Constructive gadfly
Published on January 28, 2006 By stevendedalus In Politics

Since liberals try to resist to a degree the temptation to be judgmental concerning lifestyles that minimally affect the common good or the nation's well-being, they should be apolitical concerning gay marriage; but  be no less   political in the area of gay's civil and constitutional rights. However, gays are encouraged to be discreet and not look foolishly defiant publicly, inasmuch as it is --and there is no other way of putting it--an aberration that is potentially inflammatory. I say this because I do believe that were there a corrective procedure to be "normal," most gays would opt for it.  Nevertheless, there is no reason to deny them the same equal rights all of us are privileged to have. There is also the nagging probability that at least some are gay owing to social and psychological events and experiences in which engaged, perhaps wilfully or unwittingly developed. Also troubling is that children or very young adults have convinced themselves of being gay before their formative years.

Copyright © 2006 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: January 28, 2006.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 29, 2006
I'd like to define "purchasing" as picking up something and walking out of the store without paying. Unfortunately, for practically all of civilized history, the definition has been giving something in return.

So, when people start talking about gay people demanding the marriages they're due, I wonder when the concept of "marriage" was redefined. Then I remember this is about benefits, insurance, and estates, not love and marriage. Then I start wondering again if I can fight for the redefinition of "purchase"...

on Jan 29, 2006
'I say this because I do believe that were there a corrective procedure to be "normal," most gays would opt for it.'
On what basis do you believe this?
on Jan 29, 2006
I wonder when the concept of "marriage" was redefined. Then I remember this is about benefits, insurance, and estates, not love and marriage.


for much of human history and even today in most places on earth, marriage and love intersected accidentally, if at all, and then after the fact.

marriage has always been about benefits and estates.
on Jan 29, 2006
marriage has always been about benefits and estates.


NOT!


Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
on Jan 29, 2006
drmiler, you ignorant putz...

do you really & truly believe marriage only came into being in 12th century europe? because that's pretty much the point you're making.

pretty dumb.
on Jan 29, 2006
NOT!


Never before have three little letters made such a reasonable, yet firm argument.


on Jan 29, 2006
for much of human history and even today in most places on earth, marriage and love intersected accidentally, if at all, and then after the fact.

marriage has always been about benefits and estates.


That is a fascinating aspect. I wonder if it would transfer to ancient times, before such things as benefits and estates came into being.
on Jan 29, 2006
That is a fascinating aspect. I wonder if it would transfer to ancient times, before such things as benefits and estates came into being.
When fire was invented the ignoble savage needed a woman--or an effeminate male--to cook the prize of the hunt. Marriage at first was always a question of convenience. As possessions mounted the joining of loot became desirable.

on Jan 29, 2006

When fire was invented the ignoble savage needed a woman--or an effeminate male--to cook the prize of the hunt. Marriage at first was always a question of convenience.

Let me guess. Your wife does not read this!

on Jan 29, 2006
Never before have three little letters made such a reasonable, yet firm argument.
I wonder if drmiler unwittingly or deliberately included the second meaning.

on Jan 29, 2006
I wonder if it would transfer to ancient times, before such things as benefits and estates came into being.


if i didn't feel it would, it woulda been pretty much a waste of time to have suggested otherwise. benefits and estates have always existed. not perhaps in the very narrow sense to which you're alluding, but having more hands and minds to help fend off the world and make work lighter, being able to acquire extra cattle, land or even brass rings as well as conglomerating stuff as an extended family to elevate your station of that of your immediate family are definitely benefits and estates.

as wikipedia puts it:

Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures: modern understanding emphasizes the legitimacy of sexual relations in marriage, yet the universal and unique attribute of marriage is the creation of affinal ties (in-laws). Traditionally, societies encourage one to marry "out" far enough to strengthen the ties, but "close" enough so that the in-laws are "one of us" or "our kind".

Link
on Jan 29, 2006
I wonder if drmiler unwittingly or deliberately included the second meaning.


of course he did. if that dadgum rino santorum's agin it, drmiler's for it. and vice-versa.
on Jan 29, 2006
of course he did. if that dadgum rino santorum's agin it, drmiler's for it. and vice-versa.
"Chop logic" or "night logic" James Joyce would call it. Perhaps he's affected by the weather.

Let me guess. Your wife does not read this!
Were she alive she would, and I'd suffer.
on Jan 29, 2006

if i didn't feel it would, it woulda been pretty much a waste of time to have suggested otherwise. benefits and estates have always existed. not perhaps in the very narrow sense to which you're alluding, but having more hands and minds to help fend off the world and make work lighter, being able to acquire extra cattle, land or even brass rings as well as conglomerating stuff as an extended family to elevate your station of that of your immediate family are definitely benefits and estates.

But then there are those cultures that do not adhere to our western mentality.  And yet they had marriage.  In particular I draw your attention to the Plains Indians.  I dont necessarily disagree with you, but think the concept deserves a much more indepth analysis.  I would be very fascinated to read one if you want to put forth your concepts and ideas on this.

on Jan 29, 2006

I would be very fascinated to read one if you want to put forth your concepts and ideas on this.
Satire? Now JU participants are to be encyclopedic.

On what basis do you believe this?
Strictly baseless, personal perception. 

2 Pages1 2