?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile ABMann.net Previous Previous Next Next
Build me a baby worthy of Mordor - Portrait of a Young Man as The Artist — LiveJournal
abmann
abmann
Build me a baby worthy of Mordor
I love NPR so much. It keeps me smart. Days like today, though, it doesn't make me smart; it shuts my brain down. Today, John Musgrave (in for Joy Cardine) had on Maggie Gallagher, president, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy Nationally syndicated columnist. Co-author, "The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially." The debate: the current senate debate of a Federal (FEDERAL) ban on same sex marriage.

Ms. Maggie's emphasis for the first half of the show is that marriage is about reproduction. Essentially, marriage exists to create and raise children, which is why it has been social defined and should be politically defined as exclusive to opposite sex couples. And because marriage is about reproduction, it isn't bigotry; it's OK to ban same-sex marriage because gay people can't have babies. Does anyone else take issue with this emphasis and eschewing of bigotry? How is it NOT bigotry?

Well, were we to follow the definition of bigotry, it isn't.
From Wikipedia: "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own." Lest my arguement die here, I shall note that Ms. Maggie is function off of social definitions; thus, we transform bigotry from denotive to connatative, which is more akin to discrimination.

Also from Wikipedia: "To discriminate socially is to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit." I think this is how we define social bigotry whereas the previous is a personal bigotry, which I do not believe applies to a societal debate.

We return to the original question: how is this not social bigotry? How is defining marriage around procreation not exclusive or motivated by exlusive thinking? Further, why are sterile men and women or senior citizens allowed to marry? They can't have children yet we allow it. Further, why is it ok for heterosexual couples to hop from marriage to marriage creating more children in lieu of raising their own?

There are so many problems with marriage in America and NONE of them will be solved by disallowing homosexual marriage. Suddenly hetero couples are supposed to realize, "Oh thank God the gays can't be married. Now I can settle down and raise my 64 children in 30 different states with 50 different women. Praise Jersus!" Needless to say, I doubt this will be the case.

It irritates me so much. I fail to see why tis is an issue. Isn't marriage suppoosed to be about love? Even the vows people take are to love, honor [and obey] not to love, honor and make an army of babies. You know who wrote the original wedding vows? Henry VIII who had such a great track record with marrriage. (Traditional Church of England ceremony)

Clearly the real problem with marriage is old people. Those slutty beasties are ruining it for everyone. Down with granny sex! Down with granny sex!
---
In other news, I drove by the Chipotle on Old Sauk/Excelsior. Now I shall crave burrito until lunch. Mmm... lime cilantro rice.
Burrrriiiitoooooo.

More packing last night. The apartment is a sty. It drives me crazy especially since I can't do anything about it.

Tags: , , , ,
Current Location: Edgewood College Deming Way, Middleton Wi
Current Mood: angry angry

16 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
suibhne_geilt From: suibhne_geilt Date: June 6th, 2006 01:31 pm (UTC) (Link)
I caught the last ten minutes of her on my way to work this morning (yay, short commutes!!!).

I couldn't agree with you more. In this country, marriage is clearly about providing mutual support for the married couple as well as any children that may result from the marriage. Why else are you allowed to provide insurance coverage for your spouse, make medical decisions for them if they're incapacitated, provide for their retirement (when care of the children is really no longer and issue), and so on.

Currently, us straight folk are making an absolute joke of the institution of marriage. However, since it'd be "too hard" for the far right to make straight people take marriage seriously, they'll control what they can, but telling gays they can't join the club.
abmann From: abmann Date: June 6th, 2006 01:37 pm (UTC) (Link)
Good point with the financial benefits. If those didn't exist, perhaps there'd be more sway to the "making babies" argument.... not much, but some. I suppose, though, there is an argument in there that lessening the financial burden of the married couple facilitates child-rearing but it would be specious at best. If the gov't said, "You get X for having a baby," sure, I'd buy it.

Outlaw divorce! That'll do well for the "institution of marriage." It worked well for Henry VIII. :)

I think today should be Henry VIII day.
evilevi From: evilevi Date: June 6th, 2006 04:51 pm (UTC) (Link)
It seems like every time I look at abmann's comments another of my friends pops up!
abmann From: abmann Date: June 6th, 2006 05:27 pm (UTC) (Link)
To be fair, suibhne_geilt is on most of Madison's flists.

I also like to think I'm spreading memetically across all journals I read. I'm a mind virus, baby!
evilevi From: evilevi Date: June 6th, 2006 06:10 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yes, he is a popular guy. But I feel a special kinship to him because he's my neighbour and I've had sex in his house. ;)
evilevi From: evilevi Date: June 6th, 2006 06:12 pm (UTC) (Link)
Sex with absolutely no chance of reproduction, I might add.
abmann From: abmann Date: June 6th, 2006 07:33 pm (UTC) (Link)
Oh MY GAWD. No reproduction? You aren't maintaining the sanctity of marriage. You should be divorced and/or locked up.
evilevi From: evilevi Date: June 6th, 2006 08:37 pm (UTC) (Link)
Well, I'm already divorced, and I wasn't married to the person with whom I was having sex, so I guess that's ok. But I certainly should be locked up. ;)
suibhne_geilt From: suibhne_geilt Date: June 6th, 2006 10:56 pm (UTC) (Link)
A mere 10 feet above my head, I may add...

But it was very polite sex that didn't disturb my sleep on those times when Ms. Janeness was not at home.
suibhne_geilt From: suibhne_geilt Date: June 6th, 2006 10:55 pm (UTC) (Link)
I've been reading ABM via you...
evilevi From: evilevi Date: June 7th, 2006 12:21 am (UTC) (Link)
The 231 people you have on your own friends list aren't enough to keep you occupied? I'm impressed.
abmann From: abmann Date: June 7th, 2006 02:27 am (UTC) (Link)
I prefer to think I'm just that good. :P
evilevi From: evilevi Date: June 7th, 2006 03:36 am (UTC) (Link)
Well, you *are* good, but I don't think Eric is interested in that. ;P
annan_dum From: annan_dum Date: June 6th, 2006 05:35 pm (UTC) (Link)

Can't contain my fury

Here's the thing: I know I have irrational and illogical opinions on plenty of subjects--PLENTY of subjects! I know a rational argument when I hear it. I know when I'm holding to a belief for the sake of feelings and/or personal prejudice rather than reason. And while it causes me some sheepishness - if not full-out humiliation - if pressed, I will often admit to it.

I have never - EVER - not even ONCE - heard a solid argument for why same-sex marriage should be made illegal. Ever.
The arguments I have heard are shallow, superficial, prejudiced and just flat-out dumb. But since people in this country make their decisions based on feelings rather than logic, we can assume that these anus-born opinions will rule the day for much of the population.

Ms. Maggie can go swallow crushed glass, her argument holds about as much water as a bucket made of "Kleen-Ex." If the point of marriage is procreation, should we illegalize marriage when one or both partners are unable to reproduce for some reason? Or - *GASP!* - don't WANT to reproduce?
Does this mean it should be illegal for ME to marry?

I wish a plague of permanent Dyspareunia upon her and all who share her dim-witted opinions.
justphoenix From: justphoenix Date: June 6th, 2006 05:55 pm (UTC) (Link)
For whatever reason, this reminds me of Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode last night on abstinence. They had teenagers in chastity belts, a woman masturbating, a stripper in patent leather...it was great :)
suburbaknght From: suburbaknght Date: June 6th, 2006 07:08 pm (UTC) (Link)
Marriage is absolutely not supposed to be about love. It's supposed to be about money. And land. And possibly goats. Remember that for the vast majority of human history marriage has been a financial arrangement, not a romantic one. While there was no single point in time where we can say that definitively changed, the realization of its change occurred after World War II. Women had been not only participating in but excelling in the work force, earning enough to support themselves and their families and thus were no longer dependent on a husband for economic survival. This made marriage optional. Without a compulsion to marry people looked for reasons to, with romance and reproduction being the two most compelling.

The current argument is in many ways over which of these is the real purpose of marriage. The flaw in the argument is in thinking only one can be true or that contradictory truths are a flaw in a non-rational system.
16 comments or Leave a comment