Friday, April 4, 2014

Marriage....this is interesting

Imp found this in a comment at Townhall.......We found it fascinating:

You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting the votes or taking the process seriously. The same goes for marriage or any other institution. You can destroy it by outlawing it or by eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is absurd.

Every aspect of marriage is deconstructed and then eliminated until it no longer means anything. And once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the deconstruction and destruction will be complete. 

Gay marriage was never the issue. It was always marriage.
Whether you agree or not with gay marriage, ignoring names of dead people who voted, etc., what do you think of that?
Thanks, Z and Imp



WomanHonorThyself said...

its brilliant and spot on and says it all..forming a Godless nation and deconstructing our precious values one at a time Z..sigh.......................have an great weekend despite it all!:)

Ed Bonderenka said...

Exclusivity is so non-inclusive!
Reminds me of that line from "The Incredibles", "When everyone is special, nobody is special."
Marriage should be so unbreakable (strict divorce law) that even same-sex orienteds would think hard before entering in.

Baysider said...

You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want.

That's right. This mischief takes away my vote because one fraudulent vote cancels out my one legitimate one.

The issue of marriage is more like defending the most important institution that gives stability and social capital to any society. The reason our institutions work is overwhelmingly because parents try to shape the environment for the sake of their children.

Control freaks don't like that. The Bolsheviks - literally and those of similar mentality - looked down on the family (including marriage) as a bourgeois institution to be stamped out. They don't want the competition! They used bullets to stamp out political competition except in the matter of the family where they so diluted marriage as an institution that it began to crumble away and people shifted their identity more to the state.

Read about the mess going on in Soviet Russia by the mid 20's. Young Communist groups taunted and denounced those with 'traditional' views who joined 'Innocence Circles' and refused to join in the serial bacchanal.

Do you get chills up your spine?

Baysider said...

In case it's not clear, the mess going on in Soviet Russia by the mid 20's was a 'free love' fest (yes, they used that term) that resulted in multiple serial marriages, broken relationships, a shift toward sex and self satisfaction (later denounced as too bourgeois) and loss of security from stable family units. The state began to sag under the effect of unmarried motherhood and vagrant homeless children. Etc.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Baysider +1

Duckys here said...

You can destroy it by outlawing it or by eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is absurd.


Allowing gay couples access the the CIVIL contract of marriage expands the institution. It does nothing to harm heterosexual relationships.

Baysider said...

Ducky's clever duck and weave with the language is technically accurate but veers wildly off topic. Allowing for homosexual marriage does not 'harm heterosexual relationships. But we aren't talking about relationships, are we. It is marriage as an institution that was on the table for discussion.

Duckys here said...

What you are talking about Baysider is some wild attempt to pretend marriage has been static through history. It hasn't.
Now if you don't accept that the current cultural discussion about marriage is a discussion about gay marriage very particularly then I submit you are in a minority.

You say:"The issue of marriage is more like defending the most important institution that gives stability and social capital to any society."

Yet you accept the political movement in a climate that has successfully convinced so many that:

1. The market is the sole valid evaluator of both economic AND social values.

2. There is no community.

Pardon me if I call TILT.

Baysider said...

Tilt all you like, Ducky. The only accurate statement in your last post is my quote.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Duck, don't be ... riduckulous.
Marriage has statistically been static for over 6000 years.
You might throw in polygamy, but it was/is hetero.

Robert Sinclair said...

Maybe duck suffers from penis up his bum envy.

Thersites said...

1. The market is the sole valid evaluator of both economic AND social values.

2. There is no community.

1) If this statement were "true", why don't we pay our mother's-in-law when she cooks us a really good Thanksgiving meal (and give her a generous "tip")? Apparently, such a gesture might "offend" her... kinda like paying your wife for sex.

2.) Refer to 1), above.

Thersites said...


Thersites said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thersites said...

The duck can only argue with strawmen. REAL arguments of real people are something absolutely foreign to him.

Kid said...

Destroying the family unit is near the top of the list of active measures by communists against America, under the general heading - demoralization.

So yea.

What do you think about this? Talking at work about how married couples back in the 60's, 70's 80's used to stay together much more than they do today, and I was thinking it was something lacking in couple today that was there in those days.

One of the guys proposed that because many women did not work, they didn't have the option of ending their marriage. That seems to make a lot of sense. You?

Z said...

Ed, they ARE thinking hard. Their divorces are VERY difficult to achieve. There's just no precedent and they are a mess.!

Baysider, I think marriage is the most important institution, too, in a society.
Gee, I guess we're following along 1920's Russians, huh?

Ducky; glad you said that.
I LOVE that you mentioned that tired old hackneyed meme "Gay marriage doesn't hurt straight marriage" because it's so absurd.
It's NOT MARRIAGE between a man and woman anymore, it's NOT the same.
I know! Let's marry our dog, too!
That shouldn't harm straight marriages, either.
From the statement in the post, it's finally clear how it DOES hurt time-honored marriages. Sorry you missed it.

Kid, of course that was part of it; and, actually, I believe the stats show that more working women are the divorce requesters than men these days.

But, no...people knew children did better with both parents at home in those days; they put their children first (what??), they knew that love can sometimes disappear for a while and they'd learned it was good to stick around till it came back....which it very very often does.

I think it's cynical to think people only stayed together because a woman couldn't afford to leave.
In those days, people made a pact in the marriage ceremony that they hoped to live up to and they felt a little bit of shame (gasp!) for getting divorced.

Lots goes into this decision. I think money's one of the last ones.

Kid said...

Thanks Z, great points. I agree with them too.

Z said...

thanks to you who prayed for my friend. Mommy and baby girl are perfectly healthy and happy!

Z said...

Kid, thanks...I appreciate that very much.

Duckys here said...

Well, the usual denizens are out.

The English Defense League's own Sinclair with his petty homosexual gossip. Typical right wing lack of imagination.

The we have Ed trying to claim, I believe, that marriage has been static for 6000 years. Heck, monogamy is only about a 1000 years old.
Then we have marriage as a vehicle for alliances and property transfer.
Love matches are only about 250 years old, Ed.
Prohibitions on extramarital affairs (by men) have only been seriously prohibited for about 150 years.

Now as male and female roles in marriage move towards equality we no longer have a strict gender dichotomy and the step toward ay marriage is natural.
You really need to ditch the tunnel vision, Ed.

Z said...

AAAHHH..Ducky....again, can't quite get the nuances and thinks he's informing us with his facts.

The Old Testament frequently discusses "one wife, one husband,"...that's a long time ago.
That people SCREWED THAT UP, doesn't make that good or normal, Ducky.
See, what lefties seem not to understand is because things are a MESS and immorality flourishes does not mean we need to accept and embrace it.
Many of us aim for the best scenario; without it, we're toast.

We are MADE to have 'strict gender' associations. Odd, a little 2 year old daughter of a friend walked into her brother's room the other day and finally found a little doll somewhere in a toy box...she grabbed onto that.
This is NATURAL. She's a GIRL.
Women are free to do what they want to do, but being a woman is usually the bigger part of her life, even above a career.
Leftwingers have been painting their little baby girls' bedrooms blue for about 30 years...I guess they felt pink was restrictive :-)
And heck, maybe they hoped painting it blue might make her transgender.....I hope too many weren't disappointed when she wasn't....tsk

Ed Bonderenka said...

I like the tunnel vision Duck. It keeps me focused.
But I dont make up my own facts as I go along.
I mentioned polygamy, or did you not comprehend?
Polygamy and affairs were only for the wealthy.
You're advocating infidelity now?

Impertinent said...


What's Katarina's new baby's name?

Z said...

no name yet, Imp.
They go for unusual names; stay tuned!