Viral Video Of The Week: Gay Marriage Ruins Marriage

Breeder. Sir. You admit it DOES affect their family and friends. OK, HOW? (You don't mind being called "breeder", do you? That's their word, not mine.) If only it were a fair world where everybody could have everything, but it's not.

The men have double the choices now. A young woman has a million handicaps with men: she is just plain different. Very different. She can get pregnant. She doesn't understand power. She thinks it's a fair world. She wants to be Wonder Woman. She is tiresomely out of reality, and it's boring to re-educate her from scratch. It always was. But once there was no choice. Now there is. It's simpler to stay on your side of the gender divide, where people are less crazy.

Woman's monopoly has been broken! She lobbied for a better deal from man. Ha. Forget that! A scab has arrived. She is now under-bid. Woman are now optional, not necessary. Man is a runaway shop. He has found a cheaper source of the same services - domestic, emotional, personal, and now marital.

The men are gloating, and the women are too unsophisticated to know it is their necks on the block.

The women will be called "honey" sometimes, and petted, but eventually they will have to go home to their own apartments. That is not going to be fine.

Cue the flouncing, indignant assertions that we females "are TOO able to make our way in the world, and we do TOO know what's going on, and we are not helpless little things, and don't think we are so weak or stupid. We are woman. Hear us roar. Go girl. Humph! Hmph! "

Not stupid or weak: just eternally idealist and very, very nice. We are the believer sex. We just want everybody to be happy! We are also afflicted with an unconscious, congenital arrogance that says we can never be replaced. For obvious reasons. Right?

That is not the whole picture, however. Babies are not much in demand these days and there is more than one way to organize home life. Even with babies.

Daughter. I am on YOUR side. Son. On yours, too.

I've heard plenty of funny non-arguments against gay marriage, but I must admit  anon#1 is quite original.  So now that men can marry men, women have lost their "monopoly."  Right.  All it took was a court ruling (or two, including Massachusetts), and suddenly all the straight single men will lust after their hairier, flat-chested, phallus-waiving buddies.  Just think--no more foreplay, keep the toilet seat  up all you want, no more chick flicks!  Anyone who thinks this is likely must be pretty insecure about their own sexuality (which happens to be true about most homophobics--see, e.g. Larry Craig).

--Z

Z bird, you know that things that were completely nutty and unheard of once, not very long ago, either, are ordinary now. Today's marriage-less, infertile, social landscape is only 25 years old! Really!That's not a lot of time in history.

Stop whistling past the graveyard.

Z bird, how many decades have you personally seen pass? As a socially conscious adult? Age one-to-ten doesn't count.

Even this movement is not as old as it claims to be for PR purposes. It only dates back to the mid-80's, not to the '70's, not at all. It only made headway because of the compassion angle, about the mass AIDS deaths. Fifteen thousand lives were lost in lower Manhattan in only a few years. AIDS was only identified around 1980. Why? Because it takes eight years begin to feel sick, and then two more years to die, or it did then, before today's medical advances which prolong life with this disease. The transmissions (infections) occurred around 1970, Woodstock-time and the hippy trip, and then, the deaths only started happening around 1980, ten years later. The sympathy (replacing condemnation) took at least five more years after that, to become general. Changing that thinking took a whole lot of money for: parades, fireworks, politicking, huge and permanent medical facilities that employ people.

Every marriage affects many, many people around the couple. All those people's ideas have to change. And they will change. Is there any model in religious intermarriage precedent, which was once oh-so-taboo? Today, about half do that. With plenty of social and religious consequences. That will look like Sunday School, compared to this.

You are proposing co-existence. Well, who won last time? One culture prevailed, and the other disappeared. Your confidence is naive.

Men may not love competing with ms. girlfriend, either. They already have to explain their salaries, which are not like her Papa's, their receding hair (such a crime) and non-caveman muscles. How dare they have intellectual jobs - and look it? They have to think all day, and still look like farmers anyway. And then there's "make me laugh".

But you and I agree completely that this is no solution to human happiness! It's just as dull, and difficult, over there! In fact it's worse. The deep glue is not operating. So we agree about that, too!

I appreciate your remarks, Z bird, and may all be well. I only wish it were a fair world, where everybody could have everything, but it's not.

All I said was that it was ridiculous to think that straight men would abandon women for other men just because society now accepts gay marriage.  You don't need any understanding or long life experience to understand this. 

Straight men are attracted to women and generally find men disgusting at close range.  You don't need any life-long wisdom or cultural knowledge to understand this--every straight man can literally feel the truth of this statement (do I need to specify where?) from the moment they hit puberty.  Sexual attraction is not an "idea"--it's an instinct that predates the very notion of ideas by millions of years (or by 24 hours, if you think the animals were created the day before Adam). 

None or your references to AIDS, the 70s, the 80s or hippies says anything about how gay marriage will somehow override our biology to create a nation of gay men and lonely women.  

--Z

Personally, I'd like to here how the marriages between two people affect many, many people. Most marriages affect no one except for close relatives and friends. It's not like a gay couple is going to get married, and suddenly all the oil runs out. Or such as in that video that a sudden meteor will hit the Earth killing us all because two lesbians got married. There may be a small change to everyone in the same way as if I go to my local Safeway and buy a drink. The only change is that now no one else can buy that particular can/bottle of that drink. The change doesn't matter, stop making a mountain of out of a molehill.

Um, not sure what to say about anon #1, really, but to clarify, when I say that gay people getting married affects the couple and their friends and families, I mean it affects them in the ordinary way straight people getting married affects the couple and their friends and families.

Z Bird, I hear you. This new order won't mean much for people your age, perhaps. You are too young to remember the 60's, but also old enough that your feelings are set in stone. None for you, thanks. But: you hugely underestimate the flexibility, malleability, and wide variety of human feeling potential. This new order will profoundly affect people who are ten years old today. They will grow up in it. Yes: there will always be people who just won't, ever, and also some people - as we have seen! - who just WILL, no matter how mean society is to them. Those two strongly defined groups are at opposite sides of the population Bell curve. I am talking about the wide, mushy, middle of the Bell curve. Lots of gray-area possibilities there. Lots of us, maybe all of us, have had same-sex crushes, or vague loving feelings, in early life, that stayed innocent and childish, meaning non-sexual, in most cases, because of societal norms. (Unless there was a predator around to exploit this.)Later, this phase passed, we conformed to societal norms over time, and it was all no big deal. Now, those feelings will encounter no barrier to full expression, and life is going to be very different. Z Bird, young as you are, you are an anachronism. As I am too, I formally say hello.

Changes always start small, and then keep going. An inch, then a yard. In the last two or three decades, huge social changes have taken place, that would have been science-fiction-ludicrous to your grandparents or at least to mine. That is why I brought up your age! Are you too young to even know what that means? Norms change, Z Bird. Very much.

Another thing is that a same-sex couple is not an exact replica of a two-sex one, with just this one little difference. It is a whole different planet. There IS such a thing as gay culture, and it is not at all like yours. IT IS A WORLD WHERE THE OTHER KIND OF PEOPLE ARE NOT CONSIDERED COOL. It will become very hard to date a man who has NEVER, EVER, EVER done that. Or, who never, in his whole long, life, into middle age, NEVER, EVER will. Will that be OK?

I wish no one ill, but life is not fair. I am asking for a horrible, soldierly, sacrifice. Or, a compromise, "don't ask, don't tell". That is not enough for them. It isn't even safe for them. I understand, and sympathise! But I lament the cost of their safety to society in general. Especially to women.

"The law, in its impartial majesty, forbids both rich and poor from sleeping under the bridge" - Anatole France.

Dear wonderful, innocent, pure people: brace yourself for this: there is such a thing as flirting! Seduction! You could even call it manipulation. You can be stimulated! Gay culture places a very big premium on being good at this interesting life skill. Whatever people practice endlessly, they get good at, whether playing the tuba, or anything else. The first few times won't work, but an atmosphere eventually has an effect on people. Especially those who grow up in this new order from early life.

You are counting on people's feelings, but people need rules.

I am asserting that if you don't know these worlds up close and personal, and believe me, you don't, you can't make grand pronouncements about them, which you are DOING.

I have to admit what you're now saying is coherent.  Basically you're making an argument that whether you're gay or straight has a "nurture" component to it.  That some people are totally gay, some are completely straight, but others could go either way depending on how accepting society is of homosexuals. 

But I think the science is pretty clear that homosexuality has a biological rather than sociological basis.  There have been studies showing that homosexual brains are slightly different from straight male brains (but similar to straight female brains).   That being said, I have to admit I'm no scientist and one study today can be debunked by another study tomorrow.

But even if you accept (for the sake of argument) that greater acceptance of gays will lead to more gays, I still don't see how that will lead to hordes of lonely women.  Won't the gay men be cancelled out by lesbians, leaving roughly equal numbers of straight men and women to find each other?  

--Z

No, Z bird, they won't. And, apart from people's personal erotic inclinations, there is a power issue. So, let me correct my own error:

The un-gluing of men and women marrying, Judeo-Christian style, will end up, eventually, with The Republic of Malia (that's Male-ia) wondering why it has to be so all-fired nice to The Sovereign Queendom of Amazonia, especially in times of scarcity! And we are entering times of scarcity. Why not just conquer it, eh? That is what boys do! Should take about half an hour. Then, Woman will NOT go home to her OWN apartment, as I so foolishly said, above. No, she will be housed in the back room. She will make herself useful, which does not include doing anything without male permission. It does NOT include controlling any scarce societal assets, which have POWER, such as knowledge, and above all, money. It does not include personal autonomy, such as reading, having a bank account in her name alone, and driving a car.

We may regret the death of gallantry.

MANY societies have been QUITE un-Judeo-Christian about this, and were universally gay, forget genetics. Their achievements still impress the historians. The Vikings. The Ancient Greeks. But they were not nice for women, and they did not last. (Have you ever shaken hands with a Viking? A real Viking, not a descendant of one. Have you ever walked past a shrine to Zeus?)

Now we come to the point, O philosopher. Is there any culture or way of life that really is better, and righter, than others? A Jew says yes. What do you say? Don't fudge here. You don't have to stone people, but you may be asked to stand for, affirm, and pledge allegiance to something, to the detriment of something else. Just because you think it is better.

You neatly side-step what I said about how much you DON'T REALLY KNOW ABOUT THIS WAY OF LIFE, AS IT IS REALLY LIVED.

Why is it fine that people couple in a way that ENSURES there can never be children? Are children, PEOPLE, so easy to adopt and take from their birth parents? Do you know anybody that was done to? They cope, sure, but is it nothing? How about having a live-in biological father? You had one. Is that a minor thing, a silly luxury we all could do without, pretty easily?