Let's Play- Spot the Wanker!

[highlyeccentric]

Today's Utter Crap Alert:

The continuing debate over the access of same-sex couples to social benefits and so-called entitlements is a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is not about infringement of rights. Rather, it is about what heterosexual marriage can offer society that other forms of relationships cannot. hmm... something new and different!

 

Married heterosexual unions are not simply a legal invention with an associated bunch of benefits. correct! bonus points to you! marriages are about love and commitment and all of that. no? They have an intrinsic value which enables them to provide a number of reciprocal benefits to any society. if you say so It is the reason flourishing societies have always acknowledged the importance of marriage and family and accorded it a level of preferential support. It is a vital part of the social estate.

The social benefits of committed, exclusive heterosexual unions include the generation of children and the raising of future citizens; so i can't be a good citizen if my dad cheated on my mum, because that's not a "committed, exclusive heterosexual union"? i think you're confusing the fact that generations of children have been raised in societies which pay at least lip service to committed, exclusive heterosexual unions, and a causal relationship between marriage and future citixens. a supportive and safe environment for the nurturing of these children; hmmm... because no heterosexual family is ever abusive two parents who are biologically connected to their child and who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of that child; right, let's outlaw heterosexual adoption while we're at it! two complementary parents who can provide appropriate gender role-modelling; yay, so i can raise my son be a homophobic bigot just like daddy! and an intergenerational connectedness within families and societies where parents are encouraged to save and provide for their children and grandchildren. roight... so gay people won't provide for their children? the arbiter of a child's happiness is its material wealth? i don't think you know what you're on about, how is it supposed to make sense to me? Such unions also provide a mechanism for effectively connecting children to their fathers, a longing of every child, so having two daddies is better, right? and also for ensuring a fairer distribution of the parenting burden. hang on, i thought we cared about traditional gender roles? in which the parenting burden fell on mum and the save & provide burden fell on dad?

...

Some argue that "equivalence" between types of sexually intimate relationships no longer needs to be concerned with the predisposition to procreate and to care for one's children. exactly. if i were barren, does this invalidate my committed heterosexual union?This raises the question of why such relationships need to be concerned with sexual intimacy at all? No doubt social activists will soon be seeking government benefits for de facto "parent-child" couples or "best friends" who have no interest in being sexually intimate, or for de facto sibling couples. an interesting take on the no-doubt-you'll-want-to-marry-your-cat-next argument. And something worth discussing, but not here, you nit!
If you want to draw the line at child-rearing, then how about this logic: if marriage is about raising children, but given that many gay people raise children outside of legal marriage as it is, doesn't it follow that the state ought to provide them with the support to do this as best they can? and that this should include such benefits as family tax rebates, the right to be recognised as kin to their partner's child (as any heterosexual stepparent has), and, yes, the right to form a legal family.

...

The continued provision of preferential support for heterosexual spouses and their children is vital. Otherwise we risk encouraging a view of marriage and family as something which individuals, couples or even groups can alter according to their own subjective desires. This would result in further clamour for financial benefits from couples or groups on the basis of some notional entitlement. roight. so the immutable view of a family which you espouse is a financial one, apparently. Something I find abhorrent, but anyway. By your own logic, if a family is a financial unit for the raising of a child, which is all i'm getting from you so far, then oughtn't the state financially support any unit which happens to be raising a child?

 

We need to continue to preferentially support a civic institution that encourages authentic and enduring unions, unions that reflect the complementary nature of men and women, unions that have an openness to life and children, unions that are intrinsically ordered to the care and education of those children and unions which have an intergenerational connectivity that draws them beyond their own immediate needs and wants. WTF is this intergenerational connectivity thing you're on about? if it means having involved grandparents, what's going to stop the child of a gay union having that? In short, we need to support, by law and social policy, heterosexual monogamous marriage.

-Chris Meney is director of the Marriage and Family Office for the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney. Ah, right at the end of the article- an explanation. I guess all my comments are unnecessary.

and here's a copy of the letter i just wrote to the eds:

"Married heterosexual unions are not simply a legal invention with an associated bunch of benefits," writes Chris Meney of the Catholic Archdiocese (SMH, Aug. 16). I agree with him on one count- marriage is not simply a legal invention. I read on, and I find that marriage is a financial union first and foremost. He proclaims that marriage provides "an intergenerational connectedness … to save and provide for their children and grandchildren." If we opened up the law to gay marriage, he argues, all kinds of people in financial relationships would want to be "married". Marriage and family, he tells us, are institutions which can't just be changed at whim. Financial institutions, of course. Legalise gay marriage, and "this would result in further clamour for financial benefits from couples or groups on the basis of some notional entitlement."
Much of Meney's logic is ridiculous, but I am appalled by his construction of family as all about money. What happened to love, emotional and spiritual commitment? Is "intergenerational connectedness" the capacity to work longer and longer hours to buy more gameboys? Can't gay people spend money too? Marriage is about more than money- life is about more than money.
The Catholic Archdiocese's concept of family is in fact contrary to the gospel they preach. "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth" (Mat. 6:19), my Bible reminds me. I would encourage Meney to spend more time with his Bible, and less time worrying about the financial status of other people's family units.

Comments

[niamh-sage.livejournal.com]

My goodness, what a ridiculous pile of foetid dingo's kidneys that argument is! Very good points made by you in response, IMO. This stuff makes me wild with fury sometimes. Ok, all the time. Grrrr!!

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

feotid dingo's kidneys is putting it lightly. *rolls eyes*

i'm enjoying this "catholic bashing" thing. i think i shall make a habit of doing it once a week.

[rxgra.livejournal.com]

YOU FOOL, AMY! LET US PROPAGATE THE RACE TOGETHER, FOR WE ARE PLAINLY DYING OUT!

PS. Stop studying, I expect us to be a quiverful family!

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

quiverful?

[rxgra.livejournal.com]

It's the idea of havin' babies until you can't have no more - the arrows are exhausted, hence the quiverful. It'd be great, because neither of us wants to have sex with the other, so there would be absolutely nothing sinful about our marriage - marriage designed, as it is, solely for the raising of children.

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

oh, yes. appropriately medieval reproductive-only sex.

interestingly, although the whole Sex Only For Reproduction And Try Not To Enjoy It theory persisted right into the early modern period, at the same time, reproductive theory told you that women were sort of inverse men, and that resultingly, it was necessary for both parties to orgasm in order to reproduce. Bad thing- rape charges non-existent, since the only way to prove it is if you got pregnant, and the only way to get pregnant is by enjoying it. Good thing, or so they tell you- husband required to devote attention to you at least once a year. Amusing thing- very devout couple trying their hardest Not To Enjoy It while still fulfilling all the requirements for conception. me sniggers.

[phrasemuffin.livejournal.com]

Amy, I could kiss you right now.

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth" (Mat. 6:19), my Bible reminds me. I would encourage Meney to spend more time with his Bible, and less time worrying about the financial status of other people's family units.

absolutely priceless.

your argument is intelligent, and your letter well executed. it has passion, and style, and spunk. if they don't respond, and if Meney does not completely rethink his stance upon reading that (and we're hoping, of course, that he does), they are complete and utter tools.

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

*bows* glad to provide glee

*shakes head* i dunno, first Alex wants to procreate with me, then you volunteer to kiss me... a small round of Catholic Bashing makes me suddenly irrisistable to gay men?

[phrasemuffin.livejournal.com]

haha. well, I guess that explains the ease with which he professes his having of no desire to sleep with you :P

Hmm.. I'm in a very.. extra-and-unnecessary-(and-quite-possibly-made-up)-word-adding mood at the moment. Lynn shall love the working he shall do with me today... at work... for all my extra wordies... :D

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

*hugs*

i find myself the harbour of feelings of amused affection toward thee, random david.

[phrasemuffin.livejournal.com]

*hugs*
love you too, Amy :)

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

:) thank you. as it happens, that just made my night :)

[phrasemuffin.livejournal.com]

glad to be of service, miss amy.

incidentally, atm, i am somewhat enibriated. thought I should share that with you, seeing as you had the good sense to message me when you were drunk. :P

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

good work, Random David