![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I finally sat down and watched all of The Tao of Steve, which is Graham's best-beloved philosophy of relationships movie, and it's given me Thoughts. Or maybe clarified some nebulous thoughts I already had.
One of the ideas proposed by Dex in the movie is that the relationship has become our state religion. Duncan North, the fella that wrote the movie, said in an interview:
And really, yeah, think about it. It's true. People spend more time pursuing the one true love than they do pursuing that big shiny Yahweh guy. Ninety-nine-point-nine percent of our movies and tv shows are at least partially about that spiritual quest, the search for the other half. And yeah, that's the way it's sold, too - the other half, the hetero, the girl to your boy or the boy to your girl, the pieces you don't have that will make you magically, androgynously complete. So really, when people say that gay marriage is a crime against God, which God are they talking about? I'm beginning to suspect that as much as they fling around that Creator-name, the god MOST folks are talking about is the Media God of Romantic Heterosexual Completion.
So marriage? If you've read any of my journal in the last few weeks, heh, you've probably guessed that I care fuckall about the institution of marriage, anti-romantic that I am. *Grin* If we all lived in magical Katie-World, I'd abolish it completely as a state institution. There'd be a better word than civil union, and there would be legitimacy and ease and sharing of health care benefits and a wide range of easily endorsable legal bindings, marriages and group marriages and friends and tribes and partners and year-and-a-day weddings and blood-brothers-and-sisters and roommates, all honoured across state and national borders. And churches could keep their happy crappy under-god promise-to-obey vows, and they would make them weirder and more esoteric, secret codes and signs added to make them unrepeatable, religious and strange, unduplicatable by the heathen masses, until they became one huge masonic jumble of ritual, and we could all live on our happy Bey-ish anarchic islands, pirate utopias, thumbing our noses. And the pirates would be snogging, cause that's the sort of thing pirates like to do.
So there.
But until then, um, yeay gay marriage.
One of the ideas proposed by Dex in the movie is that the relationship has become our state religion. Duncan North, the fella that wrote the movie, said in an interview:
"Romance is the state religion of America: [we believe] that what you do is hook up with the hottest person in the room, and when you find the other person, you'll find personal salvation. I think we have that now without the divine thing beyond that. It's just like the love partner is the final destination. I personally don't want to be a member of that religious group."
And really, yeah, think about it. It's true. People spend more time pursuing the one true love than they do pursuing that big shiny Yahweh guy. Ninety-nine-point-nine percent of our movies and tv shows are at least partially about that spiritual quest, the search for the other half. And yeah, that's the way it's sold, too - the other half, the hetero, the girl to your boy or the boy to your girl, the pieces you don't have that will make you magically, androgynously complete. So really, when people say that gay marriage is a crime against God, which God are they talking about? I'm beginning to suspect that as much as they fling around that Creator-name, the god MOST folks are talking about is the Media God of Romantic Heterosexual Completion.
So marriage? If you've read any of my journal in the last few weeks, heh, you've probably guessed that I care fuckall about the institution of marriage, anti-romantic that I am. *Grin* If we all lived in magical Katie-World, I'd abolish it completely as a state institution. There'd be a better word than civil union, and there would be legitimacy and ease and sharing of health care benefits and a wide range of easily endorsable legal bindings, marriages and group marriages and friends and tribes and partners and year-and-a-day weddings and blood-brothers-and-sisters and roommates, all honoured across state and national borders. And churches could keep their happy crappy under-god promise-to-obey vows, and they would make them weirder and more esoteric, secret codes and signs added to make them unrepeatable, religious and strange, unduplicatable by the heathen masses, until they became one huge masonic jumble of ritual, and we could all live on our happy Bey-ish anarchic islands, pirate utopias, thumbing our noses. And the pirates would be snogging, cause that's the sort of thing pirates like to do.
So there.
But until then, um, yeay gay marriage.
no subject
I know...
Katie for president!
(Because at least you're interesting, which is more than can be said for the other candidates)
Re:
okay, that last one could be fun.
i'm totally behind the katie-wins-the-lotto-and-spends-her-money-in-very-interesting-ways platform, meself. yeah. that's one with some potential.
no subject
Does that mean that the way we 'Mericans have been doing it for the past century or two is bad? Or is it okay if we merely recognize that we put love and "becoming one" and relationships (romantic or otherwise) on a pedestal?
We've got lots of things to choose from when we're trying to "find meaning", and love has always been very fashionable. People looking for love generally look down on those who try to complete themselves with success or drugs or adrenaline. And I certainly can't say that relationships don't cause as much or more damage than the other options (everyone jump on the therapy bandwagon!). But at least it's something. Can we expect the human race to have a simultaneous epiphany, where we realize that we don't need other people, and only think we do because of social/religious brainwashing?
I have no idea where I was going with this, if anywhere. I guess I feel defensive because I think that making connections with other people is very worthwhile goal, regardless of the psychology behind it. And I would think that less terrorism happens in the name of Love-for-the-Girl-Who-Works-at-the-Corner-Store-that-Held-My-Gaze-and-I-Thought-We-Had-a-Moment than Jesus or Allah.
Plus, love just *feels* good. Unless you're Angel.
silly extrovert. *grin*
it's not that love is bad, most certainly not. but the idea that love is the only, that we have to cram a romantic subplot into the movie, that boy and girl are not complete on their own or can't complete themselves with NON-romantic relationships - friends, family, crew? that annoys me. i'm all for the lovin'-ness, heh. i think it can be a spiffy choice. i'm just worried about all the folks that think they HAVE to have it, are TRAINED into thinking they have to have it from an early age, all the sad little preteen girls who think they're nothing if they don't got a boyfriend. there are certainly equally popular roads to enlightenment (like you say, success, adrenaline, drugs) - but generally the media message, at least, is that these things don't end up fulfilling you. the media very VERY rarely passes on that kind of message about love. fade out on the kiss, darling, and the happily ever after.
hee. i could go off on love and marriage for a while, too - how the two have only RECENTLY been associated with each other, how marriage is traditionally about property and alliance and knowing-it's-your-genes-being-passed-on-to-the-kidlets - how the entire chivalric tradition commands that love is imPOSSIBLE inside a marriage, since it's a socially-practical and obligatory contract and love is free, which is why you need wandering minstrels and lancelot-type knights to worship you selflessly. but that's not really what this is all about. *grin*
anyway, i think recognizing the pedestal is an important step, yeah. seeing the 'sanctity' of it all in a slightly different light. not just the institution of marriage, but the cliched prettified view of love that we all KNOW, logically, is affected. "knowing" something and actually seeing how it warps your view of the world can be two entirely different things.
twu lurrrve is important - i utterly buy that. but threesomes and tribes and comrades-in-arms (and, yes, gay marriages) - why are these things LESS important?
addendum - attempt at clarification
Re: addendum - attempt at clarification
i also think that we, as humans, are capable of feeling complete without partners..but not without tribes...
furthermore...about marriage...with all the recent buzz about gay marriage and all that republican crap....what are christians really trying to preserve here? the institution of marriage has turned into a carnival ride...
why is it ok for the bachelor and the bachelorette..and the littlest groom and joe millionaire or who the fuck ever to marry, but it's not ok for somebody who truly loves there life long partner to get married? any asshole can marry a stranger in vegas...and on tv...and where ever... i dunno...come on america. WAKE UP! marriage is 30 minute entertainment....longer if you dont' take out the dodge ram commercials...
besides..the earth is not in danger of overpopulation...let's all be gay and have aborotions! weeee! i must retire now to my dental dam and coathanger...and be the evil liberal who will rot in hell....ok, actually i'm going to print out some tax forms and do my taxes with my husband...THEN i'll get rowdy!
Re: addendum - attempt at clarification
rowdy!!
i say we give tax benefits to people who DON'T spawn. we pay off farmers not to plant their fields, yeah? where's the difference? i say we make all the housewives get part-time jobs at starbucks so they can have health care coverage. yeah. make 'em work like the rest of us. or start seriously considering things like national health-care - ahhh, but that's a whole 'nother rant.
(in Katie-World, we have a universal health-care program. unfortunately, our HMO-provider is one rum-sodden fooker with a trephine.)