|
Discorsi Numero 5- Marriage
Marriage used to be an arrangement between the couple’s parents. Today, marriages are voluntary between a man and a woman. However, roles and role ideas of each gender vary, with a distinct trend towards males preferring “traditional”. I can’t resist putting in my fortune of umpteen cents. Why traditional? It has already been proven that women are as smart as, or smarter than, men. Why repress? I do agree that the natural order for a couple is that of having children. However, I must say that the absolute restriction of a woman to being a homemaker is arrogant and stupid. If one truly loves one’s spouse, one will work with them to find what works best. Not just for them both, but them as one being, one unit. Men are naturally inclined to be protectors and providers, while women are better at being nurturers and influencers. Not to say that these traits cannot be acquired by either gender. On the contrary, there are many examples that fit this idea. Perhaps the best way for a man to become balanced, or even complete, with both roles, is through his wife. To become both a provider and protector, and a nurturer and influencer, he must, as the Bible advises, “cleave to his wife”. Meanwhile, women can develop in an equal manner by cleaving to their husbands. The Bible says that the first woman, Eve, was made from the rib of the first man, Adam. Notice: not the skull, or the foot, the rib. The middle. The meridian, the point of equality. Another interesting point lies in the original word for “woman” in the Book of Genesis: it means somewhere along the lines of “helper”, specifically to Man. This implies that men need help….. isn’t that obvious? So why are these foolish ideas of female/male roles flying around? Both are capable, both are intended to become one, thus it makes sense for the aspects of those roles to be interchangeable. Also, notice that I am referring to purely heterosexual marriage. Not homosexual…. To anyone who is bothered by that, listen closely: I DON’T CARE! In order for homosexuals to even exist, there had to be heterosexual couples willing to have and love them. So isn’t attempting to divert part of the heterosexual population towards homosexuality a sort of perverse self-destruction on par with self-mutilation, drug use, and not having children, except on a massive scale? Though homosexuality is not in line with the absolute best method of having a family, it still must be recognized as an actual non-debilitating disorder (disorders are not inherently bad. The word simply means “not in order” or “not ordered”). It only alters the sexual preference of the individual, not any part of their body or psyche. It only is absolutely abhorrent when carnality and self-righteousness enter into the equation. When a minority attempts to inflict and enforce their desire upon the majority (i.e., California supreme court overturning poplar decision against homosexuals being married, leading to the necessity of Prop 8 ), it is a severe injustice against the ideas of popular sovereignty. When the French became fed-up with an aristocratic minority (one that led a lavish and excessive lifestyle off of the polloi’s labors, uncaring of their starvation and misery), they started a bloody crusade in the name of equality, which quickly got out of hand. Food for thought. However, lest it sound as though I level a threat upon homosexuals, let me defend myself: I have known several homosexuals, and harbor no ill will against them. In fact, I hold a deep respect for many of them. I merely site the extreme and deeply conflicted results of minority control over something essential to the majority (in this case, the word essential refers to the essence, not necessity).
|
