I don't worry about our neighbor's posts, anymore. There is nothing I could say to refute, excoriate, or otherwise appropriately address such ramblings that they don't already make clear on their own.
; whether this performance is deliberate or accidental, genuine or merely hack comedy, there really isn't much we could throw at it that hasn't stuck already.
Then again ... the plinking
•
Why do homosexuals needs so much audience of approval to prop them up?: It's an interesting standard. Why does anyone need such propping up? Oh, and what is this scale by which one's civil rights constitute some sort of extraordinary propping up?
•
In other words, why does the ego come into this, to such a huge degree, if homosexual is natural?: Because human rights are all about ego? Now
that is what we might call an extraordinary proposition. After all, why does the ego come into this, to such a huge degree, if heterosexual is natural? It really
would be easier to get rid of all this marriage stuff. Then again, the public costs of the lawsuits settling whose stuff is whose we'll just blame on heterosexuals. After all, marriage was apparently
their game. And, you know, if they can't have it all to themselves,
nobody can. Why does the ego come into this, to such a huge degree, that the fact of two people of the same sex marrying one another somehow denigrates the fact of heterosexuals getting married?
•
The entire gay marriage need, is a huge social hug to help compensate for something.: Actually it's a tax status and legal standing; that's what heterosexuals made of it. At that point, it's just a legal argument. You know, civil rights?
•
Back in the 1960's, many young people were shying away from formal marriage.: This is because "traditional" marriage sucked. I always point to the
Simpsons joke where Marge has no (
ahem!) "woman's work" to do at the
Cypress Creek house, so she starts drinking. It's a simple gag, but particularly perspicacious. We're finding out about the Long Decade just after World War II; diaries and letters from that period describe women disenchanted with married life—modern conveniences such as automatic dishwashers and laundry dryers, electric ranges, and vacuum cleaners actually gave many women time to reflect on the sort of existential stuff men have long taken for granted.
•
The feeling was they believed you don't need a piece of paper or social ritual to prove one was in love.: The idea of romantic marriage was relatively recent; mothers and grandmothers of the Flower Children were certainly capable of recalling the days when marriage, for a woman, was a cynical obligation. The longest, most consistent purpose of marriage is human networking, the collection of in-laws. For many of the Flower Generation, the piece of paper was something entirely different from romantic love. Here we are in the twenty-first century, and the most part of "traditional" American society agrees.
•
Often the piece of paper is there to make it hard to back out so the fit will be forced to stick in ways beyond the openness of dating.: It has also been, essentially, a bill of sale documenting the transfer of ownership of an asset from one person to another:
There was a remarkable continuity in the legal subjugation of women from the Middle Ages until the end of the nineteenth century. In the thirteenth century the English jurist Henry de Bracton declared that a married couple is one person, and that person is the husband. When Lord William Blackstone codified English common law in 1765, he reaffirmed this principle. Upon marriage, he explained, "the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended." Blackstone noted that "a man cannot grant anything to his wife, or enter into any covenant with her, for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence." This doctrine of coverture, in which the legal identity of a wife was subsumed ("covered") by that of her husband, was passed on to the colonies and became the basis of American law for the next 150 years.
(Coontz, 186)
Quite simply, had heterosexuals not made marriage into something so horrible, perhaps the young people wouldn't have seen such a difference between love and a piece of paper.
•
If we left small boys and girls to their own devices, the vast majority will assume natural sexually divided roles. If we give the boys dolls and did not intercede further, the boys would have the dolls fighting and flying through the air or down the stairs. To make this boy appear like a girl, who will dress and care for the doll, mother will have to further teach him to be a girl.: This
so misses reality it would be funny if it wasn't tragic. Then again, history is kind of macabre on this point; to the one it is no wonder that Wollstonecroft so whooped Rousseau, but to the other it is something of a wonder that Rousseau should have been taken remotely seriously on anything he had to say about women—his idea of a proper wife was an illiterate housemaid so poorly educated she could not properly recite the months of the year. I
know it stings, but the centuries haven't changed reality. Rousseau lost, and nothing will change that fact.
•
Historically boys needed to become men who will have to lead a family and therefore would need to develop self reliance so he can be more than only himself. The stage of approval means the opposite and appears to reflect conditioning.: And?
•
Women's liberation resulted in the dual standards of culture. A women's prerogative allows a women to change the rules like her mind.: So cut up her credit cards and remind her of her proper place subsumed under a man's prerogative.
•
If she wanted to rise above while not changing anything about herself, she only has to change the rules for the boys so they drop down.: I don't know what to say, then, about all the heterosexual men who are such pussies as to let those dastardly sirens get away with such a nefarious plot. Oh, hey, how about:
Phallocentrism resulted in dual standards of culture; a man's prerogative allows him to think with his dick, speak nothing of changing his mind. So you know what, guys? Quit whining! If you weren't so desperate to get laid, if you didn't need a woman in order to prove your manliness, maybe you would have paid a bit more attention to what was going on around you, and thus put up a stronger, smarter defense of the Sacred Privileges of the Penis. But you didn't put up a stronger, smarter defense of your supremacy over women, because you wanted to get laid and didn't want to go to jail for it, so deal with your own masculine frailty.
•
More influence of the female and less by the male will have an impact on the children. This is all predictable.: So, let us see, here ... changing conditions will have changing effects on people. If I told you that the different effects between sunny and rainy days mean that the rain might get you wet, would you be surprised? Would you want to put the right of the sky to rain on the ballot, so that the people could vote about what they think is right and natural?
Yeah. It can be fun. But it's not worth getting too invested in. Whichever of Poe's resolutions our neighbor represents, it's a puerile performance that hasn't much to offer aside from a pathetic, possibly accidental parody of the manly man.