Everyone is a number in this dystopian near-future where cameras track your every move. Score above 90 and your set for life. Score below 75 and you’re on your own, kid.
The Cycler Series
The Cyler Series: What would you do if you woke up one day as a member of the opposite sex? For Jill McTeague, this is no hypothetical question. It’s real life!
|
Bigot: a person so insecure he or she must demonize an entire category of people in order to create the illusion that someone is below him/her Fundamentalist: one whose need to believe in the inherent simplicity of life outweighs the countervailing tugs of Reason, Truth and Evidence Demagogue: 24 Responses to “Gay Marriage Ban Eats Dust”Leave a Reply |
|
RSS Feed
For now at least. It’s nice to wake up to news like this. Doesn’t happen often. I think it’s cute that people want to officially and legally “define marriage as between a man and a woman.” Seems like a neat way to have fun with the Constitution. So I was thinking maybe there’s some other stuff we could define into the Constitution. Some suggestions:
As I was writing my “Are you Homophobic?” questionaire yesterday, it occurred to me that maybe we should (facetiously) try to ban all of the actual threats to marriage before tacking the one fake one.
Prostitution is already illegal, but porn isn’t.
Infidelity is only a factor in divorce settlements in most places. Make it punishable by neutering.
Poor communication skills and general immaturity can be eliminated with a mandatory psychological test to get your marriage license.
Perhaps we should require people to be the same religious demonination, you know, to avoid religious conflicts in marriage (of course, that smacks of homoreligiosity, so maybe we should require they all be atheists)?
And most importantly, we can pass a constitutional amendment banning divorce. That should solve things nicely.
You do realize, of course, it’s not over. This is just a prelude for the fall, where they want to use this as a cynical campaign issue to get out those who were dumb enough to vote for Bush in the first place. What was that he said about “fool me once, shame on me… what?”
To the list of marriage threats we should consider banning how about the following:
self-centeredness
intolerance
criminal stupidity
But … the sanctity of marriage…! Avi and Lauren, as married folk, don’t you realize that all those same-sex marriages are making a mockery of your respective mariages? They’re ruining it for everybody!
Another argument I’ve heard advanced on the Fox Channel is: if you redefine marriage to include people of the same sex, you would also have to redefine it to include a union between: (1) committed multiple partners (polygamists); and (2) a person and animal (bestiality); and (3) a person and an inanimate object (is there a word for this?).
Logically, Numbers 2 and 3 can be ruled out because an animal and object can’t consent to marriage. The polygamy argument is more difficult to deal with, however…
Honestly, E.D., I don’t know how I manage to stay married what with all the unholy coupling that transpires generally out there in, you know, the world of strangers who have absolutely nothing to do with me.
As for polylgamy, who cares. If a couple of dudes want to marry one gal or any other positive integer configuration of same, what possible difference does it make to me. Now I realize that, generally speaking, polygamy exists in communities where women are horrendously subjugated, but it’s the subjugation we must fight and we probably can’t do that through blunt force legal means anyway–other than through age restrictions on marriage, which I wholeheartedly endorse and which seem perfectly legally valid.
The question we should be asking ourselves on the whole shebang is this: Do we need to define marriage at all? Shouldn’t consenting adults be able to enter into a marriage type contract on a sort of freelance/freemarket basis without Uncle Sam having any bearing on it at all? Does the marital union require privileged federal status at all?
Well, the solution to both gay marriage and polygamy and divorce is simple. Everyone is married to everyone else at once.
Now we can all discriminate against all of the unmarried rocks and beasts and few single people, who, when you think about it, really brought it on themselves by being so ‘different.’
If a couple of dudes want to marry one gal or any other positive integer configuration of same, what possible difference does it make to me.
How narrow-minded of you to explicitly exclude negative and fractional configurations. What do you have against a man marrying minus one-and-two-thirds women, or vice-versa?
Well, Paul Simon sings about “one and one-half wandering Jews.” I always thought he was reffering to the plants. But maybe he’s a fractional polygamist.
I stand corrected, Ted, and thank you for pointing out the hidden bigotry in my own thinking. Fractions are people too.
You guys are missing the most significant issue. We absolutely must ban any further sale in the fifty states of beer googles. These devices when worn by potential mates can have catostrophic effect. To borrow from Ogden Nash and personal experience — during my dating days I don’t know how many times I had beer goggles on and thought that I was going to bed with a beautiful woman only to find myself waking up with a quite ugly one. These noxious devices are very dangerous to the potential long term health of any relationship.
Oh, Rocketter, didn’t you ever learn that beer goggles work both ways?
The whole gay marriage ban was not never expected to pass, in my opinion. It was a way for the Bush Administration and the right-wing ideologues to ignite the base of their party – a fire under their ass so to speak. I think they discovered that the US is a lot more open-minded than they realized and their plan failed.
Has anyone heard anything about this “Unity” party which is supposed to nominate candidates from any political party (Rep, Dem, Ind, etc.) in the upcoming elections as an “alternative” to the current two party system (i.e. a ticket with both a Rep and a Dem) ?
Avi –
You are absolutely correct that beer goggles are a two way street. In my day, I surely benefited from the judgment blurring effects of beer boggles at least as much, if not more, than I suffered from the same.
Rocket
Perhaps, Matt, a mandatory beer goggle day would get Republicans wasted enough to vote for Democrats and vice versa. Barring large quantities of booze, I don’t see it.
I don’t know, Lauren. I think beer goggles got Bush into office in the first place. Voters woke up with a war and a giant defecit in their bed. I want voters SOBER next time. We need more coffee!
I had a long discussion with a friend last night about the whole gay marriage controversy. I kept trying to articulate the conservative position, but for the life of me I couldn’t do it. The whole “sanctity of marriage” and “threat to marriage” arguments are beyond me. The best I could come up with was “Yuck. Sex between people of the same sex is wrong–so we shouldn’t endorse it.” That really is what it boils down to. Since that argument sounds bigoted, the spinmeisters put it in terms of a “threat” to marriage–which is nonsensical. If marriage is such a wonderful institution, I don’t understand why conservatives wouldn’t want to have more people participate in it.
I think the Bush Administration picks controversial issues and places them at the forefront of discussion to prevent the public from seeing their real failures: 150,000 people dead in Iraq, 50 million Americans without healthcare, and a planetary eco-system that is under threat from over production, over consumption, and over population. We fall for their ruse every time.
When the parent wants quiet time, he puts on a cartoon for the toddler. He loves the cartoon and forgets all about everything else as the TV slowly rots his brain.
V. true, Matt. Impassioned simplemindedness wins elections. It’s a deadly self-reinforcing feedback loop of dumbness. The question is, can we ever catch up? Can the dwindling forces of logic and long term responsibility win out over greed and bigotry?
I don’t think there is a magic pill, but I do believe it starts in a legacy we leave for our children. Do we teach them responsibility, or do we let the decadent mass culture convince them all they need is a new gizmo to be happy? I also believe, and I’ve said this before, that without a sense of the sacred, people will just consume-consume-consume to fill some kind of spiritual void. It’s easy to tear down a pristine forest for a strip mine if you can’t feel what an unfathomable loss it is. It’s easy to drive a Hummer if you just live only for the moment, and have no sense of the enduring. I just don’t think people get the precious sacredness of this planet.
I’m not sure materialism fills a spiritual void so much as a manufactured desire. I was born without the spirituality gene, and believe me, I get the “sacredness” of the natural world, even if I’d describe it using another word. Responsibility, however, is precisely what’s lacking in the new ruling elite. Any way to make it sexy?
Responsvirility?
That was better than my first thought: responsagility.
You can make responsibility “sexy” by appealing to the selfish gene: but change the subject from first person singular (“I”) to first person plural (“We”), like Kris’s story. Responsibility is good for us, us as the human race, and benefits everyone. Meme that.
Now to define what exactly I mean by responsibility.
All good, Matt, but I’m liking Avi’s suggestion: “responsvirility.” It’s got panache.
On the issue of “Evil David Says:
June 7th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
But … the sanctity of marriage…! Avis and Lauren, as married folk, don’t you realize that all those same-sex marriages are making a mockery of your respective marriages? They’re ruining it for everybody!
Another argument I’ve heard advanced on the Fox Channel is: if you redefine marriage to include people of the same sex, you would also have to redefine it to include a union between: (1) committed multiple partners (polygamists); and (2) a person and animal (bestiality); and (3) a person and an inanimate object (is there a word for this?).
***Logically, Numbers 2 and 3 can be ruled out because an animal and object can’t consent to marriage. The polygamy argument is more difficult to deal with, however…”
Actually, not true… no very not true. People have been having happily (and not so happily) *arranged* marriages for thousands of years. One person, usually the woman, is so far from giving consent it’s not even funny. So if an 11-year-old girl from Fackistan, Analia was to be given in an arranged marriage to say… her father’s clover field (hey, if it’s legal, why not?), what else might be on the horizon?
Yes, the Fox Channel is 100% correct. Arranged marriages happen all the time, and they don’t involve consent. Neither would the legalization of marriages to plants, animals, cars, and who the heck knows what else, or of bisexual threesomes, polygamists, swingers, buggers (people who practice bestiality), prostitutes to pimps, non-violent pedophiles to consenting children, “funny-uncles†in consenting incestuous relationships with their nieces, and, while we’re at it, rape, as long as she grows to like it after a while… since obviously, our society doesn’t see anything, consent, morals or otherwise, as much of a baring on what is accepted. It all has to do with how much propaganda and legislative power any given minority group may poses.
On the issue of [[marriage]], I strongly encourage the addition of the following information, in whole or in part, possibly with the exclusion or correction of any and all [[bias]] or [[advertising]] which its author or editors may demonstrate in any way:
The ultimate common sense definition and explanation:
Sex is for marriage; marriage is for sex.
Essentially, in its most successful model, and for it to play the most positive, purposeful role in society as a whole, marriage is a certification, registration, and proclamation that
1. A man & a woman intend on having sex
2. The man intends on doing everything he can to take care of, protect, respect, value, love the woman;
3. The man and woman certify & register for a potential family, and commit to learning all they can and doing their very best to raise that family in a nurturing environment.
4. The woman commits to taking a comforting, nurturing, life-giving role in the family, while relying on the security and provision of the man
Marriage essentially guarantees clean and secure environments and practices within the home. For example: it is next to impossible for two lovingly married heterosexual virgins, who have lived otherwise responsible lives, to engage in marriage-related activities such as oral & vaginal sex, & have such activity result in a crisis pregnancy, physical or emotional damage, or Venereal Disease. Marriage is the ultimate and only guaranteed “Protection” and the only “Safe Sex†(Planned Parenthood can no longer call teenage sex “safe sexâ€, because they know it isn’t safe, and now opt for the term “safer sexâ€.)
The new word for real, true marriage (i.e. as aforementioned) – as the definition of marriage evolves within Western society during the 21st century – is “Unification”. This is made to contrast the gradual shift of marriage being solely for heterosexuals, to being solely for homosexuals, and eventually becoming inclusive to bisexuals, polygamists, swingers, buggers, prostitutes, pedophiles, and incestuous relationships.
Civil unions are simply registrations for cohabitation or intimate interaction of any two or more persons, with the expectations of possible sexual or otherwise intimate activity; as contrasted with real marriage. Interdependent partners should all have the same legal rights (opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples, or interdependent relationships such as a person caring for an elderly parent), as should all human beings.
On the issue of homosexual marriage:
In modern society, there is a great need to eradicate heterophobia and homophobophobia, and put an end to the societal progression toward omni sexuality.
Perhaps people are born homophobic also.
Just as alcoholism comes from three different causes (according to
Alcoholics Anonymous), one of which is being born with deficient levels of dopamine, all of which are related to chemical imbalances of the neurochemical dopamine, scientific exploration of the biological anomaly known as homosexualism clearly points to its very probable cause being a treatable case of excess or lacking genetic substance, element, or compound. If people can use a 12-step program to treat themselves – albeit with some difficulty, resistance, and challenges – of a disease called alcoholism which they may or may not have been born with, then one can easily deduce…
Homosexuals are in fact not born homosexuals; they are likely born with a treatable deficiency or imbalance of one or more hormones, neurotransmitters, or other medical chemicals (one of them possibly being testosterone). Conclusive evidence has yet to prove otherwise, as repeated attempts to duplicate a study which claimed otherwise, has failed to reproduce results in favor of a “gay gene†and other eccentric hypotheses.
For more information on these and similar issues, visit datevice.tripod.com
This has also raised the question among many [[special interest groups]] of the questionable and controversial exclusion of all other [[sexual orientations]] from the definition of marital and other government and charter-protected status. They include: [[bisexuality]], [[polygamy]], [[swinging]], [[bestiality]], [[prostitution]], [[pedophilia]], and [[incest]]. The question remains: once marital and other law is open to any and all [[minority groups]], what [[legislation]] can be put in place to prevent further deviation from [[traditional law]], which would not be in violation of our [[Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]?
[[Society]]’s rules of conduct – [[right and wrong]] – , rooted in [[common sense]], and the protection of generally accepted [[values]]. Generally not related in any way to [[religion]] or [[spirituality]], [[Traditional Law]] is yet another device in conflict with various forms of established [[law]], such as a country’s governmental [[Bill of Rights]].
Sorry, Techron, that your comment got held up in my moderation cue. Not sure why it did. You sound like a troll. Do you scan the blogosphere in search of pro-gay posts so that you can remind us all of the proper roles for men and women?
I love your marriage “proclamation,” especially numbers 2 and 4. I’ll try to remember them next time I’m sexually dominating my husband just for kicks. Thanks for reminding me how badly I’ve failed as a wife.