May
25

A novel objection to gay marriage




Posted at 17:58 by Brad

Oh my. Oh, oh my:


The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage

by Sam Schulman

There is a new consensus on gay marriage: not on whether it should be legalized but about the motives of those of us who oppose it. All agree that any and all opposition to gay marriage is explained either by biblical literalism or anti-homosexual bigotry. This consensus is brilliantly constructed to be so unflattering to those of us who will vote against gay marriage–if we are allowed to do so–that even biblical literalists and bigots are scrambling out of the trenches and throwing down their weapons.

OK, so we can expect Schulman from here to advance his argument against gay marriage in a way that does not invoke Jesus and does not call gay people “icky.” I’m skeptical that he’ll be able to pull this off, but I’ll be interested to see him try.

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.

If I’m interpreting this correctly, Schulman is arguing that gay people aren’t miserable enough to be properly married as straight people are. I wonder how Schulman’s wife feels about the fact that he’s finding himself envious of gay couples.

The relationship between a same-sex couple, though it involves the enviable joy of living forever with one’s soulmate, loyalty, fidelity, warmth, a happy home, shopping, and parenting, is not the same as marriage between a man and a woman, though they enjoy exactly the same cozy virtues. These qualities are awfully nice, but they are emphatically not what marriage fosters, and, even when they do exist, are only a small part of why marriage evolved and what it does.

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.

Ah, now this is the argument I’ve been waiting for! The argument that not only are gay marriages corrupt but that modern hetero marriages are corrupt as well because people are actually enjoying their lives and are not adhering to Medieval traditions where an 80-year-old man married a teenage girl. Let’s see where he takes this:

Consider four of the most profound effects of marriage within the kinship system.

The first is the most important: It is that marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality.

Wait. What?

The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage.

Uh, we also have a legal system for that. And I’m pretty sure that rape and degradation occurred pretty frequently in the elderly-man-on-teen-girl days of yore that you seem to be pining for.

This is why marriage between men and women has been necessary in virtually every society ever known. Marriage, whatever its particular manifestation in a particular culture or epoch, is essentially about who may and who may not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult, and is also about how her adulthood–and sexual accessibility–is defined.

So. Marriage, then. It’s actually about controlling what a woman does with her vagina.

Y’know, I actually wish this article had invoked Jesus or just called gay people icky. But no. And it’s only going to get worse:

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.

OK, dude. What if we made all lesbians wear Ye Olde Chastity Beltes until they found someone to marry. Would you be happy then?

Anyway, it goes on for about a billion more paragraphs, so I’ll just skip to the wholly masterful ending:

Can gay men and women be as generous as we straight men are? Will you consider us as men who love, just as you do, and not merely as homophobes or Baptists? Every day thousands of ordinary heterosexual men surrender the dream of gratifying our immediate erotic desires. Instead, heroically, resignedly, we march up the aisle with our new brides, starting out upon what that cad poet Shelley called the longest journey, attired in the chains of the kinship system–a system from which you have been spared.

Jesus Christ. Does Mrs. Schulman know that her hubby considers their marriage to be “the longest journey” that is “attired in chains” and that tragically forces Sam to “surrender” from realizing his “immediate erotic desires?” Does this sound like a well-adjusted person who should be giving marriage advice to, like, anyone?

(Via.)

UPDATE: Holy crap, how did I miss this part:

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.

Three failed marriages and an unresolved Oedipus complex! You must be a devil with the ladies!

(Thanks to Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist for pointing this gem out to me. I must have read it the first time and then used advanced self-hypno-therapy to convince myself that it wasn’t real.)

UPDATE II: Apologies to the non-crazy Sam Schulman for posting your pic in connection with the crazy Sam Schulman. I have replaced your pic with one that I think accurately depicts the crazy Sam Schulman.

260 Comments »

  1. Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:09

    Thanks for panning this one – I knew it needed to get teh Sadly treatment. I’ll – as it were – reproduce the money quote:

    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.

    Rarely do you encounter so many issues compressed into so few words. Masterful.

    Is it an official requirement of marriage bigots that they have a string of failed marriages, or does it just kind of happen that way?

  2. El Cid said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:11

    Most of the time when you hear people talking about how things were better in the old days, and we ought to be more like that, they’re usually talking about a few decades ago, not the era in which ziggurats were all the rage among the local rulers of the fertile crescent.

  3. Till said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:12

    Medieval traditions where an 80-year-old man married a teenage girl

    And at 80, the guy was probably long dead. Poor girl.

  4. Interrobang said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:16

    I have met Bizarro Me, and his name is Sam Schulman.

    I’ve never seen someone explicitly make the case that the kind of marriage-based oppression that radical feminists talk about is actually a good thing. I mean, as a radical feminist, I agree that historically, marriage has been about ensuring men’s property rights over women and controlling women’s sexuality, as well as reinforcing patriarchal kinship obligations. It’s just that as a radical feminist, I think treating women like property and forcing strict filial piety on people is wrong.

  5. Sirius Lunacy said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:19

    Hehe heh. Xecky, you just gave me a great idea. I will call the Obamo-fascist appointee in charge of forcing the gay marriage abortions tomorrow. I will suggest the implementation of the new “three strike rule”. It will state that anybody who has been in three failed heterosexual marraiges must marry someone of the same sex if they are to marry again.

  6. Davis said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:20

    I think he actually made the case for gay marriage. Gays have countered the “propagating the species” argument with “it’s traditionally been all about controlling women’s sexuality”. He did as well.

  7. Badger3k said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:21

    In other words, to protect the sexuality of, say, an 8-year old girl, they must be married off? Preferably to Mr Schulman?

  8. lolly said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:22

    What was all the “kinship” stuff about? The argument isn’t about kinship at all; it’s that women should never, ever have sex outside of marriage, and so men have to get married to get sex–even though marriage is awful and they hate it and would much rather get laid without having to go this this onerous marriage crap.

    In fact, as I’m looking at the main gist here, I don’t even see how it has anything to do with gay sex or marriage at all. Unless maybe he just can’t comprehend why gay men would get married when they don’t have to to get sex?????? Is he trying gallantly to save these men from the horrific drudgery that is marriage? He’s just trying to help the poor guys?

  9. Nom de Plume said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:22

    I’m not entirely sure what this jackass is babbling about, but I think it has something to do with being jealous of gay couples because they’re not as fucking miserable as he is. And they’re damn sure not as miserable as his wife.

  10. MzNicky said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:26

    “This most profound aspect of marriage–protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex”

    At this point my eyeballs involuntarily slammed shut and refused to open again until I hit the “back” button. It took a while, what with the flailing around blindly.

  11. MrGaydar said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:27

    This guy is SO gay.

  12. jim said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:28

    Isn’t his entire thesis sort of arbitrary?

    What’s to stop non-heteros from voluntarily constructing their own “kinship system” (by which I assume he means one spouse taking the other’s last name, as well as the assumption of fidelity & the hierarchy of power within/between the families of the couple) from scratch?

    Warning: “fairy-dust” is not an acceptable answer.

  13. lolly said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:29

    OK–he does touch on the “kinship” thingy. When gays get married, their families won’t have barbeques together. And the new young wives (and they are supposed to be young; another problem he finds is that gays married couples are older than straights, and marriage is supposed to mark the passage to adulthood) won’t collude with their mothers-in-law in keeping the new hubby tamed and civilized. So there.

  14. tigrismus said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:29

    This most profound aspect of marriage … controlling the sexuality of [women]–is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage.

    Gay marriage is bad because it doesn’t spring from and reinforce the patriarchy’s primitive concepts of gender inequality and we can’t have that.

  15. You Can't Put Lipstick On A Repig said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:29

    Shorter Sam Shulman:

    “If we still had arranged marriages and husbands’ rule over the household, I wouldn’t have three nags for (ex)wives and alimony to shell out.”

  16. lolly said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:31

    And they’re damn sure not as miserable as his wife.

    Remember that’s wives–he’s made 3 women miserable with his views of marriage. Anyone taking bets on when he’ll have to start working on number 4?

  17. You Can't Put Lipstick On A Repig said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:34

    Remember that’s wives–he’s made 3 women miserable with his views of marriage. Anyone taking bets on when he’ll have to start working on number 4?

    Remember he’s a repig. That means he waits until wife #3 is laying in a hospital bed with cancer to demand a divorce.

  18. RobNYNY1957 said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:34

    Even accepting his point that hetero marriage is necessary to protect women from rape, degredation and concubinage, how does same sex marriage affect that?

  19. Sarcastro said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:37

    Great. I woke up this lovely holiday morning with the preconception enshrined in my very soul that no person with a functioning cerebral cortex could possibly, ever, at any time or in any place make the argument, with a straight face, that gay people are incapable of feeling the requisite shame in regards to their sexuality and that their liaisons could never be considered appropriately forbidden.

    I’m going to cram a crayon up my nose and go back to bed now.

  20. MzNicky said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:38

    Seriously — what IS it with these gasbag contards and their serial-adulterous ways? And how on god’s green earth is it that the especially ogre-ish ones, like for example this fuckhead and Newt Gingrich and Rash Phlegmball, manage to find even ONE person who will agree to marry them? Eeesh. Great. Now I’m thoroughly creeped out for the rest of the day.

  21. PeeJ said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:40

    Shorter: Fags shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they wouldn’t be as miserable as us/me.

  22. J— said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:41

    Sam Schulman is simply irresistible.

    I told him [Harold Bloom] that I thought his lecture was beautiful. He stopped, and regarded me with his soft, yearning eyes. ‘My dear,’ he said, ‘what a lovely thing to tell an old and tired man.’ He was 47. ‘Here — let me kiss you.’ And he stepped forward, put his arms around me, pulled me to his then ample bosom, and kissed me on the mouth.

    His lips, I remember, were full. They were rather chapped with the dryness of American houses in winter, even though spring had arrived. His kiss was decisive, tender, historic — a flag planted upon new territory.

    What did it mean? My personal beauty was then at its peak. My locks were golden and curly. My figure was slender — it had not been bowed and thickened with the effort of pushing too many children in strollers in too many cities. I must have been hard to resist.

    Put a Kirsanow mustache on him, and Schulman will be rendered a modern-day Aphrodite, forever.

  23. Hysterical Woman said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:43

    Gay marriage is blissfully free of these constraints. There is no particular reason to ban sexual intercourse between brothers, a father and a son of consenting age, or mother and daughter. There are no questions of ritual pollution: Will a hip Rabbi refuse to marry a Jewish man–even a Cohen–to a Gentile man? Do Irish women avoid Italian women? A same-sex marriage fails utterly to create forbidden relationships. If Tommy marries Bill, and they divorce, and Bill later marries a woman and has a daughter, no incest prohibition prevents Bill’s daughter from marrying Tommy. The relationship between Bill and Tommy is a romantic fact, but it can’t be fitted into the kinship system.

    Err people can still think that’s creepy, even if their rabbi disagrees.

  24. lolly said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:44

    Remember that’s wives–he’s made 3 women miserable with his views of marriage. Anyone taking bets on when he’ll have to start working on number 4?

    Remember he’s a repig. That means he waits until wife #3 is laying in a hospital bed with cancer to demand a divorce.

    Well, that makes sense in their world. Once a woman has gone through chemo, her sexuality doesn’t need controlling any more, so cut her loose and find a new virgin who needs someone to control her reproductive organs. Because, remember, the whole companionship and love and caring thing is just nonsense; its ALL about controlling–oops, excuse me, protecting–her naughty bits.

  25. Stephen said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:46

    I’ve never seen someone explicitly make the case that the kind of marriage-based oppression that radical feminists talk about is actually a good thing.

    Oh, you see it all the time. Those creepy fundy Purity Balls are all about giving Dad ownership of his daughter’s vagina (creeeeepy) until she gets married, at which point her husband takes ownership of said vagina (still pretty creepy). But I will agree, it is a rare fundy who will come out and say that men need to take possession of female sexuality. Usually they couch it in politer terms. And usually they don’t have the marriage/Oedipus issues this guy has. (Or if they do, they don’t tell you about it.)

  26. Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:46

    Sam Schulman is simply irresistible.

    Good grief – I would never have guessed there was such a thing as Bloom / Schulman.

  27. Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:49

    …but then, my brain has that protective mechanism that causes it to forget Rule 34.

  28. Till said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:49

    Good grief – I would never have guessed there was such a thing as Bloom / Schulman.

    Worst. Slashfic. Ever.

  29. Stephen said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:50

    Even accepting his point that hetero marriage is necessary to protect women from rape, degredation and concubinage, how does same sex marriage affect that?

    Those damn gay men need to be out there finding a woman to protect, not having gay sex! For every man who gets gay married, a woman somewhere in America will be raped. Probably by a black man.

  30. N__B said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:53

    I spent 19 hours in transit yesterday to come back to the U.S. for this?

    I guess we should be happy he doesn’t propose controlling women’s virtue with, say, wrought-iron chastity belts.

  31. Typical Christian Fundie Adolescent Girl said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:55

    Those creepy fundy Purity Balls are all about giving Dad ownership of his daughter’s vagina (creeeeepy) until she gets married, at which point her husband takes ownership of said vagina (still pretty creepy)

    I gave ownership of my vajayjay to my Daddy, but not my mouth or my ass, if you know what I mean.

  32. Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:56

    I spent 19 hours in transit yesterday to come back to the U.S. for this?

    Welcome back. Sadly, in one way, this Schulman flop is as American as it gets.

  33. Rusty Shackleford said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:58

    I gave ownership of my vajayjay to my Daddy, but not my mouth or my ass, if you know what I mean.

    I don’t know what “mouth” or “ass” mean.

  34. MarkusR said,

    May 25, 2009 at 18:58

    This HAS to be satire. There can’t possibly be any other way!

  35. John Galt said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:00

    Can gay men and women be as generous as we straight men are?

    Clearly not.

  36. J Neo Marvin said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:04

    So are American conservatives as a whole becoming more publicly depraved and pathological, or have we reached the point where most of the halfway-sensible ones have jumped ship, leaving behind the worst of the worst to represent their ideology?

  37. NutellaonToast said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:05

    Actually, I hear a lot of people saying gays destroy the sanctity of marriage. Since this essay clearly shows that marriages is a sloggish ordeal and sacrosanct in no way shape or form, he seems to have won our arguments for us.

  38. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:06

    ATTENTION GAYS: MARRIAGE IS CREEPY AND SCARY.

  39. Ginger Yellow said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:07

    “There is a new consensus on gay marriage: not on whether it should be legalized but about the motives of those of us who oppose it. All agree that any and all opposition to gay marriage is explained either by biblical literalism or anti-homosexual bigotry.”

    Whereas in fact it’s explained by misogyny. Thanks Sam!

  40. J— said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:08

    Brad, the Sam Schulman in the image is a professor of medicine at McMaster University. The Jewish World Review has images of the Schulman in question.

  41. MzNicky said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:09

    MarkusR: That thought also crossed my mind. Is it possible this person is making sport of us? having us on? Pulling our leg? Tongueing his cheek?

    And if someone could take pity and explain to me the thing J— excerpted upthread about this Schulman guy making out with Harold Bloom before I simply burst into tears I would appreciate it.

  42. Spiny Norman said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:11

    Just to be clear, Sam: we are laughing at you, not with you.

  43. tigrismus said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:12

    rape, degradation, and concubinage

    Because chaste married women never get raped or degraded unless they’re gay-married. Also, how is having three wives not effectively concubinage? In the patriarchal mindset divorced wives are no less “damaged goods” than concubines.

  44. The Twooful Problem With Women said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:15

    The problem with women? They have vaginas. And vaginas torment decent upstanding heterosexual men with their pulsating heat and moistness and all kinds of indecencies that can only be tamed by respectable marriage. Of course, all kinds of sickening misogynistic perverts would do anything to get their hands upon the sacred triangle despite the marriage bond made to their white knights who save them from their own filthy wanton female bodies… and such men are often much bigger, braver, and more heavily armed than we are. But if we’ve got a wedding ring upon the woman’s finger, then we can blame the women for violating their own oath to us, and perhaps slap them around a bit for it instead.

    Gay men though? They not only don’t have vaginas, but they even declare through their own marriages that it shouldn’t be about insecurity and property, as the Schulman rightly points out it should. They even illustrate that heaving, panting sex shouldn’t have terrible consequences, especially for women… there aren’t even women involved! Which is a complete travesty of morality. Who do you slap around for betraying their precious pudenda to a world which is sick and twisted and absolutely nothing like what I’d be too if it allowed me such freaky fun? And as men are of course secure and confident in their sexuality, where’s the concept of terrified marital submission? Oh, I suppose one man might willingly choose to be submissive, but that’s not the same as the outright terror and broken will that the good decent woman should have of unwanted sexual advances as a matter of course… And there’s nothing like a good normal marriage, with it’s onus upon performing as and when the husband requires, to remind them of just how much worse it could be… but now these homos are proving you can have liberated sex AND a shared home too!

    The modern world confuses and angers me. So we must ask whose fault this is. And the answer of course is: Not mine, but yours.

  45. tigrismus said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:15

    Too also: “[t]his consensus is brilliantly constructed to be … unflattering” to gay marriage opponents. Not unflattering? Bald-faced patriarchalism and misogyny.

  46. Shecky McTeabagg said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:15

    Schulman trots out FakeAnthropology to kibosh homo marriage. Combined with FakeEconomics, FakeBiology, and FakeHistory that wingtards have used, we see the complete curriculum for Regent University’s FakeBachalaureate. There’s no need to respond to FakeAnthropology, Schulman’s fantasy is even less relevant to the wingtard body politic than it is to us. Forget about arguing constraining women’s sexuality, that’s always nonnegotiable. The wingtards think that gay men will assault them personally and their sons and brothers. Wingtards need to be reminded that they are too fat for american gays.

  47. The Tragically Flip said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:22

    I really like when wingnuts do this: Unintentional does of severe honesty about what is really going on inside their heads. This is what conservatives really think! So yes, I entirely support the right using this argument going forward, let the ~40% of women still foolish enough to vote Republican hear more wingnuts using the “marriage exists to control women” theme to sell the anti-gay marriage line. With a little luck, we’ll have gay marriage legalized in Utah and Mississipi within 6 months.

  48. J— said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:25

    It looks like this essay is a reworking of something he wrote for Orthodoxy Today in 2003.

    He has a blog, by the way, though it has not been too active lately.

  49. mark said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:27

    That’s sadly scummy using a picture of a swedish hematologist who happens to have the same name.

  50. PeeJ said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:31

    I did it. I read the whole thing. At one point his argument actually succeeds. Or fails miserably. Or something. As with the rest of it, I don’t think even he knows what he’s saying. (emphasis added by mois):

    Incest prohibition and other kinship rules that dictate one’s few permissible and many impermissible sweethearts are part of traditional marriage. Gay marriage is blissfully free of these constraints. There is no particular reason to ban sexual intercourse between brothers, a father and a son of consenting age, or mother and daughter…A same-sex marriage fails utterly to create forbidden relationships.

    Success or epic FAIL?

  51. The Tragically Flip said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:32

    Now, as to his attempts at evolutionary biology, a couple points:

    1) Even if he is right that evolution has given us marriage for the reasons he cites, that argument boils down to “everything instinctive is morally right” which is absurd. Usually wingnuts argue against Evolution because a human society governed by survival of the fittest is awful, to which the Dawkins set notes “Of course it is, and no one says you should run the world this way, we are just describing, not prescribing.” Yet here is this clown Schulman using “nature made us this way, so we must live this way”

    2) He is also ignoring the many advantages women receive from monogamy. The fact that many societies have been, and still are polygamous, (overwhelmingly with only men allowed to have multiple partners) suggests that the evolutionary picture is far more complicated than he says. In evolutionary terms the man may get to control the vagina’s output of babies, but the woman gets to ensure a resource giver and worker/assistant to raise the offspring. Being one wife of many is far riskier in bad times as the man will have to pick favourites to continue to support if resources become limited. One could also look at the variation found in non-human species regarding monogamy, in fact, strict monogamy is quite rare in nature, suggesting that evolution doesn’t really favour it at all.

    3) As noted above, even accepting his evo bio picture as true, his argument is still a non-sequitur that says “a screwdriver was invented to turn screws, so it is wrong to use it as a wedge” – lots of things get adapted for new purposes. It isn’t wrong to do so unless the new purposes are themselves wrong. Otherwise millions of people using their keys to open mail are immoral too.

  52. Woody said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:35

    I gave up on ziggurats about 15 years ago…haven’t smoked since…

  53. Event Horizon said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:38

    Shorter Sam Schulman:

    I hates the wimmins!

  54. The Tragically Flip said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:38

    Peej:

    Incest prohibition and other kinship rules that dictate one’s few permissible and many impermissible sweethearts are part of traditional marriage. Gay marriage is blissfully free of these constraints. There is no particular reason to ban sexual intercourse between brothers, a father and a son of consenting age, or mother and daughter…A same-sex marriage fails utterly to create forbidden relationships.

    Ah the old slippery slope. Because infertile straight people are well known for their proclivity to fuck immediate family members.

  55. Kutkh said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:49

    Why would you bring Shelley into this? The guy abandoned his first wife to run away with a sixteen year old girl. I’m not saying that the guy’s a model husband, but he doesn’t exactly bear out the ‘attired in chains’ hypothesis. The guy advocated free love and the ABOLITION of marriage!

    I have better things to do than work out what particular work of Shelley’s he’s drawing from, but I have a terrible suspicion that it’s Prometheus Unbound. That’s right, kids: Mr. Schulman sees Married Man as the carrion-picked Titan, the great hero of humanity, the bearer of language and free will and music and tragedy. I bet his wife gets a kick out of that act.

    Fully agree with everyone else’s objections to this guy. Just thought I’d wade in on behalf of misappropriated second-generation Romantics everywhere.

  56. noen said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:51

    And now for some real Evolutionary Biology as antidote for teh stupid.

    Prof. Robert Sapolsky on the Neurobiology of Primate Sexuality

    About an hour or so. That is a part two also, which is central to my point.

  57. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:53

    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.

    Continuing a recurring theme…

    I have eaten
    the plums
    that were in
    the icebox

    and which
    you were probably
    saving
    for breakfast

    They were delicious
    so sweet
    and so cold
    but I am free
    of the onerous obligation
    of apologizing

  58. Realist said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:58

    It looks like mark is correct – the picture is the wrong Sam Schulman. You’re quoting this guy and the picture is a different Sam Schulman.

  59. Percyprune said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:59

    I find this to be refreshingly honest. It is about power, about control of the ‘weaker sex’, it is about blood and kinship. How gloriously dark aged it all is!

    You’d think the kinless thing would be a good argument for letting teh gays alone. After all, if they could not reproduce then there is no kinfeud to be had. No competition for breeding rights. But hey, he hasn’t really thought this through, has he?

  60. Dave R said,

    May 25, 2009 at 19:59

    I like that he complains about this. While arguing that such a sorting should remain impossible.

    Gay sexual practice is not sortable into these categories–licit-if-married but illicit-if-not (children adopted by a gay man or hygienically conceived by a lesbian mom can never be regarded as illegitimate).

    Although the first time through I read it as “legitimate” and so this is actually a bit better than I had thought at first.

  61. t4toby said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:01

    Holy shit I love Wingnutz.

  62. Percyprune said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:06

    The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage.

    Yep, I’m pretty sure that these things never existed before Feminists came along, and if anything feminism and gaydom has made these things more prevalent, not less.

    Sheesh!

  63. kenga said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:11

    The argument isn’t about kinship at all; it’s that women should never, ever have sex outside of marriage

    I find it interesting that he’s completely neglected how women’s sexuality was affected by the whole “spoils of war” concept, which as I recall, was thoroughly prevalent at the time.
    Oh, that’s right – if they aren’t relatives, rape is OK!

  64. Joe Max said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:11

    Hey, has anyone ever called the nonsense he’s pushing the “Lysistrata complex”? I.E. the belief that all men are raging hormonal animals that can only be tamed by rewarding proper social behavior with vaginal access.

    It ties in with the usual wingnut trope that gay-ness is a choice since, well, gay sex is just so much damn FUN that ALL men would be sucking cock unless there’s intense social pressure to keep them fucking women instead.

    Just trying to decipher this stuff is making little tweeting birds go circling around my head.

  65. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:12

    gay sex is just so much damn FUN

    It is also free of onerous obligations.

  66. pedestrian said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:12

    It will state that anybody who has been in three failed heterosexual marriages must marry someone of the same sex if they are to marry again.

    Three strikes and you’re out.

    I like it, but I still maintain that closet cases are not gay. As a gay person, I insist on it.

  67. Snorghagen said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:16

    Only Slightly Shorter Sam Schulman:

    (a). I’m a right-wing hack.
    (b). I want people to think I’m intelligent.

    The fact that both (a) and (b) are true often puts me in a rough spot. This gay marriage thing is a good example. Thanks to (a), I’m required to be against it. Unfortunately, virtually all my fellow right-wing hacks oppose it either because they’re religious loons or knuckle-dragging fag bashers and neither of those approaches is suitable for anyone with my intellectual pretensions. I’m happy to say that I’ve gotten around this dilemma by coming up with something completely different – a great big blob of incomprehensible jive about kinship obligations and control of female sexuality and other assorted pseudo-anthropologicalistical gibberish so reactionary that it’d gag a Neolithic patriarch. It doesn’t make a lick of sense, but I’ve stuffed in enough ten-dollar phrases to impress the rubes that read the Weekly Standard. Problem solved!

  68. chimpevil said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:20

    The embrace of homosexuality

    that’s what’s up

  69. PopeRatzo said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:25

    This kind of article is where the importance of showing a photo of the wingnut author is really shown.

    Clearly, the author believes the only chance he’ll ever have at having a relationship with an attractive woman is if it is an arranged marriage or some other sort of patriarchal situation where the young woman has absolutely no choice in the matter. After all, which young attractive woman among us would give Sam Schulman a second look if she were not bound to do so by medieval societal requirements or literally bound hand and foot.

    As a wise woman once said, “Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes right down to the soul”. Right-wing pundits, especially the ones that use religion to justify their opinions, are living proof.

    On this Memorial Day, I am moved to be grateful for the men and women that have put their lives on the line in defense of our freedoms and greatness as a nation, whether as soldiers in war, fighters for civil rights, or the labor leaders who had their skulls busted and still fought on so that we could have a day off now and then. They are heroes.

  70. Mojo said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:27

    This is lovely. Thank you.

    My wife and I can’t stop laughing.

  71. Rusty Shackleford said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:32

    Did someone mention Memorial Day and “ugly going right to the soul”?

  72. Snorghagen said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:37

    This kind of article is where the importance of showing a photo of the wingnut author is really shown.

    But as several people have noted upthread, Brad posted the picture of the wrong Sam Schulman. This is what the guy who wrote the Weekly Standard article looks like.

  73. Pere Ubu said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:38

    Re; Lil’ Debbie’s rant on PBS:

    Or you can watch an anti-Israel special or a special on what animals and barbarians our troops are. You know, the same troops whose sacrificed lives the tax-funded network pretends to care about tonight.

    Yeah, the same troops who Ralph “Exterminate the Brutes” Peters (I’m assuming it’s the same one) wants to attack journalists for insifficent patriotism. Wheee! How very Schlussellian of him.

  74. Legalize said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:41

    Shorter Debbie Cakes’ commenters:

    “I hate PBS because Rick Burns didn’t respond to my crackpot letters and because it permits black people to state their opinions on historical events. Also, Barack Obama is black.”

  75. the_millionaire_lebowski said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:43

    Heya, I was wondering what Sadlynaughts think of preventive detention. Yea or Nay?

  76. Grover Gardner said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:45

    Longer Sam Schulman, courtesy of Preston Sturges:

    Lawyer Johnson: The responsibility for recording a marriage has always been up to woman. If it wasn’t for her, marriage would have disappeared long since. No man is going to jeopardize his present or poison his future with a lot of little brats hollering around the house unless he’s forced to. It’s up to the woman to knock him down, hogtie him, and drag him in front of two witnesses immediately if not sooner. Anytime after that is too late.

  77. Mr. Wonderful said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:46

    “J Neo Marvin said,

    So are American conservatives as a whole becoming more publicly depraved and pathological, or have we reached the point where most of the halfway-sensible ones have jumped ship, leaving behind the worst of the worst to represent their ideology?”

    This is the question I’ve been asking for six months. I favor the latter–it’s more Darwinian, whereas you’re flirting with Lysenkoism to suggest that previously sane conservatives have been made insane by their environment.

    Of course, it’s reverse Darwin–survival of the nuttiest. Or apparent, maybe temporary, survival.

    As for Schulman, one could suggest that he’s being deeply cynical. He seems to say that men reluctantly sacrifice their innate sexual promiscuity in order to obtain exclusive sexual rights to the wife. But an equally accurate–at least for people other than Schulman–way of saying it is, men willingly exchange promiscuity for the fidelity of the beloved. Especially today, when neither a man nor a woman has to be married to get laid.

    Somebody tell Schulman. He’s been so busy being “beautiful” and married, he may not have heard.

  78. Pere Ubu said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:50

    preventive detention. Yea or Nay

    I’d have to say “Nay”, even though I’m falling for whatever wingnut bullshit is likely to be unloaded on us.

  79. pedestrian said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:57

    Alternate Shorter Debbie Cakes’ commenters:

    The only true patriots were Confederate soldiers, and they are the ones we should be honoring on Memorial Day.

    P.S. Jews fought for the Confederacy.

  80. lolly said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:00

    This stuff reminds me of an essay I read years ago in a comp textbook–something about the Playboy philosophy vs. feminists.

    The main point, as I recall, was to point out the absolute inconsistency between 2 axioms of wingnuttery:

    1. Marriage is strictly for the benefit of women; for men, it is an onerous chore, as this author argues. Men naturally want to be free to screw anything that moves, but marriage ruins all their happiness by forcing them to stay with one women, who inevitably becomes a shrewish harpy once she traps her victim.

    2. Feminists and feminism are the cause of the high divorce rate (and all resulting ills).

    So wingnuts end of blaming women for freeing them from a state they loathed and therefore unleashing all manner of evil on the world.

  81. TheFool said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:02

    I think you have to give that guy a lot of credit. Any obviously gay dude like that who can convince 3 different women to non-gay marry him must have one helluva rap.

    Happy Memorial Day, st00pid punk bitchiz!

  82. The Tragically Flip said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:03

    Pere Ubu, I sense an argument based on FDR’s internment of the Japanese coming.

  83. the_millionaire_lebowski said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:05

    Pere Ubu said,

    May 25, 2009 at 20:50

    preventive detention. Yea or Nay

    I’d have to say “Nay”, even though I’m falling for whatever wingnut bullshit is likely to be unloaded on us.

    Uhh, no “wingnut bullshit” here. What would give you that imporession?

    Nay as well. Obligatory link to Tha G Man is anyone hasn’t read it yet.

  84. soullite said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:06

    It’s hard to get over the fact that marriage is really fucking worthless to begin with. It’s not a good deal for either person involved.

    For Men: You get the presumption of fatherhood. That’s right, even if the kid isn’t actually yours you are responsible for it if it was concieved and born while you were married. Even if she fucking lied to you. Have fun having gotten suckered into paying for a kid of some asshole and the slut you used to be married to. That’s not even mentioning alimony (WTF is this, 1954?) and the resentment of someone who hitched their wagon to you and is pissed that life turned out to be just as shitty for her as it did for 99% of the rest of humanity.

    For Women: You get to be someones maid! Hell, if you have kids, you get to be a whole fucking family’s maid! Woot! On top of this, you will almost certainly still have to to work 30-40 hours a week AND look after each little shit factory you had because hubby didn’t want to get his tubes tied! Then ,after 10 years, you get left because he lost interest in you. Hell, he probably won’t even help out financially because he spends all his money on the toddler he’s currently fucking!

    Fuck Marriage and the fucked up combination of human scumbaggery and the laughable joke that is ‘American family court’ that has made it everything it is today!

  85. No-Visible-Means said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:06

    Even shorter Debbie Cakes’ commenters.

  86. the_millionaire_lebowski said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:07

    The Tragically Flip said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:03

    Pere Ubu, I sense an argument based on FDR’s internment of the Japanese coming

    Okay, relax guy.

  87. Sly said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:14

    “So are American conservatives as a whole becoming more publicly depraved and pathological, or have we reached the point where most of the halfway-sensible ones have jumped ship, leaving behind the worst of the worst to represent their ideology?”

    These might not be mutually exclusive phenomena.

  88. pedestrian said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:17

    “So are American conservatives as a whole becoming more publicly depraved and pathological, or have we reached the point where most of the halfway-sensible ones have jumped ship, leaving behind the worst of the worst to represent their ideology?”

    The ship sank. Most are floundering for shore. Some bravely head for the deep ocean.

  89. SomeNYGuy said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:18

    If Schulman had only married Bloom as he so clearly desired (that excerpt certainly got MY juices flowing) then three presumably nice women would have avoided a lot of grief and aggravation and the rest of us would have been spared his revolting bullshit.

  90. Another Kiwi said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:20

    I believe Schulman echoes the great Dennis Prager with the “heroically going up the aisle” bit. Prager said something about men heroically going around, not shagging everything that moves.
    Or something.
    Man, these chains of kinship are bad news. You have to buy clothes and food for your kids.

  91. Pere Ubu said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:23

    Uhh, no “wingnut bullshit” here. What would give you that imporession?

    My apologies.

    Usually when someone pops off with a question like that we’re on a short ride to Wingnutville.

  92. Another Kiwi said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:23

    . This is what the guy who wrote the Weekly Standard article looks like.

    Ah, mister there’s some sort of dead animal on your head.

  93. the_millionaire_lebowski said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:23

    It was Prager. That guy says the most horrifically stupid things about relationships. Hell, he made a multi-installment column about how rape can’t happen in marriage. Reminder that Prager, like Schulman, is on his third marriage.

  94. Ruthie said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:33

    “The problem with women? They have vaginas. And vaginas torment decent upstanding heterosexual men with their pulsating heat and moistness and all kinds of indecencies that can only be tamed by respectable marriage. Of course, all kinds of sickening misogynistic perverts would do anything to get their hands upon the sacred triangle despite the marriage bond made to their white knights who save them from their own filthy wanton female bodies… “

    Wow. That’s a nightmare scenario from a Baptist sermon that channels John Updike.

    So marriage is all about men oppressing females and women making men men miserable? That’s almost as funny as the Rethug’s assertion that gay marriages will cost small businesses more money. More than what? Hetero marriages? When you add up the paid time off for court appearances for all of those hetero divorces, this argument has holes big enough to drive a Kenworth through.

  95. Pere Ubu said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:35

    gay marriages will cost small businesses more money

    Ex-squeeze me? Baking powder?

  96. Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:44

    Usually when someone pops off with a question like that we’re on a short ride to Wingnutville.

    Kind of what I thought too, though I recognized lebowski’s handle as a non-crazy (or namestealer thereof).

    The recent wingnuttery example that utterly failed was troofie’s thing about the restaurant where people were allowed to shit everywhere, or whatever thinly-veiled, simpleminded libertarian gotcha about smoking laws it was.

    In any case, I assume lebowski is on the level and I’ll answer “Nay”.

  97. Pere Ubu said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:49

    the restaurant where people were allowed to shit everywhere, or whatever thinly-veiled, simpleminded libertarian gotcha about smoking laws it was

    Boy, I;m sorry I missed that, I don’t think.

    Of course, as we all know, poop is a finite good.

  98. Dorothy said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:52

    Hey, has anyone ever called the nonsense he’s pushing the “Lysistrata complex”? I.E. the belief that all men are raging hormonal animals that can only be tamed by rewarding proper social behavior with vaginal access.

    Actually, the Greeks thought women were the insatiable animals controlled by raging hormones–after all, they didn’t have any “souls” or “intellect” to balance them, and their uterus would “wander” around the body and cause hysteria (at least until pregnancy caused it to be pinned down). The very concept that women could voluntarily refrain from sex was one of the main jokes in Lysistrata.

  99. tigrismus said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:53

    FLUSH TOILETS ARE THEFT.

  100. Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:54

    Oh, wait, it was a restaurant where people wouldn’t be allowed to shit at all. People just played along.

  101. TheFool said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:56

    Seeing as how its Memorial Day and all, I think it is only appropriate that we all take a moment of silence and remember how hard punk music sucked ass back when there were people who listened to it.

  102. The Tragically Flip said,

    May 25, 2009 at 21:57

    Yeah, sorry Lebowski. In my defence, I even tried the link in your name hoping to confirm what the situation was but it’s dead or something.

  103. Rusty Shackleford said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:01

    I’d like to hear more about this restaurant in which I am allowed to shit anywhere I please, please.

  104. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:04

    I’d like to hear more about this restaurant in which I am allowed to shit anywhere I please, please.

    Puu puu platter.

  105. mark said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:05

    CHANGE THE PIC! As realist and i have pointed out, your lazy googling makes your whole argument sadly pathetic. I come to this site for sarcastic but accurate takedowns of wingnuts. When you decide to mistakenly post a pic of a man that I know, and know is not the wingnut in question, you enter granite countertop territory. At the moment, sadly, you suck. Fix it or you are sad state.

  106. N.C. said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:07

    mark: I’d email the proprietors directly, seeing how it’s a holiday and they’re probably not around to monitor the comments.

  107. Rusty Shackleford said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:09

    I prefer to undermine my arguments with indolent yahooing.

  108. Knights in White Satin said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:10

    Schulman would probably be very happy in a same-sex marriage, but, as he instructs, marriage is NOT ABOUT HAPPINESS. Marriage is a miserable swamp of demanding wives who need to be kept in their place, children who must be fed and clothed, icky sex, and bondage chains clanking dismally as one trudges down the isle. (Now I understand why men *don’t* walk down the isle, given the chains and the knowledge of the suffering to come, its amazing they can even stand at the altar.

  109. chimpevil said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:12

    The embrace of homosexuality in Western culture has come about with unbelievable speed–far more rapidly than the feminist revolution or racial equality

    First of all you have no idea what it’s like to live as a gay man not at all bitch, though probably you’re closet, that’s typical, oh but listen try bein gay and black in this society. It ain’t a bed a roses let me tell you. But listen here’s what’s up, the fact that this ass is talking about the delay in giving certain groups rights like it’s just the way history should be speaks not only to why this fool is such a bigoted tool but also to why this society is so damn fucked up in so many ways. OK thanks bye yall.

  110. PeeJ said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:13

    The core of Lil’ Debbie’s PBS hatred.

    About the only PBS program that isn’t political is the network’s most popular, “Antiques Roadshow,” but don’t worry, where there’s a will, there’s a way. And the network has the will to somehow make that political (in a left-wing way), too.

    They’re going to make Antiques Roadshow a lefysocialistislamohomoniggerlover program! They ARE! IT WILL HAPPEN!!!!

  111. mark said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:17

    N.C.: Thanks. I am in Europe and totally forgot abt the holiday. Email sent.

  112. Knights in White Satin said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:19

    “…So are American conservatives as a whole becoming more publicly depraved and pathological, or have we reached the point where most of the halfway-sensible ones have jumped ship, leaving behind the worst of the worst to represent their ideology?”

    Yes yes yes! To sum it up: The healthier rats have swum away, waiting to infect the population another day; the crazys are going down with the ship. Or rather, they think their screeches will keep the ship from sinking.

  113. pedestrian said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:20

    But listen here’s what’s up, the fact that this ass is talking about the delay in giving certain groups rights like it’s just the way history should be speaks not only to why this fool is such a bigoted tool but also to why this society is so damn fucked up in so many ways.

    It really is fucked up. It assumes that same old model of society with rich white men at the top handing out candy to “the gays” and “the blacks” and “the women” like so many peasant guilds. Careful! If you give two pieces to one, they’re all just going to want two.

  114. Karl Steel said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:22

    not adhering to Medieval traditions where an 80-year-old man married a teenage girl.
    Uh, here I am, being a professional pedant, but it is my profession. You’re describing what’s generally understood to be the Southern European model. And even here you’re exaggerating. In late medieval England, non-aristocratic people, which is to say, almost everyone, tended to meet each other on their own volition, get married in their mid-20s, and then establish their own households together, more or less like modern-day America.

    If you want a cheap handbook on this, see this and refer particularly to pp 15-16.

  115. henry lewis said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:25

    In any case, I assume lebowski is on the level

    Still suspicious, not that it matters.

    The website link is a fake. The opening provocation was a classic Troofie maneuver. And the question. I mean, is there anyone who doesn’t think “9/11 changed everything” that believes in preventive detention?

  116. Shecky McTeabagg said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:28

    How come nobody thinks jokes about messy divorces are funny? I was telling my ex-wife Beezelbarbara about the speedboat I bought, and she ‘mentions’ that her alimony is in arrears. I answered philosophically, “Take this check, leave that vagina.”

  117. Gary Ruppert said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:28

    They’re going to make Antiques Roadshow a lefysocialistislamohomoniggerlover program! They ARE! IT WILL HAPPEN!!!!

    The fact is, antiquing is unnatural.

  118. Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:35

    Still suspicious, not that it matters.

    I see your point. In any case, if it’s troofie being a namestealer, he’ll eventually get deleted or something, and continue not to matter.

  119. Terry C - Indoctrinated said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:42

    Who’d want to f**k Sam Schulman anyway?

  120. Smut Clyde said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:44

    I have better things to do than work out what particular work of Shelley’s he’s drawing from
    Epipsychidion. Which as Kutkh points out, is all against teh monogamous marriage.

    True Love in this differs from gold and clay,
    That to divide is not to take away.
    [...]
    Narrow
    The heart that loves, the brain that contemplates
    The life that wears, the spirit that creates
    One object, and one form, and builds thereby
    A sepulchre for its eternity.

    But the concept ‘marriage’ should be reserved for a traditional kinship system — one that contains “ritual pollution” barriers and arbitrary restrictions, e.g. a bar on inter-racial marriage — except if you are a serial polygamist, in which case the sacred chains can be severed on a whim.

  121. Terry C - Indoctrinated said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:44

    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.

    They REALLY believe that the ONLY purpose for marriage is procreation/

    These people are insane.

  122. Pete said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:50

    This Schulman – pardon my ignorance, but are you people sure he exists? You’re sure this isn’t a Colbert-type comedian?

  123. mammacat12 said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:50

    so I guess all single women who cannot bear children, for any reason (physiology, age) must hie thee to a nunnery! No Sex For You!

  124. Terry C - Indoctrinated said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:51

    Gotta love how a guy who has had THREE failed marriages is putting himself forward as an expert on the subject.

  125. M. Bouffant said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:56

    An Idiot types: Happy Memorial Day, st00pid punk bitchiz!

    Excuse me, Idiot, but one of Debbie S.’s commentariat has something to say to you:

    Memorial Day should not be “celebrated”, but solemnly observed, for it is a day for remembering and honoring America’s military dead.

    Especially remember all those who were drafted or volunteered to serve their country, but ended up dead in unnecessary, unprovoked, illegal & so on wars of choice & imperialism.

    “Happy” Memorial Day my ass, America-hater!!

  126. rapier said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:56

    No no no. It’s just men need somebody to cook for them. A man that can cook and likes to doesn’t need a wife. Since women don’t need the man to drag home the meat anymore they don’t need husbands.

    Of course nothing is about one thing but this is one part of the thing that is marriage that should not be ignored.

  127. Terry C - Indoctrinated said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:56

    “The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage.”

    I’ve heard of many women being raped and degraded within marriage.

  128. The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge said,

    May 25, 2009 at 22:58

    Shit. All the Vance quotes and now The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek, my favorite movie from my favorite director, Preston Sturges? Is it any wonder I love this place?

    Actually, from the same movie, I think Papa Kockenlocker had the bestest shorter Sam Shulman of all: “Girls, eh? Phooey!”

  129. Terry C - Indoctrinated said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:02

    Typical Christian Fundie Adolescent Girl said,

    Those creepy fundy Purity Balls are all about giving Dad ownership of his daughter’s vagina (creeeeepy) until she gets married, at which point her husband takes ownership of said vagina (still pretty creepy)

    I gave ownership of my vajayjay to my Daddy, but not my mouth or my ass, if you know what I mean.

    “I’m saving myself for Mr. Right. Now, f**k me in the ass!”
    – Abstinence Girl

  130. tigrismus said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:05

    except if you are a serial polygamist, in which case the sacred chains can be severed on a whim.

    For Memorial Day he’s invited over the extended families of all three wives, because he’s a veritable Jacob Marley of hetero-marriage long-suffering generosity and goodness, let him tell you.

  131. Sam Schulman said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:06

    I gave ownership of my ass to my stepfather, but he said it was ok because there were no kinship barriers.

  132. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:07

    Bill Kristol checks in from Pluto:

    Both Cheney and Gingrich have the background and stature to address credibly national security issues. Here’s an interesting question: Will any Republican whose career lies mostly ahead of him — or her — step up to confront Obama on the foreign policy and national security front? Is any of them enough of a risk-taker to defy the conventional wisdom that if you’re a mere senator or congressman or governor or aspirer to office, you should focus on domestic issues, that it’s hard (and it is) to take on a president on foreign policy? Will any of them seek to join Cheney and Gingrich in the foreign policy fray?

    What if no younger political figure steps forward? If national security remains front and center over the next three years (a pretty safe bet), could the GOP nominee in 2012 be Gingrich…or even — gasp! — Cheney?

    I stamp my little feet in ecstasy!

  133. M. Bouffant said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:07

    it’s a holiday and they’re probably not around

    Please do not remind us that others have lives,or at least might be doing something on a holiday. Especially on a holiday for moping.

  134. Rusty Shackleford said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:15

    Cheney/Gingrich ’12

  135. N.C. said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:16

    Well excuuuuuuse me, Princess Noliferina. Gosh!!

  136. bulbul said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:16

    A man that can cook and likes to doesn’t need a wife.
    Pride and Prejudice 2.0, beeyotch!

  137. islmfaoscist said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:36

    On this Memorial Day, I am moved to be sympathetic towards the men and women that have put their lives on the line in defense of the profits of those who suckered them into doing it by telling them they would be defending our freedoms and greatness as a nation.

    They aren’t heroes, but many of them gladly would have been if given that opportunity instead. They deserve our best efforts for medical care, PTSD treatment, debt forgiveness, and reintroduction into civilized society.

    As a twice-decorated USMC Major General famously said,

    “War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”

    - U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Butler

  138. res ipsa loquitur said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:38

    The relationship between a same-sex couple, though it involves the enviable joy of living forever with one’s soulmate, loyalty, fidelity, warmth, a happy home, shopping, and parenting, is not the same as marriage between a man and a woman, though they enjoy exactly the same cozy virtues.

    How the heck did “shopping” make that list?

  139. General Deadly Buttsucker said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:40

    Punk rock totally sucks ass or my name ain’t General Deadly Buttsucker.

  140. Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:42

    Well excuuuuuuse me, Princess Noliferina. Gosh!!

    You wanna talk no life? I recognize what that’s referring to.

  141. Rusty Shackleford said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:48

    Link is kind of a little bitch.

  142. Pere Ubu said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:48

    They’re going to make Antiques Roadshow a lefysocialistislamohomoniggerlover program! They ARE! IT WILL HAPPEN!!!!

    Antiquing is theft!

  143. Mr Blifil said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:54

    Google his article about the time Harold Bloom kissed him. Not to be believed.

  144. julia said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:54

    Do Irish women avoid Italian women?

    Who knew irish/italian miscegenation was an act of ritual pollution? I had no idea my parents (and most of their siblings) were anything like that interesting.

  145. Sophist FCD said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:55

    If Tommy marries Bill, and they divorce, and Bill later marries a woman and has a daughter, no incest prohibition prevents Bill’s daughter from marrying Tommy.

    Um, ok.

    If Tammy marries Bill, and they divorce, and Bill later marries a woman and has a son, no incest prohibition prevents Bill’s daughter from marrying Tammy. That’s already legal, dipshit.

  146. M. Bouffant said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:56

    How the heck did “shopping” make that list?

    He prefers gay people who shop instead of adopt, more pointless consumption to stimulate the economy.

    Is that the right picture? Yikes!! Really do not want to see any of his three (Is that possible? Look at him!) brides.

  147. Matt T. said,

    May 25, 2009 at 23:57

    A man that can cook and likes to doesn’t need a wife.

    Someone needs to do the dishes.

  148. Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist said,

    May 26, 2009 at 0:02

    Who knew irish/italian miscegenation was an act of ritual pollution?

    Here I’d been thinking it was a good thing. My first girlfriend was an Irish – Italian hybrid and I highly recommend them.

  149. M. Bouffant said,

    May 26, 2009 at 0:06

    Schulman’s Bloom thing is apparently an attempted satire, lampoon, parody, or spoof of Naomi Wolfe’s account of being groped by Bloom.

    What is it about them that that they can never get any of the above forms correct? Maybe their fellow Bizarro World residents get it, but no one in reality ever does. (The Cornell ass’t. clinical law prof., for example.)

  150. Smut Clyde said,

    May 26, 2009 at 0:08

    A man that can cook and likes to doesn’t need a wife.
    Someone needs to do the dishes.

    In my bachelor days I found that the cats licked them perfectly clean.

  151. he flips said,

    May 26, 2009 at 0:14

    The embrace of homosexuality

    that’s what’s up

    lolz

  152. Matt T. said,

    May 26, 2009 at 0:14

    A man that can cook and likes to doesn’t need a wife.
    Someone needs to do the dishes.

    In my bachelor days I found that the cats licked them perfectly clean.

    Perhaps, but cats can’t be talked into going to the grocery store when some dinner item is forgotten. With a wife, though I have no experience in the matter, honestly, I imagine there’s at least a fifty-fifty chance of success.

  153. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 26, 2009 at 0:17

    If the cats are large enough they can bring gazelles home.

  154. he flips said,

    May 26, 2009 at 0:18

    In my bachelor days I found that the cats licked them perfectly clean

    I’m sure you can copy/paste that sentence for all kinds of topics.

  155. Smut Clyde's wife said,

    May 26, 2009 at 0:25

    That’s right ladies, hands off.

  156. he flips said,

    May 26, 2009 at 0:33

    A man that can cook and likes to doesn’t need a wife

    I don’t want a wife and don’t ever really cook.

    I could be described as a cereal monophagist.

  157. J Neo Marvin said,

    May 26, 2009 at 0:43

    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 those of us who fall in love with and marry women who have already passed the age of child-bearing are clearly the most heinous perverts of all. I’m amazed we were allowed to get a license.

    What a terrible place the real world must be to the likes of Schulman. People doing whatever they want, WITHOUT ASKING HIM!

  158. The Twooful Problem With Women said,

    May 26, 2009 at 0:51

    Wow. That’s a nightmare scenario from a Baptist sermon that channels John Updike.

    Well, that’s the troof (and thefool) for you. Now watch as I link approvingly to this YouTube clip from the 50′s which explains why men should never get involved with those emotional harridans that are the weaker sex;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOxGRuKFwJg

  159. M. Bouffant said,

    May 26, 2009 at 0:52

    cereal monophagist

    C

  160. M. Bouffant said,

    May 26, 2009 at 0:53

    I’ll repeat that:

    “Breakfast” Cereal: Salvation of the North American bachelor.

  161. Till said,

    May 26, 2009 at 1:09

    I could be described as a cereal monophagist.

    I’m gradually finding out that the German Wikipedia is often of higher quality than the English one. They actually have an article on this not-very-obscure concept. Neato.

    Sadly, if you want zillions of fanwank articles covering every minor character and episode of every TV show ever produced, you gotta stick with the English one.

  162. Mr Blifil said,

    May 26, 2009 at 1:10

    Glenn Gould and Vladimir Horowitz, both monophagists. Apropos of nothing.

  163. MzNicky said,

    May 26, 2009 at 1:25

    M. Bouffant at 0:06: Well thank you. I’ve been bursting into tears sporadically all afternoon. Not that anyone here cares. [flips hair back while twisting head and pulling a pouty face]

  164. MzNicky said,

    May 26, 2009 at 1:27

    A man that can cook and likes to doesn’t need a wife.

    Someone needs to do the dishes.

    In my hetero household we take turns. Too bad silly gay people can’t figure that one out, otherwise they could get married.

  165. Jennifer said,

    May 26, 2009 at 1:45

    Sweet Christ. You mean to tell me there were not one, not two, but three women silly enough to marry that?

  166. Big Bad Bald Bastard said,

    May 26, 2009 at 1:46

    Baby, the only way I can save you from the Patriarchal Dominance Structure is to subject you to the Patriarchal Dominance Structure.

  167. LanceThruster said,

    May 26, 2009 at 1:57

    Though I am aware of all internet traditions, is there a phrase that has replaced, “The stupid. It burns!”?

    I’d hate to think that I wasn’t up on the lingo you hep cats speak.

    Word.

  168. Some Guy said,

    May 26, 2009 at 2:03

    Rather then go line-item down this tripe and point out how dumb it is, I’ll just say this; I’ve known many a lesbian in my time. Any one of them would be more capable of protecting their lover then Mr. Schulman could ever possibly hope to be on his best day.

  169. Smut Clyde said,

    May 26, 2009 at 2:11

    is there a phrase that has replaced, “The stupid. It burns!”?

    I have hopes for “The cats licked them perfectly clean”.

  170. Tads said,

    May 26, 2009 at 2:40

    “This most profound aspect of marriage … controlling the sexuality of [women]–is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage.”

    This is actually true … back in history men had no way of knowing if the children teir partner had were actually theirs, and they often laboured their whole lives to unknowingly bring up another mans children thus didn’t get to pass on their genes, which is the biological sexual imperative. So men developed a whole system of stripping women of their natural sexuality and confining them from birth into strict social rules that made sure they would only have sex with the man they were given to. Marriage is a part of that.

    The whole setup was highly unnatural as evolution works positively when both partners are able to choose as they desire (even if they don’t conciously know why they choose, their instincts are doing the work) and select the mate they want. Humanity probably went backwards in leaps and bounds because of those few thousand years of male defined “marriage”.

    These days both the men and women have choices and men can use science to know if their partner is pulling a swifty on them with the kids, so marriage more than ever before is about the individual merit of both partners. It is still all about reproduction but so is everything about life – for all living things.

  171. A Wise Man Once Said said,

    May 26, 2009 at 2:48

    For children: a woman; for love: a boy; for ectasy: a mush melon.

    Except this guy’s mush melon seems to be between his ears. And so hard for him to reach, hence the frustration.

  172. Liberal Lizzie said,

    May 26, 2009 at 2:48

    This is perhaps the most disturbing bit of right-wing propaganda and circular logic (and I use the term logic very loosely) that I have been exposed to lately, no, make that ever. So wrong. So very, very wrong.

  173. sb said,

    May 26, 2009 at 2:49

    The only purpose for the existence of wingnuts is to see when one of them will climb to the top of the “stupidest thing ever written” mountain.

    Schulman is looking down on everyone right now. Until the next wingnut…

  174. justme said,

    May 26, 2009 at 2:54

    I have hopes for “The cats licked them perfectly clean”.

    I’m sure you do.

  175. justme said,

    May 26, 2009 at 3:00

    My comment elsewhere on this, regarding the unfortunate concept that three separate women actually married this wanker, included the Eddie Murphy quote from 48 Hours, “The generosity of women never ceases to amaze me.”

    Shorter Sammy-boy,

    I is a-feared of the lady-parts!!!!!

  176. Snorghagen said,

    May 26, 2009 at 3:06

    Schulman’s Bloom thing is apparently an attempted satire, lampoon, parody, or spoof of Naomi Wolfe’s account of being groped by Bloom.

    What is it about them that that they can never get any of the above forms correct? Maybe their fellow Bizarro World residents get it, but no one in reality ever does. (The Cornell ass’t. clinical law prof., for example.)

    After reading his Weekly Standard article, I dug up a few of Schulman’s old posts. I don’t recommend them. He seems to like satire, but he doesn’t know how to pull it off. Painful stuff to read.

    The gay marriage piece is pretty clearly meant to be taken seriously.

  177. Snorghagen said,

    May 26, 2009 at 3:07

    For children: a woman; for love: a boy; for ectasy: a mush melon.

    Just don’t put it back in the produce section when you’re done with it.

  178. justme said,

    May 26, 2009 at 3:12

    Just don’t put it back in the produce section when you’re done with it.

    Oh.

    Sorry about that.

  179. Calliamaco said,

    May 26, 2009 at 3:16

    I can’t believe, in this day and age, that I just read an article by a guy who thinks that marriage remains primarily concerned with “the organization of female sexuality”. Stunning. Absolutely stunning to realize that neanderthals of this sort remain in our midst. This isn’t even 1950s thinking. It’s pre-19th century thinking! It’s feudalism and concern with monarchical lines! Just crazy stuff.

  180. Consumer Unit 5012 said,

    May 26, 2009 at 3:18

    “preventive detention. Yea or Nay?”

    Well, in the words of the mighty George Carlin:
    “Now they’re talking about putting people in jail if we even THINK they’re going to commit a crime. “Preventive Detention”, they call it. I wish we’d had this eight years ago, we could have put a bunch of these Republican motherfuckers DIRECTLY into prison!”

  181. Older said,

    May 26, 2009 at 3:45

    Shorter Mr. Dickhead, scuse me, I mean Schulman: “Traditional marriage is so profoundly unpleasant, so grindingly difficult, and so overwhelmingly unrewarding, that even I, a consummate asshole, couldn’t get it right in three tries. So you should do it.”

  182. the_millionaire_lebowski said,

    May 26, 2009 at 3:58

    “Now they’re talking about putting people in jail if we even THINK they’re going to commit a crime. “Preventive Detention”, they call it. I wish we’d had this eight years ago, we could have put a bunch of these Republican motherfuckers DIRECTLY into prison!”

    Awesome! Man, too bad Carlin died and we replaced him with Dane Cook :S

  183. tigrismus said,

    May 26, 2009 at 3:59

    “Traditional marriage is so profoundly unpleasant, so grindingly difficult, and so overwhelmingly unrewarding, that even I, a consummate asshole, couldn’t get it right in three tries. So you should do it.”

    Heh. “Unless you’re gay, then you can forget it.”

  184. the_millionaire_lebowski said,

    May 26, 2009 at 4:02

    Man, when the fuck did S,N! get so paranoid.

    Here’s my comment history on S,N!. You can just google for my name and see me trolling right-wing websites. I never throught I’d have to prove my cred on a damn comedy though.

  185. justme said,

    May 26, 2009 at 4:28

    This isn’t even 1950s thinking. It’s pre-19th century thinking!

    As I’ve said before, they’re Building A Bridge To The 21st 20th 19th 18th ah, fuck it, 12th Century.

    Unfortunately, just because it’s snark doesn’t mean it’s not true.

  186. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 26, 2009 at 4:35

    Man, when the fuck did S,N! get so paranoid.

    FWIW I assumed someone had stolen your name. It was kind of a weird comment, but you have written many funny things so…

  187. Lesley said,

    May 26, 2009 at 4:39

    Shorter multiple choice Sam Schulman:
    Women and Gays are second class citizens. Let’s keep it that way because:
    a) I’m a lousy lay
    b) My penis is embarrassed to be seen with me
    c) Strong self-assured women anger me/make me uncomfortable
    d) I’m a momma’s boy
    e) I’m f’ugly and inadequate and men and women laugh at me
    f) Nice guys finish last but I’m not a nice guy so what’s wrong?
    g) All of the above

  188. Honus said,

    May 26, 2009 at 4:42

    One of the comments over at lil’ debbie’s site has the exact instant Colin Powell became a political hack:
    “General Colin Powell is becoming a political hack? He’s been a hack ever since he endorsed Obama and attacked Republicans. Even a moderate like McCain was no good for him!”
    Because right up to the instant he endorsed a democrat he was a patriotic republican and distinguished military officer.
    And there is a guy named John Robert Mallernee who gives his address as the “Armed Forces Retirement Home” but doesn’t list any military rank with his name, making me wonder if he ever served. All the commenters are fawning over his posts about patriotism and the confederacy, and how this isn’t the same country they grew up in, but none of these military loving super patriots noticed that Mallernee incorrectly stated the Marine Corps Birthday as November 11. Not a big deal to us pansy ass libs, but not a mistake that any marine, retired or not, would be likely to make. Or let go uncorrected.
    So I conclude that there are no marines over there among Debbie super confederate patriots.

  189. papa zita said,

    May 26, 2009 at 5:20

    C’mon lebowski, how many times have you seen a nick hijacked in this place? Usually followed by the ubiquitous “That wasn’t me” by the original.

  190. Josh said,

    May 26, 2009 at 5:31

    You all just don’t understand Sam’s brilliant and accurate description. A searing spotlight that reveals the truths we have long forgotten. Long overdue, I am going to gird my loins, mount my steed, and get me to a RenFest!

  191. jussumbody said,

    May 26, 2009 at 5:35

    That’s the poster guy at the top? THREE women married him? Did they never see his face or hear him open his mouth? Helen Keller is long dead, and that doesn’t explain the other two. Were they all desperate mail-order brides from Russia or the Philippines? (That wasn’t a crack at you Michelle Malagangalanga. I know you’re an anchor baby, not a mail order bride) There most definitely is something wrong with female sexuality. Sick! Since women obviously can’t be left in charge of choosing a male spouse, I propose that before any woman has sex with or marries a man, she must henceforth get a permission slip signed by 3 gays.

  192. Drunken New Zealand tourist, after RenFest said,

    May 26, 2009 at 5:44

    So where’s this steed you want me to gird?

  193. Winston said,

    May 26, 2009 at 6:01

    It’s just amazing that this many people can fail to understand what this guy talking about.

  194. 3some said,

    May 26, 2009 at 6:22

    while we are legalizing gay marriage, we should also legalize marriage btwn 3 people (or even 4…) why shouldn’t 3 people enter into marriage. isn’t this discrimination? marriage btwn 2 people is an old concept.

  195. Rob Lewis said,

    May 26, 2009 at 6:33

    The institution of marriage evolved for one reason: to solve the problems inherent in our distant ancestors switching from a vegetarian diet (like most primates) to one including significant amounts of meat.

    If you don’t believe me, read The Symbolic Species by Deacon.

  196. Mo's Bike Shop said,

    May 26, 2009 at 6:33

    About the only PBS program that isn’t political is the network’s most popular, “Antiques Roadshow….”

    Guys with trade skills and experience turn garbage into an inheritance. Nope, no political potential there.

  197. a giant slor said,

    May 26, 2009 at 6:38

    Hey! As you might guess by my nick, I’m offended by being associated with sexually repressed, anti-gay creeps. I have a Ghostbusters shirt, and I’m totally down with teh gheys.

  198. Tads said,

    May 26, 2009 at 7:16

    “Except this guy’s mush melon seems to be between his ears. And so hard for him to reach, hence the frustration.”

    Or not, the guy is patently a dickhead. Perhaps he’s suffering concussion ?

  199. justme said,

    May 26, 2009 at 8:10

    About the only PBS program that isn’t political is the network’s most popular, “Antiques Roadshow…”

    Yep, that commie whore Miss Marple is out to spread her Eurosocialism. Don’t even get started on This Old House and all those union bastards getting in the way of business. And let me tell you, I KNOW FOR A FACT that Big fucking Bird was in on the 9/11 plot from the beginning. There are even pictures of Bert with Osama Bin Laden! I’ve seen them!

    You don’t suppose the Debster has actually ever watched any PBS, do you?

  200. Ruthie said,

    May 26, 2009 at 8:10

    Apologies to the non-crazy Sam Schulman for posting your pic in connection with the crazy Sam Schulman. I have replaced your pic with one that I think accurately depicts the crazy Sam Schulman.

    Well, that explains the three divorces. But how the h*ll did he get three women to actually marry him? Roofies?

  201. Jason C said,

    May 26, 2009 at 11:34

    I don’t think you give enough credit to this Schulman fellow. He basically defines marriage to traditionally foster two purposes: 1) to protect women from rape, degradation and concubinage and 2) make official promise of permanent romantic value derived from loyalty, fidelity. home-making, parenting and choice as a team, which he defines as “kinship” or the “romantic marriage.” You are correct in stating that modern law accomplishes the first goal and now such a purpose is obsolete. The second, as he said, is reproduced by a gay couple, albeit slightly differently, but then he makes the jump that because it is slightly different gay-couples shouldn’t be allowed to do it. I think, if anything, this proves that neither gay couples or straight couples should be allowed to do it. The concept of divorce and misery and frequent infidelity that has become popular in modern society demonstrate that a government-sanctioned marriage does not accomplish this second value of permanent kinship. If you truly love someone and promise them that you will live together, love each other, raise children and pursue a romantic marriage forever, you do not need more than such an understood promise to enforce it and especially don’t need a legal contract. Granted, some individuals need an official declaration of love for self-security or for religious/familial tradition, but a ceremony for such a sake could be performed without the government’s involvement. Marriage shouldn’t be defined or determined by the government. Homosexual and heterosexual couples should be allowed the same rights, but both should not be forced recognition by the government to do so.

  202. Southern Beale said,

    May 26, 2009 at 12:59

    I am guessing this guy is NOT married.

  203. Bill S said,

    May 26, 2009 at 13:38

    In answer to the question, “How’d this shnozzle* get three women to marry him?”
    Obviously, they confused him with the OTHER Sam Schulman.

    *shnozzle- derived from “Douchenozzle”. (Yes, I’m aware the spelling is phonetic.)

  204. Laura B. said,

    May 26, 2009 at 14:04

    How has no one posted this little nugget yet?

    “But the duty of virginity can seem like a privilege, even a luxury, if you contrast it with the fate of child-prostitutes in brothels around the world.”

    That’s right ladies, the only alternative to virginity until marriage is child prostitution. Try that on for size next time you’re thinking about making choices.

  205. SheDevil said,

    May 26, 2009 at 14:07

    What a misogynistic idiot the guy is!!! hello, u sexist nutcase, we women are NOT helpless and we don’t actually NEED idiots like you to ‘sacrifice’ so much and marry us to control our ‘sexual accessibility’. after this liberal sharing of your thoughts, I doubt any sane woman would have anything to do with this nutcase!! I AM PISSED!

  206. Plumb Bob said,

    May 26, 2009 at 14:32

    It was a thoughtful article, Shulman’s was, and the treatment of it here was exactly consistent with his predictions. Evil men are predictable.

    In a sane society, the folks who write, and the folks who enjoy, sites like “Sadly, No!” would be required by law to empty bedpans shovel manure. The fact that sites like this exist, let alone thrive, is the proof that our culture is waning, and is ready to join history’s ash heap.

  207. J Neo Marvin said,

    May 26, 2009 at 15:33

    You keep using that word “culture”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  208. Rary Guppert said,

    May 26, 2009 at 15:51

    are you the keymaster? I am…. also the keymaster.

  209. LittlePig said,

    May 26, 2009 at 15:58

    Yes, Plummy, folks who snark on the self-important are so very, very evil; fine politicans that murder a hundred thousand folks or so, not so much.

    What every odd priorities you have.

  210. Skippy said,

    May 26, 2009 at 16:07

    Repugs like their logic, just as they like their detainees – tortured.

  211. Mooser said,

    May 26, 2009 at 16:25

    “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’s another breakfast I’ll never get back, and I don’t like having to clean it off the screen, either.

  212. actor212 said,

    May 26, 2009 at 16:26

    The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage.

    He’s right. When I was married, I was never invited to the cool pillagings, but damn, once I was single again, BADABING!

  213. bedtyme73 said,

    May 26, 2009 at 17:06

    this dude is gayer than a picnic basket

  214. SgtD said,

    May 26, 2009 at 17:10

    What a leap – the man is on planet earth to protect the woman. Just crazy but sadly, I have been told that there are a number of such phrases in the Christian Bible.

  215. electrolite said,

    May 26, 2009 at 17:16

    Can gay men and women be as generous as we straight men are?

    Holy christ. I cannot believe a sentient human being actually wrote something that stupid.

    Then again, looking at the picture, I can believe it.

  216. piny said,

    May 26, 2009 at 17:48

    What was all the “kinship” stuff about? The argument isn’t about kinship at all; it’s that women should never, ever have sex outside of marriage, and so men have to get married to get sex–even though marriage is awful and they hate it and would much rather get laid without having to go this this onerous marriage crap.

    Kinship does come into it. Female sexuality wasn’t controlled just for fun and male sexual pleasure, but to direct patrilineal inheritance. Men regulated their kinship bonds with other men through women’s bodies. In other words, if we permit same-sex marriage, men will never know whether their castles, cattle, and peerages are really being passed along to their blood relatives rather than some interloper’s sperm. Chastity isn’t otherwise very important. Patriarchal societies usually had women who were considered common property, and that system didn’t threaten virility or dominance.

    There’s a sticky, lightly-underlined copy of The Dialectic of Sex on his nightstand, I’m guessing–right next to The Embittered Scottish Laird and the Uppity English Spitfire.

  217. Robert said,

    May 26, 2009 at 18:28

    I find this amusing – as I’m sitting here reading this, my husband is at work, I’ve gotten our younger son off to school (thank, school bus!) and I’m trying to get the older boy ready to go himself. How many children has this peculiar individual had with his multiple wives, and how involved is he in their upbringing?

    Actually, no. I’m suddenly hoping, in the unlikely event that he’s passed his genes on, that he is in NO WAY involved in their upbringing.
    The livid, pulsing envy that drips from his convoluted prose – it burns, it burns.

  218. Peter Principle said,

    May 26, 2009 at 19:00

    The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage.

    Dude ain’t talking about kinship — he’s talking about property rights.

    It actually works best if you keep them wrapped up in a burkha and don’t let them go out on their own.

    The Weekly Standard: Objectively pro-Wahhabist?

  219. actor212 said,

    May 26, 2009 at 19:52

    The Weekly Standard: Objectively pro-Wahhabist?

    I don;t think so. They raised a stink over Obama’s Dijon.

  220. stef said,

    May 26, 2009 at 20:03

    Note to Mrs. Sam: DTMFA.

  221. Professor Fate said,

    May 26, 2009 at 21:54

    Okay – I can see that somebody can just leap the rails and write batshit insane gibbersih – especially given the deep levels of psycological conflict he must be suffering (“falling in love with a woman other than his mother” – dude that’s the idea! At least re Hetro’s – One wonders did he ever hear an uncensored version of The Doors “The End” and if so what it did to him.

    Anyway anybody can pretty much write anything – but that somebody takes to time to come over to this site and then defend the crazy bastard proves we have not yet reached final crazywhich frightens me.

  222. H-Bob said,

    May 26, 2009 at 22:27

    “. . . not adhering to Medieval traditions where an 80-year-old man married a teenage girl.” Actually, it’s sloppy seconds after the local lord rapes her !

  223. H-Bob said,

    May 26, 2009 at 22:32

    “Instead, heroically, resignedly, we march up the aisle with our new brides, starting out upon what that cad poet Shelley called the longest journey, attired in the chains of the kinship system–a system from which you have been spared.”

    I bet he’s got no problem remembering his anniversary !

  224. tigrismus said,

    May 26, 2009 at 22:48

    I bet he’s got no problem remembering his anniversary !

    Which one? I bet his most recent wife had the date engraved on the ponderous chain he heroically, resignedly carried.

  225. Doctorb said,

    May 27, 2009 at 1:09

    It was a thoughtful article, Shulman’s was, and the treatment of it here was exactly consistent with his predictions. Evil men are predictable.

    “I’m going to just be a total douchebag here, but I predict that smartasses will call me out on my douchebaggery.”

    “Another accurate prediction! I am the Jim Cramer of being a douchebag!”

  226. Tads said,

    May 27, 2009 at 6:14

    “Can gay men and women be as generous as we straight men are? Will you consider us as men who love, just as you do, and not merely as homophobes or Baptists? Every day thousands of ordinary heterosexual men surrender the dream of gratifying our immediate erotic desires. Instead, heroically, resignedly, we march up the aisle with our new brides, starting out upon what that cad poet Shelley called the longest journey, attired in the chains of the kinship system–a system from which you have been spared.”

    Response:

    Can straight men and women be as generous as we gay men are? Will you consider us as men who love, just as you do, and not merely as homosexuals or perverts?

    We are able to live a life gratifying our every erotic desire yet if this were the focus of our relationships why would we long to be married as many of us do? Why would we want to surrender the carefree mantle of pleasure and choose to settle with one person and attempt to make the marriage work for the rest of our lives, indeed starting off on the longest journey?

    Unlike straight couples we don’t marry to gain tangible assets, have access to sex, future child support, the promise of offspring, or have the expectation of being personally supported financially while giving up work to raise children. We have no other reason to wish for the chains of marriage but that we want it, and we choose it. Why wish to be spared from that joyous union?

  227. Jenny said,

    May 27, 2009 at 8:23

    Sam Schulman seems a little self-absorbed.

  228. Toby said,

    May 27, 2009 at 8:25

    Okay, how can somebody’s slender figure be “thickened” by pushing too many children in too many strollers, as Schulman says?

    That’s exercise. He’d be bent but fit.

  229. Toads said,

    May 27, 2009 at 8:30

    Can’t he still gratify his immediate erotic desires with his right hand, the same way he did before he got married?

  230. Doctorb said,

    May 27, 2009 at 8:47

    Schulman wants to say “pushing too many children out of her clown-car like vajayjay” but he’s far too classy to write something like that.

  231. The Other Little Woman said,

    May 27, 2009 at 9:39

    “A wedding between same-sex lovers does not create the fact (or even the feeling) of kinship between a man and his husband’s family; a woman and her wife’s kin. It will be nothing like the new kinship structure that a marriage imposes willy-nilly on two families who would otherwise loathe each other.”

    He should explain this to my wife’s family, who for seven years wrote me off as irrelevant to their kinship, and then, when we legally tied the knot, kissed my cheeks and welcomed me to the family. And to my mother, and the real estate agents and lawyers who helped her buy a house with my wife, legally codifying the relationship as kin. And to my father-in-law’s doctors, who while I was caring for him in his last illness (due, apparently, to a non-existent duty), allowed me to make medical decisions for him. And to my brother-in-law and his wife, who recognize me as their son’s aunt.

  232. Anon said,

    May 27, 2009 at 11:25

    Gay marriage is wrong you try to equate the struggle of same sex marriage with the struggle of blacks during the civil rights movement which is bullshit black people just wanted to be able to use the same shitter as whites not dress in white face and speak in a well pronounced way if you want a union such as ours make your own call it butt buddies or vag-hags but dont shit in our cheerios.

  233. Bill S said,

    May 27, 2009 at 13:08

    “speak in a well pronounced way”?
    Begone, bigoted troll!

  234. yEvb0 said,

    May 27, 2009 at 15:22

    No comments canbe left at the Weekly Standard, but the real Sam Schulman appears to blog here:

    http://www.hofjude.com/

  235. Calculator said,

    May 27, 2009 at 18:07

    So…he’s dissatisfied with Wife #3? Or has she already dumped him? Because this is a big bowl of whaaaaah, right here.

    Excellent takedown, btw.

  236. Sam Schulman said,

    May 27, 2009 at 21:43

    Whitney Jacobsen kindly invited me to comment, but will you forgive me if I paste a restatement of my argument, shorn of the witticisms, self-deprecations and ornaments, together with some other points? I am quoting an email I wrote to my first-past-the-door critic, and I warned him that I would re-use it. However I – not Jonah Micah, not Maureen Dowd – did myself write it.
    It addresses some of the comments I see, but not, alas, the comments about what I do or must look like – about which there is nothing to be done except resign myself.
    “My piece is not a parody, but it is intended to be very witty (and my wife tells me that it is) – and so I overstate or lighten certain points that are usually made very solemnly. But these points of my argument are seriously meant, and let me state them without all my jokes (most of which are intended to irritate and amuse the conservatives (and of course many liberals) who agree with me about SSM, though I think for the wrong reasons). I think Isaac Chotiner willfully or not misrepresented my argument, not out of malice but out of intellectual laziness. Here it is in 4 steps, if you are interested – if you are not, go no further.
    1. That gay people have happy, long-lasting, faithful love relationships, just as non-gay people do. Marriage is (in all of its various historical and cultural forms) something that is imposed on men who are in such relationships with women to achieve certain fundamental human goals – goals which are indifferent to whether the couple is happy, in love, even whether (in many cases) one partner or the other is faithful).
    2. That gay marriage buys into a myth that marriage actually creates happiness and fidelity, instead of organizing more fundamental arrangements between men and women (many of which are injurious to women in themselves, as I fully acknowledge). “Romantic marriage” is a relatively recent sport of nature – and it is certainly to be preferred to arranged marriages, etc., in my opinion – but marriage in some form, usually more grim, exists everywhere that humans are human rather than primates.
    3. I am serious here, but more speculative – that gay marriage, in practice, lacking the supports and burdens that are imposed on hetero couples, will, for gay couples, become a pain and be regarded as dated and unnecessary.
    4. That, if I am right about 3, gay marriage’s failure will bring about the harms to women and children that others who oppose ssm so fervently predict. This irony – that it is gay marriage’s ultimate failure to be relevant to gays after the ramparts are stormed – not its “success,” in inscribing itself on the law books of 50 states – struck me. And that’s what I mean by “the worst thing” about ssm – not that it will be legalized, but that once legalized, it will fail gay people.
    5. Overall, I think that SSM is a much more radical experiment with human nature than anything on the progressive agenda – certainly more radical than any political/sexual experiment that has ever been tried. That fact doesn’t mean in itself that it is wrong, or wil fail, or be disastrous, or succeed – but I think that neither SSM’s proponents or even it opponents – realize how radical it is.
    Other points that I’ve seen made here and there – do I even know any gay people – or gay people in long term relationships? Yes and yes. Details on application. They include some dear close relatives.
    Do I think that gay people are more “promiscuous” than straight people? No, I don’t. That’s one reason why I think that the “letting them marry will settle them down” argument is not only incorrect, but bigoted and insulting.
    Do I not realize that gay people who are married have warm relationships with their in-laws? Of course they do. My point is that hetero marriage demands kinship relations between inlaws who are not nice or warm, while ssm so far depends on the human virtues of one’s in-laws – creeps can and often do ignore such relationships of their children. In 2003 and 2004, I published long pieces on marriage and SSM and marriage and the feminists from which my editor at Commentary carefully removed all jokes, and which anticipate what I say in the WS.”
    Let me add this.
    Do I realize that marriage is bad for women, patriarchal etc etc? Yes I do, on which see my 2004 essay How the Feminists Saved Marriage. But the only arrrangement visavis men that would be worse for women and children than marriage (even at its best – as displayed in my current and may I say my past marriages) is the withering-away of marriage entirely. That would be a horror for women, a horror for children, and a feast of empowerment and brutality for heterosexual men.
    Think of me as Antigone, fearful of tampering too much with the arrangements that are oldest and most fundamental to our species. But hey, Antigone could be wrong.

  237. Sam Schulman said,

    May 27, 2009 at 21:51

    and – my terms “success” and “failure” for whether gay marriage will succeed or fail have nothing to do with the freedom of gay people to form any relationship they wish with one another (or with a straight person) and live in perfect freedom. I don’t think that the legal ups and downs of SSM expresses any underlying desire on my part or even on the part of the American public to undo the freedoms that have been so long and so cruelly denied to gay people. I also think that so many “religious” objections are really a concern with something closer to my way of thinking – after all, marriage and kinship existed long before any surviving revealed religion was even thought of.

  238. Gex said,

    May 27, 2009 at 22:59

    I just don’t get this. Judd Apatow and conservative men all have this same attitude that women are just such a fucking drag and that being married to us means they can never ever have any fun anymore dammit. It is so horrible to be with women, that unless your are legally bound to be with one, you just wouldn’t do it. And then what would happen to the children?

    Here’s a couple options for you:

    1) If you find marriage and wives to be such a drudgery, don’t do it. I didn’t ask you to come in and protect my sexuality, and I don’t give a crap about your kinship line insecurity.

    2) Grow the fuck up. You aren’t 23 anymore. Whining about adult relationships and responsibilities makes you look like a petulant child. A petulant child who wants to take the marriage ball away from others because you aren’t having fun.

  239. LH said,

    May 28, 2009 at 4:45

    There is a very simple answer to this whole thorny issue: abolish marriage. The word is loaded and, if divorce rates are anything to go by, it’s not really working for anyone and hasn’t for a long time.
    What we need to do is create “civil partnerships”. Two adults – regardless of gender – go through a formal ceremony and pledge their lives together. Once this has occurred, they are automatically recognised as the other’s spouse, with financial/property rights and in terms of medical decision-making.
    If you want to have your ceremony in a church and call it a “marriage” then go crazy, but your partnership will be no better – legally or otherwise – than anyone else’s. Yes, I know you will be losing your heterosexual privilege, but too bad.

  240. KittasaurusRex said,

    May 28, 2009 at 5:14

    If marriage is such a dreadful hassle, why is it that my husband wanted to get married so badly?
    I have to say, as a married, heterosexual woman with complete control over her own sexuality, none of Schulman’s allegations about marriage are even marginally correct. My husband makes no greater claims on my body now than he did before we were married. In fact, the only difference in the dynamic of our current relationship is that he introduces me to people as his wife and the Air Force recognizes that we are important to each other. We are the same people as we were before we signed the sheet of paper saying we’re married. He didn’t have to marry me to have sex, and the sex is not bad now that we’re married! In fact, “licit” and “illicit” sexual activity based on marital and pre-marital status is an irrelevant distinction in modern society.
    Women no longer face the strong social taboo of premarital sex–a taboo that has never been valid because no one’s ever adhered to it. Historically, women’s sex education has been along the lines of “Well sex is really unpleasant but then you get a baby and become a mom and you can be like…a third of a person or something, which is a whole lot more than you’re worth now.” Science now shows that a woman can find sex as pleasurable as a man (I’m thinking of the 2004 MRIs of aroused women to study the structure of the clitoris, proving the existence of the G-spot as a physical part of the clitoris AND showing the clitoris to be a large, complicated organ analogous to the penis), and that female sexuality is deep, complex, and empowering to any woman who seeks to understand her own body.

    Schulman’s argument is not only deeply ignorant of women’s sexuality, but also of the dynamics of human relationships in the 21st century. Bill’s daughter wouldn’t have a relationship with Tommy for a number of reasons:
    1) Tommy, as a mature gay man, probably has no sexual interest in his ex-lover’s daughter.
    2) Even if Tommy and Bill were both bisexual, making subsequent relationships with women plausible, Bill’s daughter would probably not have much sexual attraction toward a man her father’s age as she is in her sexual prime. Men over forty are actually on a sexual decline. Sexual incompatibility ensues.
    3) What prevents my brother from engaging in sexual relationships with my father’s high school girlfriends? These liasons are not protected by kinship taboos, but that doesn’t make them likely to happen.
    4) To be really honest with ourselves here, it’s simply unlikely that any of us will ever run into someone our parents dated before they met and made us. It’s not that it’s frowned upon–rather, we tend to enter into relationships with people of similar class, background, and age as ourselves.
    5) And if Bill’s daughter did find herself in a provocative setting with her father’s ex and
    a) she knew Tommy as her father’s ex, she’d probably walk away from it out of respect for her father’s feelings about Tommy, who’d do the same.
    b) she didn’t know Tommy was her father’s ex (nor he that she’s Bill’s daughter), there will eventually be a bit of a sitcom situation to deal with, won’t there?

    In all, I suppose I simply find Schulman’s argument to deal with an entirely archaic perspective on marriage, one that has fallen almost entirely into obscurity in any place in which there is a question of the validity of same-sex marriages. Marriage is not about the woman as property anymore, and it has not been for a long time.

    Now, if I had my way, my husband and I would be unmarried, living in “sin.” Unfortunately the United States Armed Forces are lagging a bit on these modern concepts, like “not discriminating against gay people” and “long-term relationships with no need for patriarchal validation” and all of that. But they are working on it. Until then, we’re happy to be married. Being married means we get to be together. And that’s what marriage should really be about, isn’t it? Not duty, not property–just voluntary love and devotion, for the long haul.

  241. Doctorb said,

    May 28, 2009 at 9:17

    See, the thing about marriage that makes gay people want the right to marry is not that it makes people happy or keeps them together or that it is necessary or sufficient for raising sane and healthy children. As far as I know, it’s the thousand or so legal rights at the federal level, and 400 (on average) at the state level, to which married couples (and married couples exclusively) are entitled.

    Aside from that, you don’t need no piece of paper from the city hall allowing you to complain about how the old ball and chain is what’s preventing you from having crazy monkey sex with nymphomaniac gymnasts or whatever, should crazy monkey sex qua crazy monkey sex be the actual source of your vexation (as opposed to the lack thereof (which in itself is another overarching issue with myriad ramifications, fascinating to be sure but not apropos for such a fatuous and jejune sentence which was written both to annoy and to mock the sort of pompous prolix pontification that makes one wish one could pull some Marshall McLuhan analogue from behind a movie poster to force some perspective on one’s interlocutor ter die sumendum post cibum. Etiam videte, quam porcus ille silvaticus lotam comederit glandem.)), dig?

  242. The Rainbow Dervish said,

    May 28, 2009 at 18:11

    “Why would you bring Shelley into this? The guy abandoned his first wife to run away with a sixteen year old girl. I’m not saying that the guy’s a model husband, but he doesn’t exactly bear out the ‘attired in chains’ hypothesis. The guy advocated free love and the ABOLITION of marriage!

    I have better things to do than work out what particular work of Shelley’s he’s drawing from, but I have a terrible suspicion that it’s Prometheus Unbound. That’s right, kids: Mr. Schulman sees Married Man as the carrion-picked Titan, the great hero of humanity, the bearer of language and free will and music and tragedy. I bet his wife gets a kick out of that act.

    Fully agree with everyone else’s objections to this guy. Just thought I’d wade in on behalf of misappropriated second-generation Romantics everywhere.”

    ==========

    THANK YOU! I found this whole argument to be hilarious and left me with the best WTF face ever for the year. But I have to say that when he dragged dear ol’ Shelley into the mix, I couldn’t figure out what the hell he was talking about! I’m so glad that someone else defended him (Shelley, not Schulman) because yeah…so not the epitome of a “normal” heterosexual married life. Besides the fact that he didn’t stick around with his first wife (after she told him she didn’t want him playing with other pudenda…and she was pretty crazy anyway), he took off for the one girl you don’t take down the aisle because her mommy and daddy said so. And after that, he was hardly faithful (but that was free love, man!) and there’s a pretty good chance that he was playing for both teams at times anyway. Especially once Byron stepped into the picture. Talk about Romantic! I just love those guys!

    But Schulman…dude’s off his rocker. Gotta love the fundies who shoot the rest of their teammates in the foot with the crazy shit they say. This should ensure that the anti-gay marriage players won’t be listened to for much longer.

  243. Sam Schulman said,

    May 28, 2009 at 22:13

    I dragged Shelley in precisely because he is the kind of man who would benefit from the end of heterosexual marriage – btw he didn’t just abandon that women but caused her death and that of her child, if memory serves. I quote from the Epipsychidion, once well known enough to draw EM Forster’s attention, a writer whom I would expect this group to know better than you do – not just because he’s gay but because he’s great.
    And yes, I am criticizing straight marriage, while maintaining that for feminist reasons it must be preserved in some form. Shelley mocks the “longest journey” because he feels he can rise above it, I defend those who make the longest journey while recognizing its flaws, and I envy those so idealistic that they feel that the world can only give us progress, never regress. If my argument reveals any prejudice in my heart, it would be that I am androphobic not homophobic.
    And yes, Harold Bloom did kiss me. I would never publish fiction in The Spectator (London).

  244. Calculator said,

    May 29, 2009 at 5:19

    And yes, I am criticizing straight marriage, while maintaining that for feminist reasons it must be preserved in some form.

    Say what?

  245. Calculator said,

    May 29, 2009 at 7:27

    But the only arrrangement visavis men that would be worse for women and children than marriage (even at its best – as displayed in my current and may I say my past marriages) is the withering-away of marriage entirely. That would be a horror for women, a horror for children, and a feast of empowerment and brutality for heterosexual men.

    Um…no. It wouldn’t. You’ve got it bass-ackwards, Skippy. You’re confusing the protection racket the patriarchal culture is currently running with actual protection.

  246. SayBlade said,

    June 1, 2009 at 16:11

    How dare he lump together homophobes and Baptists!!!! Sam Schulman uses a tired old stereotype to support his argument. Their conservative cousins in the faith aside, Baptists are on the vanguard of progressive thinking and there are Baptist denominations who not only ordain gay men, lesbians and transgendered people, they support and affirm gay marriage too.

  247. Cas said,

    June 2, 2009 at 3:50

    I found it interesting that the Sadly-No treatment, did not actually address the meat of the argument.
    I have to think about it some more, but at least it is a different and more interesting approach.

  248. Amy R said,

    June 27, 2009 at 20:36

    Okay… what the hell? What planet is this guy from, and what rock has he been hiding under for what seems to have been the majority of his time on Earth so far?

    I pity his wives. Evidently they are of the ‘damsel in distress’ type, liable to be swept off their feet at a moment’s notice by suspicious chastity-destroying Charlatans, and as such need to be protected by loveless marriages such as this dude’s. Because of course that’s so much better than OHMIGAWSH ACTUALLY CHOOSING WHAT YOU DO WITH YOUR PRIVATE PARTS!!!

    /sarcasm.

  249. OBAMA SUCKS said,

    July 21, 2009 at 3:16

    hey FAGGOTS…. YES OBAMA IS A BIG LIAR AND A FRAUD ALSO-!

  250. Marvin Estime said,

    July 26, 2009 at 20:55

    your a gay fish mother fucking gay fish
    Up your ass Tittie Sprinkles!!!!!!
    Suck my cock

  251. ross said,

    February 12, 2010 at 14:32

    what’s most impressive to me, and it is sort of hard to find just a single thing to put at the top of THAT list……..is the sheer number of ideas that shouldn’t be said out loud, let alone thought.

    i am also amazed that he charmed his way into 3 marriages.

  252. kirk said,

    March 12, 2010 at 17:48

    The argument from antiquity (200,000BCE – 35,000BCE) truly stands the test of time: No civil or religious institutions at all. Procreation with first cousins or captives from neighboring tribes. Lifetime pregnancy for females from puberty.

  253. Mireya said,

    March 18, 2010 at 1:04

    Okay, I’m confused here. So you’re saying you stand against gay marriage. Or you’re for it?
    Well, in my opinion, i’m for gay marriage. I mean, how would you feel if someone told you, by law, you couldn’t marry the one you love. Imagine how many gay and lesbians feel and are taking this while situation?
    For the people who stand against it, should mind their own buisness. If it doesn’t concern you, you shouldn’t have a say in anything. Let people live the lives they want to live them. You can’t handle it? Well then that’s just too damn bad.
    Seriously, it’s not right making it by law that the same-sex CANNOT marry eachother. It’s not right. At all.
    This is in my opinion. I’m not saying you have to agree. But come on, imagine you not being able to marry the one you love.
    Anyways, i’m writing a paper for school. A persuasive essay. And i would love for you to contact me on my email and tell me your opinion on gay marriage.
    Thank you,

    -Mireya.

  254. Markus said,

    March 28, 2010 at 15:41

    Hey… your making objections to homosexuals? You aint got a clue what your doing. Im sorry you failed at life. But stop trying to make yourself noticed. For your own good stay off this subject. I think you will also find there are more in favour of gay marriage. You wont find a woman with such homophobic attitudes! Do us all a favour and piss off, let people live their lives the way they wish. If you do not allow people to do that, Then what kind of person are you? Go fuck your mother in the ass. Maybe you will turn gay yourself! LOL

  255. Jim Miller said,

    April 1, 2010 at 1:53

    I guess I am reading from a different set of Scriptures. I thought the Sacraments were given to all. Christ gave the bread and wine even to Judas at his last meal. It says nothing about his wearing a Rainbow sash and was therefore denied, At the feeding of the five thousand it does not say those espousing Greek traditions were not fed. I thought it said: “Feed my Lambs”.
    Whoever denies even one of my sheep, woe unto him. If even one Sacrament is denied, then why not all of them? I thought the Sacraments were given to all. Perhaps we should check the lists again and see who else is excluded. Perhaps those who twitter, tweak and twist the words of Holy Writ to their own meanings should be excluded. And the first shall be last. Who will cast the first stone? I thought the Sacraments were given to all. I guess I am reading from a different set of Scriptures.

  256. Jesse said,

    April 12, 2010 at 21:05

    Gifted and Talented Psychic Medium in Nyc. Jesse The Messenger is here to help. Call now an appointment. 917-733-3107
    If you have questions, I have answers.

  257. ????? said,

    December 31, 2010 at 23:25

    Niec

    Whoever denies even one of my sheep, woe unto him. If even one Sacrament is denied, then why not all of them? I thought the Sacraments were given to all.
    Perhaps we should check the lists again and see who else is excluded.
    Perhaps those who twitter, tweak and twist the words of Holy Writ to their own meanings should be excluded.

  258. ipad case said,

    April 23, 2011 at 17:20

    Nice
    Gay marriage is important for you ?
    i thought it was a joke

  259. zoevondoll said,

    March 21, 2012 at 3:27

    I hate this fucking guy. Fuck him and the archaic nonsense he rode in on.

  260. DJ etta said,

    April 25, 2012 at 5:10

    I dont get it how do people get gay

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()