07 July 2011

Get Over It

I’m inclined to agree with Ferdinand on this:

No really, I don’t care, and neither should you. If you’re expending any serious amount of energy opposing gay marriage, there’s something seriously wrong with your head. Defending the integrity of marriage in America at this point is like defending the chastity of a crack whore. No-fault divorce and feminist family courts, among other things, have so debased marriage that letting gays join the club isn’t going to so much as leave a ripple in the pond. Marriage has been long dead, and all the people in the gay marriage debate are doing is playing tug-of-war with the corpse.

I see no point in defending marriage from teh gays anymore.   Heterosexuals have allowed feminists to absolutely destroy marriage through lobbying the state, and the results speak for themselves:  Divorce is now remarkably common and the traditional nuclear family is considerably less common.  Many children are born outside of wedlock, and many have to live through a divorce, which increases their risk for behavioral problems, crime, and other issues.  Sex and marriage are barely related to each other anymore.

At this point, there is little the gays can do to make the situation worse.  This is especially true given that they have all other rights heterosexuals enjoy, including the right to adopt.  Thus, gays can already destroy the family as much as straight people already have.

And the slippery slope isn’t particularly worrisome either.  As some have noted, a soft polygamy already exists.   Acknowledging it legally isn’t going to increase the damage.

Marriage might be saved by privatization, but I tend to doubt it.  The fundamental problem marriage faces as an institution isn’t legal but cultural.  Quite simply, marriage doesn’t mean much to anyone anymore, and no amount of legal restructuring will make people care about it.  Saving marriage will require that people be serious about keeping their vows, which furthers requires that they are people of character.  I guess that means marriage is toast.


  1. They have all the same rights as heterosexuals already. So why are they fighting?

    Because what they _don't_ have yet in the US is the power to use the legal system as a club against anyone who disputes their claim to being "married". They're already a "suspect class", giving them a diverse array of privileges in law that are denied to the rest of us...the only thing keeping a lesbian activist from successfully suing the Knights of Columbus for refusing to rent her a hall to celebrate her "wedding" reception is the fact that what has taken place shortly before said reception is legally defined as not being a wedding.

    We'll stop fighting legal "marriage" for gays when they give us back the right to freedom of association.

  2. @Matt- nice tautology.

    As for freedom of association, it is helpful to remember that elected officials took that away a long time ago. And the circumstances of that occurrence had nothing to do with gay marriage.

    At any rate, marriage as a legally-bound social institution is dead, and saying that gays can't get a piece of paper from the government declaring them legally married is not going to change that fact.