It's only been a century or so since state governments got in the business of "blessing" marriages. Before that it was largely religions or some other private law system that maintained the records and enforced the rules.
With the state and its "equal protection" new possibilities in social ordering have emerged. Since I have not signed on to state recognition of marriages, I do not really have a dog in any definitions a state might come up with.
But there are a couple of angles to the debate going on right now that might be well worth reflection:
1. Within the homosexual community, there has always been a exhibitionist segment. These are the ones that find favor, for their entertainment value, from the breeders. One form or exhibitionism is to mock bourgeois conventions, and pretending to be married is a classic.
Gore Vidal notes how this particular form of exhibitionism plays on those very bourgeois sentiments, as though the sex between men is the same thing as sex between a man and women. Or that sex and love are the same thing. Straights applauding "same sex marriage" are applauding their own derision. Stupid people get vicious when they realize they are the butt of a joke.
2. Homosexual inclination runs along a continuum, with everyone more or less finding some degree of same sex attraction. Rare is the lad who at some point does not wonder if he is homosexual. Along there entire continuum are men who more or less identify strongly with same-sex attraction, yet marry a woman, stay faithful, and raise a family, the biological way. I personally know several. Why would someone we would identify as homosexual get married to a woman (tautological) and raise a family?
To be happy. The homosexual lifestyle is hardly "gay" and to be married in a loving relationship with a spouse and raising a family is a happy, fulfilling thing. That particular happiness is open to all, straight or gay. All men are tempted to stray, and all men have to say no to much sexual escapade on offer. Most say no thank you, because they want to remain happy. To remain faithful to one's spouse in order to remain happy is true whether a man married to a woman (redundant) is straight or gay.
3. The idea that homosexuals have uncontrollable urges that must be met for them to be happy makes homosexuals different that any other people is absurd. There is nothing unique in an urge of one kind in one person and another kind in another person. Whereas society requires we refrain from acting on some urges, homosexual urges are given a pass. The solidification of this notion is extremely dangerous, for it identifies homosexuals as different in kind. This sword is two-edged.
4. The Social Security Administration in 1933 promised that under no circumstances would the registration of citizens ever be allowed to be consulted by any other government agency. Within a decade it was the Social Security lists that were consulted to identify and find Americans of Japanese ancestry to be arrested and put in concentration camps. Not to put too fine a point on it, the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs was appointed to run the camps. Homosexuals who are registering themselves with the state my come to regret this action.
If the law is what a vocal motivated minority says it is (for this present supreme court case is one where a minority is trying to overthrow a majority law) then should another vocal minority gain ascendency then the law will be what they say it is. Because the meaning of the constitution changes as peoples views change.
5. The USA is pursuing actions around the world and domestically that are destroying our country, benefitting the few while harming the many, because the few can. Our systems are on full "gay marriage" watch while our country is further reduced around the world by the actions of a few, who can.
A higher priority, indeed a clear and present danger, are these destructive initiatives: wars, bailouts, torture, collectivization, etc. Yet across the spectrum Americans have elected to devote themselves to an entirely risible concern: a state definition. As if that matters.
6. There are massive economic forces at play. Our system is unsustainable. We got here by cheating the laws of economics and then privatizing the profits and socialising the losses. Those who benefit hardly disagree. Those who benefit have the luxury of pursuing risible projects that at the same time allow one to ignore our soldiers setting little girls on fire with phosphorous rockets. But among those who benefit from our system, first things first. To argue against setting little girls on fire with phosphorous rockets is to deny oneself the system that allows for exhibitionism. Gotta keep priorities straight, first things first.
7. People with a lot of time on their hands have the opportunity to work from the fringes out, to the point you cannot escape their antics. Here from wikipedia:
There were 1,748 households, out of which 499 (28.5%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 574 (32.8%) were opposite-sex married couples living together, 181 (10.4%) had a female householder with no husband present, 99 (5.7%) had a male householder with no wife present. There were 143 (8.2%) unmarried opposite-sex partnerships, and 10 (0.6%) same-sex married couples or partnerships. 767 households (43.9%) were made up of individuals and 288 (16.5%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.16. There were 854 families (48.9% of all households); the average family size was 3.07.
Well. Nothing controversial there. Except to the muleskinners in Bishop, California. And now they know.
8. When things go bad, society will look for scapegoats. The now cheap and easy support of the exhibitionists will evaporate. People who today say "I've grown, and my son should be able to marry the man he loves" will just as easily repudiate that tomorrow. It was only day before yesterday that his view was thus. the fellow changed his mind for votes. He'll certainly change his mind to save his own skin. People deeply offended at some point will take over and settle scores. A lot easier than people think.
9. When the time comes, and the whimsical nature of state government changes and targets homosexuals, the only argument against state action that will be viable is the moral one. Yet the very entities that are making a moral argument now are being denigrated today by tomorrow's victims. Will those who have "forgiven their enemies" and argue for amnesty for the targeted group have enough moral suasion left over to save the day?
We have seen this countless times before in history. The answer, usually, is no.
This whole "gay marriage" thing is absolute madness.
Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.
With the state and its "equal protection" new possibilities in social ordering have emerged. Since I have not signed on to state recognition of marriages, I do not really have a dog in any definitions a state might come up with.
But there are a couple of angles to the debate going on right now that might be well worth reflection:
1. Within the homosexual community, there has always been a exhibitionist segment. These are the ones that find favor, for their entertainment value, from the breeders. One form or exhibitionism is to mock bourgeois conventions, and pretending to be married is a classic.
Gore Vidal notes how this particular form of exhibitionism plays on those very bourgeois sentiments, as though the sex between men is the same thing as sex between a man and women. Or that sex and love are the same thing. Straights applauding "same sex marriage" are applauding their own derision. Stupid people get vicious when they realize they are the butt of a joke.
2. Homosexual inclination runs along a continuum, with everyone more or less finding some degree of same sex attraction. Rare is the lad who at some point does not wonder if he is homosexual. Along there entire continuum are men who more or less identify strongly with same-sex attraction, yet marry a woman, stay faithful, and raise a family, the biological way. I personally know several. Why would someone we would identify as homosexual get married to a woman (tautological) and raise a family?
To be happy. The homosexual lifestyle is hardly "gay" and to be married in a loving relationship with a spouse and raising a family is a happy, fulfilling thing. That particular happiness is open to all, straight or gay. All men are tempted to stray, and all men have to say no to much sexual escapade on offer. Most say no thank you, because they want to remain happy. To remain faithful to one's spouse in order to remain happy is true whether a man married to a woman (redundant) is straight or gay.
3. The idea that homosexuals have uncontrollable urges that must be met for them to be happy makes homosexuals different that any other people is absurd. There is nothing unique in an urge of one kind in one person and another kind in another person. Whereas society requires we refrain from acting on some urges, homosexual urges are given a pass. The solidification of this notion is extremely dangerous, for it identifies homosexuals as different in kind. This sword is two-edged.
4. The Social Security Administration in 1933 promised that under no circumstances would the registration of citizens ever be allowed to be consulted by any other government agency. Within a decade it was the Social Security lists that were consulted to identify and find Americans of Japanese ancestry to be arrested and put in concentration camps. Not to put too fine a point on it, the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs was appointed to run the camps. Homosexuals who are registering themselves with the state my come to regret this action.
If the law is what a vocal motivated minority says it is (for this present supreme court case is one where a minority is trying to overthrow a majority law) then should another vocal minority gain ascendency then the law will be what they say it is. Because the meaning of the constitution changes as peoples views change.
5. The USA is pursuing actions around the world and domestically that are destroying our country, benefitting the few while harming the many, because the few can. Our systems are on full "gay marriage" watch while our country is further reduced around the world by the actions of a few, who can.
A higher priority, indeed a clear and present danger, are these destructive initiatives: wars, bailouts, torture, collectivization, etc. Yet across the spectrum Americans have elected to devote themselves to an entirely risible concern: a state definition. As if that matters.
6. There are massive economic forces at play. Our system is unsustainable. We got here by cheating the laws of economics and then privatizing the profits and socialising the losses. Those who benefit hardly disagree. Those who benefit have the luxury of pursuing risible projects that at the same time allow one to ignore our soldiers setting little girls on fire with phosphorous rockets. But among those who benefit from our system, first things first. To argue against setting little girls on fire with phosphorous rockets is to deny oneself the system that allows for exhibitionism. Gotta keep priorities straight, first things first.
7. People with a lot of time on their hands have the opportunity to work from the fringes out, to the point you cannot escape their antics. Here from wikipedia:
There were 1,748 households, out of which 499 (28.5%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 574 (32.8%) were opposite-sex married couples living together, 181 (10.4%) had a female householder with no husband present, 99 (5.7%) had a male householder with no wife present. There were 143 (8.2%) unmarried opposite-sex partnerships, and 10 (0.6%) same-sex married couples or partnerships. 767 households (43.9%) were made up of individuals and 288 (16.5%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.16. There were 854 families (48.9% of all households); the average family size was 3.07.
Well. Nothing controversial there. Except to the muleskinners in Bishop, California. And now they know.
8. When things go bad, society will look for scapegoats. The now cheap and easy support of the exhibitionists will evaporate. People who today say "I've grown, and my son should be able to marry the man he loves" will just as easily repudiate that tomorrow. It was only day before yesterday that his view was thus. the fellow changed his mind for votes. He'll certainly change his mind to save his own skin. People deeply offended at some point will take over and settle scores. A lot easier than people think.
9. When the time comes, and the whimsical nature of state government changes and targets homosexuals, the only argument against state action that will be viable is the moral one. Yet the very entities that are making a moral argument now are being denigrated today by tomorrow's victims. Will those who have "forgiven their enemies" and argue for amnesty for the targeted group have enough moral suasion left over to save the day?
We have seen this countless times before in history. The answer, usually, is no.
This whole "gay marriage" thing is absolute madness.
Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.
No comments:
Post a Comment