Piers Akerman, gay marriage, two bolts, and two nuts when just one nut will do

(Above: two bolts. Don't do this on your Mauser at home folks).

Just catching up on Akker Dakker reading - where would the civilized world be without Piers Akerman - and he's come out with some vintage thoughts in When convenience and distraction unite.

You will recall that unlike the Taliban or fundamentalist Islamics or Al-Qaeda, Akkers is strongly supportive of civilized western values. You know, like the way we allow feminists to shriek their silly heads off, or tolerate gays as much as we can, except when they get indignant about Bruno.

Oops, sounds like the imams have got into Akker's head because he and Islamic fundies share the same thoughts when it comes to the matter of gay marriage, and semantics, and truth and definition, especially as understood by pre-post-modern journalists:

Proponents of the cause are calling for the illogical destruction of the universally-held concept that marriage is the union of two or more individuals of different sexes within the same genus, or two different parts, to form a whole.

Well universally held amongst fundamentalist Christians, Islamics and Piers Akerman.

Among humans, marriage is the joining of a man and a woman, different sexes, one whole. This usage of the term is mirrored widely in everyday usage across the trades. Joiners talk of marrying two sections of timber, for example.

At the simplest, a marriage is reflected in the relationship between a nut and bolt. A single nut is not much use. Neither is a bolt, but the two used in tandem as they are designed to be used, form an effective fastener. Two nuts don’t make it, nor two bolts. Try to put them together and they don’t marry.

But why bother with two nuts, when just one Piers Akerman will do? Lordy, lordy, marriage as a nut and a bolt. But which is which? Are the men nuts, or is the bolt some kind of penis substitute, or are we all just a screw loose? When I'm next in a hardware store, when the next blue moon comes along, I think I'm going to have to marry all those cheap sluttish nuts lying around with bolts, co-joining without any decent blessing.

But how to get around the way that Kevin Rudd and Piers Akerman actually agree, along with the imams and the fundamentalists? Surely it must stick in the craw of Akkers to find one thing that they agree on? That'd be a bit like agreeing with the anti-Christ?

The ALP compromise, moved unhappily (according to the ABC) by infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese is to advance some form of civil union for those homosexuals who wish to register as partners. Outraged homosexuals protested that the ALP had ducked the issue and that the failure to accept the term “marriage” highlighted marriage discrimination.

In Melbourne, Australian Marriage Equality spokesman Tim Wright urged Australia to follow Albania’s lead and recognise same-sex marriages. At the same rally, a person named Alison Thorne speaking for a group called Radical Women declared that marriage was an oppressive institution designed to condemn women to lives of slavery, but same-sex couples should nevertheless be equally entitled to it. Another activist said Rudd would be remembered as the “Prime Minister who has broken the nation’s heart”.

Disappointing really. Every other member of the commentariat made a joke about the way gays should be allowed an equal right to the oppressive institution of marriage. Tim Blair offered up the suggestion that women start demanding equal-rights burqas.

All poor Akkers can do is make an Albanian joke, with bonus Newtown joke:

The ALP Left may think Albania is a suitable national role model and the small but heart-broken homosexual lobby may cite opinion polls (all of which seem to have been taken in Newtown) to demonstrate support for the impossibility of homosexual marriage, but it’s unlikely many Australians see Albania as the standard bearer for global social reform.

Or Spain or South Africa or the Netherlands for that matter. Not to mention a few states in the good ol' USA that have broken ranks with fundamentalists. Yep, Akkers not only do you agree with Christian Chairman Rudd, you sound like an Islamic fundie.

The ALP conference removed the words man and woman from Labor’s platform on same-sex unions, but the approved motion upheld the Marriage Act as amended in 1961 which clearly states that marriage “means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”.

Hang on a second - "entered into for life."

You know I can remember when that phrase actually meant something. Divorce was tough, people hung in and hammered each other in Virginia Woolf games, but they didn't flinch, they didn't break the lock. They stayed toe to toe until death ended the game. Why getting a divorce in the Catholic church was a farcical game involving tests for virginity and devising specious grounds for annulment. Talk to Henry VIII about how chopping off a head seemed a heck of a lot easier than getting a divorce out of a difficult pope.

Those days are long gone. These days divorce is a plague in the land, and the notion of entering into marriage for life is delusional, up against the serial monogamy many indulge in.

You might think this a good thing or a bad thing, but when you start using definitions that are demonstrably silly and false - like entered into for life - rather than admitting marriage is a social, economic, cultural and emotional construct - you only add to the further corruption of the language, while sounding like a fundie in the debate about gay marriages.

But I guess it's good to know that deep in his heart Akker Dakker has a profound affinity with fundie Islamic conservatives ...

Sheikh Al-Hilali on the dangers facing us all:

More dangerous yet are the sex education classes in the schools. In the West, the society is divided, generally speaking, into different parts in accordance with how interesting they are. First comes caring for dogs and cats. In second place is the woman, and in third place is the child, and in fourth place is the male. Australia is one of the Western societies, and it has recently enacted laws enacted allowing men to marry men and women to marry women. The church officially registers them... These are the dangers of freedom and permissiveness. (here)

Now I'm not sure what laws Hilali was talking about - perhaps he was getting anxious about that wayward derelict ACT government - but I always thought Akkers protested too much about Islamics, and now I know why. He's an undercover agent for their social and societal values, and when he's not doing that, he's fellow travelling with Chairman Rudd.

Eek, can the the contradictions be resolved, or are we in a warp factor speed anomaly? Where's Spock when we need him?

(Below: two nuts. One nut isn't recommended for this job, but a single nut can do many other useful things, provided there's an Andrew Bolt around).