I’ve been reading a post and subsequent comments over at Boundless.org regarding the homosexual movement. I agree with several comments there, but since they’re there, I won’t rehash them here. Instead, I’ll aim to briefly answer the oft-repeated question, “What harm would it do?” Young, Game-aware men who yearn for something more than a series of heartbreak and one-night stands pay particular attention: along the way I’ll also explain why gay “marriage” is not in your best interest.
It might be worth prefacing this with a disclaimer similar to those that I’ve seen on other blogs: while I am a conservative Christian who loves his marriage, I’ve got to shake my head and say that in today’s climate I would be very careful about marrying if I and my prospective bride were not ardent traditionalists. So, make your way in this world as cautiously as you can. Still, since I would dearly like to see a societal return to healthy marriages as a norm, here goes.
“So what harm could it possibly do to let gays marry, anyway?” I think the question is sincere in many cases, and I likewise think that even defenders of traditional marriage sometimes struggle to find an answer. My response starts with an excerpt from Laura Wood, the Thinking Housewife. Several moons ago, she offered a non-exhaustive list of questions any man should ask a potential wife. One of them was:
3. Does she believe in homosexual “marriage” (a tip off that she has no idea what marriage is)?
Precisely. Young men, run, don’t walk, from a woman who believes in gay marriage, because such a woman clearly does not know what marriage is or what it entails. Marriage in its traditional sense means much more than two people signing a piece of paper. It means a lifelong commitment, in sickness and in health, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer. It means a sexual division of role responsibilities in which the man is the head of the home and women are acknowledged as the primary child-carers. Traditional marriage means dedication to the spouse’s welfare in season and out of season and an affirmation that neither husband nor wife will ever, ever misuse the other for personal (including financial) gain. Most critically and basically, the traditional definition of marriage means that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Marriage used to mean all this and more.
But not so today, in many cases. Marriage 2.0 has somewhat altered the traditional agreement, and gay “marriage” threatens to rearrange things further, because of the simple truth that if gay “marriage” can be marriage, then marriage can be anything. Gay unions are not compatible with the traditional understanding of marriage. It follows that if one is willing to tweak the marriage pact in one way, well, why not adjust it in other ways as well?
So, when your young lady, whom you are considering as a long-term marriage prospect, says that she supports gay marriage, what she is saying – perhaps without even realizing it – is that she believes marriage can be whatever she decides it is. And that impends disaster for you, my friend. It means that any of those aforementioned components of traditional marriage are negotiable. Optional. As surely as women follow alphas, rejecting the premise that marriage is the union of one man and one woman opens the door to further tinkering. Rejection of your male authority? Easy. In sickness and in health, ’till death do us part? Nah, my view of marriage didn’t include that part, honey. See you in divorce court.
That’s why men should reject gay marriage on the personal level. But what’s true for an individual is likewise true for society at large. There are folks out there, online and offline, denying that legally enshrined same-sex unions will lead to polygamy and other outcomes, and they’re dead flat wrong, because as we’ve described, a society that is told to accept homosexual “marriage” is essentially being told that marriage can be anything. It can be polygamy.
It can be… temporary.
It can be… an arrangement for the transference of wealth from weak men to unscrupulous women through the mechanism of easy divorce.
In point of fact, I think that probably neither gay unions nor polygamy would become commonplace even if they were legal. That doesn’t matter. What’s important is that gay marriage means a social climate in which men are less willing to marry, because they realize that marriage no longer has any specific meaning. The result will be fewer marriages for everyone, male and female, and thus fewer stable families, and fewer healthy children… and the list of attendant consequences drags on. If you believe, as I do, that one of man’s responsibilities is to help foster a healthy society, you need to see where messing with marriage leads us.
No, for the men’s movement, the debate is not just about whether your neighbours Adam and Steve are “nice people” who “deserve to be able to get married, same as anyone else”. It’s about whether or not men can expect the institution of marriage to guarantee them anything. Should men occupy a certain role within their relationships, and should women honour that role? If you believe in gay marriage, you’ve rejected any basis for answering “yes”.
A very good argument as using the question as a filter, but I have to disagree with the overall premise that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
Of course for them, it isn’t marriage in the Biblical sense, but when was marriage truly strict to Biblical law in our society? The English Protestant Church was set up essentially to bypass the traditional Catholic marriage laws. (as well as allowing a power grab to Henry VIII, but that was a happy bonus)
Why the hell would anyone want to marry?
The whole push for gay marriage just shows that gays are stupid.
The little kids want the toys they can’t have, even if it’s a shit toy.
Maybe gay marriage should be legal because they want to have the same rights as straight people do? I mean honestly, stop thinking about only yourself for one second. There are people out there who just want to be able to share their life and take their love to the next level, just like straight couples can. Live and let live. I never understood any of these anti-homosexual and anti-gay arguments. It sort of makes me laugh at how ignorant people can be.
“Maybe gay marriage should be legal because they want to have the same rights as straight people do?”
Actually gays always had EXACTLY the same rights as straight people – they could always marry someone from the opposite sex. That they didn’t want to is their problem. It’s only *sshats like you who want to make this a problem for everyone.
You see ‘democracy’ means the rule of the people, witch manifests as the rule of the MAJORITY. The majority is straight, so I think it is natural that the laws are tailored for them (us in this case), and there is absolutely no need for the majority to be strained by this bullsh*t from a minority. It’s a neoliberal fascist idea that the minority should rule over the majority. Why 90-95% of all people should take pains to accomodate the stupid wishes of the 5-10% is beyond me.
Deansdale–Apparently you like your women dumb, obedient, barefoot and pregnant. Unfortunately for *sshats like you, there are too many intelligent women who want to have a partnership with their spouse instead of letting the man run their lives.
Lucky for me and for many women, there are intelligent men who want to be partners with their wives.
If a gay man marries another gay man, how does that in anyway reflect on your marriage (assuming you found a dumb, subservient woman to actually marry you!)
[...] Samson’s Jawbone: Why men should oppose homosexual marriage [...]
Nicely thought out piece, but I too disagree with the premise. Marriage has meant a variety of things over time. No reason it can’t change.
Beyond that, if any type of movement that benefits men is going to get off the ground, I think it needs to include gay men, not exclude them.
Gay men are men too, and the fact that society celebrates lesbianism and “shames” gay men is a good indicator of how society views the sexuality of ALL men. Men’s sexuality = sinful and bad. Women’s sexuality = yay!
I actually count myself as a conservative in a lot of respects — and my feeling is that gov’t oversteps its bounds in lots of areas. This is one of them.
Actually gays always had EXACTLY the same rights as straight people – they could always marry someone from the opposite sex. That they didn’t want to is their problem. It’s only *sshats like you who want to make this a problem for everyone.
No, it’s more like ignorant f*cks like you who make the world such a hateful place. How does the marriage of two men or two women affect you AT ALL? Does it hurt your finances? Your health? Your overall well being? No. In the case of this blog, he says that if you support gay marriage, you do not take marriage seriously, and do not believe in the traditional ways of marriage. Does everyone have to believe in the “traditional” ways where a man is head of the household and a woman stays at home and takes care of the children? No. That’s an old fashioned and out of date way of thinking. If you want to live like that, by all means, go ahead. I don’t care how you live. Which is exactly why you should allow homosexuals to marry eachother. They happen to love members of the same sex. Why should they hide their true feelings in shame. It’s not a choice, it’s how they are. Just like you were born straight, homosexuals were born to be attracted to and love members of the same sex. I could go on and on to debate this with you, but i’m not going to change your outlook. Oh well.
You’re against gay marriage because it might lead to divorce and financial rape of men? You’re about 40 years too late. If anything, heterosexuals destroyed marriage all by themselves decades ago, and that’s why they think destroying it some more is a good idea.
Days of Broken Arrows: Ah, society looks more favourably upon lesbianism than male homosexuality mostly because straight men find fantasy lesbians (i.e. the pretty ones, not the butch dykes of reality) ‘hot’, and enjoy porn featuring them, and conversely, straight men are disgusted by the thought of male homosexuality, esp. if they visualize being hit on by queers. So this is not, in this case, a case of society automatically favouring women over men; rather, it is men’s tastes dictating the direction of society, actually. (Same reason why female porn stars make more money and achieve more fame than their male co-stars, contra Welmer’s ludicrous finding of anti-male sexism, over at the Spearhead today. The biggest straight male porn star is Ron Jeremy, precisely because guys like the idea that a pork-bellied, ugly hairy greaser can get all the hot poon; it gives guys hope. But no other straight male is as big a star, simply because they’re interchangeable ‘woodsmen’.)
I have to admit, I just don’t get any of the arguments against gay marriage. Part of that is because I’m constitutionally incapable of recognizing or agreeing with any argument from authority. Simply saying “It’s always been thus” or “The Bible says so” doesn’t fly with me. You have to show me the cost/benefit, whether to individuals or (more importantly) to society as a whole.
I see the benefit of doing away with no-fault divorce, and especially no-fault alimony. I see the benefit of changing how custody of children works. These policies create perverse incentives for women and fuck up families and men’s lives.
But gay marriage? How does that really harm anyone, or society? The gays weren’t going to engage in heterosexual marriages anyway (and what straight person would want to be married to someone that’s gay, anyway?). Letting them get married basically just gives them the spousal benefits under tax law of the lifestyle they already practice. The lifestyle wouldn’t change.
And I simply don’t buy that gay marriage must lead to polygamy, incest and/or zoophilia. There’s simply no social demand for that, and even where a minority of the population pushes for it (e.g., Mormons and polygamy), the majority is pretty adamant about stamping it out.
Most importantly I believe that love is an emotion which society should support and encourage. I believe that gays love each other just as heterosexuals do, and I also believe they have no choice in which gender they can fall in love with (I certainly didn’t “choose” to be straight). So why prevent them from practicing their love when there’s no harm to me or mine?
I just don’t see it.
Here’s something you should read, then, Conrad:
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html
Will S.,
I think I read that actually. I used to read Jane Galt more often.
But regardless, I am familiar with the Precautionary Principle. And hetero-only marriage has been around long enough, and common enough across cultures, to certainly deserve great deference.
But the analysis cannot end at the Precautionary Principle. If you applied the PP universally and never challenged it then no improvement in the human condition could ever occur, because change for the better would effectively be outlawed. So there has to be some other form of analysis, and that’s what I’m asking the anti-gay marriage proponents to engage in.
I see Hetero and Gay marriage as being completely separate sexual markets, and never the twain shall meet. Sure there might be a few genuine bi-sexuals out there who might choose gay over straight marriage, but they’re such a small portion of the population as to be a rounding error. For the most part I believe that incentives applied to gay marriage can encourage or discourage gay marriage, but it won’t have any effect on straight folks. There’s no crossover.
I guess I just can’t imagine that gays are going to marry and straights aren’t going to “go gay”, “but for” the lack of gay marriage. People do respond to incentives like welfare and divorce laws, but no law on the books is going to change my sexuality, any more than it would change my gender or skin color. It just ain’t gonna’ happen.
Could there be unforeseen consequences? Sure. But the arguments surrounding divorce and welfare laws don’t really apply here – separate markets.
[...] 27, 2010 by samsonsjawbone Who gave his thoughts here. Conrad, thanks for offering a reasoned, non-inflammatory opinion. That’s too often lacking [...]
“If you applied the PP universally and never challenged it then no improvement in the human condition could ever occur, because change for the better would effectively be outlawed.”
Why would it need be so? All that it would mean, as far as I can see, is that the burden of proof would lie with those proposing change, rather than those defending the status quo.
Take the end of slavery in the West; the movement to enact this in Britain was largely led by evangelicals such as William Wilberforce and John Henry Newton, conservative Christians who might have been expected, as practitioners of a faith that itself did not explicitly condemn slavery per se in its holy Scriptures, to side with those in favour of maintaining the status quo, as other Christians had. Yet, appealing to the same Scriptures, they argued, based on their understanding of the Word, that the practice of slavery as done in their day was not in harmony with the Scriptures, and so they found justification to oppose the practice, on Scriptural grounds. And they were ultimately successful in overturning a practice that had been occurring in the West since time immemorial, and for over a millennium and a half since Christ’s birth and the founding of the Church.
So I don’t see how application of the Precautionary Principle would necessarily bring any and all possibility of improvement in the human condition to a halt; but what it would do, is give us all pause, before rushing madly into change, for frivolous, inarticulate, not-well-thought-out reasons.
[ This is not the sort of blog that tolerates thoughtless comments. ]
“Marriage in its traditional sense means much more than two people signing a piece of paper. It means a lifelong commitment, in sickness and in health, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer. It means a sexual division of role responsibilities in which the man is the head of the home and women are acknowledged as the primary child-carers.” Well, that one went down the drain didn’t it? I know a lot of women, including me that find it hard to respect the man as the head of the home when she is out busting her butt to make sure they keep a home. When men start “being” the head of the house again, maybe more women can go back to being the primary child-carers…right now many of us are taking care of both roles…makes it hard to respect traditional marriage on any level.
[ I agree. ]
You will get many accolades preaching to the choir. Gays don’t have the same rights as straight peopel. They can’t marry the person they love.
[ I wish that homosexual activists would stop using this argument. Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else: they may marry someone of the opposite sex. Heterosexuals can't “marry the person they love” in every instance, either. ]
Your argument makes as much sense as “Why white people should use the N-word”.
Try doing some actual research into the origins of marriage (Hint: it didn’t begin with religion).
[ It began with God. ]
Second, we live in a democratic republic, not a democracy.
[ I don't live in either, but in any event I'm not interested in this kind of pedantry. ]
It was intentionally designed to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority. Third, the the 14th Amendment to the Constitution specifically prevents any State from making any kind of laws that give privileges to some, but denies them to others (heterosexuals can marry but homosexuals can’t, for example).
[ Homoexuals can marry in every State of the Union. See my previous reply. ]
This is not a theocracy, nor is it a Christian nation.
[ Unfortunately not. ]
It never was.
[ Yes, it was, in the sense that previously, most people subscribed to Christian values and believed that those values should inform government policy. ]
Right on, D! I completely agree. America was never designed to be a theocracy, so quit pushing it on us…
[ Hmm... do you understand that primarily, what I want is that you don't push your values on me, either? ]
My husband never let me do anything. He tried a time or two, but I told him I was a grown woman and didn’t need his friggin’ permission!
[ I don't know what this means. If it is an attempt at trolling, it's a poor one. ]
So, basically, your argument boils down to “don’t marry a woman who is in favor of gay marriage, because it’s an indication that she probably will object to your insistence that her prime directive in life is to be her husband’s servant.”
[ In a manner of speaking, although you've created something of a caricature of my view on wives' roles. ]
Wow. Good talk.
[ Yes, it is. ]