I never thought the Grauniad's notorious stunt was expected to achieve anything. They aren't that stupid. I thought it was an advertising stunt, and not badly conceived of its kind. But I have noticed that LJ itself, the management I mean, has been taking a definite position on what they call "reproductive rights", and so I am not surprised to find this. These people fantasize themselves as Martin Luther King in Birmingham; in point of fact, they are foolish fanboys who would faint dead away if they had to look at Bull Durham in the face.
... What the people of Australia choose to do is - this being rather the point, as we agree - is their business, and I shouldn't for worlds interfere.
I acknowledge and appreciate yr concerns and arguments; I remain unconvinced that they outweigh mine, as no doubt is true contrariwise. What I am, as ever, rejoiced by is that we can argue, debate the matter, like the logical, educated persons we are.
As a spinster who does not have the right to decide who visits her in the hospital, I'm not sure what I think of any non-procreative marriage. I can't help but feel I'm subsidizing the sex lives of those luckier/happier than I.
I say let marriage be a religious function whatever the respective genital configurations of the two parties; if you want to get the government involved, apply for a child-rearing license (they have those, don't they? They must: you need a license to raise a dog.)
In other words, if I'm not being served champagne and clever expensive nibbles, I don't care.
And you will recall that was an Absolute Groupthink position in the 1970s, as far as that goes: the very idea of accepting, let alone seeking, that Wicked Heterosexual Institution shd have given everyone on Fire Island and at P-town hives, I always understood from Transatlantic Friends (of Dorothy). Obvs, that is not at all my argument, but the conclusion is materially the same.
And of course I am speaking of civil marriage, and I do sympathise w yr point that children are got far more readily than a dog, and thus often worse treated.
Comments 8
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I acknowledge and appreciate yr concerns and arguments; I remain unconvinced that they outweigh mine, as no doubt is true contrariwise. What I am, as ever, rejoiced by is that we can argue, debate the matter, like the logical, educated persons we are.
Reply
Well, huh.
As a spinster who does not have the right to decide who visits her in the hospital, I'm not sure what I think of any non-procreative marriage. I can't help but feel I'm subsidizing the sex lives of those luckier/happier than I.
I say let marriage be a religious function whatever the respective genital configurations of the two parties; if you want to get the government involved, apply for a child-rearing license (they have those, don't they? They must: you need a license to raise a dog.)
In other words, if I'm not being served champagne and clever expensive nibbles, I don't care.
Reply
And of course I am speaking of civil marriage, and I do sympathise w yr point that children are got far more readily than a dog, and thus often worse treated.
Reply
Leave a comment