My thoughtful and intelligent cousin Geoff took me to task
for calling the Church of Rome the world’s most ancient institution. He said
that marriage is older; and he is right.
Here is my reply to him. I’ll make it blue – additional remarks
will be in red.
[BTW, when I use the phrase, “May his sins be forgiven,” I
usually do so with respect to fellow Christians, who understand it to be merely
benevolence, not criticism. Geoff isn’t. But, I sincerely hope his sins are
forgiven, as much as I hope he receives credit for his charity work and for
being a top person.]
Geoff, Perhaps
I should have said "organisation". Yes, marriage is very venerable;
but it exists in many forms, including polygamy and polyandry.
I am, you
will not be surprised to hear, very disquieted by proposals to extend the
definition of the word "marriage" to same-sex unions. I fear we are
in for a period of semantic confusion. My first instinct has been to revive the
term "matrimony" - not presumably applicable to a union between two
men. Gabriel and Carrie would be entitled to it. Christians could say, "What
we used to call 'marriage' we will now call 'holy matrimony'".
The terms
"husband" and "wife" will be similarly confusing. Will both
the men in a same-sex "marriage" be husbands? One classic example of
"contradiction in terms (oxymoron)" has been
"married bachelor". Are we going to have "male wife"?
The more I think about the subject the more disquieted I get.
[BTW, did
you know that among some American Indians a chap could have a wife and be a
"wife" to another chap?]
Perhaps my
tactic for dealing with your comment should have been to wait a couple of years
and say, "No, coz, "marriage" is a very new-fangled thing."
The worst word I can think of to
describe the modernisers’ proposal is “impertinence”. That must sting! Leave my
language alone! Trembling, they must be.
The famous AK 47 has a recent
successor, the AK 12. Got to get me one of those.
George Orwell wrote a seminal essay:
Politics & the English Language.
It’s not particularly germane to this topic; but, you need to read it. F**ing
with the language is a tactic of the bad buys. F**ing with the institutions is
another. Antonio Gramsci was a very bad guy, and very smart. Saul Alinsky is
another very bad guy with similarly brilliant tactics.
Gramsci, Alinsky and I live in
the same world. It is baffling that their solutions could be so diametrically
opposed to mine – really baffling. This is not an argument – but how can it be?
Is it the shape of our brains which makes take such opposite positions? My (probably
inadequate) explanation is that they are not grown-up. They started with the
infantile position: wouldn’t it be nice if..? Yeah, but that’s not the way the
world works. If only Marx had grown up. He was pretty bright: interesting but stupid! What was that programme that
gave us Goldie Hawn? Alhamdulillah!
Immigration
Geoff thinks
I should address this issue in the light of Milliband’s admission that the
Labour party got it wrong. All our political parties have been getting it wrong
about immigration for generations. To question mass immigration has been
verboten by the political class. To do so was tantamount to racism. All that the
mainstream parties succeeded in doing was to let the BNP drive the conversation
– brilliant! Yer average Brit of my age asks a question: Has virtually unrestricted
immigration been a net good or a net bad? shall we weigh Chicken Tikka Massala
against 7/7? It’s a fair question.
We have
benefitted hugely from immigration – we may, indeed depend on immigrants and
their descendents to pay for the pensions of the likes of me.
What seems to
me to be indisputable is that Gordon Brown was cynical in the extreme in
encouraging immigration. He may well have lost the election by sneering at a characteristic Labour voter. He was wicked and corrupt in expanding the state
sector. Both phenomena increased his power base. His father was a Presbyterian minister,
so is mine.
What did
Geoff mean by “immigration”? I love the immigration of hard working and
creative people from whatever quarter. Some of them are helping to keep me
alive? They may be pink, blue or striped, for all I care. When they live off
the British state and work for the imposition of Shariah law, I got my doubts.
Heartily agree
ReplyDelete