Saturday, November 7, 2015

Modern Love (yet another draft)

Man: Hey, I would like to buy you a drink.

Woman: (flashes her wedding ring at him)

Man: So?

Woman: I’m married, dumbass.

Man: So?

Woman: Are you really THAT stupid? I’m married. That means that I am off the menu. Get it?

Man: Oh, I get it. You think that marriage means the forsaking of all other lovers, right?

Woman: Hey, Einstein, that’s not what I think marriage means. That is what marriage means, you creep.

Man: No, it doesn’t. That may be what your particular religious tradition says it means, but that’s NOT what marriage means according to Rawlsian Public Reason.

Woman: What the hell?

Man: Before you throw your mojito in my face—and you don’t want to do that, anyway, because the mojitos here are just scrumptious—

Woman: Well, yes, okay, you have to go down to Miami to find any better.

Man: True that. They use their own mint, did you know that?

Woman: Yeah, fine, don’t change the subject. Why shouldn’t I throw something else in your face, you creeper?

Man: For the simple reason that you cannot expect me to share your particularly religious understanding of marriage. We live in a secular liberal democracy, not a theocracy.

Woman: What does that have anything to with your trying to hit on a happily married woman?

Man: Look, you support same-sex marriage, right?

Woman: Ah, geez, now you’re suggesting that I’m a Nazi. God, you really know how to flatter a girl. No wonder you’re still a loser, prowling around in bars.

Man: Of course, you’re not a Nazi. Of course, you support marriage equality. I would not dream of suggesting otherwise.

Woman: Yeah, so what’s your point? I support marriage equality, so I must be okay with adultery?

Man: You promise not to throw anything in my face if I answer?

Woman: Oh, no, now I want to hear this. You’ve already stuck your foot in your mouth. I want to hear you gag on it. It’s the femme fatale in me.

Man: Okay, fine. Now, remember how the bigots argued against marriage equality. They said that the marriage was for procreation, and same-sex couples can’t procreate, and, therefore, they can’t get married.

Woman: Yeah, and that was really stupid. Because the law always allowed sterile couples to marry.

Man: And you could get a marriage license without having to take a fertility test.

Woman: Of course. Man, were those bigots just stupid.

Man: So, marriage can’t be about procreation or even fertility because the law does not require couples to procreate or be fertile to marry, right?

Woman: Yes, yes, yes. This is getting tedious.

Man: Okay, so, marriage cannot be about what the law does not require?

Woman: Yes, Socrates, yes. Get to the point already.

Man: Well, does the law require a couple to take a sexual fidelity test for a marriage license?

Woman: Er, well, that’s just assumed.

Man: Are open marriages invalid in the eyes of the law?

Woman: Er, ah, I— I don’t know.

Man: Obviously, they aren’t. Couples who want to sleep around are as entitled to a marriage license as couples who do not. And you just agreed that marriage cannot be about what the law does not require. The law does not require sexual fidelity. Therefore, the Public Understanding of Marriage cannot include a concept of sexual fidelity. When you countered my sexual overtures with mention of your marital status, you were expecting me to understand marriage according to a particular religious tradition. I would not have expected that such a modern and enlightened woman as you at least seemed to be would be in the thrall of such backward theocratic thinking.

Woman: Fuck you! (throws her mojito in his face and stomps out)

No comments: