House of Eratosthenes

Ah, I like BlueCanary for her candor. Be sure and save this for the next time someone doubts the existence of a “homosexual agenda to destroy homes.” I’m sure some of their bedfellows really do care about individual rights and freedoms. I’m reasonably sure the homosexual-agenda isn’t even the predominant view, among Prop-8 opponents.

But boy howdee, friends and neighbors, it is out there. It is definitely out there. Something about a man and a woman declaring their love for each other and living together happily, just rubs ’em the wrong way.

The subject under discussion is a Google Maps “mash-up” with Prop 8 donors. Yeah. That’s so you can find the name, occupation and location of anybody in the San Francisco area who donated money for Proposition 8, which passed successfully on November 4, defining marriage in the State of California as a union between a man and a woman.

bluecanary

Ugh, lots of “homemakers” donated. I didn’t know it was possible to respect such people less than I already do, but yes, yes it is.

yatdave

What’s wrong with “homemakers?”

bluecanary

I have no respect for anyone who surrenders their financial independence/employability to another person in the hope they won’t be in the 50% of marriages that end in divorce.

SFX

bitter much?

let the nannies raise the kids!

i’ll get you my pretty … and you’re little dog, too!

soddingpoof

I agree–I think we can safely say that at least 100% of homemakers have no interests other than getting fat and mooching. I definitely think that they certainly wouldn’t be involved with volunteering or creative pursuits, and people who might choose to stay at home with their kids are easily worthy of scorn and hate.

Nothing counters bigotry like a little more bigotry!

periqueblend

wait, what?
I have no respect for anyone who surrenders their financial independence/employability to another person

Not everyone needs to be monetarily directed, nor would I want to live a society in which everyone was.

bluecanary

It has nothing to do with monetarily directed. It has to do with being able to support yourself and your children should your spouse decide to leave you/gets hit by a MUNI bus. It is reckless and foolish to gamble with something as vital as your security. Period.

I didn’t say I hate these people. I said I don’t respect them. But feel free to flame away because I voice an unpopular opinion.

I’m not gonna flame at all. I think it’s wonderful she spoke up and made her feelings known.

One thing though.

How is she so sure that when gay marriage was briefly legal, and by default recognized, in the State of California, at least some of the homosexuals weren’t “surrender[ing] their financial independence/employability to another person in the hope they won’t be in the 50% of marriages that end in divorce”? Does sexual preference have some kind of bearing on such a deplorable phenomenon? I don’t recall anyone stepping forward to say so. I don’t recall any evidence of such a thing.

I wonder if she does.

Bluecanary hates marriage. I have no idea why, but she hates marriage. Has a huge animosity towards commitment which is hers and hers alone. Has damn all to do with anybody else.

In every circle you’re going to have good relationships, and bad relationships. Bluecanary had a bad relationship, and now she wants to see marriage done away with. Others of her tribe have good relationships, so they’d like to see the formal benefits extended to them. Having the same sexual orientation does not mean having the same philosophical orientation; were that the case than straights would all belong to the same political party.

My point is, the only valid role government has in the business of partnerships is in insuring they are honest and entered into freely by responsible individuals. So long as the arrangement does not involve practices or behaviors that are proven harmful to one or more partners, the government can bug out.

That said, no one has the right to tell a particular religion it must sanctify a marriage. Freedom of association and all that. You can persuade a faith to approve of your marriage, that’s cool. But getting government to order your religion to approve of your partnership with one or more other people is rude and inconsiderate at the very least.

In the end it all comes down to, it’s new and we don’t like it. We’ll adapt given time, and in a few generations people won’t understand what all the fuss was about.

Here’s an arrangement you may want to look into; a man and two women. It’s usually a lesbian couple where one partner fell passionately in love with a man. The three are together because the first woman is in love with her original partner and her new partner at the same time. The second woman and the man are there because they both love the first woman, and have agreed to stay with her to make her happy. The great majority of the time the man and the other woman have become good friends, but should the first woman ever drop out of the picture for any reason they will part ways. Occurs more often then you think, and has been going on for longer than you may know.

Marriage is only strong where all involved are committed to it, and not because one particular from of partnership and one particular form of partnership is allowed.
- mythusmage | 01/10/2009 @ 23:57

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

No Respect for HomemakersFriday, January 9th, 2009

No Respect for Homemakers
Friday, January 9th, 2009