> gay marriage came as the consequence. If marriage has a social purpose, to channel and direct human sexuality in a way that promotes social cohesion and provides for a man's progeny, then gay marriage is nonsense.
This is patently false. Which is more conducive towards social cohesion? having 1/25 of the population be entirely sexually repressed and unable to form a family, or having that 1/25 form the family units that the author is so obsessed with like everyone else.
I don't agree with the author on that point,.. but you're making a leap yourself: not having gay marriage doesn't equal sexual repression. And I know plenty of straight people with families who never got "married".
I, for one, would have been happier with getting marriage out of government purview entirely, rather than adding yet another type of marriage to the books.
Well I think it's safe to assume that the author believes marriage to exist for the purpose of creating a family (or progeny as he puts it), so he's not solely opposed to gay marriage the legal institution, but gay marriage for the purpose of creating a family.
Yes. Separation between church and state (and wealth and mass media and journalism and politics)
Civil marriage and some wills should be replaced with a property and next of kin registered document. This way, any number and type of people can formally-declare what they want to do with property and health, financial, and total power of attorney. Insurance companies and other service products can then determine who is eligible to share benefits based on if someone is listed as a partner or beneficiary, or not. No more titles, relations, or mandates about who is what or how into two boxes: just beneficiaries and partners.
A couple have a kid? No problem.
Two women want to get hitched? Easy.
Three dudes want to live polyamorously and be "married?" Cool. (Obviously, can't let 30 people in a commune share the benefits of one worker.)
A dude and a trans girl? Fine.
The same document solves some problems of inheritance too when it can obviate the need for executors in simple estates.
Telling people who they can love, share their lives with, and depend on goes against individual freedoms.
If marriage has a social purpose, to channel and direct human sexuality in a way that promotes social cohesion and provides for a man's progeny, then gay marriage is nonsense.
<sarcasm>Which is why we forbid post-menopausal women, men with vasectomies, and other non-breeders from marrying.</sarcasm>
The statement is so transparently idiotic that it makes it impossible to trust the author on anything. It's not just wrong. It's so flagrantly and obviously self-serving that clearly the difference between truth and falsehood simply doesn't enter into it.
You can argue with people who are wrong, but you can't argue with people who simply don't care about reality.
Speak for yourself “Captain Barf”, plenty of us millennials have been adults in every sense of the word for almost 20 years. Nothing’s keeping you from growing up if that’s what you want. In fact, if you’re from a poor family in America you don’t have a choice—it’s sink or swim.
>Even suggesting that divorce should be harder, marriage should be younger, and women were built to be mothers, not office drones, causes the average Millennial to dissolve into hysterical outrage. We're the generation that thinks having a country is racist and the most important thing about space exploration is making sure hijab-clad Muslimas are a part of it
Which part do you object to in particular? That somehow being an office drone isn't a great purpose for life, or that he mentioned cultural awareness via the trigger word hijab?
Even though I disagree with some points in the article, there are some harsh cold truths behind this rant that the author dares to point out.
For example, I can't deny that media has unconsciously shaped our culture and altered our sense of values: boomers through TV and our generation through social media.
Call this brainwashing if you want, but the effects of marketing "personal happiness at the expense of everything else" is undeniable.
11 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 38.6 ms ] threadThis is patently false. Which is more conducive towards social cohesion? having 1/25 of the population be entirely sexually repressed and unable to form a family, or having that 1/25 form the family units that the author is so obsessed with like everyone else.
I, for one, would have been happier with getting marriage out of government purview entirely, rather than adding yet another type of marriage to the books.
> But if it's just to "be happy with the person you love?" Then why not?
Civil marriage and some wills should be replaced with a property and next of kin registered document. This way, any number and type of people can formally-declare what they want to do with property and health, financial, and total power of attorney. Insurance companies and other service products can then determine who is eligible to share benefits based on if someone is listed as a partner or beneficiary, or not. No more titles, relations, or mandates about who is what or how into two boxes: just beneficiaries and partners.
A couple have a kid? No problem.
Two women want to get hitched? Easy.
Three dudes want to live polyamorously and be "married?" Cool. (Obviously, can't let 30 people in a commune share the benefits of one worker.)
A dude and a trans girl? Fine.
The same document solves some problems of inheritance too when it can obviate the need for executors in simple estates.
Telling people who they can love, share their lives with, and depend on goes against individual freedoms.
<sarcasm>Which is why we forbid post-menopausal women, men with vasectomies, and other non-breeders from marrying.</sarcasm>
The statement is so transparently idiotic that it makes it impossible to trust the author on anything. It's not just wrong. It's so flagrantly and obviously self-serving that clearly the difference between truth and falsehood simply doesn't enter into it.
You can argue with people who are wrong, but you can't argue with people who simply don't care about reality.
Screw you
For example, I can't deny that media has unconsciously shaped our culture and altered our sense of values: boomers through TV and our generation through social media.
Call this brainwashing if you want, but the effects of marketing "personal happiness at the expense of everything else" is undeniable.