Unlike a lot of people I am not celebrating the supreme court’s decision

For most of human history marriage has had a single, unchanging definition and these activist judges are tinkering with that to the detriment of society.

Marriage is a business transaction conducted between the father of the bride and the father of the groom to ensure that heirs are produced to perpetuate the line and that property remains within the family instead of being gobbled up by the state. The only sentiment involved is the affection of the parents for their children and a concurrent desire to see them produce a stable, harmonious and prosperous household. Letting individuals make decisions for themselves – especially decisions based on hormones – is a sure recipe for disaster and it’s also monstrously unnatural. It is only with the addlebrained troubadours that the emotions properly reserved for one’s mistress or whore were transferred to one’s wife and look at how well that has turned out. The divorce rate has astronomically increased over the last century to the point where 40 to 70% of all marriages today are dissolved depending on which statistics you accept. (I tend to favor the higher number because it supports my point better.)

I will never understand why homosexuals want to appropriate this institution for themselves. Haven’t these people read their fucking Plato? Gay love is morally, spiritually and emotionally superior to heterosexual love since it does not arise from a biological imperative to beget offspring. The whole point of it is to enable you to think grand philosophical thoughts while you’re rubbing your penis between some cute Athenian boy’s thighs. You just can’t do that with your wife. Why would you even want to? Do you get all googly eyed when the barrista makes your latte in the morning or the maintenance crew tidies up your work station? Preposterous!

In fact from the beginning this whole movement for “equality” has profoundly sickened me. I have to swallow my gorge every time I see a homosexual say, “We’re just like you! We’re normal and not threatening. I like guys, you like women – that’s the only difference. I don’t dress in leather chaps or wear panties or let anonymous strangers fist me in park restrooms. I just want to settle down with the person I love, buy a house, raise some kids and live out my days in domestic tranquility.”

Urrrrr … urrrr …. bleeeeaaaaaach …

*cough cough*

Sorry. Where was I?

Oh yes. Homosexuals should be pathic, not pathetic. And the desire to imitate the unnatural social norms and hollow institutions of our decadent and moribund culture is the very definition of pathetic in my book. Especially if doing so comes at the cost of everything fun and exciting about homosexuality. If anything heterosexuals should be aspiring to the homosexual lifestyle, not the other way around! You would laugh to see the noble-maned lion playing the part of the lamb or the peacock in all his finery trying to convince the world that he was really a duck – so why is this any different? Come on gays, you’re better than this. If the rainbow ends in Lanford, find yourself another rainbow to chase.

And if this isn’t motivated by a craven need for the acceptance that conformity confers and you genuinely desire such a thing, that … that is too disheartening to contemplate.

Just say no to marriage – whether you are homosexual or heterosexual!

no-gay-marriage no-family not-marriage

Now that I’ve pissed everyone off, I’ll get to my real point …

The love I feel for my partners legitimates itself — it does not require shared property or children or the acceptance of society at large for me to consider it real, nor is there some goal towards which we are moving in the relationship. This is it. I’m with them because I choose to be with them and because they choose to be with me. Not out of fear of financial repercussions, not out of some delusional promise that we will be together forever and always, not because some piece of paper immutably binds us. It’s a choice, like all relationships are. My relationships are no less and no more significant than your own. The courts declared it was illegal to privilege the relationships of one group of people over another — and yet that is precisely what this decision does. The only just thing to do is abolish marriage altogether from the perspective of the state. If people feel the need to have their union blessed within their religious tradition, that’s another matter entirely. But that should confer no rights and no benefits at all.

Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , ,

Post navigation

10 thoughts on “Unlike a lot of people I am not celebrating the supreme court’s decision

  1. I’m in complete agreement. I don’t know how to push for “no legal marriage”, but I’ve been against it for decades now.

    Like

  2. Teka Lynn

    Well, if the US weren’t so screwed up about health care, my partner and I would probably still be happily cohabiting instead of happily legal. I have health insurance, he doesn’t, we’re both getting older, we both want coverage. QED.

    Like

  3. The problem with marriage is not the union itself, but that it is a conflict of church and state–marriage is a religious institution, while civil unions and domestic partnerships are not.

    Like

    • Teka Lynn

      Where is this the case? As I understand it, what makes the marriage legally binding is the contract signed by the partners, which is an entirely civil/secular one. The wedding ceremony itself has important religious and social significance, but has no bearing in the eyes of the law without the marriage license.

      I was married in a civil ceremony, rather than a religious one.

      Like

      • The word ‘marriage’ has an incredibly loaded history. The state did not begin getting involved in marriage until the early 1600s and prior to that it was strictly a religious practice. St. Paul really hammered the concept of marriage into being and theorized that the union between a man and a woman was akin to the relationship between Christ and the church.The Council of Trent decreed that a marriage had to be witnessed by the church to be considered valid and legal in the eyes of the state AND the church. Non-religious ‘marriages’ didn’t come into being until the early 1800s in Britain and it took until 2005 before anyone could get married there without the religious trappings.

        There have also been cases [I'm on my phone so I'm stuck on the citing of them] where individuals have had a strictly religious ceremony without a ‘marriage’ license and it has been upheld in court as a valid legal contract.

        When someone says ‘marriage’, the mind does not go towards the legal, civil contract–it goes to the religious ceremony and the trappings thereof.

        The fact that no ‘marriage’ is legal without some sort of ceremony points to the background of marriage being religious in origin. A true civil-only contract would only require the signing of the legally binding contract with a witness.

        Like

    • The idea of marriage as a religious institution is altogether new, considering the history of marriage. Even after the Christianisation of Europe, marriage was still largely a civil matter until maybe about 8-10 centuries ago –and the institution of marriage has been around for thousands of years. The concepts of “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships” as a separate-but-“equal” contract to marriage is less than a century old.

      “Traditional marriage” IS domestic partnership / civil union. “Marriage as a religious rite” is a Christian lie right up there with their mythical “peaceful conversion of Europe” as widespread disinfo they’ve been passing off as “fact” since about the Victorian era.

      Like

  4. I’ve actually got my hetero friends supporting the GOP and the Religious Right. After all, the Christians say that homosexuality is a choice, and I’m so fabulous, the breeders in my life wish it were true.

    Conforming to the hetero norm is not something I’d ever have to worry about. I’m so gay I can’t even think straight.

    That being said, I do think that state-recognized marriage equality is important because to me, a marriage/union/whathaveyou is a recognition by one’s social group of the relationship. I imagine family, friends, religious community, and government as concentric circles of community which provide not only support, but expectations as well for the relationship to last.

    It’s up to the members of the relationship how many of these levels of support they want. For me, I wouldn’t get married unless it was actually legal in Texas. There’s no point in having a wedding w/o an official “state” of marriage to follow, IMO, if I’m going to spend all that money on a big ass party and not get the tax benefits later. But I’m pragmatic like that.

    And anonymous strangers don’t fist me in park restrooms because I’m a top.

    Like

  5. Syna

    The best proof of this point is how insanely watered-down and corporatized Pride has become.

    All I wanted when I left for college was to attend a Pride like the ones I’d heard about, and I found floats sponsored by Wells Fargo. One of the greater disappointments in my life :(

    Like

  6. OMG Sannion! you took the sentiments right out of my mind – expressed them in a much more eloquent and succinct manner! I totally agree!

    Here in Australia the political landscape has not progressed as far as allowing marriage equality. It is still being debated, since our recently ousted prime minister was opposed it, the conversation has been going around in loops.

    People are saying that it’s all about choice. That currently we homos dont even have the choice to decide whether or not we want to get married or not….But I say that its a false choice! I am pretty sure that the elders in the homo community, when they were out there fighting for our rights back in the 60’s and 70’s – they werent fighting for the right to be just like the hetero, but rather fighting for the civil space (so to speak) to be opening queer/homo, in whatever why they felt that part of them was expressed without being persecuted for it. By wanting marriage we are conforming to society’s broader notions of what a ‘legitimate’ relationship is – and I say that is BULLSHIT! As queers we’re in the amazing position of defining our relationships the way we want, without having to conform to some stupid cultural relationship script every fucking man and his dog falls into without really thinking and questioning the dynamics of their relationship. Rather than present ourselves ‘just like them’ (i.e. heteros) so as to be allowed into the institution of marriage, why not grab marriage by the balls, slap it around a little bit and completely transform it into something that has ACTUAL meaning in our lives….

    But perhaps I hold too much of a high standard on my fellow homo, expecting them to have a higher level of self awareness and understanding of how these things work. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, not many have read their Plato.

    Lets do away with marriage all together! Lets not have a hierarchy of relationships.

    Like

Blog at WordPress.com. The Adventure Journal Theme.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 454 other followers

%d bloggers like this: