I’m linking to the blog that quoted this überdouche because said überdouche doesn’t deserve the attention. But his argument, wow, it’s pure crazy. The above quote is the conclusion to his rant. I’ll cherrypick some other choice information.
The difference is between the duties that marriage imposes on married people–not rights, but rather onerous obligations–which do not apply to same-sex love.
He goes on to explain that marriage is a not a vaginocracy, it’s actually a phallocracy – that women’s sexual access is defined by the marriage, rights to her vagina have been claimed by planting a flag in it; you know, your usual patriarchal nonsense.
What he conveniently doesn’t mention is the fact that you do not have to be married to reproduce, and marriage does not necessarily lead to reproduction regardless of whether you’re fucking an asshole or vag-hole. My great aunt and uncle loved kids, were surrogate parents to the whole neighborhood and then some, tried their whole adult lives to have children… and never could. One of them was barren, but they chose not to find out, but instead live their lives as a romantic marriage. It lasted for 50 years.
Not because he kept her locked in a vaginal tower of some sort, all access denied except for him. That was HER choice. Plenty of babies are born to married women who are NOT the children of their fathers. Marriage does nothing for this but add another layer of guilt for the betrayal. But the betrayal of the person should be your primary concern, not some bull-shat oath you swore. George W. Bush swore an oath to uphold the constitution, but instead chose to pass laws contravening the constitution, and did not carry out the will of the people, but instead his own will. Oaths mean nothing. A signed, legal contract will not stop someone from breaking the contract, it will just get them in trouble when they do so.
This most profound aspect of marriage–protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex–is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage.
The most profound act of marriage is as a control for the sexuality of women? I know plenty of people who would disagree with you. The most profound act of marriage is making a family. Just as two men or two women may be a part of a family if they are brothers or sisters, so can two men or two women make their own family, just as a man and a woman can.
After all, what exactly defines family? I’m closer to my aunt than my mom. I’m closer to most of my friends than my mother. What does that say about family?
My father? Haven’t seen him in 12 years. Met him a total of, maybe, 4 times in my life. No marriage was involved in the controlling of my mothers sexual reproduction, and yet here I am.
So Sam, go to hell when you say my gay mother can’t marry if she finds someone with which to spend the rest of her life.
Tags: bitch bitch bitch, republicans, sad, trouble in paradise