What you "no longer recognize" is one of the foundations of civilization whenever and wherever civilization has existed farther back than we can remember and without some form of which society would break down within two generations. What *I* don't recognize is an amusing novelty which a small but obnoxiously loud minority has been calling for for not more than 15 years and which, at best, changes nothing and, at worst, further damages the real thing.
I should congratulate you for being clever, but this is nothing like a meaningful argument.
Zaklog, I'm glad I could amuse you with my cleverness. Of course, I didn't draw the cartoon, but I'm always happy to take credit for others' work.
As for your view of marriage, I would love to borrow those rose-colored glasses you're wearing. This "foundation" of which you speak is more aptly defined as a social construct that has been used by dynasties to secure and protect power relations, to facilitate the transfer of wealth and property among the patriarchy, and to perpetuate the subjugation and second-class citizenship of women.
This pollyanna view of marriage you have has existed for MAYBE one hundred years. More typically, marriage before that was an arranged event that had nothing to do with heterosexual "love."
And this small minority you so casually dismiss consists of millions of human beings who are no less worthy of social rights and responsibilities than you are. Your unfounded claim that extending these rights would fundamentally damage the rights themselves always amuses me. How, I ask, would they be damaged?
Thoreau wrote that "Any man more right than his neighbor constitutes a majority of one." You're on the wrong side of both justice and history, Zak. I hope you will rethink your reasons for maintaining a system of institutionalized discrimination and prejudice.
Comments
I should congratulate you for being clever, but this is nothing like a meaningful argument.
As for your view of marriage, I would love to borrow those rose-colored glasses you're wearing. This "foundation" of which you speak is more aptly defined as a social construct that has been used by dynasties to secure and protect power relations, to facilitate the transfer of wealth and property among the patriarchy, and to perpetuate the subjugation and second-class citizenship of women.
This pollyanna view of marriage you have has existed for MAYBE one hundred years. More typically, marriage before that was an arranged event that had nothing to do with heterosexual "love."
And this small minority you so casually dismiss consists of millions of human beings who are no less worthy of social rights and responsibilities than you are. Your unfounded claim that extending these rights would fundamentally damage the rights themselves always amuses me. How, I ask, would they be damaged?
Thoreau wrote that "Any man more right than his neighbor constitutes a majority of one." You're on the wrong side of both justice and history, Zak. I hope you will rethink your reasons for maintaining a system of institutionalized discrimination and prejudice.