How Random Babbling Becomes Corporate Policy (t3knomanser) wrote,
How Random Babbling Becomes Corporate Policy


Bush made one of his most Conservative statements recently. "If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage." ie. keep it from changing.

Not to be mean about it, but Conservatisim is motivated from fear of the unknown. And I'm talking _true_ conservatism here, not neo-con or theocratic conservatism. True conservatives look at the environment we've established and say, "Heck, this works pretty well" or "This worked well in the past", and rejects the idea of social experimentation. This works/ed. Let's not change it, lest we fuck it up.

That can be a wise stance- when it works.

The thing is, has the traditional marriage stance _been working?_ I'm gonna go ahead and say no. Amusingly enough, I don't count divorce as one of those signs that marriage doesn't work. In fact, divorce happens when things work right- during a time when things are going wrong. Better the application that bails gracefully when an exception occurs than the one that keeps chugging along spewing bad output.

But I'll throw in things like the cases of abuse and neglect, of all varieties in the US. I'll throw in the marriages that don't end in divorce- but should have. The cheating spouses (as opposed to open-marriages, which are a-ok if you're into that).

This is what the current definition of marriage has created. It's spawning fucked up kids, and making scores of people miserable, or perhaps merely nonplussed. So why _not_ rethink the definition of marriage? Why not rewrite how our society organizes this most basic component- because this most basic component is broken.

No, I'm not in favor of gay marriage, mostly because I think it's only going to serve to entrench, not redefine, the marriage component. I think that instead of trying to find mainstream recognition for what are still countercultures, we should start redesigning the mainstream with countercultural ideas.

Still though, anyone with a brain in one's head should oppose the "Defense of Marriage Amendment". And if you think the government has the right to recognize romantic relationships (you're wrong), then it has the responsibility to recognize _any_ romantic relationship, between any people.

And to all those of you making the slippery slope argument (This will lead to beastiality and polygamy and child abuse!); take a moment, listen to yourselves, then read a book on argumentative logic, and realize why you're a retard. Then do us all a favor, and drown in the shower after dropping a bottle of valium down your gullet and choking on your own vomit.

  • Strange Things People Say About Me (to my face)

    Recently, I've been at the center of a trend. That trend is complete strangers asking me "Are you ____?" A quick summary. For example: Are you…

  • Writer's Block: If I could find my way

    -10,000 years, at minimum. Tomorrow is always better than today, especially when you can't fact-check.

  • Bob Morlang

    When I was working at Tri-Mount, we had these camp trucks. They were army surplus, and while they could take a beating, they only sort of worked. And…

  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 1 comment