|
The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage: It Isn't Going to Work
|
View this Thread in Original format
| HardTranceProd |
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/P...3narty.asp?pg=1
I'd like to present to you a fascinating (albeit conservative-leaning) article on gay marriage. Suffice to say, this is a perspective that you don't often hear in the media.
It's important to preface this by saying that the author is not a bigot. He has no problem with homosexuals at all, and he's not some kind of an ignorant douchebag. Rather, he takes a scientific, evolutionary lens to this problem.
This article involves some frank biological discussion. If you're a politically-correct person who is uncomfortable with facts about humans--namely, that there exist some biologically-driven, evolutionary principles that still act on us today--then do not read this article. On the other hand, if you follow evolutionary psychology and are courageous enough to acknowledge it (as I am), you will enjoy this article, even if you're a liberal (which I am).
Have fun! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
I tried to finish it, but it was boring. I think its rather silly for some hetero conservative to tell us what gays will or will not experience in relation to marriage. Surely that would be on a fairly individual basis.
| quote: |
So if the failure of gay marriage will not affect gay people, who will it hurt? Only everybody else.
As kinship fails to be relevant to gays, it will become fashionable to discredit it for everyone. The irrelevance of marriage to gay people will create a series of perfectly reasonable, perfectly unanswerable questions: If gays can aim at marriage, yet do without it equally well, who are we to demand it of one another? Who are women to demand it of men? Who are parents to demand it of their children's lovers--or to prohibit their children from taking lovers until parents decide arbitrarily they are "mature" or "ready"? By what right can government demand that citizens obey arbitrary and culturally specific kinship rules--rules about incest and the age of consent, rules that limit marriage to twosomes? Mediocre lawyers can create a fiction called gay marriage, but their idealism can't compel gay lovers to find it useful. But talented lawyers will be very efficient at challenging the complicated, incoherent, culturally relative survival from our most primitive social organization we call kinship. The whole set of fundamental, irrational assumptions that make marriage such a burden and such a civilizing force can easily be undone. |
I mean, come on :haha: |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
The article is absolutely retarded. I'm not a supporter of gay marriage, but at the same time I oppose this yet another religion-led quest to tell us what to do and what not to do, and deny homos their rights to equal living, enjoy life, spousal rights/benefits, etc. They are entitled to these and more.
When I say I am not a supporter, some of the things that I am against is the wording of it. I think it is NOT marriage, and it should be called something else as throughout the eons and eons marriage was a union between a man and a woman, so gays have to create and/or use a different term, i.e. companionship or union but NOT marriage - because its not the same thing.
After all, for many generations throughout the world, marriage was something really special to religions, and even today often enough some happy couples would get a representative of some religion to bless their marriage and read from the book - hope you're catching my drift. I even think that marriage was created by some form of religious-controlled institution long long ago in early organized human societies (you didn't actually think that marriage was with humans since the beginning, did you? OH WAIT - religion will tell you otherwise, what a predicament that is!!!), so I can see why religion has a big beef with it. I think if homosexuals want to have better relations with religious-dominated society control, they outta have this understood and accepted and it will make things much easier for them. Its logic.
The issue of giving the marriage title to same-sex couples reminds me of an old joke, actually. It speaks volumes if you can think through it.
"Mommy, mommy, what is a lesbian?"
"Go ask your father - she knows."
I tended to support gays more than oppose them though because they are a considerate minority and have always existed everywhere and always will (its natural), and because so many morons out there who want to kill them all, and so much violence is directed against them. That is retarded. I am against extremists, and people who want to use violence against gays are extremists. And if they want to use violence against gays in their foolish selfish campaign to achieve whatever, I can only imagine what else they have in store for others at any other time. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I tried to finish it, but it was boring. I think its rather silly for some hetero conservative to tell us what gays will or will not experience in relation to marriage. Surely that would be on a fairly individual basis.
|
The problem with people like you is that you think everything has an "individual basis." In other words, you think every man is an island unto himself. There is no such thing. We are all products of the million generations that have gone before in our evolutionary past. Every man and every woman alive today have inherited a certain set of biological principles that have shaped our species, down to the very last detail. |
|
|
| thedoggyworld |
I have a really hard time even following this article.
You say gay marriage won't work. He says we shouldn't allow it (and that it's more or less bad) because you can't have children in the marriage.
Any clarification? |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
Yeah - i tried reading the entire article, but his self-righteous bull tone was a huge turn-off (and i'm neither a supporter nor detractor of gay marriage - i couldn't careless). Surprisingly, the article was very well-written (the portion I read). His opposition because of the "four profound effects of marriage within the kinship system" is absolute bull. Boiled down, essentially, he said gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because:
(1) we can't protect a young girls virginity through gay marriage (BS),
(2) gays might as well their brothers (which seems really stupid and i don't see why the same incestual rules wouldn't apply to gays),
(3) illegitimate children can't be produced through gay marriage (which seems like a good thing to me), and
(4) the bonds of domestic slavery (i.e., the wife ceeding to the every need of the husband) aren't created in gay marriage (he didn't say this, but he might as well). I'm not sure why he thinks the families of gay people won't eventually come around and form a larger more extended family as the notion of being gay changes throughout time. Perhaps he should evaluate the change in relationships between straight couples. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
The problem with people like you is that you think everything has an "individual basis." In other words, you think every man is an island unto himself. There is no such thing. We are all products of the million generations that have gone before in our evolutionary past. Every man and every woman alive today have inherited a certain set of biological principles that have shaped our species, down to the very last detail. |
I don't think he's arguing we're all a bunch of sub-species, but that we each have our own preconceived notions and tendencies and at some level we try to protect those. This is absolutely true. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
The solution here is to obviously abolish marriage as a state-recognized institution altogether.
And HardTranceProd, you're really not the courageous intellectual you suppose yourself to be. :stongue: |
|
|
| Krypton |
| What a load of self-righteous bull. Glad they care about the sex lives of complete strangers. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
The solution here is to obviously abolish marriage as a state-recognized institution altogether.
And HardTranceProd, you're really not the courageous intellectual you suppose yourself to be. :stongue: |
But he reads The Weekly Standard! |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
Suffice to say, this is a perspective that you don't often hear in the media. |
Honestly, this was the first red flag for me.
Because the media shovels enough around, most of it that actually gets through is so unimportant or irrelevant anyways, I cringe to think about the things even the media doesn't want to waste its time on. |
|
|
| The17sss |
I'm all for the traditional stance of 1 dude, 1 chick being what legally defines "marriage"... but it's truly one of the least important issues in this world to me until the crazy unhinged activists make it the end all-be all of humanity.
This statement pretty much describes how the loud mouthed activists, who are actualy more full of hate and venom than anyone else, make me sick. Ironic that the most intolerant can be those who demand tolerance. I mean, seriously... does Miss California deserve to get publicly destroyed over and over because she answered a question truthfully about her personal belief?
| quote: | If you believe in the traditional definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, you ought to write those beliefs on the back of a twenty-dollar bill, because then they’ll be worth something. If you publicly object to gay marriage, you’ll be mercilessly destroyed. If your state votes overwhelmingly against gay marriage, like California, the will of the voters will be promptly overturned by a handful of robed philosopher-kings in the judiciary… and if the electoral triumph of those who defend marriage is reinstated, as with California, further challenges will be filed by high-powered legal dream teams.
This will continue until the lawyers find a clause, sub-paragraph, penumbra, or emanation that can be used to put the majority of Americans on their knees, in submission to the will of a tiny, politically favored percentage of the population. While the legal challenges continue, the voters of California will be made to face endless gay-marriage referendums, backed by lavishly financed campaigns crackling with Hollywood star power, until they make the “right” decision… at which point the issue will be declared settled for all eternity, and even discussing the idea of another vote will be considered a hate crime. |
|
|
|
|
|
