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)

specious (adj) - Bing Dictionary
spe·cious [ spshÉ™ss ]
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.