![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ten Hours and a bit (and counting)...
A minor request --
Those of you who are making a special trip to witness the legal pronunciation this evening, it's going to be short* and sweet, probably right at the beginning of things, perhaps in place of a particular motion to which the Treasurer always Objects.
It is *not* supposed to overwhelm or completely displace the other regularly scheduled insanity that is the weekly meeting. We did the big hoopla back in 2005. So just keep that in mind for the sake of the other attendees and the restaurant, 'k?
And an answer for folks who object that marriage is only for a man and a woman because it's point is to foster procreation:
Um, no. SEX is for procreation.
Marriage is for promoting family ties and stability, both between the immediate parties to the marriage and their extended families. Always has been, according to my understanding of the history of marriage compacts. I understand how some folks might get that confused these days, since many churches teach that sex is shameful except in the context of marriage. But that's their problem.
Remember:
Sex is for procreation.
Marriage is for family.
*Short Short. As in similar to the ceremony from 1:59 to 2:10 in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxsEE5tTkcQ
Those of you who are making a special trip to witness the legal pronunciation this evening, it's going to be short* and sweet, probably right at the beginning of things, perhaps in place of a particular motion to which the Treasurer always Objects.
It is *not* supposed to overwhelm or completely displace the other regularly scheduled insanity that is the weekly meeting. We did the big hoopla back in 2005. So just keep that in mind for the sake of the other attendees and the restaurant, 'k?
And an answer for folks who object that marriage is only for a man and a woman because it's point is to foster procreation:
Um, no. SEX is for procreation.
Marriage is for promoting family ties and stability, both between the immediate parties to the marriage and their extended families. Always has been, according to my understanding of the history of marriage compacts. I understand how some folks might get that confused these days, since many churches teach that sex is shameful except in the context of marriage. But that's their problem.
Remember:
Sex is for procreation.
Marriage is for family.
*Short Short. As in similar to the ceremony from 1:59 to 2:10 in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxsEE5tTkcQ
no subject
Don't forget the other reasons - money, alliances, money, politics, money, inheritances, money. Did I mention money? ;-)
(/history geek)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Families are for love and support.
Everyone deserves the family of their choice and the right to make that family a legal financial unit with legal rights that are passed on to the offspring of that family simply by being born into it.
One thing I hadn't given a thought to until now- probably because although I deeply respect other people's choice to have children, I think kids are gross: Now that everyone finally has the right to marry, does that mean if one spouse is the bio-parent of a baby, the other no longer has to deal with the hassle of adopting it? Since historically, married straight couples have been having kids where the husband wasn't actually the father of the baby for all of time? As far as I know, as long as there's no DNA test, a straight man gets to say he's the father of a baby his wife has without any kind of proof....
Anyway congratulations on the legal pronunciation!
no subject
And sex was created to specifically sell magazines and later paperbacks.
Chris
no subject
no subject
Congratulations again!
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The bride was quivering.
At the reception, she reported she was ok when the minister spoke (she thought it too), but nearly lost it when she heard us smothering our giggles.
We had to explain the whole thing to the groom and made him promise to see the movie after the honeymoon.
no subject
Anyway, enjoy the short and sweet legal thingamigig. Ours wasn't actually that much longer, we chose the shortest wording possible - just that Scotland seems to have a few extra bits and pieces in so in all it was 5 minutes?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
It -better- not be for procreation, otherwise, Trey & I are doing it wrong. ^_^ [And IMO sex is for fun, for sharing and for closeness - among other team-building sports in that vein.]
There are 'magic word' religious ceremonies - some of which contain oaths promising - among other things - procreation. For some reason, this is ALSO called marriage.
I really wish there were 2 terms for this, because Trey & I did the one [legal one], avoided the other [religious] and have seemed to take no harm from this. But then, we have never had any plans to be breeders.
With that in mind, I send hopes and wishes that you 2 will be at -least- as content & happy as Trey and I - for all the decades to come. If you manage to be even -happier- then that's perfectly fine with me. ^_^
no subject
However -- if answering an outraged person who pushes the procreation argument, I think the very simple Sex/Family construction is succinct enough and points to the heart of the objection in a way that is direct, to the point, uses their own terms and thus might actually bring them up short against their assumptions.
no subject
With me, my contrary nature asserts itself and I then ask them [when breeding is brought up] about barren couples, old folks marrying, those childless by choice - and ask them then why are -we- allowed to marry. [And then I bring up divorce - and why that is allowed.] And I'm sure that -someday- there will be an answer to these questions that is something other than a startled, deer-in-headlights expression.
[soapbox time] Just FYI IMO the only marriage plans I've ever seen that make sense for raising healthy kids are line marriages [ala Heinlein], or close-knits clans with multiple generations caring for the kids so that in the case of one parent's death, there isn't the huge gaping hole left that there is in our culture. [off soapbox now]
That's right, dammit!
Not too long ago, our neighbor came around with a petition asking for signatures on a petition for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (honestogawd, what a bunch of semi-epsilon morons). The right-wingers couldn't have found a worse poster child for their cause than this woman. With husband #4 regularly reducing her to tears, and her four now-adult children by the three previous husbands in various stages/forms of therapy, she's apparently now hell bent on expanding her pool of possible ex-husband #5's. She bravely (stupidly?) marched up our driveway with the petition in one hand, and a plastic glass of iced cheap white wine in the other, asking us to sign. We sent her packing back home with a few choice words (for refills, maybe?), and on closing our door firmly behind her, immediately went to the computer and sent a donation to the Marriage Equality people. Geez ... Glad to see Barb and her ilk are being out-maneuvered today by those who understand that freedom don't just apply to straight, white, Protestant men.
So yay - heartiest congrats and best wishes again to you and Andy. We'll look f'ward to pictures, champagne, etc. and the joy of hearing throughout the future about your blissful days together!
Love -
D
no subject
Well, since R. and I were there for the ACTUAL WEDDING 3 years ago and this is just the "delayed-by-the-state-of-California :p" paperwork part, I'd EXPECT it to be "short and sweet." :)
.....And you asked us to have the 23rd available, so we'll be there. :)
no subject
Literally, as created by Nature at lower levels of the developmental chain, that's true. But we are now a lot more than even little scurrying "dumb animals" who wear no clothes, eat berries off random bushes, and hump at will.
Sex, for civilized sentient creatures who have complex lives and emotional needs and can sustain others (and the species as a whole) without being directly "parent of", is also for RECreation. :p (With the obvious side benefit of possible procreation, preferably governed by the concept of CHOICE.)
But you know the bigots object to gay sex, using the claim that "it doesn't procreate". Well, neither does elderly-people sex, or het-couples-who-don't-want-children sex. Even the most restrictive social structures haven't managed to stop people from enjoying recreational sex. I'd say that Nature intended that TOO (because happy satisfied people are beneficial for the continuation of the species as a whole), and the bigots can stuff it.
no subject
Congratulations! :D
no subject
Marriage is for family.
And unprotected heterosexual sex (or a turkey baster) is for procreation.
Anyway, I know you guys make a wonderful family, and I'm very happy that you can finally get the legal status you've deserved. Cheers!
no subject
If you want to bring someone up short in a way to make them question their assumptions, you need to speak to them from within their own "assumption space" so they don't stop listening halfway through.
"Sex is for fun" is likely to push the "I don't have to listen to a shameless liberal hedonist" button.
no subject
I still think the "sex is for procreation" concept is problematic. It is okay for infertile couples to have sex. It is okay for older couples to have sex after menopause. Another perspective, which I think fits within conservative thinking, is that sex (within a marriage) is a sacrament that bonds the couple together and helps them in forming a devoted and loving family.
I would attack the "marriage is for procreation" line more directly by asking "Well then, should infertile couples be forced to get divorced?"
no subject
It's sort of like the difference between expository and rhetorical forms in essay writing: In expository form, you state the thesis, present the evidence, and restate the thesis in the conclusion. If your audience is hostile to the thesis, they offer more resistance to the evidence.
In rhetorical form, you *ask the question* and then present the evidence is such an manner as to guide the reader to your thesis, which is only stated in the conclusion. It's remarkable how much more effective it can be when dealing with a hostile audience. If you can keep them agreeing with the bits along the way, they'll follow you right to the end.
no subject
Sex is for procreation...
Marriage is for family...
External hard drives are for backups and pr0n.