The Weekly Standard Hates all Marriage

May 24, 2009 at 10:53 AM (Uncategorized) (, , , , )

h/t to Big Orange, but Jeebus:

This guy is clueless about marriage (s) gay and straight.

And he’s been married three times, which may rest that case anyway.

First, they say, heterosexual marriage exists only for controlling women [try “owning”…that is more in line with the rest of the article]…

They don’t really like the 19th Century “Romantic Love” purpose to marriage. They don’t even touch on the economic reasons for marriage that preceeded the romantic ideal….They go straight for the anthropology model. In other words, if we aren’t cavepeople corralling fertile virgins to make more of us [and how in the hell will we know they are fertile if they’re virgin, but whatever], while protecting them from being “poached” by another male, we aren’t doing marriage correctly.

Proof of his view:

Again, until quite recently, the woman herself had
little or nothing to say about this, while her parents and the community to which they answered had total control. The guardians of a female child or young woman had a duty to protect her virginity until the time came when marriage was permitted or, more frequently, insisted upon. This may seem a grim thing for the young woman-…

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.

And then, the narrow parameters those of us who have been/are married have obviously been missing…We need “Proper Abilities” and a vineyard, along with the corralled fertile virgin, or we aren’t really married:

Second, kinship modifies marriage by imposing a set of rules that determines not only whom one may marry (someone from the right clan or family, of the right age, with proper abilities, wealth, or an adjoining vineyard)

Proper “abilities?” It’s so interesting to me that ableism is often implicit in other types of bigotry, and here it is… [N.B. Not a good way to try to lure me to vote Republican ever]

I’m sorry, I need forty acres  and a mule, to give  future spouse to start his vineyard:  I obviously also need a list of “Proper Abilities,” if I’m ever to marry again.

Oh, but wait, I’m not fertile, nor am I virgin. Guess I’ll have to live in sin.

And, channeling St. Paul’s “It is better to marry than to burn…” [Subtext: But not by much. Marriage Stinks. I’d rather burn.]

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.

And as for gay marriage:?

I have friends who are in the middle of a long committed gay relationship, which they define as marriage…

And they would laugh their ****’s off at this description of what the author believes gay marriage to be:

They have no tedious obligations towards in-laws, need never worry about Oedipus or Electra, won’t have to face a menacing set of brothers or aunts should they betray their spouse

Um, what?

The whole article is a case in WTF?



  1. nickdupree said,

    sounds like he’s arguing FOR gay marriage!

    ….no tedious obligations towards in-laws, no Oedipus or Electra, no menacing set of brothers or aunts!

    SIGN ME UP!! 😛


    • imfunny2 said,

      I got the feeling he thinks gay partners do not have obligations to in laws or menacing family…he needs a wakeup.

    • imfunny2 said,

      Nick, you’re funny.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: