Author’s note: before reading this, it is highly suggested that the Author’s article on Discourse be read. The Author doesn’t have the time or patience to deal with crybabies or willful ignorance of any kind. This is a formal Reasoned Rebuttal of the arguments posed in the recent Marriage ruling by SCOTUS. If you don’t understand what Reasoning is, you better read the Author’s article on Reasoning to see what America has been missing out on for quite some time. It solves ALL of the world’s problems. And THAT, isn’t a false promise.
Marriage ‘Equality’: the Final Battle of Free Love vs. Religious Sentiment. Reason? You aren’t invited.
As some of you are aware, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of the LGBTQ crowd on Marriage ‘Equality’. Since this is stirring up all manner of feathers all across the country, I figured that it was high time to lend a perspective that isn’t particularly tainted by rabid religious fanaticism or fantasy land hippie militancy, which will make me highly unpopular in both Religious Bakeries and Free Love Drum Circles across the country. Oh well, so be it. They’re destroying the World anyway.
On both sides, you’ve got strong emotions: on the Left, you’ve got the Hippie Emotional Movement and on the Right, you’ve got the Arch Conservative Emotional Movement. Unfortunately, on neither side is Reason. Seriously. Check the names of the movements I just listed. ‘Reason’ isn’t in either of them. Which means that any court decision that utilizes, as justification, either course of action is going to insure that the country is going to destroy itself. Great times!
Let’s start on the Right, because Might makes Right (or something to that effect).
The religious conservative would say that marriage is a religious concept that involves the union of a man and a woman as ‘one flesh’ and is purported to be the physical representative of God’s will. A quick Google search on “marriage according to the Bible” provides a whole host of sites that go into further scriptural detail to support this one-man-one-woman principle. Since I’m not particularly interested in doing your work for you, I’ll let you handle that.
The Bible ALSO has a number of things to say about homosexuality and any number of ‘deviant’ behaviors that draws God’s ‘ire’. Unfortunately, I can’t think of the last time that a church has lobbied for the right to execute a member of their flock for: committing adultery, mixing meat and dairy, cursing or striking their parents, trying to convert other people to another religion, having incestuous relations, rape, murdering a slave, kidnapping and selling a man, planting more than one seed in a field, being stubborn/rebellious/disobedient/gluttonous or being a drunkard, as these were cited as offenses punishable by death in the Bible. If a Church DID attempt to take the Bible’s Word as Law, I can say, without a doubt, that most of America would be completely depopulated, ESPECIALLY most of the Deep South and Bible Belt.
You can’t just pick and choose which religious scriptures you’d like to follow and which ones you’d like to ignore just because it doesn’t suit your Friday night plans to ‘go out with the boys to get rowdy’ but still want to, you know, ‘be religious’ on Sunday. Doing so, makes one a ‘false prophet’ and arguing the case that ‘getting rowdy’ isn’t a ‘big deal’ makes you guilty of ‘trying to convert other people to another religion’. So you’re double dead, as far as the Bible is concerned. We’ll stop here and take a quick commercial break so you can go purge the numbers in your OWN local church who have sullied the word of ‘God’.
Now that you’ve made a ‘total’ commitment to the word of ‘God’, let’s all Come Together As a Nation that was founded by Christian* principles and all convert to the correct faith that was TRULY intended by the nation’s founders. And that religion was…um…let’s see here… (checking American historical documents…) Ah! We shall all become….Quakers. No? You don’t want to convert to that faith? How about becoming a Puritan? Catholic, anyone? What about Lutheran? Mormon? Do I have any Anglicans in the heezy? No? No worries, those who DON’T want to convert to ONE National Religion will be summarily executed, whereupon we’ll ‘let God sort them out’ and grant them some kind of awesome prize or divine punishment in the afterlife. (Front row seats to an Iggy Azalea concert should fit the bill.)
This is the kind of discussion that you don’t want to have because, if enough people vote for a national religion that you don’t want to convert to, you’re going to be booted out of the Real ‘Murica in this world or sent to see God in the next. And that’s the very REAL reason why Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers didn’t advocate a National Religion. All of the original colonists came from lands that were still reeling from about 1,000 years of nearly constant religious persecution. Jews versus Christians versus Muslims, Orthodox Christians versus Catholics versus Protestants, people burned at the stake, drawn and quartered by horses, flayed, tortured, impaled, stabbed, raped, maimed, dismembered, women and children butchered (basically the most ‘shocking’ parts of Game of Thrones, with a dash of Braveheart thrown in), all for the doctrinal difference in the way they worshiped, what they ALL believe to be, the Same, One, True God. Are you REALLY interested in reliving that nightmare Right Here on your own soil instead of doing The American Thing and having that devastation enacted in the Middle East where it ‘rightfully’ belongs? No? Good. Neither did the Founders. They came together to try and build a nation based on Reason and to NOT let religious strife and oppression dictate the character of the nation.
The concept that this country was based on Reason is fairly hard for many Christians to accept. Mainly, because the teachings of Jesus were ALSO deeply rooted in Reason. It’s hard to differentiate between one source and another, I get that, but think about the situation. You didn’t REALLY think Jesus was crucified for beating up Aramaic hipster potheads, advocating the removal of government environmental regulations on the dumping of camel dung, or refusing to pay enough shekles to cover his conceal and carry sling permit, did you? Of course not. He used Reason to cast aspersions on the Pharisees for corrupting the intention and Word of God so they could justify telling The People that giving money to the Jewish Hierarchy was ‘what God wanted’. The things he taught, using Reason, questioned the underlying rationale of religious leaders’ self proclaimed ‘right’ to power and money within the community when:
1) All notions of money are based on the value of precious metals that a Creator, who through His/Hers/Its Infinite power, was capable of making….. out of sheer Will and…
2) If God has a history of directly speaking His/Her/Its Mind and Will directly to people of his/her/its choosing, he/she/it’ll probably continue to do so. If a God can do those two things, He/She/It has ZERO need for money and ZERO need for human mouthpieces who clearly don’t understand God’s Creation, Rationale or Vision.
(It’s really too bad that Jesus has been on vacation time for the past 2,000 years. I’m sure he’d be pretty pleased that after scorning wealth and earthly possessions during his time on Earth, the sheer value of both that his followers have amassed for themselves through the past 2 millennia would have reached the heights they’re at and the refusal of those with that wealth to help out their fellow man/woman. He’d also be pleased by the recent shotgun wedding between laissez-faire Capitalists and Christian Fundamentalists. “Hey! What are you DOING?!? That’s NOT what I was getting at, you idiots! How is Judgment Day supposed to occur if you destroy the Earth before The Rapture Party gets started?!? RSVP the RIGHT way and cool your jets!”)
Don’t worry, Christians, if you’ve toughed it out and made it this far, it’s now YOUR turn to smile and nod in agreement to what’s about to be said.
Jesus used Reason, The Founding Fathers used Reason, do today’s Americans use Reason? Nopers! Thankfully, the opposite side of this Marriage controversy puts on a full Fireworks display (can’t deny, Katy Perry’s voice is impressive; her choices in boys and social movements, not so much…) of just how truly ignorant and self destructive people can be when they refuse to actually use their minds. Here are the most prominent justifications I’ve heard for the TBGLQ Marriage ‘Equality’ movement:
Premise 1: “Marriage is about love, man! We should all be free to let our hearts love who we’re going to love, bro! It’s the way of nature, to love our fellow man and love our world.”
Response to Premise 1: Um. No. The way of nature is…. Primal Success wins. Go talk to children in the Middle and Far East about whether marriage is ‘about love’. Hey, let’s even look at the Western World, circa 2 centuries ago! Were marriages THEN arranged because boy saw girl, was equally smitten with her as she was smitten with him? Did the smitten make kittens and mittens for kittens? Nope? Let’s ask the wives of Henry the VIII if they felt ‘love’ in their marriage? Oh. That’s right. Too soon, brah?
Marriage is and has always been about providing the next generation to society. People were expected to continue the family line and, therefore, the human species. This mentality hasn’t changed in the East and it hasn’t changed in the Middle East. Love is a recent embellishment, a special dessert to the main course of Propagation of the Species. Capitalist Cretins and the Lamestream Media, here in the West, have capitalized on their ability to shove ‘emotional thinking’ on the populace, teaching people that “all we need is dessert and we don’t need anything else!”
Bull butter. Everyone knows that only eating dessert gives you cavities and diabeetus. Eat your meal. It builds muscles and keeps humanity healthy.
And if you don’t think that propagation was really that important to American law makers in the Good Old days, I have a question or two:
Does the tax code currently give benefits or deductions for how much you mark down in column 543d on Form 7567DD: “On a scale of cuddly puppy kisses to Romeo and Juliet, how much do you love your spouse?” No? That’s weird. It’s almost like they don’t even CARE about the depths of your emotional attachment to your partner! “The IRS needs to hire some Emotional Attachment Auditors and rectify this issue immediately! I know that we should qualify for the highest deduction possible this year! Marriage counseling really helped! I tell you, this is just ‘one more failing of the Obama/Bush administration’.”
Does the tax code grant deductions based on how many dependents (children) you have? Yes? Do those deductions go away once your children are raised? Yes? Holy crap, that’s so strange! It’s almost like they want people who are raising the next generation of society to have incentives that will help them be successful in raising those dependents! That’s SOOO unexpected!
You can’t PROVE that a person is ‘in Love’. It’s an emotion. Only an individual can identify how they feel in any given moment. The Court using something that can’t be verified as the rationale behind supporting a decision is profoundly, breathtakingly, imbecilic. This opens a LOT of doors that people don’t realize.
If your argument is that ‘people should be free to ‘love’ who they’re going to love, regardless of who they love’, then high school teachers bedding their starry-eyed teenage ‘student-consorts’ should be legal, child molestation should be legal, and rape should be legal. Many child molesters and serial rapists ‘can’t help’ their ‘condition’. They have naturally occurring chemical imbalances and emotional development issues that impede their emotional processing abilities that make them think that their victims share the same emotional bond that they’re experiencing (so they believe that they’re loved by their ‘equal’, from their eyes), that their victims have the clarity of mind to give consent (so it’s not a relationship forged from lack of understanding from their eyes), and/or are desiring of ‘Love’.
Polygamy should be legal too, by your argument. Necrophilia is now legal especially for those who were ‘loved’ by someone who died unexpectedly. “A love that may endure even past death?”, that’s a clear vote of support, straight from the mouth of the Supreme Court! After all, if Love never dies, why should the benefits? You can’t say that their ‘Love’ isn’t ‘valid’ just because their lover is ‘dead’ and someone else’s IS valid because their partner is ‘alive’, because then you’re treating one group ‘better’ than you do another based on the nature of their relationship. And that’s ‘discrimination’ against the dead. And it’s killing them. Literally. And its ‘bigotry’. And ‘ignorant’. And whatever else you tried to claim when others engaged you in discussion on this matter and you chose to violate the Fundamental Rules of Discourse.
And if you think that this discussion has suddenly escalated quickly and gotten creepy, disgusting, morally ambiguous or completely out-of-hand because I’m using your own argument that “one person’s self perceived emotional relationship is just as relevant as another’s” against you, then you’re now seeing what proponents of Traditional Marriage have been seeing as you argue that legalizing Gay Marriage is ‘just’, ‘fair’ and ‘good’. You’ve been beating the Conservative Right over the head about their emotional arguments to maintain Traditional Marriage. Sadly for you, I don’t have to go with the religious justification for marriage to destroy your case. Reason and your own words have given me everything I need.
Let’s continue. Now that we’ve scrapped the major emotional ‘argument’ for gay marriage, what’s left?
Premise 2: “Look, buddy, Heterosexual couples get married and cheat on each other and get divorced and you’re talking about defending the Sanctity of Marriage? How is giving homosexuals the right to legal recognition in society going to track more mud on the institution of marriage than what those who clown around on their spouses already do?”
R to P2 (love me some Star Wars): Don’t call me buddy, guy. And you aren’t really helping your case by saying that someone’s disrespectful and dishonorable behavior in a situation, in some way, justifies your ‘Right’ to Disrespect and Dishonor that situation too. Translation: just because you see someone spitting in their neighbor’s breakfast doesn’t mean you should get a crack at flicking boogers in there too.
I noticed you aren’t pointing to those marriages in which spouses DON’T cheat on each other, where kids are created AND raised within those marriages into healthy, well-adjusted adults and saying, “yeah, we can do all that too.” Because we all know that you can’t. You have to go outside your marriage, either to doctors or to a member of the opposite sex at some point, to get that done. Period. Facts are facts. Penis fencing doesn’t result in babies. No sexual act between two biological males or two biological females results in babies. It’s simple biology. The process isn’t broken. You’re trying to force a new solution to a ‘problem’ that is simply, a Fact of Nature. Deal with it.
Premise 3: “This is a social movement and we’re tired of being treated like second class citizens! We’re in the same place that African Americans were in the ‘60s, man! We demand equal treatment!”
R to the P3PO (REALLY love me some Star Wars): Oh look, another Emotional ‘argument’! Looks like someone doesn’t understand how formal arguments work. Here’s a refresher.
You are NOT in the same place that African Americans were in prior to the Civil Rights Movement. Not even close. I’ll apologize right now for any brothers and sisters of a darker skinned persuasion who are forced to relive this by me talking about it but some ignorant people need to be reminded about History.
Are ‘your people’ routinely being strung up from trees for bullshit charges of raping wives/daughters/theft/any other criminal acts that comes to mind that someone needs a scapegoat for instead of being treated like human beings and offered a ‘fair’ trial that requires a burden of proof to determine guilt by your peers? No?
Are you forbidden from voting based on your orientation? No?
Do you have separate facilities that you’re REQUIRED to use in order to keep you away from ‘contaminating’ normal heterosexual folk? Blacks and Whites had separate facilities, back then….remember? Wait, You don’t? Hmm…
Are you forbidden from attending heterosexual only (for blacks at the time: white only) universities? No?
For all intents and purposes, is YOUR ‘relationship’ just as naturally capable of performing the same function to society that many heterosexual relationships can perform? Absolutely not.
And that last one is the kicker. Because ultimately, the Civil Rights movement was about whether or not Blacks/African Americans were just as capable of performing the same feats as the White majority and therefore deserved to be considered their ‘equal’ in the eyes of the law (since I’d like to be like all the butthurt crybabies out there, the term “white” is offensive. We prefer Peachish-Tan American, racist!).
Does an African-American man have the same capacity and capabilities that a Peachish-Tan American man has? Are they capable of performing the same functions in society? They can make babies, they can fight for this country, they can serve as law enforcement, professors and priests, can ‘get with’ white and black and any other deliciously colored ladies and crack racist jokes (Dave Chapelle is/was a genius, not gonna lie) just like Peachish-Tan American guys can. So it looks like they are the same, functionally.
Can an African-American woman perform the same general functions that a Peachish-Tan American woman can? Yes? Then there’s no reason to not afford those lovely ladies of the darker complexion all the same rights that a white woman enjoys. They are, structurally, biologically, functionally, no different from their Peachish-tan counterparts in terms of their capabilities. The only differences are skin color and, in some cases, culture, neither of which are impediments to fulfilling the same basic functions that white people perform. If there would’ve been ANYTHING that separated the abilities of blacks and whites, if there was any important function in society that they weren’t capable of performing, then the Civil Rights Movement might not have turned out the way it did. So ask yourselves a question:
Can you make the conscious decision to generate offspring, if you wanted to, within your ‘relationship’? No? You need science or an outside body to intervene? So you technically AREN’T the same as heterosexual couples and this isn’t the same as the Civil Rights Movement. Your relationship is NOT Equal to theirs. Certainly not from a Functional perspective. And don’t play the “oh, well, some hetero couples can’t or don’t conceive within their marriage” card. Because I’ll play the “oh, well, ZERO homosexual couples can conceive within their ‘marriage’” card.
To make your relationship the equal to heterosexuals, in terms of functionality, society has to grant you special benefits or exemptions to offset your relationship’s biological deficiencies/peculiarities (call it what you will). Which means, now, the government is required to provide separate and special medical treatment options for one group of people to make them functionally ‘equal’ to another group. Which will upset Traditional Marriage proponents, which ends up causing a logic loop. You received legal recognition as ‘equal’ based on your ‘unfair emotional suffering’ angle which grants EVERYONE the right to use ‘unfair emotional suffering’ as their justification for feeling ‘discriminated against’, including those who believe that your special medical treatment is tacit discrimination by causing ‘undue emotional suffering’ to Traditional Marriage proponents. And round and round we go because emotions are constantly hurt. Everywhere. All the time. Forever. But thanks to the Supreme Court ruling, now we’re legally obligated to generate stupid solutions to soothe everyone’s Butthurt-itude. We’re going to have to plant millions of Preparation H trees to cover that. What? That’s not where it comes from?
(Yes, it’s tragic that some heterosexual couples who want to conceive children but, for whatever reason, can’t. It sucks, badly, for them. Biology has cheated their ‘Love’ from finding fruition. But it’s the Way of Life and Healthy Life needs to continue. If that results in them breaking up to pursue other options, that’s regrettable, but ultimately for the best. So I can feel kinda bad for their situation and continue on, trying to do my part to see that Healthy Life continues or I can start tinkering with cosmetic babies, trying to ‘fix’ the Human Genome (that isn’t broken), start piddling with In-Vitro fertilization or any of the other unethical medical methods that are being developed to try and thwart the rules of Life just to insure that some individuals’ suffering is allowed to spread and become potentially responsible for the Extinction of Humanity. The individual spoke is broken, not the wheel. The wheel still works. Don’t reinvent the wheel until it ceases to function. Medical doctors and researchers are meddling with powers beyond their understanding and there’s no real reason to do so in the first place. Another topic to be discussed in the future…)
So. Homosexual couples have tried to equate their emotional relationship as being similarly valuable to society as an emotional AND functional heterosexual relationship. Which is bizarre to me and, seemingly, makes no sense. It’d be like me saying that Oranges are the same thing as Orange Lamborghini Diablos because they both have the same color. Do oranges deserve to be covered by auto insurance? No? That’s weird. But it’s probably ‘hurtful’ to oranges everywhere. Start the crusade for ‘equality’!
Premise 4: “As a ‘couple’, we demand that others treat us with the same dignity and respect (and tax benefits/breaks) that society gives heterosexual couples. It’s not ‘right’ and it’s not ‘fair’ in our ‘super-advanced’ society that ‘injustice’ has to be rained down upon us just because we’re ‘different’. The whole world is against us because it hates things that are different and scared that we’ll change the world!”
R to the P4: You clearly mistake injustice with acknowledging simple Facts of Life. True Equality is only measured by testing the capabilities in question in a series of events. Nobody in the world would say that Michael Phelps and Stephen Hawking are Equals in swimming. Because then some jerk like me would say, “hey, buddy, you better use the scientific method and test that claim for accuracy!”. Next thing I know, I’ve got some PC policeman showing up at my door, saying that my statement is ‘offensive’, ‘hurtful’ or ‘in poor taste’ and I’m going to PC policeman jail where I’ll be forced to figure out how stating facts is somehow offensive. And how to apologize when I’m not really sorry.
You’re also mistaking indifference and ambivalence with fear and hatred. They’re not the same thing. For instance, I’m indifferent to the relationship details of others. I don’t care about your ‘emotional relationship’ any more than I care about Teresa-from-Accounting’s weekend ‘relationships’ that she’s using as a proxy to slowly deal with her Daddy issues. She starts talking about it and I have to stop her and say, “Dude. Don’t. Care.”
I’m ambivalent towards celebrity gossip or the lives of reality TV ‘stars’. Still. Don’t. Care. It’s not fear. It’s not hatred. It’s indifference and yes, I know that it’s ‘awful’ that I, selfishly, only pay attention to my own business and don’t get dragged into other people’s stupid, petty, drama. I acknowledge that I don’t have a bleeding heart for every pet complaint that people generate on a daily basis because they want attention and validation. I also accept that I’m a ‘heartless, callous bastard’ who thinks people should toughen up and stop being crybabies. I recognize that I haven’t donated to or shown much solidarity with the Jenny-Stubbed-Her-Toe-on-The-Chair-She-Didn’t-Push-in-Last-Night Foundation, but hey! I’ve really been meaning to get on the ball, since she’s in such heart-wrenching pain that I ‘can’t possibly understand’…..but….
But I have my own problems that are significantly more pressing than yours. I come from, what some people call, the Lower Class. My parents are getting older and, even though they’ve busted their asses their entire lives at their jobs, they’ve had their retirement funds either screwed with or flat-out taken by two pathetic excuses for employers that, last year, paid them enough, after subtracting massive medical bills and debt payments accrued over the past 15 years of trying to stay afloat and maintain the conditions to remain gainfully employed (transportation costs money, after all, and those who can’t GET to work, won’t remain at work), to put them just above the poverty line.
The Old Man has close to 25 years working for his current employer and routinely averages about 3,000 hours worked each year. (Do the math to see how many hours that is, each week.) He’s Salary, so he gets no overtime pay. He’s missed 1 day of work in 22 years and, last year, had about 400 hours of vacation time just taken from him by his boss because they ‘couldn’t afford to pay him for that time and the business can’t afford for him to take vacation time’. He hasn’t been on a leave totaling more than 1 business day in over 14 years. And the business hasn’t done as well as it could, but it’s not because of overreach or overregulation by the government, oh no, but rather, because his boss is a completely incompetent, shortsighted Tool (we’ll discuss Business, later).
My mom has worked for nearly 20 years for her employer and has had recent medical issues. Both their employers decided to increase the employee contribution rate to their health insurance plans in the past 3 years, thanks to Obamacare and budget cuts, and she can’t afford her medication anymore since the cost for her prescription is now 8 times the original cost, circa 3 years ago. And that’s for the generic crap, not the hoity-toity name-brand stuff. Their home should’ve been condemned years ago. Their vehicles are on their last legs and there’s no bailout for them on the horizon. There aren’t any other local jobs that would pay the old man comparably and they can’t afford to relocate. So where’s his parade and social crusaders home startup kit? Oh, right. Your emotional cause that’s mildly inconvenient for you is ‘more important’ than my parents’ survival in this economic and political system. My bad.
I can’t personally help my parents because I’ve got a miniature mountain of student loans to pay off and I have other issues that I HAVE to resolve. But unlike you, I’m not making people aware of my ‘suffering’ (a.k.a. making them miserable) to gain their pity and browbeat them into giving me the resources to wage some phony social campaign. Neither my parents nor I need/want your pity. Pity is dehumanizing and arrogant. Every. Single. Time. So, sorry, not sorry.
I don’t care about your emotional well-being or whether you ‘feel’ lonely or happy, angry or blissful. I don’t care if you don’t feel like your ‘relationship’ is being ‘respected’ or given the same benefits that heterosexuals get, when functionally, logically, practically or realistically, it’s not the same thing. What I AM sorry about is that you have the time and resources to push a clearly frivolous campaign and lawsuit when others in our country are scrabbling and scrambling for survival because the system has resolved to pay more attention to your petty, phony grievances than to matters that are affecting those who can and have actually given something of themselves back to society. You have wasted the financial, legal and emotional resources of this country fighting a battle that is nonsensical and detrimental to America and Life itself.
But, you’re right, what humanity has made out of Life isn’t right or fair, cupcake. If it were ‘fair’, I’d be an All-Pro athlete in several sports (because I was/am that talented) with a massive international corporate presence beneath my feet (because, I know how to run a profitable business by keeping top talent happy, building good rapport with customers, working smart and hard, and being ahead of the the product development curve), I’d be a Nobel Prize winner (If Obama can ‘earn’ a Peace Prize before he ever stepped into Office, I “deserve” one too), and I’d have about $2 billion in my lucrative offshore accounts (because I’d rather buy islands in the South Pacific or the Caribbean than sacrifice some of my wealth to fix this country). I’d either be occupying a seat in the Senate or owning a stable of high ranking congressman like a normal billionaire does, and I’d have as many beautiful, intelligent, engaging women who all desire to fill my many mansion homes around the world with our clearly awesome, strong, beautiful, intelligent, healthy and talented children. Since none of that seems to be the case, we can skip over the shrill noises emanating from your open yap-hole about ‘fairness’. Life isn’t fair. Get over it.
If life were truly ‘fair’, the Federal Government would finally grant legal recognition to the ‘long-term, committed, loving relationship that society has been ‘treating as second class’’ that began when I adopted my dog and cats. If I can just ‘marry’/adopt new ‘family members’ by heading down to the local animal shelter and get them claimed as dependents at a much better investment rate than my religious brother and sister-in-law are getting with their whole ‘obsolete’ and ‘outdated’ method of a) finding a suitable partner of the opposite sex, b) courting them, c) forging a relationship that is fraught with cross-gender miscommunications and compromises, d) making offspring, and e) paying for the medical and freedom costs associated with childbirth and child rearing, that’d be great! I mean, seriously, all those letters and their associated actions? That’s a lot of work, come on, I’m lazy!
If I could rub their faces in the fact that, no matter how badly I failed to attract a ‘traditional’ human partner, my desire to milk the system for government funded cuddles and playtime** with my ‘loved ones’ is just as deserving in the eyes of The Law as my brother and sister-in-law’s relationship is, regardless of the great disparity in the practical benefit to society that our relationships offer, that’d be everything that I could have ever hope for! I would finally get to say, “Suck on that, you outdated Christian people, you! You don’t have to like our ‘love’ but we prevailed and we’re your equal or better now! You’re on the wrong side of history!***”
Which is really what the GQ-BLT sandwich maker’s ultimate goal was, in the first place: rubbing the noses of Christians in the dirt.
As Mr. Spock would say (God rest his Vulcan bones), “The needs of the many outweigh the ‘needs’ of the few.” Case dismissed****.
*It’s time to lay this belief to bed. It was founded on Reason. Then perverted through the years by opportunists and businessmen who were working an angle to get ahead.
**Our ‘playtime’ involves tennis balls, walks and those laser pointers that drive cats up the wall. It’s not quite what you were originally thinking. Sorry to disappoint.
***Just ignore the last ~3.2 billion years (or 8,000 years, depending on your religious bent) of traditional intragenus and successful heterosexual sexual reproduction. That shouldn’t count as historical precedence because it doesn’t fit my narrative.
**** What should be immensely troubling to the entire populace is the fact that SCOTUS, judging by their recent rulings (Citizens United, Individual Mandate, etc, the list is long and ugly), has completely lost its mind and lost track of what Reality and Reason are. This should be terrifying since the Court was supposed to safeguard those concepts as they were enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Without Reason from SCROTUS***** being applied as The Check for an increasingly irresponsible, paranoid, and sociopathic Legislative Branch and the sock puppet Executive Branch deciding, unilaterally, to just grab power and authority, you can expect Western Civilization’s descent into a fascism, anarchy and annihilation that can’t be escaped from, will only accelerate.
*****this was not a typo.