Feb 11, 2012

Thoughts on Protecting Marriage

In the spirit of covering the basics, I want to talk a little about one of my favorite code phrases, namely the hate groups' crusade for "protecting traditional marriage" a.k.a. "don't let the gays marry". Now, in my parallel universe the absurdity of this codification is profoundly obvious, but since most people don't live here, it is far less clear to them.

First of all, let's look at the angle of protection. Protecting something implies that said something is in danger. Marriage has been on a steady decline in the States in the last few decades, with recent polls indicating staggering numbers of divorces. Could this somehow be contributed to The Gays? Not really, as we aren't allowed to marry, remember? Not in most places, and even when we are, it's still not recognized on the federal level. So if marriage is in danger, it's in danger because of those who can perform it, namely - heterosexuals. Can we ban divorce? Not really, and even if we could, it would be a bad idea to force two people who can't stand each other to live together. So we have to find someone else to blame. How about them gays? It's THEIR fault somehow that marriage is failing. Because of... uh... because of reasons! Giving us the right to marry would create more families, not fewer. Show me a straight person who refuses to marry because homosexuals also can, and I will personally thank him for not inflicting themselves on another human being since, yunno, crazy people shouldn't really procreate.

Wait, what? Procreation? CHILDREN?! THAT'S IT! We are, uhm, protecting marriage because it is not a right, but a PRIVILEGE! Yes, right, a privilege. Not a right. Ok, yes. It is an institution meant to promote procreation, and since gays can't procreate, messed up deviants that they are, they are not entitled to this privilege. More code words, more straws to grasp at. But there is already something wrong here. Shouldn't we, yunno, have fertility tests before allowing heterosexual people to marry? I mean, if marriage is a privilege saved for promoting procreation, it should be unavailable to ANY union that can't lead to procreation.

Yes, but, but, but... but marriage between one man and one woman creates the most ideal environment for raising children! An infertile couple can adopt a child (unlike those horrible gays with their loose morals and hedonistic tendencies) and raise it in a life of familial bliss. Hmm, fair enough. What happens when the familial bliss is broken by marital problems? When one parent starts boozing up? When they lose their job? And this applies to any family, not just the ones that adopted a child. Should their marriage license be revoked due to no longer providing a perfect environment for their kids?

And of course, let's just look for a second at what "traditional marriage" actually is. Despite what NOM and other hate groups and extremist Right wing nutjobs spout on a daily basis to somehow soften the inadequacy of their bigotry, marriage as an equal union based on love and commitment is a late 19th century invention. In all of human history before that it has simply been a contract of possession in order for one man to know that his woman OR women (depending on country or time period) will not belong to anyone else. Women were objects to be bartered away, and their role in marriage was to cook and give birth to children. Is THIS the "traditional" marriage you are protecting, Ms. Gallagher? Was that what Crazy Eyes Bachman was looking for when marrying her (I say this through tears of laughter) "ex-gay" husband?

Those are stupid arguments that I am making, but they are meant not to be new and insightful, but rather to show just how absurd the counterarguments for gay marriage are. There is LITERALLY NO REASON for anyone to be opposed to marriage equality. Except for the most basic one, which no "Protection" group or devout Christian will ever admit to, and they usually hide even from themselves, masking it in all this ideological bullshit. And that's the simple "Ew, gays!" revulsion. They wouldn't do it, it's gross to them, so obviously it can't be right for anyone and has to be destroyed. I mean, people being different is simply not ok, anyone must see that, right? So why is that again? Well, uh, because, um, because... because f**k you, that's why!

And in all of this absurd war on equality that they are waging and slowly losing (and they couldn't not lose it, considering how that must be THE most indefensible bigotry of modern day America, and thus all arguments for it are just laughably easy to dismiss), what strikes me the most is this one horrifying realization - can you imagine how empty a person's life must be if they have dedicated it to ruining somebody else's?

No comments:

Post a Comment