No, it doesn't follow, but so many marriage neutering advocates make this bad argument, because they are not appealing to reason. They are appealing to emotion.
The problem is, they or their ideological forerunners spent decades telling us that marriage was "just a piece of paper" at best, or oppressive, esnalving abuse at worst. Then they tried switching gears, contradicting everything they'd previously said.
Yes, marriage has been abused, misused, subject to malpractice, and devalued. Do cartoons like this one help the situation, or make it worse?
Ah, but people who use this argument don't care if they making the situation worse. Their goal seems to be erasing all societal statements that the uniting of a bride and groom is any different from a sex-exclusive pairing, that homosexual sodomy is qualitatively different from heterosexual intercourse. Everything else must be sacrificed on that altar.
When has this blog, or any prominent organization defending and promoting marriage, said it was good that people: have sexual intercourse during a one-night-stand; marry on a drunken impulse; marry as part of a game show (which happened one time, if I recall correctly); for extra publicity; for what amounts to prostitution; commit adultery; or marry someone with whom one has no intention or ability to be intimate? usually, we denounce such things, and often we hear "mind your own business" and "who are you to judge" in response.
The people who use the argument that this cartoon does are being disingenuous, or perhaps are seriously confused an inconsistent. With one hand they seek to convince the reader that marriage is a joke or not important, while with the other hand they simultaneously insist that marriage is so vitally imporant that we must call brideless or groomless couples "married".
We are well aware that there has been a deterioration of marriage in our culture. Divorce, especially no-fault divorce, has been a problem, as we have separated commitment from marriage. (Still, divorce does not justify marriage neutering.) We have also separated sex from childbearing, separated sex from marriage, separated living together from marriage, separated childrearing from marriage.
It is just mere coincidence that the people who mocked and dismissed marriage for so long (and the ideal that sex is for marriage) are now the same ones leading the push to neuter marriage? Would the advocacy groups still push to neuter marriage if part of the societal marriage paradigm (perhaps backed up by law) was that sex or at least cohabitation should only be with your spouse, that sex with someone else was grounds for being faulted and punished in a divorce, and that marriage is for life? I highly doubt it. They would instead be pushing for federally-recognized domestic partnerships.
I addressed arguments like the ones made in this cartoon in this previous posting.
0 comments,:
Post a Comment