I know, the wedding posts gave you cavities (heartless bastards). Here's the antidote.
Joebama American citizens 2024 print
2 years ago
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Monday, September 26, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
First the Proposal...Now the Reception
Yes...it's a different couple. These are the bride's husband, family and friends, and it just keeps getting better. What a happy occasion. Sometimes in these days, it's nice to remember them - to remember what we're fighting for.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Why Not Gay Marriage?
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
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
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Yay! Jenny!
Ruth Marcus, the writer, is obviously a Liberal idiot.
But I do admire Jenny Sanford.
She kicked the cheating bastard out!
About damn time.
The Gunslinger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
