Are you enjoying your Memorial Day? The Editor is. Let’s talk about arguments against gay marriage.
Sam Schulman (who has been married three times… heathen) wrote a zinger of crap. The Weekly Standard published it over a holiday weekend, as it is one of the worst columns ever written in history. Really, it is that bad. I’m even disrupting a vacation to bring this to you, dear reader:
When a gay man becomes a professor or a gay woman becomes a police officer, he or she performs the same job as a heterosexual. But there is a difference between a married couple and a same-sex couple in a long-term relationship. The difference is not in the nature of their relationship, not in the fact that lovemaking between men and women is, as the Catholics say, open to life. The difference is between the duties that marriage imposes on married people–not rights, but rather onerous obligations–which do not apply to same-sex love.
Yeah…….So douche bag argues that gays don’t carry the same responsibilities as heteros. Obviously this is true, as Sam believes gays aren’t even human. Would you give a god the same responsibilities as a human being? Of course not. According to Schulman, gays are incapable of having a “marriage” because of a vastly absurd and deeply delusional a priory that marriage is not a bond, but a unity between a penis and a vagina. WELL OKAY THEN.
The entity known as “gay marriage” only aspires to replicate a very limited, very modern, and very culture-bound version of marriage. Gay advocates have chosen wisely in this. They are replicating what we might call the “romantic marriage,” a kind of marriage that is chosen, determined, and defined by the couple that enters into it. Romantic marriage is now dominant in the West and is becoming slightly more frequent in other parts of the world. But it is a luxury and even here has only existed (except among a few elites) for a couple of centuries–and in only a few countries. The fact is that marriage is part of a much larger institution, which defines the particular shape and character of marriage: the kinship system.
“Romantic Marriage.” Do you know what that is? That is when you are married three times, like Schulman, who will surely come back after his death as the next awe-inspiring Jesus Goblin.
Christ, what a terrible writer. This Schulman guy isn’t very good, either.
“The difference is between the duties that marriage imposes on married people–not rights, but rather onerous obligations–which do not apply to same-sex love.”
Yeah, and you know who most stands in the way of affording teh geyz the opportunity to accept those obligations and duties???
Arseholes like Sam “Third Time’s A Charm” Schulman. Because Sam “I Never Met A Vagina I Didn’t Like, Except The First Two” Schulman wants to maintain a “separate but equal” status quo for teh geyz. And he ain’t alone.
A pox on all their houses. Even Hopey’s. Especially Hopey’s, ‘coz that man’s gotta know that “separate but equal” is a fraud and a failure, no matter which citizens are the targets for discrimination.
“When a gay man becomes a professor or a gay woman becomes a police officer, he or she performs the same job as a heterosexual. ”
But of course this could never, ever apply to the armed forces. This is a nuance that is impossible for non-conservatives to ever understand. You just have to have faith that the military is different and therefore homosexuals cannot perform any useful duties in them.
If people like this don’t like the gayz, then why aren’t they encouraging homosexuals to enlist and die in the wars they seem to enjoy creating? Why not a gay-only military and then make even MORE wars?
Bruno:
You mean like Nixon did with the brothers?
Diabolical.
Thank you, Sgt. Shorts, for disrupting your holiday to report to us from the front lines of the gay marriage v. opposite marriage conflict.
I think I know why Mr. Sam has been divorced twice & married thrice. It was only his third marriage which was an arranged affair, with the wife’s father handing over a dowry comprised of several cows, some Impressed Ware pottery, and a mule (for the fuckin’.) He & his 3rd bride now live with his parents & extended family, where his wife & mom prepare dinner all day & at night he rubs his granny’s feet, sore from the bunions, after shaving her back. This idyllic existence should only ever be enjoyed by the opposite-married, because the benefits of living by traditions thousands of years old are self-evident, much like the benefits of the judeo/christian/muslin religions. Don’t mess with a good thing which has served us so well (?) for so long.
It boggles the mind that such people exist, let alone think this way.
He’s arguing that modern marriage, i.e. the “romantic marriage”, was invented by, and reserved for, heterosexuals. But by saying that it is a “modern marriage” he is acknowledging the fact that marriage has been an evolving institution since its creation, therefore it would seem he’s fucking himself in the ass with that dumbass argument. If it’s constantly changing, why can’t it continue with that change through gay marriage? Seriously, what is the goddamn issue here? I’m offended that certain heteros are allowed to marry and produce their devil offspring, why cant we just ban marriage all together???
“When a gay man becomes a professor or a gay woman becomes a police officer, he or she performs the same job as a heterosexual. ”
But as peons of the proverbial “Man,” straight people ALSO perform the same job as a homosexual… which is, of course, getting fucked in the ass.
You see, sweeping generalities are fun!
[...] HELP. Save us from these monsters. After all, they aren’t even human compared to REAL [...]
I recommend reading Sadly, No!’s take on this asshole’s argument against marriage equality.
Also, Shorts missed some of the best parts of Sam Schulman’s piece, like this gem:
Few men would ever bother to enter into a romantic heterosexual marriage–much less three, as I have done–were it not for the iron grip of necessity that falls upon us when we are unwise enough to fall in love with a woman other than our mom.
That one doesn’t even need commentary. I mean, Christ…
There’s also a lot of stuff how the purpose of marriage is controlling and “protecting” helpless womenfolk:
This most profound aspect of marriage–protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex–is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage.
Duh! Why do you think they’re called the “weaker sex?”
And I Googled Sam Schulman and checked out some of his writings, and this is one of the least stupid and offensive things he’s written, so that should tell you all you need to know.