?

Log in

Debate
Open for discussion
War on Venus 
22e-fév-2004 12:53 pm
Blossom
This whole gay marriage thing is so entertaining. This is a perfect example of my kind of political paradox. You get idiot bourgeois gays and lesbians who want their sexual relationship and love recognized by the State and society. They all queue in SF to get that all precious little paper saying: "Yes, it is OK, you can fuck each other in the butt and lick each other's genitals with the approval of the all-knowing benevolent State if not God, yes, that big boy in the sky who is watching you".

Oh, I am all in favor of that movement, this is just perfect; I don't need the State to tell me it is OK to sleep with my girl and live happily ever after, but by all means, go on, smile, cry and jump up in joy at your great achievement, the general recognition of same-sex love and long-term relationships. Yes, I am all in favor of that because eventually, people will finally understand that no; there is nothing sacred about marriage.

Imagine all those Christians and other traditionalist dolts getting outraged that the State, and even some churches, finally give the legal approval and religious sacrament of marriage to gays and lesbians. They will have to reconsider their outlook, and, without any reference on which to rest their beliefs, with no special recognition by Society, they will finally realize they are mere privately owned, state-subsidized children's factories, whose sole reason to exist is to procure money-earning flesh that will finance their retirement and the retirement of others -- which BTW is the only justification for the tax-breaks and welfare support they get.

And the paradox finally comes here: those gays and lesbians who now marry will, in the future, not get the special, money-substantiated recognition that will go to baby producing couples. Except of course for those lesbians who get artificial insemination. How amusing. They starve for recognition, and will not get any. This is like inflation, the State prints so many marriage certificates that soon they will be worth nothing. I love that.

There is a cherry on the cake: With people shedding their illusions about the real purpose of breeding will logically come the industrialization of pregnancy and of that whole pain inducing labor process. Women won't have to go through having to bear some living being into their own belly (eew) and then expel it forcefully and dolorously through their vagina (ouch). I personally reject with the utterest disgust the idea of growing a parasite in my own body and welcome any progress toward artificial insemination and extra-uterine fetus growth.

At the moment, I am perfectly happy with the continued existence of those women who seem to enjoy the whole thing: get babies, girls, you seem to find that so exhilarating I wouldn't want to knock off your enthusiasm. Raise them, educate them, do that for a miserable tax-break, welfare benefits, or the love and protection of your husband (i.e. no pay at all, precarious living and emotional enslavement). You are so cheap I wouldn't want you to change your mindset.

For debate: With the legalization of homosexual marriage should come more recognition for the role of women as breeders, and this means a salary commensurate with the effort they put in the task. This of course should come in addition to other progressive measures, such as getting men to do more of the job of raising children, getting better health care for women, providing more baby care facilities, etc, etc.
Comments 
22e-fév-2004 01:23 pm (UTC)

This isn't a debate so much as a very long and detailed disclosure of some serious chemical imbalances, combined with some sort of deeply buried issue with pregnancy.

If it makes you feel better, you are basically right. We're all breeders. That's what we're designed for. We'll keep it up until the world ends, or the universe, or us.

But nobody particularly cares at this point. We have no shortage of humans, and mairrage serves as a primarily social/economoc bond currently.
22e-fév-2004 01:34 pm (UTC)
"This isn't a debate so much as a very long and detailed disclosure of some serious chemical imbalances, combined with some sort of deeply buried issue with pregnancy."

Are you telling me I am crazy or somehow mentally deficient? I do not think you are furthering reasoned debate that way.

"If it makes you feel better, you are basically right. We're all breeders. That's what we're designed for. We'll keep it up until the world ends, or the universe, or us."

I do not think so, witness the trend in developed countries towards reduced fertility rate, and insufficient rate of replacement of the population. I would welcome that trend if it avered to be sustained, as indeed, as you say below, we are quite enough humans on earth.

"But nobody particularly cares at this point. We have no shortage of humans, and mairrage serves as a primarily social/economoc bond currently."

I don't see how this enters into any kind of argument you were somehow trying to make.

Nice attention you had, beginning your post so nicely, though. Have a nice day.
22e-fév-2004 01:54 pm (UTC) - Re:
>>Are you telling me I am crazy or somehow mentally deficient? I do not think you are furthering reasoned debate that way.<<

What I am saying is, this really does look more like an emotional reaction/rant than a debate. As an emotional response, the only thing I really have to debate is the emotion behind it.

I debated this by telling you I think the emotional response your having is out of line with the facts. So as far as that goes, yea, I think it's a bit on the unbalanced side. So am I, but I didn't put it up for debate. (I could probably act as a walking DSM example guide)

>>I do not think so, witness the trend in developed countries towards reduced fertility rate, and insufficient rate of replacement of the population. I would welcome that trend if it avered to be sustained, as indeed, as you say below, we are quite enough humans on earth.<<

We'll still keep breeding, even if it is at a lessened rate.

>>I don't see how this enters into any kind of argument you were somehow trying to make.<<

That was, more or less, a response to the only point for debate I could find in your post, which seemed to be along the lines that homosexual mairrage will never mean anything in the eyes of society because breeding is what's important about mairrage.

It isn't. At this point, mairrage is a social/economic construct, as I previously mentioned. As far as breeding goes, it has lost most of it's power, outside of the catholic church.

22e-fév-2004 02:08 pm (UTC) - Re:
"That was, more or less, a response to the only point for debate I could find in your post, which seemed to be along the lines that homosexual mairrage will never mean anything in the eyes of society because breeding is what's important about mairrage."

Hmm, I don't really see how your point was adressing the issue you evoke here, but let's take this at face value:

No, marriage is not about breeding, but for the State, breeding is all that should matter. You may not have picked this up, but I have nothing against marriage. If people can feel better being married, I have no problem with that. I also think it is indeed necessary that some legal protections be enforced to ensure that people that stay long together can safely make projects without fearing they will be expropriated after a while (in a divorce, through death, etc.) I may have done myself a service by pointing that out. Chalk it up to innatention.

BUT my point is that you have to put marriage into its real, objective context, which is as a contract between two willing party, and not some kind of societal recognition of "love" and "sacred union" between two people. I simply find that ridiculous and useless. So, indeed, I pointed out breeding was the most important thing about marriage, but this doesn't have much to do with whether I care about whether there will be "enough humans" on earth. I could care less.

I hope this makes sense. Keep on in your efforts to be more civil. You are making progress, and I commend you for that.
22e-fév-2004 02:34 pm (UTC) - Re:
>>BUT my point is that you have to put marriage into its real, objective context, which is as a contract between two willing party, and not some kind of societal recognition of "love" and "sacred union" between two people. I simply find that ridiculous and useless. So, indeed, I pointed out breeding was the most important thing about marriage, but this doesn't have much to do with whether I care about whether there will be "enough humans" on earth. I could care less.<<

See, that's where I disagree. The key point of mairrage right now is to demonstrate the "lovey dovey" aspect of life. It's a way of saying "we're in love, we're making our own happily ever after, we have friends who are happy for us, we have families that care, we have all manner of important, deep feelings and we're feeling tham all today!"

That may or may not be a bunch of silly rubbish, but that IS why it is done. We can have plenty of babies without mairrage. We could even have legaly binding court decisions that handle "joint property/income contracts between adults". Mairrage still exists and would still exist, because mairrage is about one thing today, and that is societal ideals of love and happiness. If it was about anything else, it would have faded away centuries ago.

>>I hope this makes sense. Keep on in your efforts to be more civil. You are making progress, and I commend you for that.<<

I thought I did pretty good the first time. Originally I was just going to write "Man, you're freaking my shit out".

Maybe it was your scary icons fault. Thing gives me the willies.

22e-fév-2004 02:40 pm (UTC) - Re:
"The key point of mairrage right now is to demonstrate the "lovey dovey" aspect of life. It's a way of saying "we're in love, we're making our own happily ever after, we have friends who are happy for us, we have families that care, we have all manner of important, deep feelings and we're feeling tham all today!""

Well, what I am saying is simply that it is not the role of the State to provide people with such reassurance. Eh, I am sure there are many churches and firms that will be ready to organize a nice ceremony for you if you wish to show your love in such an extravagant fashion. Even more, I am a human, (however much you would love to pass me as some kind of monster) and I do myself appreciate such shows of affection and munificence. But again, that is none of the State's business.
22e-fév-2004 04:19 pm (UTC) - Re:
>>Even more, I am a human, (however much you would love to pass me as some kind of monster) and I do myself appreciate such shows of affection and munificence.<<

*laugh* There are an infinite variety of human monsters, and I wouldn't rate you among any of them.

>>Well, what I am saying is simply that it is not the role of the State to provide people with such reassurance.<<

The role of the state is to keep society under control. This often involves obseqious pandering to their whims. Much as we'd like to think the state is beyond such concerns, it's really just a big bunch of poloticians. And we all know what poloticians are like.
24e-fév-2004 11:27 am (UTC) - Re:
Is that really all it is? I'm just asking. My mind is still mulling that one over. I've been divorced twice, and I totally agree that marriage is not a sacred...um...thingy. Working in the field of human services, I've seen what takes place under the so-called sacred banner of marriage. I wouldn't get married again, ever. I'm not bitter, but all that's sacred and beautiful between two people would still be there without the paperwork or the ceremony.
24e-fév-2004 11:21 am (UTC)
I think you're brilliant, though your wit is barbed, and indeed over the heads of many. That was an exhilarating read.
24e-aoû-2009 04:13 am (UTC) - getting better health care for women
Breaking the oligopolies of health insurance coverage present in many states & regions. … Government could do a great service by jumpstarting the infrastructure to create such a true free market but it should not take over such a market.
This page was loaded fév 25e 2017, 1:33 pm GMT.