28 March 2013

Marriage Inequality

Rights
Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege (like a drivers license) granted to certain people who meet certain conditions to regulate procreation because 1. the tribe does not want siblings to marry and have retarded babies and 2. the tribe does not want its members to have children with members of other tribes to prevent the other tribe from gaining control of the tribe's property and power. That's what marriage is. That's what it always has been. It has nothing to do with love (although love couldn't hurt), it has to do with the responsibility of the individual to provide for the continued existence of the tribe through procreation. Marriage is about the needs of the few giving way to the needs of the many. That's why married people get financial benefits, because it is implied in the marriage contract between the tribe and the two individuals that they are married to have children and children are expensive. The very idea that "I'm going to marry someone I love/lust as an expression of that love/lust" is a very odd idea, and one that has only just begun to gain prominence. For most of history people didn't even get to choose who they got married to!

This whole charade is an outgrowth of Boomeritis: the pernicious combination of narcissism and relativisim (both cultural and moral) that has infected postmodern society. "I am special, I am special, look at me, look at me!" "My happiness is more important to me than doing what is right, and I am the most important person in my life, so fuck you."

Let me put this in terms any idiot can understand (but an ideologue might choose not to understand): if you want to say a cat is a dog, nothing you can do will ever change the fact that a cat is not a dog. If you yell really loud and go to court and have the court change the definition of dog to include cats, that still won't change the fact that cats are not dogs. All that will prove is that people are stupid enough to use words incorrectly to make themselves and others happy.

Or: if you want to say pi is 3.2, nothing you can do will ever change the fact that pi is not 3.2. Even if you go to court and have the court change the definition of pi to be 3.2, that still won't change the fact that pi is not 3.2. All that will prove is that judges are not the proper authorities on mathematical facts.

Thankfully, pi was not legally redefined as 3.2. If we can only be so fortunate as to have intelligent justices on the Supreme Court put an end to this asininity once and for all.