollar.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Is it really an exceptional phenomenon? Does it really merit 1.5 million dollars at a time when we're firing vital personnel and slashing national defense?

      Can't lesbians just lose weight on their own and has the study helped them do it?

      And shouldn't conservatives stand up for principles, rather than pandering?

      • Laurence

        Yes, it is. Whether or not it is worth precisely 1.5 million -I do not know. This would depend on what the proposal actually includes. Proposals are budgeted suggestions, as I am sure you know.
        The study cannot help them but it can help understand (=inform policies) why people become that fat in such numbers. And they are unusual population in that, yes.
        There are studies of low mortality of Jews, for example. These studies are funded not for the sake of Jews (who do not need any help in this instance, their life expectancy is already very high). They are of value for the whole population-to help that population to understand what is the right thing to do.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          People become fat in large numbers for lifestyle reasons. That's their choice. You believe that the right to be gay should be respected.

          Why not also the right to be fat?

          • Laurence

            Of course they have this right. But in this case, ( which is not the case with gays) the taxpayer who is not fat bears the expenses of them exercising their right (healthcare bills). And this eats into others health care needs. In other words, it is bad but preventable condition, pretty much like lung cancer.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Doesn't the taxpayer bear the expense anyway?

            1. Taxpayer pays healthcare for fat lesbians (this assumes the lesbians can't afford healthcare. Gays tend to be more economically prosperous, so perhaps this isn't even that big of an issue.)

            2. Taxpayer pays for healthcare for fat lesbians, studies into why lesbians are fat and health care for lesbians who go on extreme diets and get sick as a result.

            The first scenario seems less expensive.

          • Laurence

            True, in ay cases there will be costs. The question is which scenario is less expensive (that is assuming that all that interests us is cost and NOTHING else and that we do not go into morals-which in reality does not happen in health care)
            So, which scenario is less expensive is a thing for cost and benefits analyses to determine.
            That truth , I am afraid, is not found in the exchange between the journalist and a passing commentaror. And no amoung of eloquence will susbtitute for expertise. Those cases that are known to me-pertaining to influenza and hepatitis, make it clear that prevention is cheaper than subsiquent treatment. I do not possess any knowledege on costs and benefits of obesity prevention to make any claims of this kind. An over-researched subject indeed…

          • MamaK

            I would take exception to this. Gays add to the cost of the health system as well. They are given free tests for aids, and when they do become sick with either HIV or some other STD, the taxpayer foots the bill for that too. So why is it easy to say fat people cost the system and not other groups? I would like to see the numbers of how much is spent caring for sexually promiscuous people. The news abounds with the facts that STD's are on the rise at an alarming rate. These health problems are also "preventable" conditions.
            But I understand-this is an "untouchable" group. They can choose this lifestyle and I'm supposed to be fine with it; but I can't choose to eat and drink what I want. BOGUS.

          • Laurence

            No , gays may be 'untouchable' for some, but not for me, and not for any public health professional (I say professional , not a left lobbist). There are medical issues arising from promisquity and gays should be expected to contribute to their resolution. Full stop. Fat people can be expected to contribute to resolution of obesity epidemic. Full stop. General public can be expected to reduction of car accidents. Full stop.

          • jay

            Larry, you're granting as give that which should not be given. Just BECAUSE taxpayers pay for fat people's higher medical bills doesn't mean that therefore fat people should have their rights restricted. The proper response is to ask "why are taxpayers paying ANYONE'S healthcare. Old people cost more than fat people. Are we then saying old people getting old have less of a right to do so because we bear the cost? Let's take it a step further. It is a medical reality that homosexual men have higher rates of a wide range of diseases, more depression, and shorter life spans. Therefore, they have less of a right to be homosexual because taxpayers are paying for (and thereby subsidizing) their lifestyle.

            How far do you want to take your logic?

          • Laurence

            Very true. I responded earlier to Daniel that all this hold only IF we rely on costs ONLY as a policy guidance. In reality, health systems do not operate on the sole consideration of costs but also on unquantifiable and irrational reasons of compassion.
            So, my argument is that there is a need to find a balance. Turning back to obesity : it is something that people acquire , some by choice, some not. It is an less than desirable health outcome, for those who have it and for others, because it prevents the resources from better causes. Pretty much like car accidents. So, let us see whether we can make provisions to reduce this phenomenon. That is it.
            It is a medical reality that gays have higher rates of some diseases-some due to type of sex they engage in and some due to promisquity. So, let us, in the same way, to develop interventions for that (and there are interventions) , these will help gays and others. Transmission of HIV in Africa is primarily through heterosexual routes and it is there where the benefits of curcimcision were demonstrated. Everybody benefited from this 'homosexuality-inspired' research.

        • pagegl

          Sorry Laurence, the study of obesity in lesbians does NOT merit any where near 1.5 million. Obesity has been studied and studied and studied and the results of the studies are real consistent; life style choices, over eating and/or lack of exercise, are the top two causes by a long shot. Adding the qualifier of lesbianism is not going to change the outcome. My take on Greenfield's article about that study was not to pick on lesbians, but to shed a bit of light on an idiotic waste of money. Unless there is some reason to suspect that the outcome will be different than prior research, and that is highly unlikely, the research grant was a waste of taxpayer money.

          • Laurence

            I think, I agree with you, in fact. My main point is close to yours with the following difference: you focused on what Daniel could have said, and I-on what he said about a particular group which made his piece, I maintain , less useful that it could have been. Waste of taxpayer money is a tremendous issue and it cannot be discussed in such a diluted manner bordering on prejudice.

        • general p. malaise

          you are obtuse.

          it is never fair to take from one person to give to a third person. you may call it government but it is still theft. calling it research doesn't change the fact. it is a gross misuse and trust of the electorate.

          you are morally dishonest.

          • Laurence

            the trouble is that there is no other system so far to have any governance at all. To keep army you need to tax people. We all benefit from the existence of army but who knows whether it is equal or not between all of us. That's obvious. We all benefit from the existence of roads and parks, for which we are taxed. Taxes are necessary, and they necessarily benefit more people than those who directly contribut to them (i.e public good). They should be kept strictly to minimum, even though they are inevitable.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            National defense is a legitimate function of government. Are fat lesbian studies a legitimate function of government?

            That's what we're really discussing here.

          • laurence

            What constitute the legitimate role of government is a subject of perhaps endless debate. And that is what you could to focus you pieces on to start with. But you did not. This discussion has evolved -and quite late in the day-now really, from the comments that followed. I maintain (and some other contributors) that your eagerness to pick on someone got on your way to quality discussion. We came full circle now.

          • JacksonPearson

            "We came full circle now."
            You've come full circle, but others here are still solidly fixed.

  • Laurence

    and yes, conservatives should stand up for principles.
    This (standing up for principles) does not equal mockery of particular groups. Our liberal friends are good at that-they suppress the debate systematically by the means of mockery (of the high earners, primitive conservatives, ridiculous religious 'elements'). This is one thing that we should not learn from them.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Satire is a very effective tool for challenging consensus.

      • Laurence

        Oh, yes, when it illuminates the point instead of diluting it…and when it it done in good taste…

      • trickyblain

        Only if you're good at it.

    • JacksonPearson

      If Alinsky's Rules can work for the Left, than surely it can apply for Conservatives:

      Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

  • delores

    Fat lesbians… and what about ugly and buck teethed??? Where does it end exactly??? More money down the sewer drain. What's next? Why homosexual men like to decorate for parties/homes/stages/hair/people???

    • JacksonPearson

      "Fat lesbians…"
      Which part of Rosie O'Donnell would they start a study on?
      And why bother to spend taxpayer dollars on a blob of crap! :o)

  • Fred

    What is hard to understand is why gays, so extraordinarily proud of their gayness, would want to co-opt a hetrosexual institution like marriage? Are gays trying to hide their gayness by saying they are married? Why wouldn't the gay community create their own distinct cultural equivalent of heterosexual marriage. Give that institution it's own name. And amend all the laws mentioning marriage include that new institution. Further include polygamy, polyandry and polyamory. Why not three women, two guys and their donkey?

    As to the use of mockery, of course we should mock, shame, denigrate, etc. all liberals as the evil dimwits they are. We have to fight fire with fire. Liberals, like the divder-in-chief, relentlessly attack anyone that opposes their tyranny in the most despicable way. We should return it in kind. This non-sense of " don't stoop to their level" just doesn't work. As the last election cycles have amply proven.

    • Laurence

      I do not understand fully why gays need it.

      As to the mockery, more often than not liberals left looks …well silly, childish. And 'don't stoop to their level' is not my argument. My argument is let us think and articulate reliable and fact-grounded conservative arguments. That should be a priority. Mocking groups and releasing bitterness in other ways gets in the way of this. I do not know whether you noticed.

  • jay

    "Why not three women, two guys and their donkey?"

    Sounds like a viral web video

  • thomas_h

    Gentlemen, please,– it is Homosexuals, NOT "gays"!

    And it is not "same sex marriage", but same sex "marriage".

    We must never use a phoney, corrupted vocabulary invented by perverts for the purpose of passing ugly and corrupted for sane and beautiful. Let's not participate in this sham.

    Really, what's next? Calling Mohammed prophet? Koran – holy? Allah – God? Jihad – peaceful struggle? Obama – patriot?

  • JacksonPearson

    My question is, mockery is NOT a one way street?
    What's good for one, applies equally well for another.

  • Edward Cline

    Homosexuality is a neurotic state of mind from which homosexuals simply don't "feel" like excaping or feel like correcting. Homosexuality is a state of mind that denies the gender of the person who claims he is homosexual because his genes are mismatched, or his cranium is "differently" mapped, or whatever other pseudo-scientific argument can be dredged up by a psychoanalyst and passed for "reasoned" agrument. Homosexuality is an internal pathology that revolts against a person's gender, against the fact that he or she was born of one or the other gender, and not a third gender, or a gender that is somehow fixed between the two genders. In short, homosexuality is a bogus brand.

    • laurence

      what you described sounds more like transsexuality.
      Anyhow, it is something that existed for centuries, thousands years, maybe, and not exactly under favourable conditions.

      Being a traditional Jew, I actually know homosexuals who opted for corrective therapy, and married subsequently. Needless to say, that therapy failed in particular cases I am talking about. Let me tell you, their wives do not deserve this fate. I think denying something very basic in people (homosexuality) we are doing major disservice to society in general.

    • Bee

      Couldn't agree more as there is not, at this present time, any scientific evidence for homosexuality. It's all in the mind and a matter of choice.

      • Laurence

        But what do you DO with this?
        Make these people go through therapy and then marry them off? Well, is there a scientific therapy that works?
        How do the lives of their wives are going to look? Are we causing here something horrendous?

  • Edward Cline

    Homosexuality is a neurotic state of mind from which homosexuals simply don't "feel" like escaping or feel like correcting. Homosexuality is a state of mind that denies the gender of the person who claims he is homosexual because his genes are mismatched, or his cranium is "differently" mapped, or whatever other pseudo-scientific argument can be dredged up by a psychoanalyst and passed for "reasoned" argument. Homosexuality is an internal pathology that revolts against a person's gender, against the fact that he or she was born of one or the other gender, and not a third gender, or a gender that is somehow fixed between the two genders. In short, homosexuality is a bogus brand.