“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
The Knife has posted before on the now boring subject of ‘gay marriage’. It is hard to find the right phraseology to register one’s concerns, which in my case – and probably for lots of people – have nothing to do with an opinion on homosexuality. What makes the subject become interesting again, is the argument which is about definitions and the inherent qualities of marriage, which are not subject to the diktat of any government. How could they be?
The single best short summary that I’ve read on this topic, is from Martin Kochanski in a letter to Standpoint magazine, back in March. It’s worth quoting:
Strictly speaking, men have always been permitted to marry other men just as they have been permitted to make one another pregnant. It hasn’t happened because marriage, like pregnancy, has the union of the sexes as part of its inherent nature. Its theology and liturgy reflect this.
What the well-meaning call “letting men marry men” is really abolition by redefinition. It is the act of a totalitarian liberalism that tolerates no limits to its power. Redefining the word “marriage” to mean something different is to destroy marriage by making it impossible even to talk about it: a technique from Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Men who want to enter into a lifelong committed relationship with each other deserve better than a redefined, imitation “second-rate” marriage…..It cannot be a pretend version of something else..”
If you want to keep religion out of it, try the truly impressive Brendan O’Neill (atheist), on what a bile-filled, conformist, elitist, statist mess Dave and his buddies have created: here, here, here, here, and here!