Last Friday, I got my hair cut—by my very gay hairdresser (whom I adore), and we got to talking about gay-marriage. And then on Sunday, I watched Stossel, who had several Libertarians on explaining what Libertarianism is, and they too mentioned gay marriage.
Their point was that the government has no business in the private area of marriage, and that gay people should be allowed to consummate their love and relationship through the bond of marriage, just like straight people.
To both of these sets of people, it was all about LOVE...that the heart should be free to do what it will...
WTF? Where the hell did they get that idea?
Marriage has only been a matter of LOVE for a very short time in human history. And it's made a very bad show of it since that happened. How is it we have forgotten everything that happened before we were born?
People, marriage is not a contract between two people "in love". Lovers don't need contracts.
Marriage is a couple's contract with the tribe, the clan, the society....to produce and to raise the next generation of mothers and warriors.
And for that, society grants them certain privileges - not RIGHTS!
Let's be clear: Marriage and children are a burden. A satisfying and fulfilling one, no doubt, but a burden nevertheless. And for accepting this burden, couples are rewarded by a grateful tribe/clan/society who are the beneficiaries.
Whether it's the male who has to "forsake" all others and stay tied to one place and one female, and provide for a growing, expensive brood of babies and their needs for two decades, or the female who often goes through multiple pregnancies and births and is rendered dependent on a mate for material survival...not only for herself, but for her offspring...
...both people give up their single selves, and to some extent their individual selves, becoming part of a unit that requires self-sacrifice, self-negation. To a great extent they surrender their self-determination in the cause—producing and raising that next generation of mothers and warriors for the tribe.
That's what marriage is. It is not, nor was it ever meant to be the sweet flowering of romance and lust between perpetual lovers whose entire focus is on their LOVE and personal fulfillment.
That being the case, there is virtually no reasonable argument in favor of gay "marriage".
Obviously it is true that with advances in contraception, some heterosexual couples choose not to be parents. And yet, if they marry, they get the same benefits as married people who are fulfilling their tribal duty of reproducing. It's true. Nobody said life is fair...and besides, anything can happen, and often does.
But it can only happen within a heterosexual union.
So...my point here is that it is not a question of "rights". It is whether any given "couple" fulfill the requirements of the social contract they wish to enter into. Two homosexuals cannot produce any mothers or warriors, thus cannot enter into a contract with the tribe designed explicitly for that purpose.
Gays miss the point. Libertarians miss the point. And all the Conservatives hollering about God and gay marriage miss the point.
If children were not the point of marriage, it wouldn't have privileges, indeed, it wouldn't exit. There is no inherent good for society in any random childless couple staying together. It doesn't matter. A childless couple, does not, in itself, serve any purpose in society. And society has no stake in whether they stay together or go their separate ways. Therefore, there is no reason for the tribe to create an institution for them that encourages fidelity and permanence, and make it attractive with special privileges.
What would be the point?
(And yes, I know old people get married, and the infertile get married...let's call them exceptions that prove the rule.)
The Gunslinger
EOTIS
Joebama American citizens 2024 print
9 months ago
Slingbaby, this is a very very good post. I'm downtown with you. Well said.
ReplyDeleteHow many people are they, do you suppose, that believe that the government has no business getting involved in who should or should not be getting married to each other (assuming consenting adults, of course), include the following in their list of people that should be free to marry:
ReplyDelete1. Someone who is already married (making polygamy legal)
2. Siblings
3. A parent and their child
If they are content to allow same-sex couples to marry and yet feel that any of the above should be denied the privilege of marriage, then they are hypocrites that don't really believe what they're espousing (pun intended) and just want to let gays marry because they have a pro-gay agenda. The claim of having the government keep out of the marriage business is just their way of trying to convince others to go along with the one specific change they want in the marriage laws, not because they actually believe in the principle.
There may be some that really do believe what they're saying they believe, but I'm willing to bet it's a very small percentage.
GunGeek...very good point. Another example of the "Law of Unintended Consequences". They don't understand the whirlwind they will reap with this line of argument.
ReplyDeleteSince "society" no longer has the authority to enforce mores...and we now depend on the law instead (our FIRST mistake), there will be a de-evolution down this nasty path until all the things you mentioned have champions and begin equating them with "civil rights" too.
Sure also to come is adult/child sex "rights". Some Global Warming scientist will do a study that concludes that children are highly sexual beings, and actually crave sex with adults—but our outdated, obsolete, uptight, bigoted Christian traditions have been keeping them frustrated and unfulfilled by our refusal to recognize and accommodate their needs and desires...
In the early days of this blog, my tag line was:
"It's a shame you can't just shoot the bastards!"
I think it just might be time to revive it, considering how things are going.