Making a Mockery
That which was predicted may be about to happen, making a mockery of the whole "same-sex marriage" idea:
But wait, all are not pleased with this!
Don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot?
Maybe it was just a foolish idea from the start?
Bill Dalrymple, 56, and best friend Bryan Pinn, 65, have decided to take the plunge and try out the new same-sex marriage legislation with a twist -- they're straight men.I get the feeling the government really didn't think much through on the whole idea!
"I think it's a hoot," Pinn said.
The proposal came last Monday at a Toronto bar amid shock and laughter from their friends. But the two -- both of whom were previously married and both of whom are looking for a good woman to love -- insist that after the humour subsided, a real issue lies at the heart of it all.
"There are significant tax implications that we don't think the government has thought through," Pinn said.
Dalrymple has been to see a lawyer already and there are no laws in marriage that define sexual preference.Well, that would be discriminatory, wouldn't it? Can't have that!
But wait, all are not pleased with this!
Words of warning came from Toronto lawyer Bruce Walker, a gay and lesbian rights activist.What, is that a threat?
"Generally speaking, marriage should be for love," he said. "People who don't marry for love will find themselves in trouble."
Don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot?
"If someone wants to do something foolish, let them do it," he said.So now it's foolish when straights do it, is it?
Maybe it was just a foolish idea from the start?
posted by RDS at 12:10 AM
4 Comments:
So......do arranged, no love in it, 'strictly for the money/politics, to appease the families' heterosexual marriages also make a mockery of marriage?? How about a lesbian and gay man who marry, because, hey, they're opposite sex, so it's legal. (Idea appropriated from Dan Savage.) I think the foundation of society is based and hinges on decent citizenry, not just the unions of heterosexual couples. A forced marriage makes a mockery of marriage; forbidding marriage between two people who love each other and want to pledge themselves to each other ‘til death they shall part also makes a mockery of marriage. Why should some people be denied privileges attached to pledging their love, while others enjoy them? I say, Civil Union for all couples who pledge allegiance to each other, with all the attending legal and social perks of being “married,” and then if the couple wants to celebrate in the religious building or strawberry field of their choice and Get Married, that’s Ceremonial Gravy.
-Mlle. T.
I was thinking of writing a followup to this posting to clarify some points, but you've raised them here already, so I'll address them now.
The Toronto lawyer said, "Generally speaking, marriage should be for love." If we've come to believe that that's ALL that marriage is about, then it's clear why there's no good reason to oppose same-sex marriage. Now, apparently, it's just seen as a vehicle for self-actualization, and somehow provides rights to turn all of society into a giant gift-registry.
But why?
Your key question is:
"Why should some people be denied privileges attached to pledging their love, while others enjoy them?" Framed that way, there is no good reason to make distinctions.
But I claim that while 2 people in love is good for them, that society doesn't have much interest in caring about that. That in itself was never the reason that marriage as an institution was promoted and supported. The love between 2 people is private, and nobody's stopping them of any combination or orientation from enjoying it.
But I sure don't see what benefit there is to me and everyone else in being forced to subsidize and celebrate their mere love. Maybe there's a little benefit, but there's a huger benefit from traditional marriage, which then rationally should get much more support.
Namely, society has a bigger interest in seeing males and females -- who are fundamentally different -- being bonded together, as the union is synergistically greater than the sum of its parts. Single men are thereby civilized, for example, and the potential for raising the next generation with both a mother and father then exists. Society has a huge interest in seeing that happen, so it makes sense to support opposite-sex unions. Love is gravy for the participants, but not the key point to society.
Arranged marriages may be the enemy of romance, but they still serve the basic social purpose of uniting the separate halves of our species, which is worth supporting in the aggregate.
So as to the lesbian and the gay man getting married, I think that's just fabulous. Their personal preferences of sexual partners is really of no interest to society; the fact that a male and female are bonded is. Some actually do so in order to be parents, for example, and that's great that they care enough to give their kids both a mother and a father.
My opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with gayness. I'm just as opposed to the 2 straight guys doing it, because it's stupid of society to allow them to do so and get benefits. And if they just happened to be gay, I don't see how it's any less stupid of society to recognize it. But to recognize it for gays and not for straights is heterophobic!
The mockery I was speaking of was not marriage itself being mocked, but rather the same-sex policy that can easily be exploited and reduced to absurdity, illustrating it's just a benefit-grab that can be had, at enormous cost, by everyone, to no social purpose.
But, I love your strawberry field image! Pass the Ceremonial Gravy! :)
On the other hand, I see that your support of this is driven by a laudable impulse of generosity -- which my coldly "logical" response is unlikely to sway; whereas I am fundamentally a Scrooge when it comes to unproven strangers!
These guys are gonna HATE the sex.
Post a Comment
<< Home