Monday, December 29, 2008

Box Turtle

Watch bisexuals make Mona Charen's brain pop like bubble wrap here. There is a hint of an idea, though, a deliciously rummy cherry under all that waxy chocolate. The gay-marriage movement is disingenuous in the way it presents itself as a co-participant in monogamous coupledom. It does ignore bisexuality. It certainly doesn't want to talk about the trannies, move right along, nothing to see here, thanks for visiting. Not long ago, I would have been tempted to give the usual boilerplate about the state getting out of marriage and civilly recognized unions for all sorts of different household units etc. etc. etc. etc. Increasingly, however, I come to the conclusion that it's problematic for the state to confer any additional privileges and rights on anyone just because they form a household. What about the singles, yo?

22 comments:

Mr.Fundamental said...

onanism now! bitchez.

paul from the clue-by-four said...

What about the singles, yo.

Mother fucking A. I want to marry me some me. And file as a couple on my ten-forty.

We are now in the realm of a multitude of sexual deviances.

That has got to be the sweetest sentence ever printed by Creators Syndicate, Inc. I love the blithe way she uses the word "deviances." And, of course, "now."

Mr.Fundamental said...

yeah, that was highlarious. I had to look up the word to double check the meaning. total spit-take on that one.

la Rana said...

I love her treatment of incest at the end. First she asks us to ignore the genetic issue, which is akin to removing efficacy from a debate over medical treatment, then fails to note the familial power-dynamic problems. The lack or irrelevancy of state involvement is inconceivable.

These twits are completely unaware that the BIG MORAL issues they wrestle with were all flushed out decades ago. Experts in the field have quite literally taken on new careers. It's a group of poseurs, uneducated boobs completely incapable of educating themselves (as Goldberg rather hilariously demonstrated), and yet perfectly representing a majority of the population.

Political debate in this country has been reduced to, or perhaps always has been, a battle between dumb, myopic, tribalist, statist-imperialist jingoes and smarter, myopic, nationalist, statist-imperialist jingoes. And some people wonder why I don't blog anymore.

Schizo said...

>Increasingly, however, I come to the conclusion that it's problematic for the state to confer any additional privileges and rights on anyone just because they form a household.

I think the real problematic thing is the, you know, state. what happened to being anarchists here, yo?

Jason0x21 said...

what about the singles, yo?

Yeah, cause I totally need to fill out a form conferring power of attorney over myself.

Wait, what?

I Kahn O'Clast said...

I was too dumbfounded by that article to comment initially. Sad, sad, sad.

Personally I think that those who can consent (meaning adult, sentient, non mentally deficient beings) should be able to do as they please with each other via contract, thus with backing of law. If twin sisters want to marry each other as well as their father I could care less. Obviously no one can marry the dog since it cannot consent. What's so hard to understand?

As to her bi-sexual dilemma? Since so many females appear ambiguous in terms of partner preference (way more often than men do) I am sure the author has merely confused herself and wants the LAW to set her, ahem, straight.... as it were.

Anonymous said...

As a divorce attorney, I welcome any and all state sanctioned "marriages", "unions" or any such other form of civil partnership. If people want to be married so they can get divorced like all the heteros, then more power to them. Let them eat cake.

Vivian Five VI said...

You had your chance.

LA Confidential Pantload said...

The realm of a multitude of sexual deviances? Wasn't that one of the Old Testament nations conquered by the tribes of Israel?

The Promiscuous Reader said...

It seems that a lot of people seem to buy into the notion that the only important relationship between people (at least, between people who aren't related by "blood" to begin with) is marriage. And it just me, or do a lot of anarchists have in the back of their minds that in an anarchist world, everybody would live alone in isolated cells surrounded by land mines and electric fences, so that no one would be able to coerce them? (Sorta like Farnham's Freehold, though Heinlein cheated by letting Farnham have a wife and kids in his bunker.) It's probably just me.

Charen's article is amusing, and I thank Monsieur for the link. Charen forgets that brothers marrying sisters is traditional enough (look at Abraham and Sarah, who according to Genesis were half-siblings, let alone Adam and Eve's kids, and then there were the Egyptian pharaohs); so is an "adult" marrying a "child" (look at the age of consent in 19th century England and America, and in in America well into the last century).

"What about the singles?" I've liked, and linked, some of IOZ's previous reflections on this matter. Everybody ought to have health insurance without having to marry someone for it (but isn't the whole notion of health insurance, whether private or public, contrary to anarchism?). If stuff like that, things that everybody needs, were taken care of somehow, then couples would only need to worry about stuff like who gets to visit whom in the hospital, or gets to make medical decisions when someone else is incapacitated, or who gets to sue for wrongful death. Would there be inheritance in an anarchist society? How about custody of children?

There's a decent book, called Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families Under the Law by a dyke law professor named Nancy Polikoff, that actually takes on questions like these. For example, two British sisters in their 80s who own a house together; when one dies, the inheritance taxes will force the survivor to sell the house because she won't be able to pay the taxes and afford to keep the house. And other cases as well. Polikoff argues that marriage should matter less, and that if we're going to have laws, they should protect all kinds of families, including chosen ones. Me, for instance: I live alone and don't want a partner. So what will happen if I have a stroke? Who'll get to visit me in the hospital, presuming anyone wants to? I have three younger brothers, but I don't see them as being involved, they're too far away. Who can I be caregiver for? Polikoff thinks that the law should be able to take a wide range of family choices into account, and I agree. It's actually a rather radical book.

If all you want to do is smash the state, these aren't important questions. (Who'll cook dinner? Aren't there servants or girlfriends or moms for that?) But while we're working to dismantle the imperium of coercion, there are intermediate steps that can and should be taken. It's important to consider them. I doubt Charen cares, but I'm talking about people of, I don't know, good will or something.

Anonymous said...

I see your point, but remember that the whole custom originated among straight people to allow them to raise children together.

I'm cool if kids aren't your thing, and if monogamy isn't for you. But in the long run, children are necessary. The social mechanisms to support them are therefore necessary.

paul from the clue-by-four said...

And it just me, or do a lot of anarchists have in the back of their minds that in an anarchist world, everybody would live alone in isolated cells surrounded by land mines and electric fences, so that no one would be able to coerce them?

It just you.

RobotSlave said...

It does ignore bisexuality. It certainly doesn't want to talk about the trannies, move right along, nothing to see here

Ooooooh, yes, let's definitely pretend bisexuals can't be monogamous. That certainly won't offend anyone. And let's throw "trannies" (conflating transsexuals with transvestites along the way, because that won't offend anyone, either, because let's face it they're all the same) in there too, those dirty tranny whores, they could never possibly be monogamous.

What a superior piece of shit you can be, when you put your mind to it.

Anonymous said...

Notice nobody cares about the rights of straights who want the legal benefits of unions but absolutely don't want to marry. Their rights are just as neglected but it's not fashionable to worry about them. And the more insistent that gays, for insane reasons, are about marriage rights, the less chance that anyone will get to form rational civil unions.

IOZ said...

Heya Robot, your high dander is charming, but would probably make more sense if people around here thought monogamy were a virtue.

Along the way, you may want to consult some transgender-Americans on how they feel about queer politics being coopted so a gang of petit bourgeois, mostly-white people can get married in California.

Mr.Fundamental said...

I guess I'm a dunce, but that was quite a funny alleged slight, Robot. nice work.

mandt said...

Married to oneself...just think of the tax advantages and a guaranteed orgasmic every time.

Onan said...

After all, the best orgasms are hand-made.

The Promiscuous Reader said...

anonymous, no one really knows how the "custom" of marriage began. I've seen numerous theories, but since the origins are prehistoric, we'll never know for sure.

People don't need marriage to raise children together, though, and one function of marriage is to delegitimate children born to women without a male owner. Nor does marriage ensure that the children will be raised together, or even with the male's support. One of the signal accomplishments of the past generation has been the lessening of the social stigma of "illegitimacy" (as witness Sarah Palin's casualness about her daughter's out-of-wedlock pregnancy) and the removal of legal penalties for children whose parents aren't married.

I agree that children are necessary; where did you get the idea I don't? In fact, I'm more concerned about kids than most marriage-movement conservatives, because I care about all kids, not just those with married parents. As for monogamy, you're right, it's not my thing, but it does not equal either marriage or taking caring for children: polygamists have children, too, y'know.

mac cosmetics outlet said...

I will continue reading your post for it tackles different issues in our society that keeps me interested and go on reading the rest of your articles.Good luck to the author!I’m very glad that a writer like you invests your time in a meaningful and useful way in which you share your knowledge with the people around you especially us bloggers.There’s defiantly a lot of great tips here I’m going to try to be more aware of.

Coach Outlet Online said...

It looks like going to be a cold day.Hope everyone keep good mood.
I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in this topic. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well.