![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Let's just call a spade a spade
Jun. 7th, 2006 01:45 pmFrom my fabulous younger sister, who sent me the CNN news alert this morning along with a personal message ("Well, I wonder how Bush is going to try to screw us now ..."), we have an update on the proposed gay marriage amendment. Why does this matter particularly to the childfree? Think about it (the bolded parts, aside from the headline, are my emphasis):
Direct Link: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html
( For the link-impaired: Senate Blocks Same-Sex Marriage Ban )
Do Americans really care who has sex with what for recreation, or how? Porn is still one of the most bottom-line profitable industries in this country. We have a state that has kept hookers legal. Bestiality is a much joked-about (though perhaps not practiced - I really don't know) pastime among college males. The "GGW" acronym continues to get plenty of husbands in trouble when the credit card statement comes in at the end of the month.
Ah, but a friend points out that tolerating sexual preferences does not extend to sanctification of it in society. No society, she tells me, has ever tolerated or recognized marriage between two people of the same sex (though I have to wonder, do the poly male Mormons who force their wives to all live together consider their wives married to one another as well as to them? At least for orthodox Muslims, Mohammed dictated a man should not take more than one wife unless he could afford an equal number of households). Canada now has a conservative PM partly because its citizens are disgusted with that recent legalization, she tells me.
Look at what I've bolded in the article above. I, at least, get the distinct impression that what is actually being hammered on isn't so much sexual preference as preservation of the nuclear family - that is, mother, father, AND CHILDREN. Is it a matter of time before these witch hunters come after those who've actively chosen not to have children, as being "unnatural" too? Yeah, it sounds like a silly persecution complex. I really do wonder, though, if it's simply a coincidence that the two big issues conservatives use to bring out the "emotional vote" at election time are the two geared toward pushing BABIES, BABIES, OMG ABOVE ALL ELSE BABIES: anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion (and, lately, anti-BC). And let's not forget, most conservatives who are anti-abortion are also anti-gay adoption of unwanted children. Because, you know, gays are all pedophiles who want to use all available young meat for fucktoys.
Maybe I'm the last person to figure out this angle on the gay marriage thing. It's simply an epiphany I had. I have no problem with children; shit, I grew up helping take care of my sister and cousins. I don't even have much of a problem with people who try to bingo me with "oh, you'll change your mind, you'll want them" even when I know at almost 34 that I never do. I do have a problem, however, with this "YOU MUST REPRODUCE OR FOREVER KEEP YOUR KNEES TOGETHER" being forced on women through the hammer of the law - social pressure to do something isn't the same as being mandated by law into doing it.
I believe we need limits on marriage to protect social structures like land ownership and inheritance. But I'm thinking of poly marriage, which has a proven tendency in many cases to reduce some of the partners to breeding chattel (let's face it, can you really have more than one favorite?). I do not think the human reproductive drive is going to slow to a grinding halt simply because Susie wants to marry Fern instead of Johnny. There's nothing that says Susie won't still want to pop out six kids. Our society hasn't outlawed single mothers or fathers; why is it worse for a child to have two female or two male caretakers, than simply one?
Direct Link: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html
( For the link-impaired: Senate Blocks Same-Sex Marriage Ban )
Do Americans really care who has sex with what for recreation, or how? Porn is still one of the most bottom-line profitable industries in this country. We have a state that has kept hookers legal. Bestiality is a much joked-about (though perhaps not practiced - I really don't know) pastime among college males. The "GGW" acronym continues to get plenty of husbands in trouble when the credit card statement comes in at the end of the month.
Ah, but a friend points out that tolerating sexual preferences does not extend to sanctification of it in society. No society, she tells me, has ever tolerated or recognized marriage between two people of the same sex (though I have to wonder, do the poly male Mormons who force their wives to all live together consider their wives married to one another as well as to them? At least for orthodox Muslims, Mohammed dictated a man should not take more than one wife unless he could afford an equal number of households). Canada now has a conservative PM partly because its citizens are disgusted with that recent legalization, she tells me.
Look at what I've bolded in the article above. I, at least, get the distinct impression that what is actually being hammered on isn't so much sexual preference as preservation of the nuclear family - that is, mother, father, AND CHILDREN. Is it a matter of time before these witch hunters come after those who've actively chosen not to have children, as being "unnatural" too? Yeah, it sounds like a silly persecution complex. I really do wonder, though, if it's simply a coincidence that the two big issues conservatives use to bring out the "emotional vote" at election time are the two geared toward pushing BABIES, BABIES, OMG ABOVE ALL ELSE BABIES: anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion (and, lately, anti-BC). And let's not forget, most conservatives who are anti-abortion are also anti-gay adoption of unwanted children. Because, you know, gays are all pedophiles who want to use all available young meat for fucktoys.
Maybe I'm the last person to figure out this angle on the gay marriage thing. It's simply an epiphany I had. I have no problem with children; shit, I grew up helping take care of my sister and cousins. I don't even have much of a problem with people who try to bingo me with "oh, you'll change your mind, you'll want them" even when I know at almost 34 that I never do. I do have a problem, however, with this "YOU MUST REPRODUCE OR FOREVER KEEP YOUR KNEES TOGETHER" being forced on women through the hammer of the law - social pressure to do something isn't the same as being mandated by law into doing it.
I believe we need limits on marriage to protect social structures like land ownership and inheritance. But I'm thinking of poly marriage, which has a proven tendency in many cases to reduce some of the partners to breeding chattel (let's face it, can you really have more than one favorite?). I do not think the human reproductive drive is going to slow to a grinding halt simply because Susie wants to marry Fern instead of Johnny. There's nothing that says Susie won't still want to pop out six kids. Our society hasn't outlawed single mothers or fathers; why is it worse for a child to have two female or two male caretakers, than simply one?
