An Even Queerer Argument For Marriage
Marriage gets its sanctity, if it has any, not from God, who gives sanctity to all or withholds it from all, and not even from the children who are potentially the outcome of and the reason for, marriage in the first place; but from the ongoingness of what we are, we as a species, as "human", as "thing".
This gets perverted and reduced to the sanctity of presently existing children being the determinant, but that's a lie.
It's the extension, the unheld, the open-ended reach of what we are becoming eventually something we're not, or not yet, though we could accurately be said to have that with us, here, to be carrying it.
It's in an effort to determine, to mold, the nature and form of that potential thing that these asinine laws and rules were invented, not so much by the men at the time of their writing but by the full measure of all the men who will benefit, whose "genes" will benefit from those laws. It is, as always, a biological struggle masquerading as holy war.
But the holiness dies first, the innocent are the first casualties. And the idea that there's anything sacred about the gloating imbeciles who sneer at real human suffering and point to a cardboard image of a God they themselves manufactured to serve their own interests, is obscene, all by itself, without any sex being involved.
You can consistently reverse the claims of the duped by 180 degrees and see what they're really about. Anti-life, hate-filled, arrogant human-centered bigotry, flaunting itself as pro-life, loving, God-obeying humility. Nonsense.
Of course marriage is about children, first, and financial matters, second.
But it's a delusional fantasy to regard "children" being children as some constant state; they grow up, they have children of their own, some of them, and that is what makes marriage sacred, when it is, that continuation.
Not the actual child by child but the becoming, the possible, the beyond-the-self and still-living and unnameable reality of what we are becoming something more.
Too much of this time's attitude toward the sacrifices of the past is that we, now, are the reason for all that sacrifice. That's probably the single most disgusting attitude I've ever encountered.
The argument isn't about sacred or profane or homosexual or heterosexual, it's about a little cluster of rules invented by some desperate men that were clever enough in design that they worked, for those men and their descendents, and continue to work, for those men and their descendents, at the expense of anything and anyone that gets in their way.
msg
