Monday, April 23, 2012
Open thread 1: Anything
I'm going to be away for over a week, but maybe there are enough
readers and commenters to keep the blog going without me. The response
to this short
post makes me think it's possible. Please behave. I will be strict
about deleting insults and stupid talking points when I return. I've
started several threads where I'd like to hear your viewpoints. This one is for anything, so fire away.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I want to talk about North Carolina, and specifically their move to treat same-sex couples as non-entities. It looks like it will pass as a NC Constitutional Amendment today (5/8/12).
Clearly, anti-gay parties have the rhetorial upper hand in large parts of the country, and the simple fact is that a vast majority of Americans find homosexuality personally repugnant, and they don't particularly care for the lifestyle, either. I, personally, don't want to watch it portrayed on TV. But I completely disagree with the near-sighted notion that "marriage is between one man and one woman". That's powerful rhetoric, however, and it very effectively converts many people's personal feeling into its political expression: marriage is only for heterosexuals.
I actually feel a little sorry for people who msut suffer very deep cognitive dissonance over this political position. I can destroy their sense of righteousness and self-congratulatory vehemence of so-called "gay marriage" with two simple questions:
1) How do you propose to stop any couple from calling themselves "married" -- having a ceremony, inviting their friends, hiring a caterer, etc.?
A: You can't.
2) What exactly does having a marriage contract between consenting adults have to do with their sexual orientation or their sexual activities (individually or as a couple)?
A: Nothing.
Since they don't have good answers to either of these questions, they are left with some sort of moral superiority in not giving any community "sanctioning" of the gay lifestyle, which they find either morally or personally repugnant.
But that's when I can crush them. Would they oppose, for example, two widows in their 70s being married? They aren't lesbians, just very close, life-long friends who want the legal protection of a marriage contract. Not as easy a call, huh. Especially since the community would sanction these marriages:
A 90-year-old man and a 16-year-old woman.
A 90-year-old woman and a 16-year-old man.
An exclusively gay man and an exclusively lesbian woman.
An arrange marriage between a man and a woman, who then only have heterosexual relations with other people.
A male porn star and a female ex-nun.
A female porn star and a former priest.
I could go on, but you get the idea. When it comes to a marriage contract, it's not really anybody's business but the parties to it, just like any other contract. So opposition to any parties consenting to a personal commitment is simply mean-spirited or, at best, misguided.
DL
Pennsylvania
Post a Comment