Wednesday, March 27, 2013

On The "Gay Marriage Denial Hurts Children" Debate - Replace "Gay" With "Single Heterosexual" And Then Note The Incompetency Of This Body Of Thought To Apply Proportional Discipline

I want to be perfectly clear.

The ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States will be ultimately irrelevant to the long term ability of this society to GOVERN its people, putting forth a "functional culture" that produces results based upon social constructs that are known to increase the odds of such a product upon matriculation through.

Today's debate is about "CIVIL RIGHTS".
I have proven that the notion of "Civil Rights" is an element of "Popularism" and is used as a "Political Weapon For Indictment" (ie: "You are a bigot").

40,000 Children With Gay Parents Who Can't Legally Marry 
24 Million Children In Single Parent Homes

Questions from the justices do not always reliably forecast votes, of course, and many of the justices also indicated their views of the central issue presented in the case.When Justice Kennedy turned to the merits of the case, he voiced sympathy for the children of gay couples. “There are some 40,000 children in California,” he said, who “live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case.”But Justice Kennedy said he was uncertain about the consequences for society of allowing same-sex marriage.“We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more,” he said, referring to the long history of traditional marriage and the brief experience of allowing gay men and lesbians to marry in some states.

Worse than the fact that this society is now abstracted from economic truth (thanks to the $17 Trillion in funny money debt by the federal government) is the growing disconnection between the CULTURE that is resident within our society and its FUNCTION in producing results that allow us to live at a high standard of living, in a nation that does not have many of the problems (ie: domestic terrorists of mass destruction) as other nations have to deal with.

I keep hearing people reference "The Wrong Side Of History" in their arguments.  This is a fraudulent stand. The ONLY point that they are making is that "You too should join in on their popular opinion before you get ran over".


The conservative who is opposed to "Gay Marriage" are rather incompetent at stating their case.
Indeed they are for "The Retention Of The Sanctity Of Traditional Marriage'.   However, lets be honest - this was lost a long time ago.    Their present focus on blocking 'Gay Marriage' is but battle for show.

On the front end - MY ARGUMENT - about how the institution of "Heterosexual Marriage" producing certain proven economic development and community stabilization results seems in line with the "conservative (political) message.

Don't be mistaken by the happenstance of agreement.

I choose to shift from 'RIGHTS' to "MANDATES'.    While we are debating the "Individual Right" to marry - it is the SOCIETY that has the MANDATE to regulate itself into the desired outcomes, lest it collapse.   Our "RIGHTS" (that are respected) are subordinate to the perpetual existence of the "container" within which these rights exist.      You might have a "right" to clean drinking water as a human being - however, if you find yourself stranded in the Sahara Desert - without anyone to oblige you of your rights - YOU ARE DEAD - a hungry omnivore will no doubt feast upon the meat and liquids that you carcass will contribute to its own perpetuation.    Any gold, diamonds or designer clothing will be tossed away as your flesh is the only "business end" of the transaction.

The New York Times report about how "males from single parent families continue to earn lower wages throughout their career" is not a "ticking time bomb" story that is necessary to raise the awareness of the "unwilling".    I am quite sure that those who believe that "selfish man" is ignoring "Global Warming" to his own peril - have some measure of overlay among the group of individuals who see the "Right To Marry Who They Choose To" above the observation that THE MARRIAGE OPERATION itself has been in a steady decline.

The point is that many of the institutional benefits of marriage are either:

  • AFFIRMED as yet another reason why gays should be allowed to marry, as the person holding this position steps over the question of the decline in heterosexual marriage
  • TRANSITIONED - as the Government Social Justice Programs aspire to provide the individual and families the same entitlements that the "married family unit" used to be the source of.

We then see - that this present state of ABSTRACTION of the wholesale married relationship between men and women is a function of "societal and economic" changes as these relationships appear to be abstracted from our basic foraging exercises.

Fiat Economy / Fiat Relationships

It stands to reason then that if we can life "carefree and lovely" with these abstractions in place - if and when the house of cards falls down - then MAN, by necessity will have to reconverge into some more FUNCTIONAL social order - as a critical means of producing the results in the society that perpetuate his human form AND a working social order that accompanies it.


We will come to the point where so much that we got used to, which has distracted us,   is taken away from us as we go back to the basic of survival. 

No comments: