Ten Hours and a bit (and counting)...

[kproche]

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

Comments

[kproche.livejournal.com]

Ah, but, again, consider the audience.

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.

[voidampersand.livejournal.com]

Oh, I thought the audience was you and our friends. But you're right, and I would not push that button when talking with a social conservative.

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?"

[kproche.livejournal.com]

One of the things I've started to notice is if you approach this by "attacking" with logic, folks fall back onto dogma. I like my slogan because it's more suasive than confrontational.


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.