Traditional Marriage is under attack!

Down with this sort of thing!

FAO: North Carolina Amendment 1 Campaign, Coalition for Marriage, Doctors for the Family, and other likeminded groups

Hi Guys,

Nice work on the campaigning. It’s great to see people really standing up for the traditional, Christian definition of marriage. It’s sad that polygamy and concubinage aren’t a serious prospect at the moment, but I suppose we have to be realistic about picking our battles. On that subject, I’ve noticed a few things that I think you ought to be aware of.

I was shocked to discover recently that the state is performing ceremonies that claim to marry people. There’s no vicar officiating, and religious content is explicitly banned from these perversions of the true nature of marriage. And the final insult is that they give these travesties the oxymoronic name of “civil marriages”, openly mocking our holy institution.

I know that’s bad enough, but there’s worse to come. Some of these so-called “civil marriages” are between divorcees, who (as we know from Jesus Himself) can no more marry each other than a dog and a lamppost. Yet these people are being allowed to get “married” and even to call themselves “husband” and “wife”. Can you believe that?

And I’m afraid the problem even extends to the church. I know of couples who have been “married” in church despite having absolutely no intention of having children, and some outrageous cases where one or even both parties were actually infertile. As we know, children are a vital ingredient of any true marriage, but even the church itself can’t be trusted to uphold this self-evident fact. I trust you will do everything you can to correct this appalling perversion.

However, this is academic unless we can do something about a wider problem: it seems that some partnered gay couples are in the habit of calling themselves “married” in conversation, even though that would be impossible. They actually have the nerve to use our special word for their deviant union! It would be a hollow victory if we succeeded in denying them proper marriage but they insisted on using the word anyway, so I have a suggestion: we need to trademark marriage.

I know this may seem a ridiculous suggestion, but hear me out. If we could register marriage (sorry, Marriage™) as a trademark, we’d finally be able to make sure that it was only used in approved cases. With one simple act, we’d achieve more than any number of campaigns, petitions and demonstrations – we’d finally have absolute control over Marriage™, and no future homo-loving government would be able to take that away from us.

There is a potential PR problem, though. Attempting to assert our ownership of a commonly-used word might look bad, even by the standards of the church, so it may be advisable to offer an olive branch to all those not-really-married but very noisy types. I suggest we could allow them to use our trademark, provided they acknowledge our ownership appropriately. I think the use of quotemarks should be sufficient when using the word in a non-approved context, and maybe an “air quotes” gesture when speaking.

It would be delightful to see all these various sinners and deviants forced to acknowledge their sins in these little ways, every time they refer to their shameful, godless fornication. If we adopt this strategy, I have no doubt that we will make God’s loving word known throughout the world.

Yours in Christ,

Revd George Nutter

Photo by mensatic, used under MorgueFile License


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

About Recovering Agnostic

I'm Christian by upbringing, agnostic by belief, cynical by temperament, broadly scientific in approach, and looking for answers. My main interest at the moment is in turning my current disengaged shrug into at least a working hypothesis.

23 responses to “Traditional Marriage is under attack!”

  1. Daz says :

    Oh gawd! Don’t give ’em ideas…

  2. callmequirky says :


  3. sixpointnineme says :

    Could not stop laughing. Great post.

  4. Travis Berry says :

    So, because other people are sinners we just just throw holiness out the window? So, because the divorce rate is high we should allow same-sex marriage? Is that really the logic behind this post? If so it is faulty.

    Travis (

    • Daz says :

      You should take supplements. That’s a serious irony deficiency you have there.

      • Travis Berry says :


        It is obvious that this is irony but, it also has a purpose. The purpose of this post is to try and paint every Christian like they are a “Nutter”. Not all of us are like that. I think through the issues but, to think that this post didn’t have a purpose outside of just being “irony” is at least ignorant.

        Travis (

      • Recovering Agnostic says :

        Well, let me put your mind at rest. My intention is absolutely not to portray all Christians as nutters. The only “nutter” is the fictional correspondent, and that’s only because I wanted to make it absolutely clear to anyone who didn’t know me that this is not representative of my views.

        Nor am I saying that because bad things happen (you mentioned the divorce rate, which is odd, because I didn’t), it follows that anything goes.

        The point is that this is the logical conclusion of the usual arguments against gay marriage. If the church has any authority to dictate the nature of civil marriage, there are some strange anomalies which are being overlooked. If the important issue is breeding, the church itself is guilty.

        If you think I’m wrong, I’d appreciate it if you could show my error, rather than simply asserting it. I’d be interested to discuss it and if necessary revise my opinion.

      • Daz says :

        Travis, can you point to the part that implies that “all Christians” are nutters? It seems to have passed me by.

        The word ‘Christian’ appears once in the whole piece:

        It’s great to see people really standing up for the traditional, Christian definition of marriage.

        As there are a great many people opposing same-sex marriage using that exact terminology, I really don’t see what your problem is with this article. If you’re not one of those bigots, then it wasn’t aimed at you.

  5. Travis Berry says :

    Christianity does not endorse biblical marriage because only a man and a woman can procreate however, the government does. The government supported traditional marriage by allowing for tax-breaks because procreating bestows benefits upon society that same-sex marriage does not. Babies mean new citizens and that is a good thing. Babies being raised responsibly create, more often than not, productive adults.

    Daz, does this article actually make a differentiation between “nutty” Christians and non-nutty ones? No. The end says “Yours in Christ” and many Christians end their writing in this way. Obviously, now that RA has clarified the point doesn’t matter but, the article itself does not only come across as representing a mere bigot. As a person that holds the Scriptures in high regard and am pro-biblical marriage I have been called a “bigot”, “homophobe”, and “anti-gay” too many times to count. So, when someone writes like this it causes me to question the motives behind the post. I have a question for you. If a person opposes same-sex marriage are they bigots?

    Travis (

    • agnosticchristian says :

      “I have a question for you. If a person opposes same-sex marriage are they bigots?”

      Well, if their response to their conviction is to ensure they don’t marry someone of the same sex themselves, then no. If their response is to use the law (by opposing a change in it) to enforce that opinion on everyone else, then yes, perhaps they are.

      • Travis Berry says :

        So, if my morality says that stealing is wrong but, another person says that it is right then does that mean I am bigoted against thieves because I would vote for a law saying thieves can’t steal? By trying to change the law you are bigoted against the Christian worldview. That would not be a fair criticism and yours isn’t either.

        Travis (

    • Daz says :

      I’ll leave the first paragraph for RA to address, or you’ll end up repeating the same points to RA and to myself.

      The article is so obviously a parody of the attitudes of fundamentalist, anti same-sex marriage Christians that, in my view, it needed no caveat to that effect.

      If you’re a person who is pro ‘Biblical’ marriage (Solomon’s, perhaps…?) but does not wish to force your view on others by law, then no, you’re not a bigot. If however…. Well, I’ll let you guess the rest of that sentence.

      • Travis Berry says :

        Daz, non-Christians commenting on the Bible is always amusing. Just because Solomon had many women does not mean the Bible condones his behavior. This is a common tactic by people but, it does not hold water. Also, I live in America, and I assume you do as well, it is a land of laws. Sometimes, those laws land in the hands of the people. So, to say I am a bigot because I would vote against a same-sex marriage law is not only bigoted in itself but it is illogical. Am I bigoted against murders, even though there is more evidence supporting their predisposition to murder than a homosexual being gay?

        Am I bigoted because I don’t want to change a God-given covenant for 3-4% of the population?

        Am I bigoted for considering that only 4.5% of gay men reported sexual fidelity within their relationships (Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216) thus, I don’t think that changing a historical and biblical view of marriage is warranted?

        If you answer “yes” to these, I guess I’m a bigot but, at least I have ground to stand on. Within your worldview why should we allow same-sex marriage?

        Travis (

      • Daz says :

        Within your worldview why should we allow same-sex marriage?

        We have this thing called ‘human rights’, wherein all human beings are deemed to be equal in the eyes of the law.

    • Recovering Agnostic says :

      I’m tempted to designate either Daz or AgnosticChristian as my official amanuensis, as they’ve been doing such a good job.

      Christianity does not endorse biblical marriage because only a man and a woman can procreate however, the government does. The government supported traditional marriage by allowing for tax-breaks because procreating bestows benefits upon society that same-sex marriage does not. Babies mean new citizens and that is a good thing. Babies being raised responsibly create, more often than not, productive adults.

      Christianity frequently does assert that “proper” marriage is dependent on procreation. This attitude is usually confined to Roman Catholics, but it has a nasty habit of spreading to other traditions and denominations whenever this subject comes up. I’m also struggling to see why the church is so incredibly unfussed by (for example) divorcees being married by the state. The church says it’s wrong, Jesus says it’s adultery (more than he ever said about same-sex marriage), but I’ve never heard any great uproar about the state “redefining marriage” by allowing it. In fact, both my parents are divorced and remarried, and they’ve never had any doubt cast on whether their current marriages are proper or genuine. Why?

      You say that the government supports X because of Y, which is your view and one which seems quite reasonable, but you don’t say why that should be the case, only that it is. So if the government intends to amend legislation relating to marriage, to recognise and support same-sex relationships in the same way as it does for opposite-sex ones, what (in your opinion) is the reason why that shouldn’t happen?

  6. agnosticchristian says :

    Travis – do you really not see the difference between theft, which has a victim who can be demonstrably shown to be harmed, and the prohibition of which can be thereby shown to benefit society, and gay marriage, which affects no-one except the people seeking to get married? Gay marriage being permitted *doesn’t affect you in the slightest!* Therefore you have no reason for opposing it except your personal moral beliefs and a desire to impose them on other people who do not share them.

    Stealing is illegal because it unjustifiably violates a person’s rights to their own property. Gay marriage affects no-one else, has no victims. A better analogy would be to suppose that I joined some fish obsessed cult which believed that eating fish was a sin and from this went on to attempt to have laws passed forbidding the eating of fish throughout the country. Would you not resent my attempts to prevent *you* from eating fish based solely on *my* religious beliefs?

    • Daz says :

      You’ve got the fish, I’ve got the peas. All we now is a chips-obsessed cult…

      Note for Travis: that was what we call ‘humour.’ If you do follow the link, though, and decide to answer the questions I posed there, please do so here, not there.

  7. agnosticchristian says :

    Addendum – as for “bigotted against the Christian worldview” – how do you work that out? In what way are you having a different morality or religious belief *forced* on you? Are you being prevented from having a heterosexual marriage? Are you being prevented from anything at all? No. The only thing you are being prevented from doing is enforcing *your* morality on *other people*.

  8. Michael Equality Barber says :

    Yes, Reverend Nutter can be found in every church in every state of the Union. That’s why I advocate complete atheism. Free yourself from the slavery of your childhood brainwashing and have 100 times better sex.

Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. how to get out of a bad marriage | Keys To Happy Marriage - May 18, 2012

Love it? Hate it? Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: