In response to Thomas Pascoe: Social conservatism under fire from Left and Right, Don Benson wrote:
Well said, Thomas Pascoe. I think legislating to change the meaning of words is extremely dangerous; the logical outcome is that nothing said or written has any certain and lasting meaning, and the result of that can only be the dilution and ultimate disintegration of rational communication.
On that note, I was less than impressed that the Coalition for Marriage made the error of campaigning for ‘traditional marriage’. Given that legislators were attempting to grab the word and subvert it (and succeeded), the use of ‘traditional’ capitulated to that idea by giving the impression that marriage was merely something based on historic human practice, and therefore to be supported as a nostalgic memory for social dinosaurs. In fact ‘real’ marriage describes the only possible human arrangement based on biological reality. Whether one sees this through the eyes of religious faith, or through agnostic acceptance of reality, has little effect on the argument that real marriage has a unique role in societies which are stable and able to flourish. Even at this late stage, when one cannot pretend that the ‘Equal Marriage’ disaster hasn’t happened, I would substitute the word ‘real’ for ‘traditional’ in any campaign to keep the issue alive.