Monday, April 23, 2007

It's That Simple ("Marriage")

Okay, this one isn't as nasty, I can live with it. Be sure to read this post first to understand the context behind this "editorial."

Tragically, "Enshrine Marriage Canada" is no longer online. Neither is the Michael Coren column (from September 17, 2004), which was a real gem about how a lesbian couple made a "bloody sacrifice on the altar of selfishness" by deciding to have children.

Childless “Marriage” – Time To Speak Up!

Just like the first bird of spring, a U-Haul truck is cause for celebration for me. It means a new family is moving onto Maple Street! As much as I abhor change of any kind – especially in my undergarments -- I admit that I get a thrill out of meeting new people, as long as they’re not godless or poor. Meeting a new neighbour is an opportunity to share cleaning tips and recipes with folk from distant, exotic lands (sometimes as far away as Timmons!)

This week, however, the U-Haul didn’t bring new friends. It brought two people who gleefully partake in a lifestyle that no right-thinking Realerwoman can condone: the unnatural, barren social experiment of the Childless “Marriage.”

Since people don’t wear any form of identification to mark them as deviants, upstanding folks like myself sometimes treat them as equals before we realize what who we’re talking to. Let’s just say that I’ve been burned before. I’ll have to start being more careful, at least until we get a Conservative politician in power, one who understands the need for immediate stigmatization.

In any case I didn’t know that the Andersons were childless when I arrived at their front door, bearing pastries and wearing my best bonnet. The two of them were a bit flustered with their move but they were happy to take a break and share their sofa with me.

“Gosh,” said Mr. Anderson, “these cherry-filled things are great!”

“They’re ‘Passion Flakies,’” I replied, flattered.

“Why do you call them that?” asked Mrs. Anderson, giving the plate a curious look.

“Because they remind me of the humiliation of Christ.”

“Oh,” said Mr. Anderson. “I hadn’t thought of that.”

After this strategic injection of religion into our first meeting (“scoring points with God,” my husband likes to call it), our conversation turned to the rigors of moving, which I said was always difficult and never fails to remind me of the humiliation of Christ. “Not to say that I have ever suffered as much as he did, of course. I mean, he was scourged, and scourged, and scourged some more! But gosh, moving can be tough too!” I paused to let my “lesson of the day” sink in, then said something I assumed was inconsequential: “Fortunately we have children to help us with the chores. Two of them. Well, three, if you count the one we never talk about.”

Mr. Anderson glanced at his wife and made a nervous gesture with his Passion Flakey. Unaware of their unholy secret, I barreled on.

“I hope you two have plenty of little ones on the way…Lisa and Zipporah could use some new playmates!”

That was when Mr. Anderson dropped his bombshell. With deceptive tenderness and mock regret, he said “Actually, we can’t have children…I had a…”

“What my husband means is…”

“…an accident with a waffle iron…”

And then they were both crying on the sofa in their empty livingroom – its barrenness reflecting both the state of Mr. Anderson’s genitals…and the state of their immortal souls! They were a childless couple! And they’d had the nerve to get MARRIED!

All of us know that marriage is centered on children…this is rule number three in the “Declaration On Marriage,” a pastiche of seven marriage rules invented last week by Enshrine Marriage Canada. If you’re not going to have children, your marriage is a sham…in fact, it’s not even a marriage, it’s just the word “marriage” with quotes around it!

How dare these people defy the sanctity of marriage by breaking rule number three! And to think that I’d come over here to welcome them.

But Mr. Anderson hadn’t finished trying to indoctrinate me – have you noticed that these deviants never shut up about their misguided beliefs? Crying crocodile tears, he told me that they were pinning their hopes for children on artificial insemination. He said this as though I should APPROVE!

Far from this making a childless “marriage” alright, artificial insemination just makes it worse! As Michael Coren said, the procreative nature of marriage is paramount, and “if love is excluded from the original act” (as it is in artificial insemination), “it is likely to be discarded from the outcome.” In other words you can’t LOVE a child that you didn’t produce sexually…it’s that simple! By getting married and choosing this artificial means of producing a child, infertile couples have “made a bloody sacrifice of children’s happiness on the altar of selfishness” (Mr. Coren has such a way with words! This phrase is just CRYING OUT to be hung on the wall!)

We all know that a REAL marriage can only involve two people who are capable of having children with each other. This is one of the primary reasons why we say homosexuals can’t be married, and what’s bad for them is bad for the rest of us. But defenders of Traditional Marriage seem to forget that there is another enemy out there besides homosexuals, a group of deviants already sanctioned by our liberal society: these sterile couples! By choosing to marry, they are contributing to the destruction of Traditional Marriage, an institution which has ALWAYS required children in order to legitimize it. A marriage without children is like a Passion Flakey without the cherries: AN ABOMINATION WHICH MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS!

As always, I urge true conservatives to speak up. When you meet people like the Andersons, tell them that you do not recognize their marriages as legitimate. After all, we have invented the rules for marriage and we must not allow ANYBODY to break them. I am disturbed that conservative organizations – like Enshrine Marriage – have yet to speak out against the fronts in the Marriage War which DON’T involve homosexuals. I hope this editorial wakes them up.

I’m not a coward. I stick to my guns. And if enough of us get together we might be able to start a constitutional amendment. We must write into the constitution a clause stating that marriages MUST produce children, and that those children MUST be biological descendents of BOTH parents. Otherwise it’s only a “marriage” (with quotes), and a selfish, “adult-centered” one at that!

7 comments:

Eric Little said...

Normally, I might say that something like this is a little over the top, perhaps (a waffle iron?), but taking into account the speciousness of the arguments you are taking on, I'd say this was spot on.

Because anything less obvious would be taken as a sign of agreement by them.

Very Swiftian.

VanillaJ said...

As per Julia Gorin:

"I've been married seven years, and people often ask me, "Why don't you have kids? Don't you like kids?"

I'll be honest. I don't particularly like kids. But I do have a thing for fetuses - and embryos. Friends are puzzled as to why, considering my indifference to children, I get all stirred up about abortion. After all, they say, fetuses & embryos aren't 'children' or even 'babies'."

Muffy St. Bernard said...

Since this was the last editorial I wrote, I think I needed to go OTT in order to keep my sanity! Otherwise I was just writing such bitter, bigoted, and hateful things. I tried to rescue my interest in it all by being silly.

I'm sure that the arguments against same-sex marriage are just as silly in the USA as they are in Canada. I think they probably COULD come up with a reasonable attack strategy, but they seemed incapable of saying anything that wasn't outright offensive and stupid.

Muffy St. Bernard said...

Ahh, babies vs. embryos! A recent pro-choice sneak-attack is to pose the following scenario to anti-abortion activists:

You're in a fertility clinic, and the clinic is on fire. In the clinic there is a baby and a petri dish containing ten fertilized eggs. If you can only rescue the baby or the eggs, which will you rescue?

The anti-abortion activists go into a frenzy about how this is an "artificial situation," but the fact remains: they DON'T give equal weight to embryos and babies; they only pretend to.

JJ said...

> We must write into the constitution a clause stating that marriages MUST produce children, and that those children MUST be biological descendents of BOTH parents. Otherwise it’s only a “marriage” (with quotes), and a selfish, “adult-centered” one at that!

You know something? Most Asians would COMPLETELY agree with the above.
My wife gets pestered by everyone(including her ear doctor) that it is high time she concieved after 2 years of marriage. :-)

JJ said...

>You're in a fertility clinic, and the clinic is on fire. In the clinic there is a baby and a petri dish containing ten fertilized eggs. If you can only rescue the baby or the eggs, which will you rescue?


That is totally ignoring the complexity of the evolved life form. It really is a no-brainer.
Value of Baby is much greater than (say) a puppy which is much greater than a tree which is much great than the collective billions of single cell microbes that we regularlly kill off with anti-biotics.

Muffy St. Bernard said...

Aha, but the whole foundation of the anti-abortion movement is that "life begins at conception" and "every life is sacred."

For years they've been telling us that they value every single embryo...it's only now that people are calling them on such a ridiculous equation.