Thursday, June 27, 2013

The Fable of the Two Valleys


Once upon a time there were two valleys. The bigger valley was populated by a tribe of cattlemen, who bred and raised cattle, and ate big fat juicy steaks on a regular basis

In the smaller valley was a tribe of broccoli growers who wanted desperately to get into the big valley and eat those steaks too.

But there was a problem. The broccoli growers were carriers of a disease that killed cattle. So the cattlemen forbade them entrance into their valley.

But after many skirmishes, argument, assaults and parries, the broccoli grows breached the perimeter of the big valley, and overran the cattle land, cheering, parading, dancing and singing their victory, their conquest, the fulfillment of their wish to eat beefsteaks like the natives of the valley.

But as the celebration wound down, and they lined up to get the steaks they had fought for so long and hard, there were none. Indeed, when they looked out across the big valley, as far as the eye could see there was nothing but cattle corpses. Dead herds. Not a single steer alive to provide a single steak.

The broccoli growers' very entrance into the cattle valley destroyed what they coveted.

The only thing left, littering the ground where the cattle once stood was their droppings, cow dung. Only that, and nothing more

So, not willing to admit what they had done, they gathered up the bull shit, cooked it up and served it to each other, calling it "marriage"...sorry, I mean..."beefsteak".

The Gunslinger

Unfortunately for the natives of the Cattle Valley...their millennia-long tradition of breeding and raising cattle and eating steak ended that very day.

5 comments:

  1. I'm afraid this makes absolutely no sense to me. First, if a couple of folks of the same gender get together, what does it matter to us? They can call it a 'civil union,' a 'marriage' or a 'bean burrito' for all it matters. God, not man, decides what a marriage is in His eyes, and no matter how many laws we pass, we don't get a vote on it.

    Secondly, the queers aren't destroying marriage. We already did that, a few decades back.

    Nothing but love for ya, but I just don't understand your opinion on this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My point is that meaning matters. Either marriage is what it is, or it becomes something else...i,e. it ceases to exist.

    I, like most reasonable people, think that committed couples should have certain obvious rights, like hospital visitation and inheritance, etc. But "marriage" is not about that. That's just what the gay lobby pretends it's about because they understand that most fair people agree that gay couples ought to have those rights.

    But it ought to be an arrangement that gives gay couples SOME MARRIAGE-LIKE benefits, without conferring the ability to actually MARRY....because MARRYIN' has a meaning, a purpose, that gays cannot fulfill.

    It's really not an "opinion". It's history, culture, society and usage.

    I didn't make it up!

    Here's the historical definition of marriage:

    "That agreement between a couple and the State in which one party (the Couple) creates and raises future citizens of the State and the other party (the State) confers on that Couple certain special privileges intended to facilitate that desired behavior."

    Since gays can't fulfill the first part, how can they possibly qualify for marriage?

    If gays, who cannot fulfill their part of the agreement under any circumstances outside of a biblical miracle birth, are permitted to marry, what then does the definition of marriage become?

    Whatever it becomes, it stops being what it was....which means it ceases to exist as it has for millennia, and becomes something else...which is another way of saying it ceases to exit.. All the cattle drop dead.

    You can eat the shit, and call it steak, but it's still shit, and not steak.

    You can call it marriage if gays are doing it, but it ain't marriage...it's some new thing. And "Marriage" as it has been understood for all of history, has ceased to exit.

    That might be okay with you. Just understand that that's what's happening.




    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, since the recent SCOTUS decision...my wedding ring hasn't dissolved, my marriage license hasn't burst into flame, and my wife hasn't left me for another woman. Nor have I left her for another dude(although if Jason Statham knocked on my door, I'd have to think about it. ;) ).

    In a free country, some people are going to live in ways you disapprove of. It may offend you, or make you uncomfortable , but that's the price we pay for liberty.

    Once again, it doesn't matter what arrangements queer folks enter into, what they call it or whether it's sanctioned by the state. GOD IS NOT BOUND BY THE LAWS OF MAN. And REAL marriage, the covenant between a man and a woman unto death, has been long since annihilated in America by the introduction of no-fault divorce.

    It used to be that once you got hitched, you just had to work out whatever issues came up, unless they were truly heinous. Now, either party can just walk out if they're "not happy," regardless of the oath they took before their community, their family and their God. That's not a marriage, that's a business arrangement. Most 'marriages' in America today are such in name only.

    So, let the queers get 'married.' They will have to stand before God and account for themselves, just like all of us. (And I'm not about to say I know whether they're going to Heaven or Hell--that's a decision far above my pay grade.) Whatever they do, whatever they call it--it simply doesn't affect me or you. Do cars cease to exist if I call my motorcycle a car? Of course not. You'll look at me like I'm insane(not altogether an irrational viewpoint), and continue driving your car. Me calling my motorcycle, bicycle, houseboat or potted plant a 'car,' doesn't make your car disappear, or cease to function, or stop being what it is.

    This is going to be an interesting conversation...!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. You completely miss my point. I'm not offended. I'm not uncomfortable, I don't disapprove. Gays are "natural" even if they're not "normal". And I pretty much believe they're born that way. You can't blame a person for that. And since having sex with another consenting adult isn't a crime (and shouldn't be), they ought to be free to pursue their lives as they see fit.

    And that's rather the point I'm trying to make. It's not about being anti-gay. It's about understanding what the definition of marriage is...and is not.

    And to take your metaphor to its logical conclusion, if you were to say that the definition of "car" is now a vehicle that has two wheels, and therefore removed two wheels from every car...cars would, indeed, cease to exist. They might be "something", but they wouldn't any longer be CARS as we know them—those four-wheeled vehicles that you used to convey you comfortably around.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And Wraith....

    If you are insinuating that our culture as demeaned the sacred nature of marriage for some decades now, and that "gay marriage" is merely the final death groan of a formerly robust institution...

    ...I'd agree.

    It's not like our culture's had much respect for marriage for a while now, is it?

    But that doesn't make this any better. It just means that in our decadent society it can never, ever be repaired.

    But, after the apocalypse, when small wandering tribes of people are fighting to survive, the institution will arise again...and recover its form glory. (i.e. making babies will be an important, honorable, desirable, almost required function for the health and welfare of the tribe—just like it used to be for us.)

    ReplyDelete