Sunday, July 29, 2012

Family First, Dictionaries Never

Family First, and First Family, and Family Family First First have launched a website to protect the current definition of marriage. The current definition, according to Collins dictionary:


  1. the state or relationship of living together in a legal partnership
    1. the legal union or contract made by two people to live together
    2. (as modifier) ⇒ marriage licence, marriage certificate
  2. the religious or legal ceremony formalizing this union; wedding
  3. a close or intimate union, relationship, etc ⇒ a marriage of ideas
  4. (in certain card games, such as bezique, pinochle) the king and queen of the same suit

Websters define it as:
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

So basically dictionaries aren't being 'attacked by twink' and the definition is in no way being changed, because unless you're taking a solely fundo-Christian Western view of marriage in this time and place, the definition of marriage for human beings have included a multiple of different arrangements, including more than two people and sometimes even same sex. All Family First have succeeded in doing is showing that the only book they've picked up is the Bible (selective reading only) and are completely ignorant of  human history.

They say the state didn't invent marriage. That's because they think their god did and now want to use legislation to push their religious agenda. Last time I look I wasn't living in a religious fundamentalist state, and quite frankly I would like to continue this - that's one tradition I'm quite keen on.They also say that the state doesn't have authority to reinvent...what? The law? Because I'm pretty sure it does, unless they believe laws can only come down on stone tablets.

McCoskrie also trots out again the old tired slippery slope argument: if we allow same-sex marriage we'll have to allow everything. Yes, because every time we modify a law even a teensy bit society goes on a bender of excess and collapses. Okay, lets ban marriage altogether then and shut that door closed since it's a gateway drug to social depravity.

“Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage, and it has always been associated with procreation. Every society needs natural marriage. Nature also discriminates against same-sex couples. Same-sex couples cannot have children. Only a man and a woman can produce children. This discloses something of the purposes and providence of nature, and the role and purpose of marriage.”

Family First have essentially just said that every marriage between people where one or more are infertile, where a decision has been made to not have kids,  those marriage have no purpose since procreation will not happen. Has anyone also sat them down and explained that there are a number of people on the planet today that were born outside of marriage, or that gay couples can raise children? Some men and women can't produce children, and some men and women shouldn't. Maybe they could have a test before getting a wedding license; you must be this fertile to marry. At least their wedding vows must be short: I'm marrying you to have kids - kiss the bride!

“We would encourage politicians to spend their valuable time focussing on important issues such as family poverty, negotiating our way through the world recession, child abuse, and getting people employed – rather than taking to the dictionary with a twink bottle,” says Mr McCoskrie.
I would encourage religious fanatics to spend their valuable time focussing on important issues such as screaming their message from street corners, arm waving and pointing dramatically, printing off scripture and shoving it in to the hands of startled passersby and practising penmanship for The End is Near signs - rather than wasting everyone's times with coming up with arguements that are little more than 'I think about gay people constantly, am completely obsessed, and they make my pants feel funny'.


No comments: