Boris the Menace – HIS marriage vows were certainly not set in STONE!

Boris Johnson, that well-known self-publicist AND serial adulterer, somehow believes he has earned the right to hold forth on the subject of marriage!

The unrepentant philanderer was quoted as saying, ” Marriage has been here since before the Stone Age and now it needs to move beyond the Stone Age.”

He further opined on Prime Minister David Cameron’s  plan to redefine marriage, with these words, ” frankly I can’t see what the fuss is about.”

It is understandable that Boris has difficulty seeing any meaning in marriage as. from his first marriage and subsequently, he has demonstrated that marriage vows are meaningless and he can (and has) broken them repeatedly, and, seemingly, without shame or self-loathing. In Boris’s world, two men or two women can marry each other and that is a “marriage”  and they should have that “right” because marriage is increasingly “in the eye of the beholder!”

Boris sees it as his “right” to break his marriage vows as he does not see them as “binding” or “set in stone”. How can the electorate trust such a man to keep his electoral promises when he has not kept the solemn promise he made to his (first) wife which led to him contracting an adulterous second marriage. What chaos. He should hang his head in shame!

4 thoughts on “Boris the Menace – HIS marriage vows were certainly not set in STONE!

  1. Marriages between one man and one woman don’t last very long, so why not abolish it across the board and give everyone civil partnerships? Then we’d have equality, and no need for divorce courts. And if a husband/wife isn’t getting what they need from a marriage, who’s to blame them for seeking it elsewhere?

    • Marriages between one man and one woman last longer than any other kind – the fake marriages. So it should be the only marriage allowed – especially since that is what defines marriage. You already have equality – everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, if they are both qualified (i.e. not incest, not underage, etc).

      If a husband/wife isn’t getting what they need from a marriage, perhaps they should have chosen their partner more wisely. You don’t eliminate marriage because some people abuse it.

      I’ve been married for 36 years. I’d say that’s a pretty long time.

    • Hermione,
      I agree, marriage should be abolished. But it shouldn’t be replaced with anything, especially not something as unnatural as “civil” (or should that be “un-civil”?) partnerships. And if “a husband/wife isn’t getting what they need from a marriage”, they have no right to seek it elsewhere. They made a solemn vow, and no one has a right to break it.

      Marriage is based on an illusion we call “love”. Unless you’re skilled at deluding yourself, the illusion will end some day, and then it’s off to the divorce courts. So, marriage should be abolished. At least until people learn to ignore or control their emotions.

      • Yuri,
        Marriage is NOT necessarily based on love; you can love someone and never marry them. Marriage is the foundation of society and is there for the raising of children and protecting them. You don’t destroy or abolish an institution which is the foundation of society.

        Perhaps you might find this video of value:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s