Childish conservative heterosexual notions about marriage

See more » Sodomitical Polity

Jennifer Roback Morse says:

Spousal unity builds up the community of the family because it contributes to the stability of the marriage relationship.

My father knocked my mother's teeth out when I was little. Spousal unity kept her in a bad marraige for decades. I hated the bastard. Call it a ghetto, not a community.

A sexual partner is not a person to whom I am irrevocably connected by bonds of love.

Irrevocably? Must be a Catholic traditionalist. Ever heard of divorce?

Some homosexuals, particularly the professional activists, find it incomprehensible that sexual activity could be anybody's business but the two parties involved. So these activists can make common cause with heterosexuals who hold these views.

Some of my best friends are heterosexual.

One paragraph wordly states that gay men and women usually favor a woman's right to choose an abortion. We queers to have our virtues.

The family creates a social sphere beyond the reach of either politics or economics.

The naiveté of this sentence is breathtaking. Clearly the woman has never known any poor people. Children certainly disown or are disowned by their parents because of political differences.

Is human sexuality an engine of sociability that calls us out of our self-centeredness? Or is it one more arena for the exercise of our self-centeredness?

Nothing made me more sociable than young lust. But getting your cock (or clitoris) isn't the basis of anything like amity rooted in empathy and kinship of sympathy and taste.

We are more likely to be satisfied with the outcome, if we work with our biology rather than against it.

My sexuality doesn't work at all if it isn't working with my biology (poor drooping creature). A cheap shot, I'll admit. The woman writes like some demented Thomist who sets up premises that are grounded in fact and reasons them into the ground.

And it is utterly unreasonable for the law to treat all sexual unions as though they were equivalent.

The whole article is a sequence of nutty assertions. Eerily this is akin to the point I sort of tried to make in a note about my feelings about all categories of transgendered people: genitals are a necessary part of romantic love: the essence is in the dance of the neurons when you make love.

Her article is a wearingly sober attempt to say that sex without procreation is ignoble. And from that childlike premise prove that gay marriage should never be realized in law.

Marriage and the meaning of sex.

Comments

I’m going to get married to my fiancee in 2005, just as soon as the British government finally legalise some sort of union (there are already official partnerships in most cities, they just don’t come with the legal benefits etc of marriage). We plan to have children (via IVF, just as many heterosexual couples with fertility issues do) in the years following. Thus, our relationship will produce children. Does this validate homosexual marriage?

If not, because we are not the only two biological parents (if I carry my wife’s child, then who is the mother?), does this mean that any heterosexual couple who a) do not have children, b) have children through IVF etc or c) have children with help of donors/surrogates have also invalidated their marriages? Does that make any children produced automatically bastards?

As you suggest, Richard, this woman needs a reality check.

It was an interesting if distasteful example of deciding that you don’t like something and coming up with seemingly thoughtful justifications for your prejudice.

Your feelings?

Please share your feelings about Childish conservative heterosexual notions about marriage.
Thanks,
Richard

More of My Blogs

Comments

Other Entries


Bookmark Pansexual Sodomite

  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Yahoo
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon


Pansexual Sodomite
Index
Sodomitical Polity
Childish conservative heterosexual notions about marriage
Top of page