A Bridge Too Far
A head nod to Feminism is Empathological for his post A spouse she can walk all over. This post (direct link to the original article HERE) features the story of an Australian female artist that had the marriage of her dreams in France. You see, the lovely bride, one Ms. Jodi Rose, married a bridge. Yep, you read that right. A bridge. Not a man that serves as a metaphorical bridge to her happiness. Not even a woman that serves as a metaphorical bridge to her happiness (this is legally possible now that France has legalized same sex marriage). No, she married an actual, honest-to-God bridge. You know, the kind that people walk over to get from one side of an impassable obstruction to the other. But this was no impediment to Ms. Rose who was just as giddy as a school girl.
“The story of our romance is a modern love fable – I have travelled the world for over ten years, making music with the sound of bridges, and as he felt my vibrations coming nearer he drew me to him. Our wedding is arranged with the help of friends from Barcelona, the community and artists in Arles-sur-Tech & Ceret, who give their blessing and support to the ceremony.
Although he is made of stone, the resonance of his being is very present, and I feel at peace in his strong embrace. He makes me feel connected to the earth and draws me to rest from my endless nomadic wanderings.”
Now with recent assaults on the foundations and the true meaning of marriage, I thought that I would have been more prepared for this sort of stupidity. I must say, it made me realize that I have underestimated the depths to which human craziness has plummeted.
Of course, the marriage wasn’t legal and the blushing bride knew that. But that didn’t put a damper on her feelings about her stone-faced significant other.
Though their union is not legally recognized in France, Rose said it’s just as strong as any other marriage.
So what’s the big deal? This is just a nut that wants to gather a few friends and perform a harmless, non-biding ceremony to celebrate her messed up sense of love…right? Well, no. It goes much deeper than that. It is a sign and a symptom of a deep rot that is taking hold in the minds and sensibilities of those favoring “marriage equality” and threatening to continue the destruction of the very basis of our society – the nuclear family. Those that have recently been involved in arguing for the destruction of the one-man-one-woman definition of marriage has sought to change a multiple millennium old institution of civilization. They have argued for the rights of same sex couples to marry stating that it is just a matter of “fairness” or “equal rights” and that same sex couples deserve to be able to participate in marriage just like heterosexual couples. Yet these reformers fail to carry their claims of “marriage equality” to its logical conclusion. If you redefine marriage to include two men or two women, what is to prevent the equality of group marriage. Marriage has traditionally been with an n = 2. But since the rule about marriage being between a man and a woman is being destroyed, why not the number of people in the marriage? Why not one man and two wives? Or one man and 5 wives? Or one woman an 5 wives? Or 2 men and 6 wives……ad infinitum. You get the point. And in case you’re thinking that this is just silly talk and it certainly will not happen, don’t bet on it. As a matter of fact, multiple partner marriage is inching closer and closer to reality and gaining more and more societal acceptance. You can see how prevalent it has become just by looking at pop culture.
Multiple TV shows have been showcasing the benefits of multiple partner marriage and advocates of this type of lifestyle have been delighted to gain more acceptance in society at large. Just as the idea that a same sex couple should be allowed to be married was once ludicrous and seemed to go against the laws of common sense, so too the ideas of multiple partner marriage are transforming into a more acceptable and commonplace notion. And opening the plural floodgates seems to be gaining momentum among the media elite:
Here is an article from Slate magazine calling for the legalization of polygamy.
Here is an article from The Economist magazine that explores the notion of polygamy.
And these types of articles are becoming more and more commonplace.
But, since we have now altered the sexual dynamics in a marriage and we are moving towards redefining marriage even further by opening it up to more than just one person, why not go ahead and break down the remaining barriers to true equality. What about brother and sister marrying? Or for that matter, brother and brother? How about mother and son? That would shed a whole new light on Freud’s work wouldn’t it?
Consider some of the comments featured on a website devoted to “marriage equality” called (appropriately enough) Full Marriage Equality.
“Thank you so much, I’ve been looking for some information about all of this that isn’t talking about ‘rape’. I’ve just started being intimate with my father who I had only met a handful of times through my life. I feel better knowing that there are people out there that understand the complex emotions that come with this kind of relationship.”
“I am so happy I found this. My parents divorced when I was 6 and my sister was 2. We were reunited after ten years. We began a sexual relationship shortly after that. We stopped when I turned 18 and joined the army. Both of us were miserable for ten years trying to find someone we truly loved. The reality is that we do not love anyone else as much as we love each other. We have lived as a married couple for 12 years now. I can not imagine living without her.”
A bit scary, huh?
Okay, okay. Forget about the familial aspect of marriage. What about age? I mean, why should there be inequality for those below the current legal age of marriage? Carrying the “marriage equality” question out to its logical extension, then having two twelve year old kids getting married should not be a problem. Of course, there will be detractors that say that kids that young are too immature to realize what they are doing and are not ready for marriage. But who are we to judge who is mature enough for marriage? I’ve known many youngsters under the age of 18 that are able to behave more maturely and use more reason than most adults. Why can’t they enjoy marriage equality? It actually makes more sense for two adolescent tweens to get married than it does for Ms. Rose to marry her bridge, but I digress.
As long as you are doing away with age restrictions within marriage, then go all the way and allow adults to marry children. After all, what if pedophiles are just “made that way” and can’t help who they are? Don’t they deserve marriage equality? Shouldn’t they be allowed to live fulfilling lives loving and marrying whomever they want? After all, we all know that
“Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult,” it read, “result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.”
Oh, I’m not saying that these milestones in marriage equality are just around the corner. In fact, I’m fairly certain that if they were to come to fruition, they would be decades away. But the point is that the faulty logic and moral bankruptcy that the so-called Progressives use in their arguments for “marriage equality” for same sex couples have consequences and those consequences will be the ultimate destruction of marriage. And make no mistake, the destruction of marriage is the ultimate goal. Most activists will deny this assertion claiming that they just want rights that everyone else has. For some, this may be true at the conscious level, but the ultimate result will be the same. Marriage as a foundational institution of civilization will cease to exist. Others are not so coy about the intentions of the marriage equality movement. Masha Gessen, an author and lesbian activist states
“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexuals) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.”
A bit more can be found about Ms. Gessen in an article HERE.
The debate on same-sex marriage is yet to be finally decided but the writing is on the wall. Within a short period of time, it will be legal in most, if not all, states for same sex couples to be married. But once that hurdle is jumped, we all need to be prepared for the next logical steps in the “marriage equality” discussion.
Daniel Greenfield over at Sultan Knish puts it well
“The new freedoms are largely random and chaotic. Donate enough money to the right people while helping out the left and a special addition to the marriage split-level house will be carved out for you. Why? Because there will be a lot of yelling. Naturally. And if the polygamists yell loudly enough and donate enough money, they’ll get their own marriage expansion as well because that is how things work now.”