Gay Marriage, political correctness and Newspeak

by Robert Henderson

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. (

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.

13 responses to “Gay Marriage, political correctness and Newspeak

  1. I have to agree with Robert. I have been in favour of removing all legal discrimination against homosexuality since I was twelve. I was an outspoken libertarian on this issue before I became a full libertarian, and when speaking out could get you funny looks at my comprehensive school. I wrote the first and possibly the best defence of the Spanner Defendants in 1991. One of the few decent things that Labour did was to bring in civil partnerships.

    If the campaign for homosexual marriage were not part of a general assault on bourgeois civilisation, and would not be used to bring about radical changes to the status of heterosexual marriage, and would not be used as an excuse to persecute Christians, I’d be right for it. Sadly, things are as they are.

    Give me gay marriage, therefore – but not yet.

  2. You fall at the first hurdle – it is rightly described as’homosexual “marriage”‘.

  3. In Washington State it was said that government “Gay Marriage” would not undermine marriage – i.e. the union between a man and a women.

    Now, only months after the establishment of government GM, the words “husband” and “wife” have been formally removed from official documents.

    I think this is an indication of the true agenda involved in this matter.

  4. Peter Watson – Yes, Peter, I could have called it homosexual marriage, but that would have distracted from the arguments I put forward because some, including those opposed to such a perversion of language as the idea of marriage between two people of the same sex might have cottoned onto the word rather than the real issue which is the perversion of language by the politically correct in pursuit of their Year Zero.

  5. The main difficulty we have is that the Fabian bastards didn’t get rounded up and beated to death in public, in 1884. A lot of later trouble and strife would have been saved, and WW2 and probably also WW1 would possibly have been avoided: certainly the Cold War would never have happened. We have our own general enforced and necessary busy-ness and pre-occupation with real life to thank for our failure to pay attention then, to what they were outlining.

    I, for me, do not care if two fellas, or two girls (but I don’t really believe the girls anyway) want to go about saying they are “married”. It happens a lot on facebook, especially between young girls (I do not know why.) But there is no legal justification, seeing that “marriage” means what it does religio-philosphically, for ascribing the same legal values and rights to these fellas (or girls.)

    So long as they can’t legally and financially terrorize hoteliers into not refising them a double bed if the said hoteliers don’t feel like it, then I guess they can do what they want.

  6. Careful David – if you use a violent metaphore, Sean may write a post denouncing you for doing so.

    Anyway a healthy culture would not have needed to beat the Fabians to death – in a healthy culture they would have been ignored.

    For example, if a group of people in Britian had come out with Fabian proposals in 1784 (not 1884) – they would have got nowhere.

    So what had changed?

    Wages and conditions were not worse (contrary to Marxist lies) – they were actually better (much better).

    What had changed for the worse was the beliefs and attitudes of much of the establishment.

    Walter “concede everything that is safe to concede” Bagehot was hardly a man of backbone (with that attitude someone ends up conceding everything – “safe” or not) – but he was one of the most influential thinkers of the time (and not just on laying the foundation for future bank bailouts – and ruining the Economist magazine).

    And another major liberal thinker was, of course, J.S. Mill – a man of wonderful pro liberty broad generalities (and nasty collectivist specific details). Half way to a Fabian himself.

    And that leaves aside the influence of Frederick the Great worshipping statists (such as Thomas C. very much read in the 19th century) and romantic statists such as Dizzy.

    The 19th century was a accident waiting to happen (as the growth of state education in almost every major country shows) – and that “accident” was the 20th century, and the early 21st century.

    And the worst (for us) is, alas, yet to come.

  7. going off at a wild tangent, since you mention the growth of state education, it was either ralph vaughan williams’ wife or his mother (i can never remember which) who blamed the 1844 (?) education act for the demise of folk song in britain. once people had learned how to write things down on paper, the aural tradition of folk song withered and died. parents no longer needed to sing to their children the songs which had been taught to them by their parents and grand parents. mercifully people such as rvw and a handful of others recognised the urgency of the situation, and rushed around the country with their phonographs recording the last embers of the folk tradition as it was sung by real ‘folk’ for posterity. incidentally, another irrelevance, at the turn of the 20th century rvw used to collect folk songs from the wheatsheaf inn at kingsfold, where I later washed up glasses as a teenager for 3/9d an hour (that’s 19 pence in metric money). everybody involved in the folk music ‘scene’ appears to be an ardent socialist, including rvw and his dear friend ‘gussy’ holst. maybe it’s because they were born into privileged backgrounds and were fascinated by the music of the ‘horny-handed sons of toil’. as for me, i just love the music – politics has bugger all to do with it.
    incidentally david davis, how do you know what young girls get up to on facebook? are you in fact a young girl masquerading as david davis, like a sort of paedophile in reverse?
    off out now to get myself a keyboard that has working capitals!

  8. Mr Williams (and his wife?) was a romatic socialist (like Ruskin or Morris). A nice person by all accounts – but not to be relied upon for social and economic history.

    The various State education Acts (such as that of 1870) did not speed up the rise of literacy in Engand and Wales (see West’s “Education And The State” 1965).

    And people knowing how to read and write does not undermine folk song anyway – as Iceland (which had almost unversal literacy, and no state education system, in the 19th century) shows.

  9. Will Wolverhampton

    One of the few decent things that Labour did was to bring in civil partnerships.

    When Talleyrand died, Metternich is supposed to have asked: “What did he mean by that?” Mr Blair was far less subtle and one doesn’t need ask many questions about why he introduced civil partnerships. “Decency” is not a motive I can detect.

  10. Agreed.

    If civil partnerships had been a matter of decency there would not have been a sexual element forced in.

    For example two brothers (or two sisters) who lived together could not form a civil partnership (to get the various fiancial and legal advantages) neither could two old friends who lived together (without sleeping together).

  11. I think the crafty polititcains use this issue to get votes, homosexulas and
    lesbians have the same rights as everyody these day’s, in view of their
    numbers the government wants the vote, that’s why when they had gay
    pride day, they were wearing Chole Smith badges, entitled “Gay Pride”.

  12. When marriage was a contract between two heterosexual genders, regarded as the building brick of the society, the financial advantages that it was endowed with were a reward for the raising of children, the future generations. There’s no such need for the same reward for two gays, two lesbians. Biologically these couplings are ‘infertile’, what is the rationale for bestowing the same financial advantages on them?

    Allowing gay ‘civil partnerships’ to adopt children, to have them produced by surrogacy was another folly. The vast majority of humans are heterosexuals, it follows the majority of kids raised by adoption within gay ‘families’ must also be heterosexuals. What if, when they mature, they find it impossible to accept their parents are of the same sex, their seeking heterosexual partners may also be that much harder. What then?

    How are we to define adultery in case of a homosexual marriage, the consummation of it in case of a divorce, stuff like that?

    The culprit here is the tenet of equality, it seems to trump everything else. Yet as Robert points out this take on things is untenable, we couldn’t exist if we were barred from making choices, the basic operand of our existence.
    Making choices is indeed to discriminate, to choose one over the other. What gives?.

  13. Fair comment Baron, but what angers me is when politicians get on the band
    wagon for votes, I wonder the motive of CH and her internet campaign
    attracting publicity for gay rights I don’t really want to see people wearing Chole Smith
    badges with the slogan Gay Rights, it should read wants votes.