The Good. The Bad. The Asinine.

So, Tony Abbott recently said that, in his opinion,  “the orthodox definition of marriage as between a man and… ah… a woman should continue…”.The punctuation in that previous sentence might look a little rocky, but it is very difficult to transliterate tortuous ‘aaaahhhhh’s and the weird, inappropriate pauses when he puts his “The Effort of Speaking is Causing Me to Have a Stroke” face on.

Anyway, this led me to wonder which “orthodox” definition he was referring to? Surely the OED is one of the most orthodox definitions for English speakers who are not American?

Oxford English Dictionary

If you’re a woman in one of the red boxes, you can marry a man in one of the blue boxes (if joined by a line). But something’s not quite right.

I know, I know. It seems odd that a Croc-wearing Neo-Nazi can marry a convicted paedophile, right?

I must admit, I nearly choked on my Weet Bix when I first heard this argument. Which was actually quite dangerous, because it was at that stage when the milk hadn’t soaked all the way through, so the Weet Bix were still pretty crunchy, and represented a genuine choking hazard. Much like the argument itself.

How’s that for a segue.

The argument in a nutshell
Firstly, no, it’s not a joke. There are quite a lot of people out there who think this is a sensible argument against marriage equality. Because, you see, same-sex people already have equality. A gay man can marry a woman, just like a straight man can. And a gay woman can marry a man, just like a straight woman can. And an intersex person can… oh sorry, I forgot, they don’t exist.

See? Equality! Yaaaaaaaaaaaay!

What they’re really trying to say
I love it when my prejudice finds a loophole.

The smackdown
One thing that same-sex marriage opponents are constantly telling us is how important marriage is. It has, we’re told, been the bedrock of happy, prosperous societies for thousands of years. It’s an institution so sacred, so profound, and so absolutely critical for the propagation of mankind, that allowing same-sex marriage would be jeopardising our very future as a species. For this reason, marriage must be allowed only for heterosexual couples who love each other beyond measure and want to raise a family.

Oh, and anyone who finds their partner physically repulsive.

OK I’m exaggerating a little, but let’s just think about that for a moment. The people championing the sanctity of marriage think that a loving, monogamous, same-sex couple will besmirch their sacred institution more than two people who have absolutely no interest in each other physically and will probably cheat on each other during the bridal waltz. That would, admittedly, make for some pretty funny wedding photos, but it renders their argument kind of useless.

This argument is nothing more than a cheap and very poorly disguised attempt to justify the same bigotry behind all the other anti-equality arguments. But this time, their idiocy has ended in self-immolation. For if what they’re saying is valid, marriage isn’t sacred, it’s a joke.

And not a very funny one, at that.

Well, she was. What did she expect? Out late at night, putting herself in that position, dressed the way she was, what was I supposed to do?

I’m talking, of course, about the young woman I just ran over with my car. Now I know what you’re thinking, and believe me, I understand how you feel. I had the same thought when I first saw her. Running people over is generally considered to be a bit mean, and I have a big four wheel drive with a kick arse bull bar, and I knew it wasn’t exactly going to tickle if I ploughed right through her. She’d probably suffer lasting physical and emotional damage. She could even die.

So yes, I understand that you think running her over wasn’t the right thing to do. But hear me out.

It was late at night, as I said, and it was in a bit of a dodgy neighbourhood, so there were no streetlights. But on top of all that, she was also wearing dark clothes! How dumb can you get? She must have known that if she dressed like a ninja, and then crossed a dark street late at night, there was a good chance she would get hit by a car. What was she thinking?

Now if you think that’s bad, wait till you hear this. Despite all of that, I still managed to see her in the middle of the road. I am, after all, an excellent driver. My dad even lets me drive on the driveway. So yeah, I saw her. And yeah, I could have stopped, or beeped my horn to warn her. But you won’t believe what happened next. I looked up, and saw that she was crossing the street while the little man was red!

Can you believe it? No don’t worry, I couldn’t either.

So I stomped on the gas and ran that bitch over.

It’s what any nice, normal young man from a good family would do.

Sometime tomorrow, all of the 115 Cardinals who are eligible for conclave will gather at the Vatican, shut off all communication with the outside world, and attempt to elect the new leader of the world’s one billion Catholics. But all is not well.

Intrigue. Scandals. Secret gay sex. Media bans. Stupid hats. This election has it all. In just one such example:

The Italian cardinals are prepared to back Brazilian cardinal Odilio Scherer of Sao Paulo, a Vatican veteran, provided he appoints an Italian or Curia veteran as secretary of state [aren't they all veterans?]. This [rumour] has been around for some days, but now is supposed to have brought together the bitter rivals of the past two holders of the job, Angelo Sodano and Tarcisio Bertone.

And that’s just for starters. My secret spies tell me that the situation is more dire than any of us imagine, and many of the Cardinals have grievances that may not be overcome in time, threatening the entire election.

Cardinal Tuto, for one, is upset that Cardinal Fuzz gave his dog a Schmakos, despite being told many times that his dog Saint Bernard, a dalmation, is a vegetarian. Cardinal Fuzz, on the other hand, is furious at Cardinal Jinkerbottom for ruining last night’s spaghetti, which was clearly well short of al dente. But Cardinal Jinkerbottom only ruined the spaghetti because he’d been fighting with Cardinal Giancarlo Luigi di Matteo di Napoli over who got to take the life drawing class with Massimo Pector, the hot Vatican window cleaner. Meanwhile, Cardinal di Napoli has lost his fancy Cardinal’s dress because he left it at a “Saints and Sinners” fancy Cardinal’s dress party (he went as a sinner), so he can’t go to Conclave anyway, unless he borrows a spare dress from Cardinal Barry Black, who was at the same party (dressed as a saint), but was sent home early for trying to start a game of “Spin the Zucchetto” with the young exchange deacons, which is not only an extremely immoral game for celibate Cardinals, but is also very hard to play, on account of the zucchetto being round. None of that matters to Cardinal Fluff, though. He hates all the Cardinals because they’ve spent the whole week calling him “Cardinal Muff”, even though Cardinal Bees waxed him the week before last.

Seems like a right kerfuffle.

I have an idea though. If they really believe in god, and they really believe that nothing happens without god’s approval, and they know god hates their endless bickering and scheming and games of Spin the Zucchetto, then they should just stick everyone’s stupid name in one of their stupid hats, and draw out the next Pope with one of their jewel-encrusted, withered old hands.

If god is there, he’ll sort it out.

Right?

You know when your dog runs off with one of your socks, and you chase her around the backyard for ten minutes trying to get it back, and you end up stepping in some of her poop, and when you finally catch her, she’s surprised to learn that you weren’t actually playing a game of “Chase the dog with the sock and step in her poop”? Well then you know what it’s like to to read an article on marriage equality by Andrew Bolt.

You see, Andrew Bolt reckons we’re playing games with him, too. Word games. We’re not, of course – firstly because no one wants to play games with Andrew Bolt except Andrew Bolt; and secondly because he doesn’t know enough about the English language to realise that the game he’s playing doesn’t even exist.

Luckily for you, Andrew, I hate to see people with no one to play with, so I will play a word game with you. I’ll give you some words that relate to your article, and you try and guess their meaning before reading the actual definitions. Ready? Let’s play!
_____
same sex · noun · sām seks
1. Of or pertaining to two people who are either both male or both female.
2. If you think about it for two seconds, it should become immediately obvious that, by definition, it excludes people with characteristics of both sexes, or neither sex, or the physical characteristics of one sex but the gender identity of another.
3. It is therefore not an appropriate prefix for “marriage” in the current debate about marriage equality.
4. You know what is an appropriate term for “marriage equality” in the current debate about marriage equality? Marriage equality.
_____
sexual discrimination · noun · sek-shə-wal dis-kri-mə-ˈnā-shən
The denial of rights or privileges to people on the basis of their sex.
e.g. “No, you cannot marry that person, purely because you are male.”
e.g. “No, you cannot marry that person, purely because you are female.”
e.g. “No, you cannot marry that person, purely because the law is pretending that your sexual or gender identity doesn’t exist.”
_____
sophistry · noun · ˈsä-fə-strē
A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.
  e.g. “Hey look at me, I’m using sophistry!” – Andrew Bolt
_____
plausibility · noun · plȯ-zə-ˈbi-lə-tē
1. The appearance of truth by virtue of not being mind-numbingly ridiculous.
2. Not possessed by your “But lesbians can marry men if they want to” argument, by virtue of it being mind-numbingly ridiculous.
3. Not granted to bigoted newspaper columnists by Federal Court judges.
_____
destruction by definition · noun
1. Defining your position into existence, then deploying the definition you just defined to defend your defined definition. For example:
  P1: Let marriage be between one man and one woman.
  P2: Therefore, marriage is between one man and one woman.
2. A ripper of a punk album by The Suicide Machines.
_____

How’d you go, Andrew? Sorry, I can’t hear you, you seem to have a sock in your mouth.

A few days ago, Brendan O’Neill posed this question: “Has there ever been a weirder political issue than gay marriage? A cool-headed look back at events in Britain last week … suggests, no, there hasn’t been.”

And this, apparently, is why:

1. Gays didn’t want marriage in the 1970s. Because, after all, “the truth is early gay radicals campaigned against marriage, not for it.”
2. Yeah sure, most people agree that granting marriage equality is the right thing to do, but no one thinks it’s a big deal. Because, after all, “a recent poll did indeed find that 55 per cent of Brits support the idea of gay marriage, but it also found that a measly 7 per cent think gay marriage is ‘important’.”
3. Today’s gays won marriage rights in Britain far too easily. Because, after all, “Rosa Parks and those who followed her had to go through hell – marching and boycotting for years, getting attacked by police dogs, whacked with water cannons, shouted at, spat on, jailed.”

Those are some pretty sophisticated arguments. Possibly too sophisticated to refute. But I’ll have a go.

1. So what?
2. So what? And;
3. ARE YOU FARKING SERIOUS?

Does it really matters what gays thought of marriage in the 1970s? Isn’t the more relevant point that some from the LGBTI community want marriage now? And do you think that a gay person’s view of marriage in 1970 may have had more to do with rejecting one of the defining features of their oppressors?

And is something right because it’s right, or because a certain number of people think it’s important? Should we have granted citizenship to Aboriginals if most of the country thought it was a non-issue?

And should we only treat people equally if we’ve first made them grovel and beg and dodge our attack dogs? Are you really saying that you’d be more likely to support marriage equality if you could yell and spit at a few queers first? What on earth is wrong with you?

One final question, Brendan. If marriage equality is such a non-issue, and it’s a simple change to make (which it is), WHY THE FCK ARE YOU WASTING EVERYONE’S TIME WRITING THIS RUBBISH? It would be better for everyone if you just shut the fck up, and got out of the way.

We’d like to move on, too.

Dear Ms Gillard,

I have a question on the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 which I thought you might be able to answer, being a lawyer who knows the law, and an atheist who follows the evidence.

What I wanted to know is, if I was able to find 100% irrefutable evidence that, ceteris paribus, hair-lipped overweight blind unmarried black transgender wheelchair-bound lesbians with children make worse workers than their white-bread, corn-fed, bible-led hetero peers, is that sufficient grounds to fire them under the act?

I mean, Shirley is nice and everything, but she makes me uncomfortable, and I’d like to be able to fire her without fear of prosecution. I know my reasons aren’t religious, but it’s better to have some evidence than none, right?

Thanks Prime Minister, I would really appreciate your advice.

Yours sincerely,

BigotWithoutAHolyBook
_______________________

I did actually submit this letter via the PMs website. Will let you know if I get a response!

The latest Outreach Media poster is out!

I dunno. Leaving aside the fact that entering eternal life means leaving this one, goals should at least be attainable, and drinking more water sounds kind of hard. With that in mind, I took the trouble to make a new list for them, one that is hopefully a little more achievable.

1
Love your neighbour as you love yourself.

2
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

3
Turn the other cheek.

4
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

5
Homosexuality is an abomination.

6
If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.

7
A human life is created by the joining of a material body and an immaterial soul at the moment of conception.

8
The Devil exists, and is currently taking time out of his busy schedule of never-ending torture to campaign for marriage equality in Australia.

9
Any pregnancy resulting from rape was intended by god.

10
An invisible all-powerful being named God created the universe and everything was fine until a snake tricked a woman into eating some magical forbidden fruit which she then gave to her husband but god found out so the man tried to pin the entire blame on her (what a douche!) but God decided to just punish them both (even though he was really to blame because he put a completely unnecessary but apparently very forbidden tree within easy reach of two idiotic nudists with limited reasoning skills) so the woman had to squeeze babies out of her inadequately sized vagina and the man had to grow vegies (which doesn’t really seem fair but being all-powerful God could do what he wanted so he did) and the two of them had to populate the earth but there were only two of them so there was a lot of incest until one day God decided to kill pretty much everyone on the planet but instead of just clicking his fingers to kill everything he decided to do it all dramatically via a massive world-wide flood so he ordered some guy named Noah to build a hunormous boat with very specific but conceptually inadequate dimensions and then gather up all the plant and animal species on the planet and put them on the boat as well as enough fresh food and toilet paper to survive while the earth was flooded (pity the rabbits if they ran out of toilet paper) which admittedly all sounds a little far fetched but the plan apparently worked because the flood came and everything died and life on the boat was pretty good except Noah’s sons nearly smoked all the marijuana but luckily Noah caught them just in time otherwise we wouldn’t have any marijuana today and after the waters all receded Noah ended up living to 900 or something which is why “Are you a builder of large-scale ocean going zoos?” is now a standard question on all insurance underwriting forms and he and his family repopulated the earth so once again there was quite a bit of incest but everything went back to normal for a while until God decided it was time to send his son who was himself down to earth because that was absolutely the only way he could think of to forgive everyone for the whole forbidden fruit tree debacle so he sent an angel to impregnate an engaged Jewish virgin named Mary and Mary’s fiance was like “Mary, WTF?!” and she was all like “Calm your farm, it’s God’s baby” and Joseph was like “Well OK” but secretly he was thinking “I bet it’s that Ishmael fucker next door” but anyway Mary gave birth to God’s son who was himself and he performed a few miracles like turning water into wine (it may have been merlot, but definitely wasn’t shiraz) but he pissed off the Jewish and Roman authorities so they hatched a plan to arrest him which God’s son who was himself wanted them to do anyway except for that one time in the garden where he asked his father who was himself if he could bail but god who was he said no so he went for a nice quite meal and was betrayed by one of his followers and now everyone hates that guy even though it was all part of god’s son who was himself’s plan but I digress so anyway they nailed God’s son who was himself to a big cross and he went to hell for three days for some unknown reason but then he came back to earth and released a zombie hoard before floating up to heaven and now many years later if you’re Catholic he will turn himself into a tasteless biscuit so we can all sit around on Sunday and eat him.
___

Ten Christian beliefs, which begin as common sense and end in abject, interminable absurdity. The trouble is, the final absurdity is not a Christian belief, but its definition.

Which renders the other beliefs a little irrelevant, don’t you think?