The commonly made objections to Gay Marriage are (a) marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman, a fact underpinned for many opponents by religious beliefs that only a man and a woman can be married, (b) claims that expansion of the definition of marriage to include same sex relationships will undermine the family and (c) such a novel status creates a legal anomaly whereby homosexual relationships become in some areas privileged over close non-sexual relationships between people of the same sex, for example, two elderly spinster sisters living together.
The problem with these objections is that although they have a considerable moral traction to the supporters of marriage as being between a man and woman , they are not intellectually conclusive. Supporters of gay marriage can point to the differences in what counts as marriage in different times and places – everything from pristine monogamy to polygamy and polyandry. Religious justifications for opposition will cut no ice with those of no religion or those of a different religion or strand of a religion. In addition civil partnerships already create much the same legal as situation as gay marriage would do Unless the opponents of gay marriage also oppose civil partnerships, and many do not, they do not have much of a case if they wish to base their argument on the damage to the institution of marriage deriving from the formal legal equality gay marriage would bring. (http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/relationships_e/relationships_living_together_marriage_and_civil_partnership_e/civil_partnerships_and_living_together___legal_differences.htm).
But opponents of gay marriage need not despair. There is an objection which is far more powerful and fireproofed against finessing and abuse. It can appeal to people of widely differing views because it is not attached to any of the direct arguments for and against gay marriage. It is also beautifully simple: in a free society language should evolve naturally through common usage. If governments are allowed to change the meaning of words by redefining them in law we are in the realm of 1984 and Newspeak .
The purpose of Newspeak was beautifully simple. It was to make whatever thoughts were deemed undesirable by the party impossible to formulate. This was done most radically by removing words from the vocabulary. For example, negative words such as bad and poor were not available in Newspeak. To say something was bad or poor the Newspeak user had to say ungood which could be heightened to plusungood or doubleplusungood. It was still possible to signify that something was bad or poor in Newspeak, but it could only be done using words which were much less emotionally potent because they were both new and had echoes of the positive word good. (Orwell wrote an appendix to 1984 which developed the idea of Newspeak considerably to show how dangerous control of language can be.).
Newspeak also altered the meaning of words by simply redefining them. Most famously the Party Slogans in 1984 are:
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
That is what the proponents of gay marriage are doing. In England marriage has always meant one man and one woman Moreover, whatever the variations on marriage or sexual cohabitation that have existed and may exist today in other parts of the world, one thing is certain: marriage has everywhere been a heterosexual relationship. To alter the word to mean any sexual combination is to deny the its usage in England from time immemorial. A more radical change in the meaning of a word it is difficult to imagine. It is Year Zero stuff.
If gay marriage does pass into law it will become illegal for any corporation or individual offering a product or service to treat a homosexual marriage differently from that between two heterosexuals. It is also probable in the increasingly authoritarian imposition of political correctness generally that a refusal to recognise relationships between two people of the same sex as a marriage will be treated as a hate crime.
A re-definition of marriage also leads to other related words – adultery, divorce, consummation (of marriage) – being of necessity redefined so that behaviours and events which now only concern heterosexual relationships also concern relationships between those of the same gender. In addition, it will mean the removal of the terms mother and father from many laws and legal documents.
Granting the right of marriage to homosexuals is taking away something from heterosexuals not simply giving something to homosexuals. That something is the institution of marriage being their sole possession, of being something special to them. Nor is would there be true equality between homosexual and heterosexual marriages because there can be no possibility of children in the case of the former. It is true that some marriages between men and women are childless but the possibility is there and in the overwhelming majority of cases also the intent to have children. In addition, gay marriage would raise other awkward questions such as the question of the prohibition against siblings marrying. As there would be no question of children the banning of sibling marriage – either two brothers or two sisters marrying – would have little force on rational grounds .
The drive for gay marriage is part of the general plan of the politically correct to force their ideas onto society as a whole. This requires people to deny reality and accept that which is abnormal as normal. Objectively homosexuality is abnormal because most do not practice it. Objectively, men and women fundamentally differ because their biology and biological functions are different . Objectively discrimination generally is not an evil but a necessary part of existence, for all animals including homo sapiens because to make a choice is to discriminate. Objectively discrimination on the grounds of race and ethnicity exists universally and to suggest that this is the result of social conditioning arising in every society across the world stretches credulity far beyond breaking point.
A fundamental tool in enforcing such ideas is the redefining of words by the exercise of power. He push for gay marriage is simply a symptom of something much more sinister: the attempt to change not only the outward appearance of society radically but to persuade people to believe that the wholesale calling of black white involved in political correctness is reality itself or failing that to come to believe that denying the maxims of the creed is dangerous.