Saturday, March 3, 2012

Courier letters

Dear Sir,

Your correspondent Mr Mangan (Courier 20/1) should be congratulated on his keen knowledge of history. He was right to point out that in Democratic Greece, and Antique Rome, homosexuality was considered an unimportant fact of life, occasioning little comment. Christianity took away the right of people to be gay, while at the same time launching an attack on learning in general and science in particular, that is when they weren't busy burning heretics, and repressing Jews. This period of christian domination was called the dark ages for a good reason. Thank heavens we've all (except perhaps Mr Mangan) come to accept many of the values of that earlier, more enlightened age.



Dear Sir,

Your correspondent George Mangan (Courier 14/1/2012) objects to the word 'gay' being used by the homosexual community worldwide, and to the use of the word 'marriage' to describe same sex couples. Now whilst most people would reasonably dismiss his letter as the rantings of a homophobic bigot, I am pleased to write in his defense. His obvious motivation is not a nasty, uncharitable and ignorant prejudice, but rather a noble concern for linguistic purity. I myself have noticed for example, that the word 'mouse' which is an omnivorous rodent, is being used by some to describe a computer related device. The word 'awful' means not unnaturally full of awe, or inspiring, yet people who should know better often use it to mean 'something bad'. Mr Mangan presumably supports the governments decision to limit by legislation the use of the word marriage to heterosexual unions, so perhaps we should be lobbying the politicians to make it similarly illegal to use word like 'manufacture' (from the Latin 'to produce by hand) to describe the actions of machines. How about substantial fines and possible imprisonment for improper, or definitionally ambiguous use of nouns ? I am sure Mr Mangan would approve. On the subject of definitions however, I have one small quibble with Mr Mangan. After all the definition of 'voter' in this country was clear and precise, 'a male person over the age of twenty-one' Some good people, while acknowledging the accuracy of this definition, held it nonetheless to be immoral, so guess what ? - they changed the definition. I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr Mangan probably still hasn't reconciled himself to that act of linguistic vandalism.


Dear Sir

For centuries, biblically mandated slavery was the bedrock of society. For centuries, discrimination against women was obligatory. For centuries, clerically approved anti semetism was the norm. Who today would use the past ubiquity of these abhorrent practises to argue for their retention, or re-introduction ?

I personally would be embarrassed to argue, as your correspondent Mr Keogh presumably does, that a Kardashian marriage of a few weeks merits society's approval, whereas a twenty year long same sex relationship somehow does not. Same sex couples do not want special rights, or more rights - they simply want the same rights as everybody else. I don't think that two women getting married in Daylesford will destroy my marriage - but I could be wrong, I'll keep you posted !

Mr Keogh did however get one thing right, legalising same sex marriage would promote the idea that it is a normal and acceptable choice. Good !


No comments:

Post a Comment