Thursday, April 19, 2007

Disney- the place where fairies can get married

I recall as a kid not being able to read my Disney Adventures magazine anymore since my parents canceled the subscription because Disney had put out the highly anti-catholic movie "Priest." I think its time to renew the call to boycott Disney (if you don't already avoid most of their trash).

As it turns out, the Magic Kingdom thinks it has the power of the Heavenly Kingdom and is performing magical gay unions. The story is HERE.

According to the article:
"Gay couples are now free to buy a Fairy Tale Wedding package at Disneyland, Disney World, or Disney's cruise ships, with 'a ceremony setting befitting the dreams of a princess.' The Disney properties have long allowed same-sex couples to tie the knot on the premises, but this is the first time those unions are being given official sanction. The Magic Kingdom has thus proved itself more progressive than the motherland, or as progressive as you can be while throwing around the word 'fairy.'"

My first reaction is to tell everyone "Do NOT take your kids to Disney World/Land." The last thing a six year old (or any kid for that matter) needs to see is two guys in princess outfits (or pink prince outfits) exchanging vows. I shudder to be the one to answer little Bobby's question of what the hell is going on.

The article continues to go on explaining that the writer thinks its a good thing- blah blah blah my heads up my you know where but then she says:
"My objection: Marriage isn't being re-engineered. It is evolving in an impeccably Hayekian fashion, as folkways appear on the ground and are gradually ratified by imitation, then market acknowledgement, and then, only lastly, by the law. For eons, same-sex couples have quietly lived as though they were married. As social mores changed and gays came out of the closet, so did those longtime-companion relationships. Before long, lovers were holding their own marriage ceremonies, which were not recognized by the government or (at first) by any established church but did carry weight with family, friends, and neighbors. Couples started to draw up marriage-like contracts, in an effort to establish rights privately that they couldn't acquire publicly. Businesses had to decide whether to extend benefits to gay spouses; with time, more and more did."

First of hun, marriage can't evolve. This will always be the contention of those who give a crap about truth. Marriage isn't just an "I love you and want to live with you" thing. That's what it is reduced to when anyone other than a man and women want to get married. It isn't that its not fair, its that it isn't possible.

That marriage is treated as an "I love you and want to live with you" thing is evidenced first by the prevalence of divorce in our society- the moment one member of the couple is tired of the arrangment the throw in the towel to find a new one. It only makes sense that if that's all that marriage is then anyone can marry anyone (hell, anything) and its fine. If marriage is no more than feelings and a living arrangment then that psycho who married the Israeli dolphin a while back would be justified.

If on the other hand marriage really is a union whereby two individual people become one, and that this union is not only symbolically, but really actualized through the marriage act then same-sex marriages are not only not possible but ridiculous.

Secondly, what the author demonstrates is not an argument for "marital evolution" but is a demonstration of how the slippery slope has pushed the cultural concept of marriage from knowing its unacceptable to saying they want it to be acceptable to thinking that gives them a right to demand its acceptability.

Bottom line: don't take your kids to Disney, for it is the land of the fairies now.


Christopher said...

Regarding evolution:
In fact, evolution would posit against homosexual "marriages". Why? A 'successful' individual is measured by the number of his/her offspring that successfully produce more offspring.
Now, how many offspring can a homosexual "marriage" produce? NONE, by definition. Therefore, it highly disadvantageous to the survival of a gene pool for those with a disordered sexuality to 'marry.' They- speaking in purely material, evolutionary terms- are a dead weight on their population and actually threaten viable offspring of heterosexual unions by depleting resources.
Now, speaking from a fully integrated, adequate anthropology, are human beings suffering from both a choice and a condition and merit great love and prayers. However, they should not be granted carte blanche to indulge their disordered desires.

Christopher said...

Hm... my comment stands in regards to biological evolution.
But what in the world is Hayekian evolution? How is it defined? How do you measure it? Is it similar to meme theory?
I need a sociologist!