Saturday, February 4, 2012

Rick Santorum's specious prejudice

Hello Friends;
  I saw Santorum's comments on the rights/privilege of marriage and homosexuality on Towleroad   (HERE)  The video is about seven minutes, so get comfortable.  The gist of it is that this man has the temerity to say that homosexuals haven't the right, haven't the privilege, and don't deserve marriage.  (Asshole)
video

specious (adj) - Bing Dictionary
spe·cious [ spshəss ]
1.apparently true but actually false: appearing to be true but really false
2.deceptively attractive: superficially attractive but actually of no real interest or value

  Young Ricky here is full of shit, my friends.  You see, at first I was taken in by his argument, which he managed well.  And, to be honest, I was angry and bitter.  But, then, I began to see some real holes in his argument.

  He makes a great argument for marriage as a privilege given by the Government because it benefits society by creating a family base that is best for raising children and ensuring the longevity of the society.  But, this is specious in every way.  To declare that the institution of marriage (I've yet to understand how that is an "institution" except to believe that most who are married are soon ready to be institutionalized) is tied to raising children demands that children be present else the marriage contract is essentially void.  That declares all of your childless friends and neighbors now living a lie and no longer due to receive any privileges of marriage.
  The simple fact is that marriage predates the creation of the United States of America and our forefathers would likely incur great problems by suddenly denying the inhabitants of the new country the method of marriage.  It was not an encouragement of the state, but a simple fact of the culture.  For that matter, Native Americans had marriage before we "white men" ever trod the soil, so lets not be putting the government cart before the people horse, eh?    Here is likely a better definition of marriage: 
Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony. Many cultures limit marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, but some allow forms of polygamous marriage, and some recognize same-sex marriage.  People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, economic, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment.The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved.
  But, lets take Santorum's argument further:  Is marriage in order to raise children necessary?Well, sort of.  But, that likely has more to do with the customs and manners of a society than the real facts.  For instance, due to the customs, if a man and woman have children out of wedlock, can we presume that they will not be raised by both?  No.  That the children will not share the benefits of the estate upon the passing of the father?  Only because of the manner in which our laws are/were written.  Because it is the best way for the child to grow to be a good citizen?  Well, that's again speculative - if that was the case, then all these damn wars are completely destructive to the fabric of our society and should be outlawed and the politicians in charge prosecuted since the wars kill daddies.  This argument begs for presumptions and places demands upon facts incapable of supporting it. 
  Let's take things a step further:  If it was only in the betterment of society that children were born, then they should only be allowed born to rich people, who are best able to care for the physical and educational needs.  Oh, and the physically deformed and mentally challenged should be put to death because they will be able to contribute less to the society.  Even better, then we should need to get a license to produce children and only grant such if needs are there.
  Beyond that deceptively simple argument, Santorum presumes that the marriage of two men who love eachother (or two women), who wish to be made "kin", who wish to pool their resources, etc., are not a benefit to society.  He presumes that the couples would, say, not buy a home, pay taxes on the home and contribute to the community stability.  He assumes that they would not be more likely to be healthier, better neighbors, and live to the end of their days together.
  My dissatisfaction with Santorum has few bounds.  That he would declare a homosexual relationship similar to one of incest is ridiculous.  That these fools continue to say that it begins the slope of allowing a man and an animal to marry is just as foolish - an animal can't consent to marriage.  (Two snorts does not mean yes, farmer Fred!)  Finally, what reason does American Government have for using God as a basis of what is and what is not acceptable?  Yes, historically we have done so, but that's how we got slavery, too.  Was that better for society Rick?

We NEED a debate on this issue where these fools are shown for the prejudiced, inaccurate and condescending jerks they really are.    Americans may applaud this man because he preaches to a choir of like-minded, but those in the southern states were doing the same when the concept of continuing slavery was batted about.  Didn't make it right.   

9 comments:

Sammy B said...

Hello Randy
Like you, my contempt for Santorum and his ilk knows few bounds. He would no doubt say he's standing for his principles, I would say he's playing to a particular audience to curry favour and 'buy' a few votes. It doesn't, as you say, make it right. In fact, it makes it unforgivably hypocritical. But, of course, hypocrisy is the hallmark of the religious right.

Love & best wishes
Sammy B

randy said...

Hi Sammy;
Thank you for weighing in. I am often amazed how well informed you are in another country while those here are duped to the gills.
Further, I have little knowledge of your country politics. Sorry. I see that is really poorly done on my part. I think that will be a new goal for me this year.
Hypocrisy. I some times wonder if some don't go into politics with a real authenticity and moral/ethical base. And, I can't help but wonder how long that survives. Five minutes?

Be well, my friend;
randy.

Anonymous said...

Hallo Randy,
You're talking about an important point: war as a multiple parricide!
The results are orphans.
When we see divorce as the death of the marriage, then "dies" in most cases the father.
The result is divorce orphans. (this is the term at us).
The mourners victims are always the children!
Nikki

randy said...

Hi Nikki;
I used that scenerio in a sort of jest at Santorum, but you are absolutely right. The hipocrisy of politicians is that they have no problem sending Daddy off to wars all too often, but then rant on about singl parent homes. These folks need to get real.
thanks for commenting.
randy.

Anonymous said...

Hi,
Who do we call Christians?
Who do we let the "Christian camouglage greatcoat" pull all over those lies, when it comes to people, to be disliked?
- people, to present to the crowd for their hatred? - because of the crowds miserable situation?

Hugs
<3 miles

randy said...

Hi Miles;
That is an interesting question. Have the leaders so kicked and beleagured our citizens that they are willing to see anyone kicked as long as it isn't them?
Maybe.
Wonderful to have you come by. I've missed you.
Be well;
randy

Scottie said...

Hello all. Randy as you know I have respect for faith, it is the execution of it that gets my dander up. I am stunned at the many statements and actions that are 180 degrees from what the person says their faith requires. It is that disconnect, that inability to see that the action being taken is against the very thing you are promoting. It would be like me promoting vegetarianism at a pork and beef cook out. it wouldn't work, would look silly, would send the exact wrong message I want to promote.

That is the thing that bothers me the most. I was reminding Ron today that we put a lot of conditions on James driving our cars, rules we expect him to follow, yet Ron and I remember doing things with our parents cars that horrify us today. LOL
Hugs and best wishes.
Scottie

randy said...

Oh, that is a memory! I remember using my dad's van, '82 custom conversion van, to do donuts. Almost tipped it. Thank goodness they don't read this blog - I'd get a phone call about now.
Actually, Scottie, I think your analogy is more like promoting vegetarianism at a pork and beef cookout while eating bbq (do what I say, not what I do...).
hugs;
randy

Scottie said...

yup..that is what I meant to say. And I am calling your dad!

LOL

Hugs