Nicole Mumford on bad-hair marriage.
Nothing is sacred anymore. For generations we have seen the gradual the breakdown of the traditional values of society: the phenomenon of the moral decay of the 21st century. Not only have the youth of today rejected our Christian heritage, but also further flip the proverbial bird in the face of the ethics of our foremothers and fathers. This blatant disrespect is primarily evinced by today’s youth towards the sanctity of the traditional institutions, particularly that of marriage.
Equal marriage rights have become a topic of much discussion as our society ‘progresses’. The argument that all unions should be recognised as equal in the eyes of God and the law is fundamentally flawed, as is the misguided belief that there is no barrier to love, be it age, race or sexuality. Marriage should be a privilege preserved only for people who adhere to the Bible’s teachings, uphold the expectations of our ancestors and can reproduce naturally. Civil unions or similar ceremonies to marriage (under an alternate name) have arisen to facilitate those who cannot, for whatever reason, satisfy these conditions, allowing them to legitimise their monogamous status.
There is, however, little more abhorrent than the principle of affording equal marriage rights to couples with bowl hair cuts as their non-bowl hair cut counterparts. The bowl hair cut, or even its hip brother the undercut, is explicitly a sin as highlighted in Leviticus 19:27 (‘You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads’). Awarding equal rights to those living in sin with their bowl cuts should not be tolerated, as this effective endorses their wrongdoings.
The marriage rights of those with bowl cuts should also be revoked on the grounds of s5(1) of The Marriage Legislation Amendment Act 2004, as it reads: ‘Marriage, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.’ As there is no explicit mention of the union of those with bowl cuts, they should be excluded from those eligible to marry. Besides, to amend such an Act again would erode the foundations of our society and would be too radical, stressful and time consuming for today’s principled and dedicated public servants.
Bowl hair cut couples also fail to perform the marriage function of producing offspring. The sexual appeal of such a haircut makes Julia Gillard look like Christina Hendricks in comparison, and hence no child could be conceived naturally, if you catch my drift (and pardon my crudity). Love alone cannot justify equal marriage rights if this love cannot produce spawn that will maintain our high rates of population increase.
Whilst it can be argued that processes such as IVF and child adoption can address this issue, it would be reckless to raise a child in an environment whereby they lack the presence and influence of a non-bowl cut parent. With few statistics on bowl cut families, one can only speculate on the detrimental effect this would have on a child’s social development. Further, children from such families may be subject to teasing in the schoolyard, as their familial situation may differ from that of their colleagues.
People with bowl hair cuts have not been given any marriage rights beyond those of people without bowl cuts, however, by even allowing people with bowl hair cuts to enjoy equal marriage rights demeans the sanctity of the traditional concept of marriage. A curly issue such as this cannot be brushed aside – it must be straightened out before society as we know it, with our traditional values, is hair today and gone tomorrow.