I've tried to write a bit of satire from time to time in this blog but there comes a point where one is forced to recognise that, sadly, one's poor gifts in this regard cannot compete with the real world. For me it came when I read this:

A split (sic) within the Greens over gay marriage has widened, with a prominent party official claiming Senator Sarah Hanson-Young's insistence that marriage is between two consenting adults discriminates against others in the gay community, including polyamorists.

The lady senator and others should get with the programme. The idea that two's company and three's a crowd is now thoroughly old hat. The cool new thing is polyamorism. If you're not in favour of that, then the most fervent advocacy of gay marriage-for-two will not save you from being reviled by smart opinion-formers as crusty, neanderthal and uncaring.

It's a brave new world of wedlock, all right. Once we polyamorists get our way with our campaign for "aggregatory marriage" (yes, you read it here first) those who feel that their marriage isn't, so to speak, busy enough can add extra spouses to ramp up the action. Indeed, it will quite literally be a case of come one, come all.

After that? Well, society's failure to countenance non-same-species marriage is a glaring case of discrimination, crying out to heaven to be rectified. Anyone who wants to be really in the vanguard of social progress might now start letting it drop that he's planning to make an honest feline of his cat.

Then we shall have to address the injustice of "consenting" and "adults", so fustily insisted on by the senator. But that should not be an insuperable problem. Has it not already been dealt with by one of the world's great religious cultures?

20 July 2012

No comments:

Post a Comment