Redefining Marriage Means Rewriting Dictionaries…

Merriam-Webster is going to have to update the next edition of its dictionary, at least if marriage redefiners have their way. Do you know what the words “monogamish,” “throuple,” and “wedlease” mean? If not, you soon will. After all, the power to redefine words is the power to redefine reality.

Let’s start with “monogamish,” a play on “monogamous.” A 2011 New York Times profile of gay activist Dan Savage, headlined “Married, with Infidelities,” introduced Americans to “monogamish” relationships — in which partners would allow sexual infidelity provided there were honest admissions of it.

The “monogamish” perspective is one of the purported ways in which redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships would make marriage better. The article explained: “Savage says a more flexible attitude within marriage may be just what the straight community needs.” After all, the story added, sexual exclusivity “gives people unrealistic expectations of themselves and their partners.”

 If a marriage can be sexually open, why should it be limited to two people in the first place? Meet the word “throuple,” which is similar to “couple” but with three people. The word popped up in a 2012 article in New York Magazine that described a specific “throuple” this way:

 Their throuplehood is more or less a permanent domestic arrangement. The three men work together, raise dogs together, sleep together, miss one another, collect art together, travel together, bring each other glasses of water, and, in general, exemplify a modern, adult relationship.

 More or less permanent. Indeed, some activists come down in favor of “less.” Consider “wedlease,” a term introduced in early August in an op-ed in the Washington Post. Why should marriage be permanent when so little else in life is? Why not have temporary marriage licenses, as with other contracts? “Why don’t we borrow from real estate and create a marital lease?” the author writes. “Instead of wedlock, a ‘wedlease.’” He continues:

Here’s how a marital lease could work: Two people commit themselves to marriage for a period of years — one year, five years, ten years, whatever term suits them. The marital lease could be renewed at the end of the term however many times a couple likes. . . . The messiness of divorce is avoided and the end can be as simple as vacating a rental unit.

Examples can be multiplied. In July, Washingtonian magazine ran a story about “polyamory” headlined “Married, But Not Exclusive.” The article tells us that “the word means ‘many loves’” and that, “as in most major cities, Washington’s polyamorous community is tight-knit.”

The liberal online journal Salon in early August posted a woman’s account of her shared life with a husband, boyfriend, and daughter, under the headline “My Two Husbands.” The subhead: “Everyone wants to know how my polyamorous family works. You’d be surprised how normal we really are.” The author writes: “As far back as I can remember, I felt that loving one person romantically did not preclude the possibility of loving another at the same time. It seemed natural and intuitive to me.”  END.

Well?  Is this crazy or …. is it a logical consequence of re-defining marriage?

17 responses

  1. We really shouldn’t refer to ourselves as Mr or Mrs or Ms or Miss. These titles are offensive to those people who have been liberated from the prison of gender binarism. Mx Jones, and Mx Smith is more appropriate.

  2. “I promise to love you until the lease runs out” Lol! (Five year unlimited mileage service plan included – see warranty. ).
    You are covered for:
    *STD’s
    *Nervous disorders
    *3 Psychiatric consultations per quarter
    *Contraceptives
    And that’s not all.
    Discount holiday packages for threesomes at a wide variety of resort across the country.

    You gotta love it!

    Completely Nutz

    • Arkenaten,

      “Completely Nutz”

      I couldn’t agree more. Things are getting crazier by the nanosecond.

  3. We can’t even blame this debauchery on the ancient pagan cultures, for even they knew where to draw the line with marriage. This is something completely unknown to humanity, perversity without precedent, so to speak. Good grief! The animal kingdom has better morals now!

  4. Athanasius,

    “We can’t even blame this debauchery on the ancient pagan cultures, for even they knew where to draw the line with marriage”

    That is exactly the case. How unbelievable is this, rewriting the dictionaries, making up new words like “throuple” – perversity indeed!

  5. Editor,

    I have just read the article “Europe’s Cassandra” and a few things struck me quite forcibly, for example where Gabriele Kuby say

    “After my conversion, it became increasingly clear to me that the deregulation of sexual norms is at the front lines of today’s cultural war.”

    Also later where she says that deregulation of sexual norms leads to the destruction of society.

    This is what we are witnessing today, the destruction of society due to abandonment of sexual rules – one man, one woman for life. The whole disintegration process began with the introduction of legalised divorce. Showing my age, but I can remember when a divorce made headlines. Now it’s the marriages which survive that are noteworthy.

  6. ‘… is it a logical consequence of re-defining marriage?’

    No, there will only be one kind of marriage, legal marriage.

    These others are just euphemisms. For example, Keith O’Brien was a “confirmed bachelor” (cough).

    • Constantine the Great,

      Would you confirm that you are a “practising Catholic” please and thank you.

      We need to know that in order to respond adequately to your post.

  7. Yes, it is the next logical conclusionS. I’m sick of hearing about “equal love”. Well, what if a man loves two woman? Or two men? What if a man thinks he loves his dog, cat or budgie? Or his car? If he has a “right” to Marry another man, should he also have a “right” to marry a budgie?

    • Petrus,

      Absolutely. And that is where this crackpot “same-sex marriage” law is leading. We’ve already got a paedophile group campaigning for recognition of their (perfectly “natural) “minor attraction” so lock up your children, folks.

      Constantine the Great has gone quiet again. If he’s not a Catholic, you see, we needn’t worry about responding to him too much because, outside the Catholic Church, really, “anything goes” – everyone is his or her own pope and if he’s a non-believer altogether, well anything goes even more, since there’s no final reckoning in their optimistic mindset.

      It’s the numpties who think they’re Catholics and want to go along with immoral laws, that really take the biscuit. How DOES one re-awaken dead consciences?

      • Editor,

        Well said. The level of confusion out there is unprecedented.

        I have a friend, a lapsed Catholic who claims to be atheist. He disagrees with homosexual marriage, abortion etc but claims there is no God! My question to him is this: if there’s no God then surely anything goes? Where does morality come from? What is conscience? Why bother listening the your conscience?

        He claims I am “blinded” by religion and asks me “surely you can see that this doesn’t make sense?” However, the real blindness is to accept morality but deny God. Completely illogical!

      • By the way, I shouldn’t really joke but I can’t help it – being engaged to a budgie would give a whole new meaning to the Glaswegian phrase “ma burd”!

  8. “Masonry, which will then be in power, will enact iniquitous laws with the objective of doing away with this Sacrament (of Matrimony), making it easy for everyone to live in sin. … The Christian spirit will rapidly decay, extinguishing the precious light of Faith until it reaches the point that there will be an almost total and general corruption of customs.

    In these unhappy times, there will be unbridled luxury that would conquer innumerable frivolous souls who will be lost. Innocence will almost no longer be found in children, nor modesty in women. In this supreme moment of need of the Church, those who should speak will fall silent.”

    Our Lady of Good Success, Quito, 20th January 1610

    • Every time I read that quote from OLGS, I just gulp. It is so amazing.

      It is just too amazing for words that the bishops don’t take notice of this and the Fatima apparitions. What planet are they living on?

%d bloggers like this: