The paper calls him a "conservative thinker". What an oxymoron. (Or just a moron.)

[rhia_starsong]

You know what absolutely ludicrous phrase has got to die?  "Defence of traditional marriage."  Who the fuck thinks marriage needs to be defended?  It's a legal codification brought on by increasing wealth and property ownership and the need to pass that along when one dies to one's eldest son, in accordance with primogeniture laws (all of which are long gone, btw).  Biblical "marriage" is not modern legal marriage, and even early Catholics didn't have the same rules--it was incredibly common for pre-marital sex to see if the union was productive.  If not, no marriage.  But now, we have over 7 billion people.  There's no point in "defending" the majority sexuality.  It doesn't need defending.  And none of this says that a man and a woman can't still get married.  None of it says they have to have kids, either, which was the whole point of "marriage" originally.  And the part of the Bible people get all this shit from?  That's right, it's Leviticus.  That's in the Hebrew (Old) Testament, if you'll recall.  The part that says that only Israelites are worthy of God's love and attention?  The same book that bans the consumption of pork and shellfish?  Anyone think that our restaurants need defending from barbecue and seafood shops?  No?

This was originally posted at: http://rhia-starsong.dreamwidth.org/99999.html. Comments welcome on either journal.