Don’t shove your opposite-sex “union” down my throat

Well, WorldNetDaily have found something original to be horrified by. What new threat to all that is good and holy are they a-weeping and a-wailing and a-gnashing their teeth over this time? No, not gay marriage. Quite the opposite, actually.

Some conservative fruitcakes are objecting to the fact that marriages between people of opposite sexes are being referred to as… “opposite-sex marriages”. Perhaps they would have preferred a less biased and more family-friendly term, like “normal marriages”, or “marriages, but not, y’know, the faggy kind”.

You might be thinking that “opposite-sex marriage” is a sensible way of clarifying the type of marriage you’re talking about, since “same-sex marriage” is becoming a widely recognised thing as well. It’s kinda similar to how phrases like “snail mail” have become popular since the rise of email, since “mail” on its own became an ambiguous term.

You might be thinking that. But that’s probably because you’re not a total dick.

If you were a total dick, you might think that using the phrase “opposite-sex marriage” constituted lying to children. But then, if you were that much of a dick, you might also be Bill Donahue. Or a columnist for WorldNetDaily.

And if you were really so much of a dick as to be Bill Donahue – and I’m not saying you are, this is all just hypothetical – then you might object to the fact that children aren’t being told that “some male-on-male sex practices are dangerous”. You might even believe that use of the term “opposite-sex marriage” has any bearing on this whatever. It’s entirely possible that you’d also say things like…

Nor will it be pointed out that only so-called opposite-sex marriages are capable of reproducing the human race.

…while simultaneously being the kind of douchebag who starts screaming about the government forcing pornography on our innocent darling children every time anyone tries to give adolescent students some actual sex education. You’d also completely be missing the point, of course, that there are many states of existence that are incapable of reproducing the human race, like an opposite-sex couple being infertile, or a member of the clergy (of any sexual orientation) remaining celibate.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if you tried to claim that “Marriage means one thing”, apparently oblivious to the many different concepts of marriage that have existed in different times, places, and cultures. I doubt you’d understand that, if we allowed gay marriage rights, marriage would still mean one thing – in fact, it would still mean the same thing as it did before, just in a less prejudiced and limited way. You’d probably be too busy counting how often the New York Times used the phrase “opposite-sex marriage” and using whatever number you come up with as conclusive proof of how liberal values are destroying your country.

… You know. If you were a colossal dick.