So, Ted Baillieu has come out (no pun intended) in favour of same-sex civil unions: "Baillieu backs gay unions".
What on earth does this mean? 'Protected and preserved'? Has anyone in this entire 'debate' - either here or abroad - ever actually explained what these rubbish catchphrases mean? 'Preserve the sanctity of marriage' and so on. It is taken for granted that gay unions are a threat, that the more they start to look like our, traditional marriages, the more they will potentially... What? I don't follow the logic of this. I don't know what outcome is being threatened. The annihilation or dissolution of heterosexual marriage, amidst a sea of ersatz gay counterfeits?
Perhaps a representative selection of heterosexual marriages could be moved to a zoo or a wildlife preserve and kept there, just in case the wild, natural, man-and-woman-in-the-church variety someday becomes extinct. Would this serve to 'protect and preserve' the institution? I'm sure the Greens would get behind a straight wildlife preserve. It might be our only prospect of a bipartisan approach on the issue.
Mr Ballieu told ABC radio he supported "the notion of there being a civil union of sorts, which registers relationships". [....] But there should be a clear separation between gay civil unions and marriage, which he called an institution that "needs to be protected and preserved".
What on earth does this mean? 'Protected and preserved'? Has anyone in this entire 'debate' - either here or abroad - ever actually explained what these rubbish catchphrases mean? 'Preserve the sanctity of marriage' and so on. It is taken for granted that gay unions are a threat, that the more they start to look like our, traditional marriages, the more they will potentially... What? I don't follow the logic of this. I don't know what outcome is being threatened. The annihilation or dissolution of heterosexual marriage, amidst a sea of ersatz gay counterfeits?
Perhaps a representative selection of heterosexual marriages could be moved to a zoo or a wildlife preserve and kept there, just in case the wild, natural, man-and-woman-in-the-church variety someday becomes extinct. Would this serve to 'protect and preserve' the institution? I'm sure the Greens would get behind a straight wildlife preserve. It might be our only prospect of a bipartisan approach on the issue.
2 Comments:
That's hilarious Catherine!
I just posted my own long, dreary blog on the subject but you seemed to have summed it up better than I have and in far less words.
One question: what happens if you try and feed the animals?
Gold! Gold!
Post a Comment
<< Home