Anything worth talking about, is worth blogging about

Just today, a user, “vladseventysix”, posted two comments on two of my previous posts about same-sex marriage:

Will somebody please explain how a man and a woman can be married as heterosexual relations if gender, mating, and baby, all have absolutely nothing to do with the Institution of Marriage. So, am I to conclude a man and a woman can be married as non-heterosexual relations? So, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder? And if same sex marriage advocates are wrong then what are the consequences and why should those consequences be re-evaluated? So, am I to conclude the claim of infallibility for same sex marriage is based on personal faith? Nobody, but, nobody has the right to be liked. Nobody, but, nobody has that Royal Prerogitive [sic].

Except for one of them mispelling the word “evaluation”, they were the same except for their endings. One comment had:

Thers’s [sic] an old saying, “Winston! We do it for the power”! Air tight!

And the other had:

The case against same sex marriage can be made with out calling anybody any names. There’s an old saying, “Winston! We do it for the power”! Air tight!

Since the comments asked for an explanation, I provide one below the line:

Will somebody please explain how a man and a woman can be married as heterosexual relations if gender, mating, and baby, all have absolutely nothing to do with the Institution of Marriage. It’s possible for marriages to be used for other reasons than procreation. Requiring a baby would exclude menopausal women, and sterile or infertile people from any sort of marriage. Requiring mating would also exclude those who are unable to have sex for some reason. In places where marriage is required to be consummated, the couple is required to have sex. Other than that, and in places where it is not required, it is possible to have a sexless marriage, although that may be considered abandonment and a ground for divorce in some places. Gender is a social construct. Although the biological sex usually perfectly equals social gender, it does not always. Indeed, if transgender or intersex people are involved, due to criteria used to determine/assign gender for legal purposes, they may get stuck in confusing gray areas and suspended in a difficult-to-resolve legal limbo. However, I think that the commenter probably intended to talk about ordinary cisgendered people. In addition, marriage has been used for purposes other than procreation. The interrelated royal families often married cousins, which both kept the royal line in a family and helped to cement alliances. Levirate marriage, which is found in the Bible amongst other places, is a form of marriage where a man, if his brother dies, is required to marry his widowed sister-in-law. Why was this done? Ancient Israel was a patrilineal society, which means that positions, descent, and property pass through the male lineage. This marriage keeps property in the dead man’s patriline (which he shares with his brother since they have the same father). By not marrying, the property would join the patriline of the sister-in-law’s father, which is a different lineage.

So, am I to conclude a man and a woman can be married as non-heterosexual relations? So long as “heterosexual” means “different-gendered” or “different-sexed”, no. There’s no law stopping you from trying to change the meaning of the words, but unless other English speakers go along, this attempted lexical shift is hopeless. But as I explained above, it is possible to have a sexless marriage.

So, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Equality is measurable and uses objective criteria. Beauty is subjective. Centuries ago in Europe, when most people worked in agriculture, it was considered beautiful to be fat and have pale skin. Why? Poor peasants worked in the fields, doing physical labour and staying fit, and being exposed to the sun. Rich nobles could afford to stay inside and not do physical labour. Equality has a range of meanings approaching “the same” or “similar”. Marriage equality means the same rights in marriage as everyone else.

And if same sex marriage advocates are wrong then what are the consequences and why should those consequences be re-evaluated? If you live in a place where same-sex marriage is illegal, look around and you can see the consequences of not allowing it. If you live in a place where same-sex marriage is legal, look around and you can see the consequences of allowing it. They will be pretty much the same.

So, am I to conclude the claim of infallibility for same sex marriage is based on personal faith? No one is claiming that same-sex marriage is infallible based on anything, including personal faith. And wouldn’t using the Bible (or any other religious text) to support only different-sex marriage because the Bible is the word of/inspired word of God be based on personal faith?

Nobody, but, nobody has the right to be liked. Nobody, but, nobody has that Royal Prerogitive [sic] True. No one is under any obligation to like anyone else, the same way no one has any obligation to like you.

The case against same sex marriage can be made with out calling anybody any names. Exactly. In the two posts these comments have been made I never called anyone names.

Thers’s [sic] an old saying, “Winston! We do it for the power”! Air tight! I’ve never heard this saying before, so that means that it must be old or due to dialect differences.

Advertisements

Feel free to leave a reply.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: