When I started this comment of the day feature, I thought I'd never highlight an anonymous comment. We really don't get very many and...sorry anonymous, but they aren't that good. But yesterday we got one that just blew my socks of. And not in a good way. My socks literally ran for cover, because they couldn't handle it. It's long, you have to go here to read the whole thing, but essentially, here is the part that made my socks peel off my stinky feet and run for cover under the couch:
Marriage is founded in the Sexual Reality based on biological facts
and cultivated by neurological structures forming our minds. That is
Science. Gender is, if used as a term in proper context, the variable
way in which sexual reality and childhood –or adolescent- experience
can come forth in a person’s behaviour. There is no fixed structure for
that bahaviour, but there is such a fixum in the biological, sexual
What does that mean for Marriage and Family? - Simply: that they are
based on the complementary nature of the human species. On that Basis
–in the terms of Karl Marx- we have built a suitable Superstructure
which secures our survival and existence. The wish of secure
togetherness, a haven of safe emotions, showed again and again as an
overwhelming urge, demanding commitment – commitment to one other
person, the spouse.
And the children’s secure feeling as ‘belonging’ –not as property,
but as part- to a secure family of their own genetic origin is a
necessary part of their healthy growing up. Which also demands that
children should, unless a disaster has prevented this possibility, grow
up with their creators, i.e. complementary sexual parents, not people
who “bought” them in a “sperm- or ovum supermarket” or from a
baby-factory in some poverty-stricken country – which would be
That's right. Anon thinks that marriage=one man and one woman because children should be brought up by their sperm donors and people shouldn't adopt. Let me tell you something. I volunteer my time at a women's shelter. I do a lot of mentoring to women in my community whose sperm donors expressed less interest in them than they would have in my stinky socks. Valuing biological parenthood over actual PARENTHOOD (you know, loving and nurturing your child) is exactly the kind of reductionist thinking that made segregationist rationalize that black people were inferior (it was biology after all). They were wrong. And so is Anon. I just want to say, we live in a country that lets child molesters keep their kids, but argues that gay people can't marry because of the societal "impact." Except, I live in Iowa. YAY! Let the gay marrying begin.
*Steps down from soapbox*
Am I out of line? Or am I right?