Marriage: Who’s In Charge, Anyway? (Computing The Marriage Dilemma)

You're Kidding, Right?

You’re Kidding, Right?

Left wing homosexuals are presently the tool in use to deconstruct western Judeo-Christian society by trivializing marriage. And even more specifically, by asserting the power of government over the marriage relationship. The government cannot reign supreme over citizens who look to God and His church for guidance of their lives, relegating government to second place. So God and His church must go and His laws too. The religiously sanctified Christian marriage contract is a thumb in the eye of the government, a place it does not control and a fundamental stronghold of society out of government reach. That is intolerable to the totalitarian government that now works to control every facet of citizens’ lives – diet, housing, transport, education, employment, business and now, marriage. Oh, we almost forgot healthcare!

We read that a fellow in Florida is demanding to marry a computer. He must be nuts, right? That is, where will you find a more stubborn, uncooperative, difficult and annoying partner than that? It perversely refuses to do as told, does what is unwanted and shuts down when most needed. Rather like various descriptions of spouses written in divorce papers, come to think of it. Maybe the Florida fellow is on to something …

The story is of course, a joke though it’s real enough. And it fits the gay marriage discourse because gay marriage is also a joke, though one with a serious purpose. Marriage is fundamentally one single thing: a contract. It is assigned the title: “Marriage” merely to distinguish it from all other contracts. And that is recognition of its unique and critically important purpose: the future of the human species. The marriage contract exists only that human children needing over a decade to mature will receive the needed care.

A woman raising children alone is handicapped; she needs a man’s help. It’s no different for a man, and single parent families don’t thrive as well as those with both parents. So, given a man’s tendency toward a roving eye and women’s lengthy child-bearing and raising, our species came up with marriage. The church and state both moved in on that to grab a hold on the family unit, the fundamental power center in human social life.

If gays can appropriate marriage without being able to reproduce, they will have denatured and trivialized the concept in doing so and the Florida fellow may as well marry his computer or should he prefer, his horse. Except of course, that the computer nor the faithful steed may presently legally contract, but with gay marriage in sight already, those seem pretty viable shortly.

For the computer though, the vows will have to be altered a bit: “Until death do us part,” for instance, needs adjustment on the computer side. Maybe Siri or whoever vocalizes the machine can say: “Until my power supply burns out, ” or something like that. Perhaps on second thought, the Floridan has a point: If he has trouble with his computer-spouse, he can just reprogram her …

Advertisements

About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much)
This entry was posted in Gay Marriage, Government, Politics, Religion and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Marriage: Who’s In Charge, Anyway? (Computing The Marriage Dilemma)

  1. Kip says:

    See, this is the kind of Judgmental Christianity that turns so many people off. You can’t honestly expect to win souls for Christ this way.

    • Jodaph says:

      I can’t speak for jcurtis, but as an objective outside observer who equally despises the witch-hunting methods of both intolerant liberals and fanatical Christians, I can honestly say I don’t find his statements judgmental in any way. Any judgment he seems to pass is aimed at the federal government’s manipulation of homosexuality, not homosexuals themselves.

    • Jack Curtis says:

      I guess it’s in how one sees things. Jodaph below, evidently saw it as it was intended when written. It was the reason for use of the word: “tool” in the post. My apologies if I seem to have misled you …

  2. Jodaph says:

    Great post. It should also be pointed out that those in favor of gay marriage would be hypocritical to denounce polygamy and should also strive for “equality” in that area. But since it’s so heavily tied to fundamentalist Mormonism (and perhaps other religions) I doubt they’ll have anything to say about it.

    • michael says:

      Dang I didn’t see your post when I made mine. Great minds think alike.

    • Jack Curtis says:

      True, and polyandry as well. I’ve wondered how folks like the Mormons deal with the Scriptural “A man may not have two masters” when plural marriage comes up. An religious explanation of that from a devout Mormon or Moslem might be fun …

  3. michael says:

    Hey, if a girl can marry a girl, why can’t I have 2 wives? If I say I love them isn’t it better to have two wives and a husband so the children can have both a father and a mothers? Why didn’t the liberals support the Mormons? Wait maybe because they are conservative? I guess love only counts if it gets votes for democrats…

  4. Jack Curtis says:

    Seems that plural wives are common (were women have a choice among wealthy men and rather scarce elsewhere.

  5. Margaret Mead pointed out – yes THAT Margaret Mead (the leftist) that sociologically, marriage is to tie the father to the family. The mother’s connection to the children is biologically indisputable – the father’s is a social construct.

    In other words: no marriage, no fathers.

    The discussion surrounding gay marriage (and if it is the same as straight marriage, why is it called ‘gay’ marriage?) picked up a generation after the institution of no fault divorce. The first to file usually is awarded custody of the children, stays in the house, etc. There is an incentive to file first.

    Would not a better solution be that the first to file is allowed to walk away from the spouse and children – and the house and the car and everything? (It would be like a U.S. state leaving the Union: ‘you mean I cannot still receive military protection from the rest of you?’

    The state sanctioned ‘legitimization’ of these civil unions – calling them marriage, will dissuade the rest of society from respecting this important institution.

    What is ironic is that the definition of such an ancient institution can be decided by nine people.

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