In its support of three-way marriages, the Green Party is ahead of its time, though not by much.
The party leader Natalie Bennett says she’s open to the idea, as she’s no doubt open to many other ideas that she hasn’t yet vouchsafed to public knowledge.
In other words, she is open to the idea of breaking the law, which still proscribes bigamy.
But I have to be thankful to Natalie for expanding my vocabulary. Turns out there’s an official term for such marriages: they are called ‘polyamorous’ and not, for example, triamorous, polygenous or polyandral.
The preference of ‘poly-’ over ‘tri-’ suggests many exciting future possibilities which so far have only been explored by Mormons and Muslims. But why should those ‘M’ persons have all the fun?
More important, why should people with such reserves of love be treated without the respect they so richly deserve?
As my new friend Natalie puts it, “The Green Party supports campaigns to advance LGBTIQ rights and aims to build a society where everyone is valued, respected and empowered, regardless of their sexuality or gender identity.”
Thanks are again in order, for my vocabulary has again been enlarged: I had to look up LGBTIQ. I already knew that the first four letters of the acronym stand for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender, but I couldn’t for the life of me figure out what IQ had to do with it.
Are those cursed with high IQ being abused? I can believe that: intelligent people have to follow the current election campaign willy-nilly and, if that doesn’t constitute abuse, I don’t know what would. But it turns out that in this context the initials stand for ‘Intergender and Queer’, which is rather the opposite of high IQ.
The word ‘intergender’ means ‘between sexes’, which seems to describe any normal relationship, including the kind sanctified by the church. And the colloquial term ‘queer’ is in this case redundant because the underlying notions are already covered by the first four initials of the acronym.
There’s some intellectual muddle there somewhere, and I am open to the idea, as the saying goes, of replacing those two letters with ETC, leaving the door open for unlimited future expansion in the Green Party platform.
Two words in Natalie’s statement that made me slightly worried are ‘everyone’ and ‘empowered’. Of course nowadays ‘valued’ and ‘respected’ have to be accepted without demur on pain of social rebuke, ostracism and possibly legal prosecution.
It has been communicated to us all in no uncertain terms that a person who copulates with a member of the same sex, and/or has some sex organs detached or else sewn on, must be ‘valued’ and ‘respected’ not in spite of such acts but specifically because of them.
But ‘everyone’ and ‘empowered’? To do what exactly? The mind boggles, if we are now communicating in new-fangled colloquialisms, but I’ll spare you the description of numerous possibilities. Let’s just say that, if I were a ewe or a ram, I’d be nervous.
The Greens, so ably led by my new friend Natalie, also propose “mandatory HIV, sex and relationship education – age appropriate and LGBTIQ inclusive – in all schools from primary level onwards.”
Whereas empowering everyone to do anything may strike one as a smidgen too inclusive, the educational statement is almost shamefully restricting. What about tots attending crèches and kindergartens? We don’t want them to feel insufficiently ‘valued, respected and empowered’, now do we?
Under no circumstances must we waste those first, formative years of children’s lives. We don’t want their education to be as incomplete as mine had been until I found out what ‘LGBTIQ’ and ‘polyamorous’ mean.
Ignore the little ones at your peril, I say. They may grow up unwilling to vote for the Green Party, and where will the country be then? In the doldrums, that’s where.
It’s good to see that those wishing to destroy the last vestiges of traditional civility and morality have such a broad choice of parties to vote for. Yet of all the available options, and there are several, I’d recommend the Greens – they seem to be leading the pack, albeit with others in hot pursuit.