Tuesday, April 21, 2009

[truth] and how to lose a contest for speaking it


“In my country, and in my family, I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman,” she said on Sunday night. She went on to come in second to Miss North Carolina.

PC rules, OK?

Her sentiments might be worthy but she's a bit inaccurate. She said gay marriage was 'wrong' but actually, it doesn't exist. What gays have is a partnership, right or wrong.

Marriage itself, on the other hand, is an official union for the purpose of procreation and the idea of anthropologists 'debunking' that is laughable.

Put simply, there's no such thing as 'gay marriage' but people have always tried to struggle against reality.

Marriage exists in virtually every known human society. . . . At least since the beginning of recorded history, in all the flourishing varieties of human cultures documented by anthropologists, marriage has been a universal human institution.

As a virtually universal human idea, marriage is about the reproduction of children, families and society. . . . Marriage across societies is a publicly acknowledged and supported sexual union which creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children that their sexual union may produce.

Gays are welcome to do what they do, they can form partnerships all they like but they're simply not 'married'.

Now let's support the campaign for the right of men to have babies or for an elephant to be a lion.

21 comments:

  1. I don't understand the desire for gay marriage. As far as I'm concerned marriage is a religious affair. I'm not religious so I don't want to get married. Maybe something similar, but not married.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi James,

    I was appalled in 2004 when on my ballot (then living in Florida, with Governor Jeb Bush at the helm), I was forced to vote on whether or not marriage should be between a man and a woman.

    RobW is correct - this is a religious issue and has no business being on my political ballot and I wanted to abstain completely, but I had no choice but to vote "no."

    I believe that if two people can find real love in this world, regardless of gender, and want to create a partnership in which they have the same legal rights as a married couple (including health benefits), they can and should.

    Luckily, companies where I live now have moved to "partner benefits" and if someone has lived with you for at least two years, they are eligible. This could include not only a same-sex partnership, but an elderly parent, an older child, etc.

    It is not my business to judge others' morality, why distract myself from focusing on my own.;)

    Thanks for the chocs, by the way,

    ~Southern

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'll declare my interest first. I have lived with two different women. One after the other.

    I do not understand this hatred of homosexuals; never have. They are and will remain part of society. If I may, yonks ago, I had the fortune to stay overnight in a Pygmy encampment. There was much, shall I say, interest amongst both parties, at the end of the evening, as we were all preparing for bed, as to the (ahem) physicality of hosts v. guests, much giggling ensued. I remain to this day unsure of the outcome.

    There was an obviously gay member of the tribe who was not shunned but not blessed with friends until the party got going and then he was lauded by all. He sang, he danced, he told stories. He was the epitome of gayness - and was accepted and obviously loved by the community.

    Moving on.

    Today there are fewer people accepting god and it's works(my sic).

    There are more people who want to be accepted into society and it's ways and to admit to being different than the politically accepted norm.

    If they see acceptance into society as 'married being the norm' then it is not at all surprising that they marry.

    This in no way means that gaydom, queerness, pooftaism or FFS being themselves is wrong - it only means that they accept they are different from the norm.

    Frankly James I have never understood this hatred of gays.

    I have never understood this hatred of Jews.

    I have never understood hatred because hatred leads to the abyss and once you are there you may begin to understand why hatred is wrong but, obviously, by then......

    STB.

    ReplyDelete
  4. or an infertile couple getting married or a couple where the woman is beyond the menopause getting married- I presume these should be banned too.

    Southernspeak I agree with you but making a marriage into a purely religious issue means abolishing marriage as a status in law- until you do that it is a political issue and as a legal status should be open to everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I do not agree that marriage is a religious institution,nor is it's sole purpose to procreate.Being an atheist or remaining childless does not invalidate the sanctity of marriage,making it redundant.

    At one time marriage conferred upon a woman a respectability gained no other way, which only proves that our perception of marriage has changed too. Thank G-d. :)

    Marriage is about 2 people who love each other wanting to enter into a union more formal and mutually protective of each other's rights[IE recognized as legal next of kin]than any other relationship could provide.
    People marry for different reasons and derive different things from it.

    If 2 men/women want to get married, I support that. It's for them to decide if they want to make such a PERSONAL commitment-no one elses'. And if a man loves another man[as long as I get videos....]why should he forfeit spousal benefits,pensions,etc that a female spouse would automaticallly be entitled to? That IS the state dictating who can love whom and under what conditions.
    Given you believe in a complete separation between church and state,this stance runs contrary to all your other beliefs.
    The only marriage that needs to be abolished.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. How an institution arises in the first place has very little relevance to what its function is nowadays -- for example, government originally had very little to do with democracy, but that's no reason to support warlords.

    For most people, marriage is simply a way of publicly expressing your romantic commitment to another person. And enjoying certain legal and economic benefits, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What an All-American mouth she has. Why do Yanks spend so much on cosmetic surgery to improve their looks, and so much on cosmetic dentistry to impair them? It's a mystery.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Her head looks photoshopped on. Or she has a wonky neck.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yay again. Twice today. Nice one James! What I don't get is why to oppose that makes you a hater? Where is the hate in any of what she or you are saying? Sure there are haters. But not all across this issue. Being opposed to that no more means you are a hater than it would make you a mysoginist for declaring a dislike of some aspects of feminism. Equally, feminists are not all men haters. Using that loaded word 'hate' is silly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Personally I have been married dozens of times but surprisingly never to a man. Should I give it a go?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thinking around this...

    Yes the Church says that by agreeing to marry you a promising to try to create children.

    But what does the word actually mean?

    It is a bit more broad than you were thinking:

    Look at this definition...

    Main Entry:
    mar·riage Listen to the pronunciation of marriage
    Pronunciation:
    \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
    Function:
    noun
    Etymology:
    Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
    Date:
    14th century

    1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage - same-sex marriage - b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union - the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gracchi and Uberstein - I agree, in theory, it should not be religious; however, in THIS country unfortunately, most of those who oppose gay marriage can be found rooted firmly in the religious right and quote the bible to support their beliefs; i.e., the word "believe" was stated in her answer.

    Thank you, Miss Nawth Carolina, for improving the global perception of southern women everywhere.;)


    *sarcasm*

    ReplyDelete
  14. As I understand it a marriage is a religious contract before the God of the Israelites, who incidentally was quite clear on his position on homosexuality. However you may personally feel about it and however the post-modern elements of our society think they can change that by fiddling with the linguistics via dictionary definitions that is the way it is.

    Strangely enough I am going to a civil partnership ceremony this Saturday between two men, I will likely be the only straight man there. They are calling it a wedding because it makes them happy to do so but they know and I know what it is and it is not exactly a marriage because it can't be. However they can call it whatever they like, it’s called freedom. They can live as they like they can love as they like but they cannot change reality.

    What is interesting about this US case you have given is that the openly gay fellow who picked on this poor young lady demonstrated two things, firstly a clear contempt of religion and maybe even one for women. If he wants respect as a gay man and the relationships he forms with other men he might do well to start respecting the beliefs of people's religion and traditions. That is if he wants their respect in return.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I do not agree that marriage is a religious institution,nor is it's sole purpose to procreate.Being an atheist or remaining childless does not invalidate the sanctity of marriage,making it redundant.

    Right on, Uber and right on, Alison too. I've just had this guff spoken to me now that it's only a religious thing - look at the societies throughout history, even some of the Polynesian ones.

    Marriage has always been becasue it is the best way to operate and involves that word which has died today - commitment.

    To the other commenters here - thank you so much and just because I might not go along with aspects of what you say, I still value what you say, so don't feel it's fallen on deaf ears.

    ReplyDelete
  16. BTW - I wasn't saying what I thought with my comment I was just exploring the ideas a little further...

    ReplyDelete
  17. I can't help but notice so many comments about marriage and it's "definitions"... but no mention of "love" is marriage not about 2 people loving each other any more? or did I get the wrong end of the stick when I was growing up?

    ReplyDelete
  18. It was mentioned Stephen:



    'Marriage is about 2 people who love each other wanting to enter into a union more formal and mutually protective of each other's rights[IE recognized as legal next of kin]than any other relationship could provide.'

    ReplyDelete
  19. Southernspeak, Matt, Mutley, the other guys, I was run off my feet and didn't respond one by one, sorry. Welcome.

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.