Mississauga!

Welcome back, gentle reader, for another fresh serving of humankind's innermost thoughts and the ways in which they are expressed. Today's selection of authors have one thing in common: a frail grasp on grammar and logical reasoning! Ah, pardon The Postmaster, they have, in fact, two things in common, for they are, additionally, all residents of that fine suburb of Toronto which demands to be known as Mississauga.

One of the first letters that caught The Postmaster's eye from this fine town was an example of what The Postmaster likes to refer to as "Typewriter Art"; this is when someone decides to, shall we say, "spruce up" a piece that is otherwise - both aesthetically and intellectually - less than noteworthy; this is done by using the keys and paper in such a matter as to produce graphics and/or patterns on the page. In this particular case, our contributor typed her letter in the shape of a goose. The Postmaster, unfortunately, has neither the time nor the inability to self-express to recreate such a deed. That is left to your own imagination as we delve into the following:

"DO YOU KNOW MOTHER GOOSE? HOW IS SHE GOING TO FEEL WHEN JACK & JILL BECOME JACK & JACK? WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO JACK SPRATT WITH NO WIFTE TO EAT THE FAT? HE'LL PROABLY SUFFER FROM A MAJOR HEART ATTACK WHICH WILL, OF COURSE, BE AN EXTRA BURDEN ON OUR MEDICAL & WELFARE SYSTEMS. PETER, PETER PUMPKIN EATER WON'T HAVE A WIFE TO KEEP IN A PUPKIN SHELL, SO THE PUMPKIN FARMER MAY GO OUT OF BUSINESS. AND THEN HE'LL APPLY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT, AND THEN ALL BECAUSE OF A SMALL MINORITY GROUP, THE GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE TO PUT OUT EXTRA FUNDS AND EVERYONE KNOWS THERE ARE NO EXTRA FUNDS TO SPARE!"

Ah, yes. The Postmaster understand now how those who have been pushing for equal rights regardless of sexual orientation have been completely, and incosiderately, ignoring how their rights might impact FICTIONAL CHARACTERS. Pardon The Postmaster for using all capital letters, but The Postmaster feels that this is an appropriate situation in which someone does, in fact, deserved to be shouted at, as this particular someone is angrily demanding the oppression of a minority group in order in order to "protect" the rights and lifestyles of FICTIONAL CHARACTERS. However, The Postmaster should not be too judgmental of this poor soul, for it is possible that she feels such affinity to fictional characters since they doubtless account for many of her closest friends.

Let us know move from a Mother Goose afficionado to...another Mother Goose afficionado. Here is a letter from a representative of the younger generation:

"I am twelve years old and I am against same-sex marriage. I would like the sanctity of marriage to be upheld. I think it is totally disgusting for two boys or two girls to get married!"

Ah, out of the mouths of babes. What a fine young man he will be once his parents allow him to form his own ideas instead of automatically regurgitating their ignorant rhetoric! That being said, The Postmaster would like to assure this young citizen that "his" views are semi-accurate. It can indeed be described as "disgusting" for two boys or two girls to marry, or, for that matter, a boy and a girl to marry. That is why in this country boys and girls may not marry, only men and women.

And here is the final entry in our trifecta of terribly-structured texts:

"As one of millions of concerned Canadian citizens, We are against this terrible bill that would DESTROY THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE! (The union of 1 man & 1 women.)"

The Postmaster can only hope that these authors represent the exception, not the rule, of the intellects produced by the system of education in their town. This last one in particular; as he is apparently under the impression that one must use the royal "we" in proper letters. Perhaps, however, the problem runs deeper than that, as he is also convinced that it is possible to have "1 women". Perhaps he should worry less about the sanctity of marriage and more about the sanctity of proper pluralization.

And that, gentle reader, is the end of our sojourn through the minds from Mississauga. Where shall our travels take us next? Only the letters know for sure.

On Reason and Rhetoric

As other scandals rise, the issue of same-sex marriage has generated far fewer letters to fill The Postmaster's canvas sack of human emotion. Fortunately, no matter how long an issue has been debated, regardless of whether all the relevant points have been raised and discussed, and in spite of one's own intellectual limits, there will always be a Member of Parliament willing to, as it is often said colloquially, "beat a dead horse". And, on rare occasions, a person is elected to the Lower Chamber who will not only beat the horse that is already dead, but also the horse that is not even there, and will then chase after the dragons, trolls and pixies that only he seems capable of seeing.

And so we are brought to the political enigma that is the Member from Calgary West, one Rob Anders. What can one say about such a man that has not already been said, or perhaps even used as fodder to have this person of questionable qualifications removed from any sort of position even remotely resembling authority?

The Postmaster normally does not pay any more attention to Mr. Anders, nor those who share his propensity for random outbursts of illogical ramblings and unreasonable statements, as the quality of their language skills is not so great as to make worthwhile the moments of precious life one would lose to their amusingly nonsensical diatribes. Furthermore, as he has had his own unique brand of self-expression positively reinforced bye being elected and re-elected to Parliament, he is unlikely to be a strong candidate for, to put it delicately, having sense knocked into him - at least, certainly not by your humble Postmaster.

However, his attempts at coherent arguments do retain some worth, though he himself is seemingly beyond redemption, in that they may serve as lessons to those who might otherwise wander ignorantly down the path to - well, ignorance. And so I present some excerpts from Mr. Anders recent speech on Bill C-38, so that we may be warned from such behavior in the realm of dialogue and rhetoric, much like so many small children hearing of the monstrous Boogeyman. Let us proceed:

I know that some of my colleagues in this place have quoted philosophers. I know one of them relied on John Stuart Mill and took his great treatise On Liberty to go ahead and talk about freedoms.

I want to quickly touch on this philosopher in particular because I think he is sometimes being used and abused by some of my colleagues in this place. With regard to marriage, John Stuart Mill said:

A person is bound to take all these circumstances into account, before resolving on a step which may affect such important interests of others; and if he does not allow proper weight to those interests, he is morally responsible for the wrong.

What Mill is saying is that we have to take into account the interests of children in this debate because they are third parties that are called into existence by marriage.

Now, this particular effort begins valiantly enough, but then ends in a tragedy of reason and textual comprehension. Let us analyse: he introduces his theory that his fellow members have been misinterpreting the philosopher for their own needs, and promises to explain and support his position, and then not only fails to do either, but then raises a quotation which is unrelated to his immorality of same-sex marriage argument which he is supposed to be defending, and then uses what The Postmaster can only imagine is the Random Sentence Generator located exclusively in his own mind to interpret the quotation which in actual fact has nothing to do with his argument nor the conclusion which is derived from said quotation.

Those readers who are prepared may chose to continue:

Mill adds:

--forbid marriage unless the parties can show that they have the means of supporting a family, do not exceed the legitimate powers of the State...not objectionable as violations of liberty.

What he is basically saying is that we can prohibit a mischievous act if it is injurious to others and that such an act should be subject to reprobation and social stigma.

When a timely and merciful end to his career in politics arrives, The Postmaster offers that Mr. Anders should take whatever device he is using to take much-respected and studied works of philosophers to arrive at his own unrelated, uncorroborated and previously unheard of interpretations, and throw it into a pit deeper than the human despair it has caused. Or, preferably, he should do that immediately.

Should that not be enough of a warning to the careful excercise of public oration, let The Postmaster provide one further example.

Julius Caesar in 59 BC offered rewards to Romans who had many children. He forbade childless women to ride in litters or wear jewellery. It sounds pretty stark in today's climate but, nonetheless, he understood the importance of family.

Oh, sweet, naive, diminuitive, Mr. Anders. The Postmaster is sorry to that you have been raised with the illusion that the goal of Julius Caesar, by imposing fascist and discrimatory laws on women that essentially reduced them to living incubators, was to promote the importance of the family! Were it but so, The Postmaster is sure that said women would have taken the sub-human status inflicted upon them gladly, despite the obvious conflict within the notion that one can both protect the importance of the family and by devalue the intrinsic humanity of half of its members. Unfortunately for your innocent worldview, however, this particular Caesar - whom you so admire for his bold stance against women who might wish to have worth in their own being as opposed to as reproductive instruments of patriarchal society - was not so much concerned with the family as he was obsessed with conquering the world, for which task he would require many, many children to be born in order to fill the rapidly growing ranks of his military forces. A childless woman was punished not because she was morally bereft of her responsibility to the family, but because she had failed her State-designated purpose of providing the next generation of soldiers who would one day grow up and become the instrument of blunt violence and conquest under the banner of Rome.

Rather than further disillusion poor Mr. Anders, The Postmaster will save the obvious comparisons with the other notable "Culture of Life" for another, more suitable time.

"Go, and I wish you well"

Greetings, pilgrims of the digital dialogue. The Postmaster brings to you more insights into the depths of the human soul. Some of these depths are great and abyss-like, while others more closely resemble, say, one of those children's pools that comes in the shape of some aquatic animal.

It is not unusual that those writing to The Postmaster appeal to the authority of the Bible, most usually passages from the books of Genesis, Leviticus and Romans, when voicing objections to the civil marriage of persons of the same sex. Of late, however, there have been a number of authors who seem to have drawn their main inspiration from an altogether different book. Let us peruse:

"The current thrust to force this "Same Sex Marriage" bill upon Canadians is totally offensive. One cannot tolerate the thought of opearting a business in the environment that will follow if this bill were to become law. Our business will not remain in Canada if this happens."

"WHAT ABOUT "BARBIE &KKEN"DOLLS. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THAT PLAYING DOLLS WHEN I WAS LITTLE. NOT BARBIE MARRYING BARBIE & KEN MARRYING KEN. IF THEY CHANGE ALL THAT - I'M GLAD TO BE MOVING OUT OF CANADA!!!!!!!"

"The social and economic decline that this Bill will introduce (as evidenced in Scandanavia), combined with the imminent trampling of rights, make Canada's future scary.

If this Bill is passed, we will seriously consider leaving the country taking with us our buisness, our money, and our families."


The Postmaster must admit that as far as arguments against same-sex marriage go, this one is impressively coherent. One could boil it down to a simple "Do what I want you to do, or I will leave."

Unfortunately for the above authors, while this particular tactic is coherent, it is not especially compelling.

Let us embark upon the following thought experiment: imagine that you live in a relatively nice suburban neighborhood. You decide, and it is approved by the neighborhood committee, to repaint your house a vibrant shade of yellow. However, one neighbor takes issue with this. As you prepare to buy the paint, she is there at the store telling you it is wrong. As you go to rent a ladder and scaffolding, she is slipping notes under your door telling you to stop. As you select the perfect colour, she is writing letters to the local newsletter railing against your choice. And then, when all is in order for you to begin, she approaches you with her final ultimatum: if you paint your house yellow, she will be forced to move to a completely different neighborhood.

What effect would such a statement have on your decision? The Postmaster, and likely others, would certainly continue with the original plan, the only change being the added motivation to complete the task as soon as possible. Thus can we see that a coherent argument is not the same as a sound argument.

However, if the authors and others of the same view are not to be swayed from their decided course of action, then allow me suggest they peruse the list of the best countries in which to live, although the authors may wish to be sitting down when they do so, as they will doubtless be extremely surprised to see that, in fact, the moral and economic decline of Scandinavian countries was perhaps less of a fact and more of a convenient fabrication by their own much-taxed imaginations. Regardless, The Postmaster wishes them all the best in their future homelands and urges them not to forget to write.

Bonfire of the Fallacies

Gentle reader, though The Postmaster has been absent for a fortnight, I have certainly not forgotten my duties, nor could I if I chose to, as the matter of marriage continues to weigh heavily upon the already much-taxed intellects of this and other lands. While the fever pitch of "debate" has passed, there remains the audible sound of those still struggling with the formation of coherent argument to summarize their opinion and convince others. Let us examine:

"I have had many nightmares in my lifetime but this upcoming, " ANTI-MARRIAGE BILL " will be my worst nightmare ever. I expect many people in this country, would agree with what I said. How could this same-sex bill be normal ? This is so un-human. Every normal human would realize this. "

The Postmaster can certainly sympathize with seeing one's worse nightmare come true. In the case of The Postmaster, it is seeing the general inability of people to use common punctutation as taught to children and certain species of advanced primates. When this is coupled with a grasp of reasoning and debate that is, to put it delicately, infantile, The Postmaster is truly awake in the worst of all nightmares. When one is compelled, for no apparent reason to place a comma at random in a sentence containing but one simple thought and therefore not requiring it, perhaps one should spend less time worrying about whether one's fellow humans are "normal", which, as an aside, is a term both vague and subjective and therefore not suited to be even part of a premise of a logical argument, let alone the conclusion, not that the author would know a logical argument if it bit him or her in the...

Ahem. You must pardon The Postmaster, it has been a long and wearying fortnight. Let us move on.

"The definition of tradtional marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been held to for thousands of years. In the beginnng, God created man, Adam, and a woman, Eve. woman was created as a helpmate for man. It was man who corrupted what God had in mind."

The Postmaster wonders if, given how things turned turned out, Adam would have perhaps preferred a helper monkey. Ha ha! I jest, of course. It would be Eve who would have preferred the helper monkey.

Alas, it seems that The Postmaster is quite out of sorts this morning. I have neither the energy nor the desire to even begin to start to try to enumerate and discuss the many flaws of the above "argument" in terms of being neither sound or convincing. Perhaps the gentle readers may wish to do this themselves. The Postmaster is going for a nice cup of tea.

Oxbow, Saskatchewan

The Postmaster again embarks upon a journey across this great nation to uncover the innermost thoughts of one particular town. Join me today in what The Postmaster believes to be the quaint village of Oxbow, Saskatchewan. They have been labouring, much like the proverbial oxen, with literary efforts regarding the subject of matrimony in our dear country. The Postmaster offers the following fine selection of humankinds deepest thoughts:

"The great moral principle of the union of one man and one woman is God's provision for us since the Creation. This bill has the potential for disastrous effects of the family and society as a whole. It becomes not a question of whose rights we support, but of what IS right. Only by doing what IS right can we protect our families and society."

What IS right is making a statement backed up by solid evidence, or premises, which add weight and soundness to an argument. The Postmaster fears that perhaps, in haste, the writer has forgotten such things.

"Having been brought up in a God-fearing home, where the truth of the bibile was upheld, I feel I must voice my concern and disapproval of such a bill becoming the law of the land. I think most would be aware that marriage in Canada has always been recognized as the union of one mand and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. I, for one, would fear to go against God's word. Wouldn't you?

It is evident that moral decline is becoming more and more prevalent in our world today."

The Postmaster agrees that marriage in Canada has traditionally been between a man and a woman; however, to use the term "always" shows an ignorance of the current reality wherein several jurisdictions have performed marriages which do not fit within the definition which the author describes. Therefore, one may say "Until recently, marriage in Canada had always been recognized as the union of one mand and one woman", much as one may say "Until recently, there was no such thing as rape within marriage as the wife was considered to have consented indefinitely to sexual intercourse with her husband by the simple act of marrying him and therefore had neither the right to refuse him nor the legal grounds to prosecute him for forced sexual relations as these were not considered to exist within lawfully wed couples". The Postmaster offers this merely as an illustrative example, of course. Furthermore, since we are already on the topic, The Postmaster humbly requests an illustrative example to back up the writer's last claim, as it is serious enough in nature, yet rendered trivial due to lack of even the tiniest scrap of evidence, which the writer can surely provide and likely did not only due to constraints on his or her doubtlessly full schedule.

"THIS WICKED BILL BEING FORCED ON OUR NATION IS AN AFFRONT TO GOD'S PRINCIPLES - 1 MAN AND 1 WOMAN - AND CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO OUR OWN HANDS. PLEASE TAKE TIME TO REFLECT THIS ISSUE."

All The Postmaster can say in return is "Please take time to proofread your work, and, time permitting, a draft version may prove invaluable to the writing of a cohesive and well-structured letter". Still, your request is certainly noted, though were it composed in a gramatically correct fashion it would be far more easily granted, since the lack of sound sentence structure makes it difficult for the reader to ascertain exactly what is being requested. Pardon me, what IS being requested, for, apparently, the fine people of Oxbow prefer the word capitalized, and this particular writer prefers to capitalize all letters, perhaps because the writer is aware that the argument does not speak so loudly on its own. Regardless, The Postmaster has placed a copy of this letter in front of a mirror so as to better reflect it, although The Postmaster is curious as to what this will accomplish.

In conlusion, The Postmaster would like to thanks the aspiring wordsmiths of Oxbow, Saskatchewan, for their contributions to the Marriage Mailbag and - though they are taking but the the steps of infants in this direction - wish them further success in the field of expanding their capacity for arguing convincingly.

Check Under "E" for "Effort"

The Postmaster, having been privvy to the most intimate thoughts of humankind, is rarely surprised to find that what one expresses and what one actually thinks are often two separate entities altogether. On the surface, humans are social creatures bound by guidelines of etiquette and communal understanding, but there are often a multiple of layers to any individual. Therefore, and as no surprise to myself, it is not uncommon for a deep-seated fear of one thing to be expressed as a strong opinion against some seemingly unrelated thing.

The issue of marriage is certainly rife with such instances. It has come to The Postmaster's attention of late that a certain number of people who write against same-sex marriage are not actual homophobes, but are, in fact, merely concerned about another issue altogether:

"What is being proposed is not marriage in any sense of the word. To term it as such is contrary to its meaning in the dictionary.

If this legislation passes I assume that the tax payers will be burdened with the cost of replacing the dictionaries in the schools and libraries across the country to accommodate this new definition."

"Supposedly the Federal Government has the authority to change the definition of marriage.

Does the government have the authority to change the dictionaries, too? My dictionary gives the definition of marriage as follows: "married life, living together as husband and wife"

Frank, a tree wearing pants: "Mable, about this bill C-38, Do you ralize the impact it'll have on us?"
Mable, a tree wearing a skirt and high heels: "Yes, Frank, Think of all those gov't forms, books and dictionaries. they'll have reprint."
Frank: "I know, It must not pass."
Mable: "Or, we'll be DOOMED."
Together, while holding "hands": "We'll work on it together and WIN"

The Postmaster is both unsurprised that certain individuals' objections to same-sex marriage are actually straw men for a different issue, and surprised to find that said issue should be the protection of dictionaries. Even more surprising is that despite their apparent devotion to their cause, these individuals seem to have remarkably little knowledge as to the nature of dictionaries. For example, said individuals seem to be unaware that most reputable dictionaries are republished every year as new words are added constantly and old meanings altered; this because language evolves to match our changing society (this explains why the average English-speaker may have difficulty reading the language of Shakespeare, although The Postmaster has doubts as to whether these same individuals have ever attempted such a feat).

Therefore, the young artist who composed the fine cartoon featuring a terrified couple of pines may have peace of mind that, regardless of whether or not his or her gay acquaintances marry, there will still be trees left in Canada. Said artist may also want to use his or her much-treasured dictonary to look up the word "tree", where he or she will doubtless be surprised to learn that trees do not follow gender-specific modes of dress as common in humans and, moreover, have no gender at all since this is a social construct unique to humans, but do often have both male and female characteristics for reproduction.

As for questions of cost, The Postmaster can only say that sometimes, on rare occasions, the expenditure of money is both necessary and beneficial - to put simply, not all of the best things in life are free. For examples, life-saving antibiotics often come with a cost which an individual may choose to pay, if she or he values her or his health and well-being. Perhaps certain individuals would rather be buried with their money - The Postmaster is not discounting this possibility, as I have seen and read much stranger things. That being said, "it costs money" is not generally considered a damning argument against something.

However, The Postmaster would like to congratulate these writers and others who have taken the first step toward mastering their one and only language by recognizing the importance of uniformity and clarity in language as expressed through dictionaries. Should the cost not be too prohibitive, The Postmaster would also reccommend the purchase of a style guide to ensure that as their vocabulary grows, so do their abilities to write correctly.

Stonewall, Manitoba

The Postmaster has of late been receiving large quantities of correspondence from certain cities across Canada. The Postmaster has thusly decided to begin sharing the deepest thoughts of humankind one town at a time. Today, let us journey to Stonewall, Manitoba. The Postmaster does not know what makes this town such a haven for prolific writers. Perhaps there is an excellent library, or some exceptional teachers, or perhaps there is not very much with which to occupy one's self in said town and the inhabitants have only felt-tipped pens and legal size paper with which to amuse themselves. Whatever the reasons, The Postmaster was this morning blessed to reap what Stonewall, Manitoba, has sown. Let me share my bountiful crop with all:

"I do not want two mammies.
I like my Daddy.
This bill must not go through."

The Postmaster is tempted to believe, based on the quality of sentence structure, reasoning and penmanship, as well as the use of the word "mammie" that the author of this letter is a small child. However, it is also possible that the author simply lives in his parents' basement. Regardless, The Postmaster is sorry to hear that same-sex marriage will result in the author's father being forcibly removed from his home and replaced with another mother, but perhaps he should simply stop being such a mammy's boy and try to move on with his life.

"LOVE IS KIND
BE KIND TO OUR NEXT GENERATION
VOTE NO TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE"

Now here is a letter after The Postmaster's own heart - the words "Love" and "is" are each in their own separate heart, with a larger heart encircling all three words. I believe it was Socrates himself who said, "When in doubt, make your arguments cuter!". Or perhaps The Postmaster is mistaken. Regardless, if there were any way to convince someone that openly discriminating against a portion of the population is loving, it is certainly through the use of large cartoon hearts.

"THINK OF TODAY AS IF IT WAS THE LAST OPPORTUNITY IN YOUR LIFE TO DO SOMETHING FOR GOD
We all know God's view of marriage is the union of one man & one woman

WHO has the power to make the sun rise?
WHO has the power to quake the earth?
WHO has the power to roll in the waves of tsunami?

TODAY - YOU have the opportunity to join with this power against same sex marriages.

May You Be Given Courage!"

The Postmaster is at a loss for words. Never before has The Postmaster seen so clearly described the issue of same-sex marriage. If God Himself would kill hundreds of thousands of people through natural disasters - albeit in a different part of the world far removed from this debate but perhaps His aim is not what it used to be - then surely we should all be preparing our life-preserving watercraft for when He should strike again. Perhaps the good people of Stonewall write so frequently because they live on such low ground.