Straight Guys Getting Married

[Quantum Weirdness]

No, not at all. Unlike Bill the Cat, I post what I believe is true, instead of raising dumb objections that I don't even believe myself just because it might possibly score a rhetorical point.

But in any case, "the definition of marriage" isn't relevant to why marriage equality advocates are upset. It's because people trivialized and made a mockery of something that they take very seriously and have long fought for sincerely and passionately. As I analogized earlier, imagine that you lived in an Islamic theocracy in which Christians were forbidden to practice their religion, and then some Muslims who don't care about Christianity at all held a church service with rituals like baptism and communion for the sole reason of winning tickets to a rugby match. That's the essence of why people are upset.

In both those cases, there is a trivialization an mockery of marriage. All that analogy did was help me. Nice one!

[Sparko]

Ah, watching square_peg try to wiggle out of his previous arguments for homosexual marriage warms the cockles of my cold, dark heart.



Who is he to disapprove of two consenting adults getting married for any reason they want?

[Bill the Cat]

Marriage is overrated. .

Not by me. My wife of 21 years agrees too.

[seer]

Sorry, but no. Not even close. These guys wanted to celebrate their lifelong friendship, and to win a contest, so you have no right to tell them that their relationship is any less than the ones you have with the men in your life. Just because they lack the lust for each other doesn't mean that they love each other any less than is worthy of recognition.

And why should a lack of a sexual relations deprive these good friends of the legal and economic benefits of marriage? We are defining marriage into meaningless.

[Bill the Cat]

And why should a lack of a sexual relations deprive these good friends of the legal and economic benefits of marriage? We are defining marriage into meaningless.

Exactly. In my wife's grandmother's retirement home, it was not uncommon to see two 80+ year olds get married just because they are lonely and tired of being alone. There is no sex involved, and very little romantic love. Just friendship and companionship. I suppose Peggie thinks that is a mockery too...

[Sparko]

I think I will marry myself. I get along well with me, and the tax benefits would be nice.

[Sparko]

Exactly. In my wife's grandmother's retirement home, it was not uncommon to see two 80+ year olds get married just because they are lonely and tired of being alone. There is no sex involved, and very little romantic love. Just friendship and companionship. I suppose Peggie thinks that is a mockery too...

He didn't like it when we said that gay marriage was a mockery and insult to marriage. So all of a sudden the shoe is on the other foot and he starts whining.

[Bill the Cat]

I think I will marry myself. I get along well with me, and the tax benefits would be nice.

And you are the only one you marginally trust with your rum and bacon, so...

















Although that trust is specious...

[Zymologist]

You've completely missed the mark on this one. They're still being allowed to marry, and no one is legally objecting to that. So since no right is being denied to them, they by definition aren't being discriminated against. I and many others are personally disapproving of their marriage because they're doing so for an insincere and self-serving reason, and would also be personally disapproving of a man and woman getting married for insincere and self-serving reasons.

Well...I don't think I have. Sure, you're not arguing that they should be legally forbidden from marriage, but your disapproving of their marriage seems to be nothing more than discrimination (by the standards that that have been set for discrimination, anyway).

And all of this misses the point of what the "traditionalists" believe anyway: if marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman, then denying that relationship to a man and a man (whether straight or gay) cannot be discrimination, because the very definition is not satisfied.

[seer]

I think I will marry myself. I get along well with me, and the tax benefits would be nice.

Nah, I could never live with myself!

[Epoetker]

Whiskey had the right of it:

Stanley Kurz warned in The National Review that Gay Marriage would redefine marriage. To both include polygamy and polyamory (more takers for the Muslim former than icky swinger latter I would think) and gay norms of marriage: two people who live together but largely have sex with others.

That prediction is coming true. USA Network’s “Satisfaction” is pushing just such an arrangement. A marriage, where the husband and wife love each other but sleep with other people. That sexual fulfillment and sexy needs are all, and matter the most. Not the family, not lifelong bonds. Just … sex, sex, sex. Love accrues ONLY to those good looking enough to get it through sex, and only as long as the looks last (which is not long). That’s the gay lifestyle in a nutshell.

Any problem with this sort of arrangement? Weeeelll....

This sentence from the article stands out:

Once monogamy is defined out of marriage, it will be next to impossible to educate a new generation in what it takes to keep companionate marriage intact.

Western society is based on the nuclear family. The monogamous marriage. Where love and resources are formed TOGETHER. In a pair. Widespread infedility, the gay norm in marriage, threatens this by all sorts of bastard children and other paramours draining resources away from the family.

In particular, this affects men and women in different ways. A man in such a union, marked by infidelity, runs a massive risk of spending all his money on another man’s child. Men react to this risk by investing none of their resources in children, and spreading their seed. This works well for Africans, who survive through the resources of women only, and for whom a family means a woman alone with two or more children by different fathers. The men compete to be the sexiest singers, dancers, fighters, etc. But contribute, and this is key, no resources to the family or the nation. They just compete to be sexy.

This kind of gay marriage norm, where married couples live together but sleep with others, is not stable. And worse, it destroys male incentives to create wealth. Creating wealth … to attract a mate who will conceive another man’s child? A non-starter. Creating wealth to … raise another man’s child? Another non-starter. Thus gay marriage norms mean single motherhood, far and wide.

HBO’s “Big Love” might have been the first show, and TLC’s “Sister Wives” the second, to push gay marriage norms, but USA’s “Satisfaction” is perhaps the most threatening.

He's even nice enough to identify those responsible:

Who is to blame? Women’s mothers. They are the ones who had the responsibility to speak the truth. To tell their daughters, “you won’t be hot forever.” To let them know they had to avoid the temptation of sex-greed, the hucksters, and that what works (for a while until they die old and alone) for gay men won’t work for them, no matter how “fabulous” their swishy ways seem.

It is this generation of mothers, the women Hillary! Clinton’s age and somewhat older and younger, who bear the burden. Women age 50-70. These are the ones who failed to warn their daughters, about reality. About getting old. About losing their looks. About being invisible to nearly all men, the way most men were invisible to them when they were young and hot.

And its easy to understand why. They themselves fell for it. And so for lack of virtue among women, Western society fell.

[fm93]

And I have. Repeatedly. And you've given absolutely no objective reason to dismiss them.

The last time you and I discussed issues relating to homosexuality, you said:

The Bible is what defines right and wrong in my worldview, and you don't get to redefine that. You can define it in your worldview to your heart's content, but we aren't talking about yours.

What am I supposed to say to that? You basically conceded that no matter what legal mumbo-jumbo you may try to throw out there, your reasons are ultimately based on what you and others think a book specific to your religion says.

Then you are naïve.

So it's your personal contention that marriage should NOT be motivated by sincere love?

Sorry, but no. Not even close. These guys wanted to celebrate their lifelong friendship, and to win a contest

They first and foremost did this to win a contest. Don't act like they sincerely just wanted to celebrate a friendship with a contest victory being included as a benefit. You don't decide to celebrate a lifelong friendship with a marriage if you're already thinking about divorcing after two years.

so you have no right to tell them that their relationship is any less than the ones you have with the men in your life.

Sure I do. Gay people have longed to have their loving relationships officially recognized, and here are these two men who've never been denied that right getting married to win a contest.

Just because they lack the lust for each other doesn't mean that they love each other any less than is worthy of recognition.

Who said anything about lust? The love you have for your wife presumably isn't merely lust, but it's also different than the love you have for your male friends, correct?

In both those cases, there is a trivialization an mockery of marriage. All that analogy did was help me.

Good heavens, no. Straight people have never had to fight for the right to marry. And gay couples are absolutely NOT trivializing or mocking marriage; it is because they DO hold marriage in high regard that they want to partake in it in the first place.

[fm93]

Ah, watching square_peg try to wiggle out of his previous arguments for homosexual marriage warms the cockles of my cold, dark heart.

Yet again I find myself having to repeat myself when Sparko tries to jump in. How can I be "wiggling out of my previous arguments" for same-sex marriage when I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to marry? I'm saying that their motivation for marrying is stupid and self-serving. I'd say the same thing about a man and woman who married each other solely to win a contest, but obviously I wouldn't be arguing against straight marriage.

Who is he to disapprove of two consenting adults getting married for any reason they want?

Neither I nor anyone else has ever said "two consenting adults SHOULD get married for ANY reason that they want."

Well...I don't think I have. Sure, you're not arguing that they should be legally forbidden from marriage, but your disapproving of their marriage seems to be nothing more than discrimination (by the standards that that have been set for discrimination, anyway).

What do you mean by "standards that have been set for discrimination?" Personal disapproval of something isn't discrimination.

And all of this misses the point of what the "traditionalists" believe anyway: if marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman, then denying that relationship to a man and a man (whether straight or gay) cannot be discrimination, because the very definition is not satisfied.

I actually agree with the logic here. I simply don't agree on the "man and a woman" part.

[Sparko]

So it's your personal contention that marriage should NOT be motivated by sincere love?

Look back in history. Marriage rarely had anything to do with love. It was usually arranged for political reasons. Joining of two families through the union and eventual offspring of that union. Even today Marriage for love is mostly a western concept.

[Zymologist]

What do you mean by "standards that have been set for discrimination?" Personal disapproval of something isn't discrimination.


I actually agree with the logic here. I simply don't agree on the "man and a woman" part.

Eh, I'm not expressing myself well at all in this thread. By "standards that have been set" I was referring to the claim that traditionalists are discriminating against gay people in their defense of traditional marriage. I just think the word "discrimination" is tossed around too easily.

To be clear, I also disapprove of what these two guys are doing. I disapprove of it for the same reason you do (trivialization), but also because I believe it violates the very definition of marriage (a man and a woman). Since marriage is being/has been redefined in most modern contexts, I find it ironic that the very people who pushed for that are opposed to a further redefinition, which would make marriage even less exclusionary than it is now. And exclusivity seems to be otherwise strongly condemned by the very people who are now, ironically, arguing for it.