Sanctity of Marriage and other fallacies

We can either all start considering this as an obsolete institution that doesn’t have anywhere near the clout it once had or stop treating it as something that it isn’t. Perhaps the false impressions that have permeated our society have finally started to crumble and the shock of discovering the double-think is now scaring naive idiots into shouting bloody murder.

Marriage isn't what you think it is.

Let’s break down what really destroys marriage, shall we?

Abuse, destroys the sanctity of marriage

In any relationship, there’s little more as vile as treating your significant other with such contempt as to devalue their very existence. It usually starts when the abusers consider themselves superior to their “loved” ones and what results is a massive imbalance in say as far as the union is concerned.

Abuse is essentially a game of control with lives at stake and it demeans the very union that hides it in public among civilized people. I don’t need to go into details here as to why it’s terrible since any considerate adult would know.

Adultery, destroys the sanctity of marriage

It’s a very callous thing to do to someone who has placed his or her trust in your love. It can be so deeply hurtful that it may even be considered a form of abuse considering the lasting anguish that usually comes of it. While generally still considered morally reprehensible, the most severe, legal, punishment for this is divorce (which we’ll get to later) and possibly alimony.

In some cases the other partner is already aware of the indiscretion and a) usually ends in divorce or b) results in some kind of compromise or c) turns into an “open marriage”.

I’m reminded of an old mob convention regarding the treatment of women. It’s a very complicated arrangement since women aren’t generally accepted into the mob even though they may participate in business to some capacity (this is the mob we’re talking about so keep in mind that extreme chauvinism is to be expected).

Every man needs three women, goes a saying.

  • The wife with whom you go to church with and look respectable with in public. You raise her children out in the open and send them to college.
  • The mistress, who you’re really in love with and may even appear in public with, but isn’t generally talked about in the open. Although the wife probably knows about her, but she doesn’t care because she’s still being taken care of as well as her kids. You should send the mistress’ kids to college too, but don’t admit they’re yours.
  • Then there’s the girlfriend, who’s just around for when you get lonely. Don’t have to do ‘nothin about her kids because they’re probably not yours anyway.

Of course, if a woman did any of these, she’s automatically considered a floozie, but good luck getting them to admit the irony.

Divorce, destroys the sanctity of marriage

So it’s “‘Till death do us part… unless we get sick of each other first.”

Had a divorce? Was it not because of abuse or adultery? If the answer is “yes” then getting an opinion on the sanctity of marriage from you is akin to asking a murderer about the sanctity of life.

You’re agreeing to be in each other’s company and come to accept who they are at the core of their being and yet, when the going gets tough, the impatient start walking. We have an incredibly bizarre double standard when it comes to acceptance of divorce. Any seemingly reasonable person who would abhor abuse and adultery would suddenly find little wrong with divorce as long as there are “difficulties” or “irreconcilable differences”. These are the sort of things you have to sort out before getting married, don’t ya think?

Considering the ridiculously short period of time people are staying married these days (after an apparently longer courtship), I’m forced to wonder; what really was the point of getting married in the first place?

Open Marriages, destroy the sanctity of marriage

This is a relatively new term that’s apparently a step above “swinging” in that relationships outside of marriage are meaningful, have more depth and may also be on par or above that with the married partner. As long as the partner is willing to be honest and forthcoming regarding the other relationship(s) with their married partner, then it’s not really considered to be an indiscretion. In fact it may be openly accepted and perhaps even welcomed.

And this is different from polygamy because…?

An open marriage is essentially a legal loophole to practicing polygamy in that if there’s another “marriage” it isn’t really called that, but it is still an accepted extramarital relationship. Even famous people like Will Smith and Jada Pinkett are doing this and we don’t hear a peep out of the SoM crowd.

“Civil Unions” destroy the sanctity of marriage

If marriage is allowed for heterosexual couples then it certainly should be in the domain of gay couples as well. I’m slightly amused by seemingly intelligent people who don’t see the blatant hypocrisy of allowing “civil unions” for gay people while denying them to the very sanctified right of marriage available for straight couples.

Let’s break down the logic shall we?

Most decent, logical, reasonable people would consider all people are created equal. Yes?

These same decent, logical, reasonable people would consider that marriage is a fundamental right for any man and a woman. Yet, some of these decent, logical, apparently reasonable people would rather gay people have a “civil union” instead so they can avoid the full guilt of suppressing their fundamental right to pursue happiness.

So gay people are equal to straight people and are entitled to the same rights, but they must have a separate institution instead of marriage or are denied unions altogether.

Equal to straight people, but separate unions or none at all.

Separate…

…but equal.

I’ll let you mull over that a bit.

It’s either full marriage or bust people. Have the gall to admit you’re a closeted bigot who doesn’t believe in true equality instead of hiding behind a pseudo moral high ground or, better yet, mind your own business.

Marriage should be no more invalid between gay people than interracial people. They’re all just people in the end.

The sad thing is that aside from abuse, the rest are perfectly legal in Western society (with adultery carrying civil consequences and gay marriage denied in bigot majority states) and the last three are even generally accepted without much brouhaha these days. All of them soundly debase the alleged sanctity of marriage and this is without the cooperation of gay people.

Advertisement

Here, have some drugs

I pointed out last year something I thought was so blindingly obvious that it didn’t make any sense to keep up the charade. If anything, we should know by now that anything can be abused where it previously had some legitimate purpose.

And medical companies made good money pumping us full of this stuff.

bayer-heroin-ad

Bayer was one of the premier providers of today's poisons.

This bottle was from 1901

This bottle was from 1901

Let's cure that cough with Heroin!

Let's cure that cough with Heroin!

And CocaCola was an early supporter of cocain. In fact, the name of the company comes from this particular ingredient.

Relieves tension by removing your inhibitions

Relieves tension, by removing your inhibitions

Of course, the academic community also encouraged it. As this Scientific American article from 1906 shows

Of course, the academic community also encouraged it. As this Scientific American article from 1906

Of course, it wouldn’t be fair if we left cigarettes out of this. After all, doctors loved Camels.

I wonder if any of these doctors are still alive... Probably not.

I wonder if any of these doctors are still alive... Probably not.

Even our former persident, the late Ronald Reagan enjoyed Chesterfields. Incidently, the brand got some attention again for being used in the movie True Romance in a part called the “Sicilian scene”.

Ronald Regan loves a good smoke

Ronald Reagan loves a good smoke

And, of course, Santa loved Pall-Malls.

I imagine it gets a bit chilly up there.

I imagine it gets a bit chilly up there.

Or is it Lucky Strike?

Does St. Nick get tired of being dragged in to be the posterboy for competing products?

Does St. Nick get tired of being dragged in to be the posterboy for competing products?

GPL vs BSD

Here we go again!!

I know I will probably stir up the the sediment all over again, but this has to be clarified. If anything because this came up at work yet again. And It’s quite frightful at how ill informed people are on these licenses.

(This will be long and tedious, so feel free to browse away now)

Let’s clarify a few important points right here…

The GPL is not about “freedom”

In fact, the word “freedom” doesn’t even belong in there. The problem is that the GPL, and indeed many software projects that use it, has been turned a religion. And like all religions, it contradicts itself in sentiment… repeatedly.

I don’t have any problem with someone using the GPL in their work, and I’ve been happy using GPL’d products. But I will not treat this license as something it isn’t. That is, a doctrine on freedoms. A license is a license, and by definition all licenses carry restrictions. The GPL carries a particularly ridiculous combination of doctrine, philosphy, and law. Sounds like religion to me…

“The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works”

The GPL does exactly the same, in that developers have to release every bit of derived or modified code under GPL or face legal action. That is a restriction placed upon the developers and distributors.

“To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.”

 
So you’re forcing the code to be free because you recieved it free?
You’re denying some of the developers’ rights to give more rights to users?
That’s a lot like “peace… through superior firepower”.

Where’s the developers’ freedom to not distribute the code when distributing the product? Or does that get swept under user rights? I didn’t realise there were different standards for developers and users when it came to “rights”.

The freedom to distribute code or programs is, and has always been, a choice. Much like selling cake vs selling the cake with the recipie. A baker may choose to do both or only one, however, the customer is not forced to do the same by eating the cake thereby entering into a binding contract with the baker. If the customers decide to make cake using improvements to the same recipie, then they’re automatically forced to sell it with the improvements in the recipie?

That’s what the GPL really is. A binding contract : That is a set of restrictions on those who use, develop or modify content licensed under it. It is not now or has ever been a formula on “freedom”. The GPL is not the definition of “generocity” that is giving without expecting any return. I hope all you GPL advocates would stop treating it as such and call it what it is. A license and a binding contract. Nothing more.

If you try to pass it off as anything other than that, then you have problems.

I’m well aware of the motivation of using the GPL and, in theory, it is a noble cause. You’re trying to ensure that quality code remains free and any quality modifications are returned to the community without becoming invisible. While distributing products for free or profit, you also want to ensure the sources are available to the community.
But let’s not call this “freedom”. Free code is just that… free code.

If someone modifies some code and chooses not to distirbute it for free or profit, it still becomes invisible to the community. So this is only for those who choose to distribute their work anyway.

The BSD is not about “freedom” either

It’s about not getting involved in what the end user chooses to do with their copy of the sources and protecting the developers from harm. It’s none of their duty nor concern to police the actions of users.

Specifically, the ISC License…
The only usage restrictions are the disclaimer and copyright.

Copyright (c) Year(s), Company or Person’s Name

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

That’s it!
That’s the whole license.

Notice anything about “freedom” or philosophical ramblings?
Notice anything other than what the license is about and the criteria?
NO!

Unlike the GPL, the BSD license doesn’t pretend to be something it isn’t and users of BSD license are well aware that, like all licenses, it is a binding contract between developers, distributors, and users. They have no delusions about how much “freedom” both licenses afford however the BSD still being a license it still has usage restrictions. Namely the copyright and disclaimer.

Developers using the BSD license don’t care nor want to police the actions of users once the source is copied. They’re not interested in “freedom” through coersion, which is actually slavery. They just want to make sure their products and sources are available from them regardless of need or future availability. If the users want to share their own modifications, then more power to them. But they’ll be damned if it’s by force.

—————

That said, I don’t use the BSD license in examples I’ve posted here. I would have placed them in the public domain if not for one indemnity clause. That’s the only reason every single line of code/HTML/CSS I’ve posted on this blog isn’t in the public domain.

I don’t want to get in trouble when someone using my work didn’t have things go over so well. Except for that, everyone is free to do whatever they please with it. Use it in personal  or professional projects, buy, sell, modify, reverse engineer, give me credit or not give me credit… whatever! I pretty much wash my hands of any responsibility after it’s posted. I don’t expect anything in return.

I’m not forcing anyone who uses any of my examples to treat their work as I do mine. In fact, I’m not forcing anyone to do anything at all with it or while using it. With the exception of the indemnity clause, there is no “law” involved in the source.

I only require anyone using my examples to agree to the following disclaimer :
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

That’s it! That’s the sum total of the “restrictions” I place on anyone using my examples. Keen observers will note, it’s identical to the disclaimer in the ISC license as I want to make sure that I don’t tread around on someone else’s needs while protecting myself.

In that aspect, it’s the closest I could come to placing everything in the public domain.

Public Domain : That’s freedom, folks.

A utopia by choice is heaven. A utopia by force is hell.