SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
For Total Morons   by Ric Carter

When you're bored with yourself, marry and be bored with someone else. —David Pryce-Jones

Same-sex marriage has, in the years before and after the Millennium, become a hot issue around the world. Same-sex marriages have never been common in any human culture, but human cultures are changing so fast and furiously that this is an issue that must be addressed, and soon.

But many questions must be raised before any final answers can be set in stone. What is sex? What is marriage? What is sameness? What is man? What is woman? Who cares? Why? And what about blow-up dolls? Or my imaginary friends?

Every total moron should be familiar with at least some of the issues involved, even if it's only so they know what's worth killing for, what's worth masturbating over, what's worth ignoring, whatever. Many claims are made by opponents of same-sex marriage. Here is a complete basic introduction to these delicate topics and indelicate claims, and to marriage in general. Put both your hands on the table and read on.

"Marriage is an institution linking a man and a woman."

How are 'man' and 'woman' defined? By genetics or plumbing or proclamation or whatever? Can local jurisdictions allow a person to declare their gender and/or species for legal purposes? Who decides?

Here's a probable fundamentalist definitional blueprint:

  • MARRIAGABLE PERSON: any living (or dead) hominid over age 21 (or 18 or 16 or 14), depending on local law
  • MAN: any MARRIAGABLE PERSON with a penis (unless it's been removed) and XY or XXY genes who thinks of itself as male and might want to be wed to a female
  • WOMAN: any MARRIAGABLE PERSON with a vagina (unless it's been removed) and XX or XXX genes who thinks of itself as female and might want to be wed to a male
  • INELIGABLE PERSON: everybody else (homosexuals, asexuals, some bisexuals, transsexuals, hermaphrodites, minors, cyborgs, apes, canine and feline companions, reptilioids, unitarians, pet rocks, evil twins, channeled entities, etc)

Other paradigms might not be so rigid. Tough. Liberal wussies aren't in control now, so expect to see a further emphasis on discrimination. This will have major negative consequences in the near future.

Hominids can now be sculpted / morphed / transformed to any desired anatomy / plumbing / race / etc. Soon we'll be able to tweak our genes to produce any desired DNA / species, with possibly viable offspring. What will be the legal marriage rights of transsexuals, chimerae, cyborgs, transhumans, mutants, aliens, etc?

"Marriage is a contract linking one man and one woman."

Modern marriages may last for any desired period. Is marriage to be limited to just one man and one woman at any one time? Polygamy and polyandry have always been common in human cultures. In modern culture, the poly-ness is sequential - a person often has many mates, but in series, not all at the same time. Should marriage laws be concerned with simultaneaity?

Here are some terms of marriages versus time:

  • POLYGAMY: more than one wife at one time
  • POLYANDRY: more than one husband at one time
  • MONOTONY: only one spouse / partner at a time
  • CHASTITY: the most perverse of perversions
  • REMARRIAGE: serial polygamy or polyandry
  • GROUP MARRIAGE: simplicity via complexity
  • DIVORCEMENT: the period between spouses

The number and genders of those involved in these relationships have traditionally been quite varied. So have the time-spans of each relational state. Life is short, then you're fucked. Togetherness is an escape. Some men need a good woman. Some men need a good man. Some men need a good sheep. Some need all the above.

"Marriage is a covenant linking an unrelated man and woman."

Some cultures prohibit marriage between close relatives: parent-child, siblings, cousins, child to aunt or uncle, etc. Other cultures require such unions. Some formally forbid such relations but informally wink at or ignore them. Call it incest: keeping it all in the (physical or spiritual) family; wrong only when it's illegal.

Marriages may last extended periods without sex, as may non-marriages. Long-lasting life-sharing platonic partnerships have been enjoyed by the close relatives listed above, and by unrelated friends. Sex is not a requirement of close partnership, and avoidance of close partnershops cannot be rationalized or justified by an avoidance of sex.

Human sex (and non-sex) is more complex than any rulebook can specify. But some officious morons insist on writing such rules anyway. Feh.

"Marriage is a sacrament linking a man, a woman, and a god."

Marriages in cultures worldwide show great variety in their metaphysical underpinnings. Monotheists, polytheists, atheists, nontheists, animists, onanists, universalists and alien-worshippers all manage to have more-or-less successful marriages. Specifying any single doctrinal paradigm is certain to piss-off all those who don't share that paradigm. But some morons try to impose their beliefs on others anyway. What a pity.

Here are some terms defining deistic paradigms:

  • THEIST: a person affected by one or more gods
  • ATHEIST: a person unaffected by any gods
  • ANTITHEIST: a person opposed to all gods
  • MONOTHEIST: a person observing strictly one god
  • POLYTHEIST: a person observing more than one god
  • ANIMIST: a person finding divinity in all animals
  • ONANIST: a person finding divinity in their genitalia
  • UNIVERSALIST: a person finding divinity in all existence

Different doctrinal paradigms provide different rules of marriage. Often even a single belief system engenders many and varied rules of marriage. Those whom the gods (or lack thereof) would drive insane, they first infect with love. Such a cosmic sense of humor, eh?

"Marriage exists to promote procreation and child-nurturing."

Married and non-married couples or triads or other groups may or may not procreate and/or nurture children with any degree of success. Statistics suggest that marriage alone may not be sufficient for quality procreation and childrearing. Civil unions (marriage by any other name) may not be adequate either. Perhaps other institutions are necessary. Any creative moron should be able to invent a few.

Many heterosexual couples marry with no expectation or hope of procreating. Either or both partners may be sterile or unwilling. If marriage must promote procreation, must marriages without offspring be dissolved? Not even many total morons would propose this.

Those who hold that same-sex parents are incapable of procreating obviously haven't been around many gay households. Those who consider parenthood a simple matter of papa-mama-kiddies obviously aren't aware of the complexity of human sexuality and behaviour. No matter how you expect people to act sexually, they'll always do something more. Even a total moron should be able to figure this out.

"Marriage and the family are the foundations of society."

Different cultures have different foundations; families often are involved, but usually not the modern 'nuclear' family. The smallest functional social unit may be an extended family, a tribe, a moiety, a clan, a men's club, etc. The 'nuclear' family is an artifact of industrial civilization, the reduction of human overhead to the smallest possible unit so that disposable workers may easily be swapped between tasks.

The true foundation of post-industrial culture is not an institution (family, marriage) but a process: FLOW. The flow of information, money, power, people, resources. Looking at the modern world, even a total moron should see that people and families are mere cogs in the machinery of THE GREAT GAME of global domination, masked in ideological trappings.

But some morons never make it past the propaganda, disinformation and primal incitements. To control people's minds, market sex (and marriage) as if they were vital. Get'em by the balls, and their hearts and minds will follow.

"Queer Marriage will cause the downfall of society."

New technologies push both individual liberation and enslavement (these may be the same). Nondemocratic globalization further fractures the social underpinnings of humanity. What refuges exist? Ideological heirarchies, masquerading as religious or philosophical or political idealism. Or free-form affinity groups, existing only as long as may be convenient for the participants. Or... family, ANY form of family. Even including nonhumans.

As extended families were pulverized by industrialism, so are nuclear families dismembered by post-industrialism. Don't take my word for it; look up the statistics. Then consider that same-sex marriages, single-parent households, childrearing by grandparents, are forms of familial life that actually survive in a globalized economy. These families are not the downfall of society but its salvation.

Some argue that society SHOULD fall, that families are obsolete, that humanity is obsolete and should be replaced by cyborgs or mutant ants or alien hybrids. I suspect that those who make such arguments just don't get laid enough. They should find a good man or two. Or a good woman or two. Or a good sheep or two. Then those morons might shut up. But I doubt it.


[home] - [GO!] - [top]

OTRSS
Ric Carter, ric@sonic.net, www.sonic.net/~ric, copyright © by OTRSS