~They’re creepy and they’re kooky,
Mysterious and spooky,
They’re all together ooky,
The Homophobe Family.~
Dr. Keith Ablowjob, The Centralized Fembot Factory:
Marriage died in 2013
Dearly beloved, we are gathered today to mark the passing of a noble individual. Harold T. Marriage had a long life, long predating the religions that have sought to unilaterally own him. And he had a troubled life as a long-standing and rigid institution. Impossible to change, he rapidly spent life flitting between different incarnations, whether the hallowed institution of one man and an ever-sprawling harem of women and captured slaves forced into life-long rape or more recently, as a bill of sale from father to husband. He has served as soulless and loveless political unions of pointless royalty and as a means of acquiring houseslaves one could legally rape. Yes, he had a good life.
But sadly, all great lives must come to a close and after many years battling deep illness caused by his transformation into the creation of legal family for reasons of love, he finally succumbed and became no more in the dimming lights of 2013.
All those he has touched, the legally bound couples he has spent so many years tying together in warm loving connection must now become unholy fuckbuddies only able to refer to the people who light up their lives as “that guy/girl who lives in my house”. So it is written in our free copies of the Republican Bible, amen!
Shorter (or the last port before Jungle):
- If we can’t have marriage (exclusively), then no one can have it! Burn it down as we retreat to future victories!
Oh man, you know what’s not going to get old anytime soon? Pissy homophobes stamping their feet and yelling at the sky that they’re going to totally take their toys (that were never theirs) and go home if they have to share it with the fags.
And it’s only gotten more violently shocked as the magical 50% mark has been passed and they can no longer cite the majority as if that was somehow an argument for second class citizenship and arbitrary cruelty.
I mean, for fuck’s sake, we are entering an age where Pup and his adorable hubby can get legally wed and it’s just not a thing. Where fucking Utah, home of the Mormon anti-gay movement, had a few legally-binding ceremonies. Where the equal marriage “fight” is essentially over, minus the last round of mopping up in the “We’re still fighting the War for Slaves” holdout states.
And to see the slow-moving minds of our national dinosaurs adjust to this after years of being able to swagger all over New York and California as if they owned the world is just mwa, fantastik!
Add all that to the traditional hyperbole that is the linkbait that is FoxNews.com and you get something downright magical.
More than a year ago, when states began to legalize gay marriage, I argued that polygamy would be the natural result.
And seeing as how gay marriage has more or less succeeded, viewpoints on creepy polygamist cults is still the same as ever (nice irony on that, by the way, seeing as how a creepy polygamist cult was the main actor in the Prop 8 push here in California), and there are exactly zero legal poly marriages of any kind (creepy polygamist style or genuine multi-member marriages as would well serve the polyamorous community), clearly I was gravely mistaken and must make dire apologies for my irresponsible fear mongering… will not be what he says.
If love between humans of legal age is the only condition required to have the state issue a marriage license,
I love how much losing really makes conservatives drop the whole “message discipline” bullshit and say what they are really angry about.
Like with abortion, they’ve gone full on whackjob on the notion that women are allowed to leave the house without male protectors. And with gay marriage, they’ve just said fuck it and let their melted steel hatred of the concept of “consent” and the fact that wives are no longer legally property run all over the place.
I mean, for fuck’s sake, he says this like it’s a bad thing. Like the notion that humans of legal age and with consent can form a union he is not a part of is so obviously bad that he expects that pesky “silent majority” of dead-enders to cheer him.
And the sick part is that he’s probably right.
then it is irrational to assert that two men or two women can have such feelings for one another, while three women and a man, or two men and a woman, cannot.
Sigh. This shit again.
You know what? Yeah.
Eventually in the long thread of time, it would be nice if we could have some category of legal family available for long-term triads, quads, and other polyamorous arrangements to take care of each other. It’s sad that many of the same problems that affected queer partners still affect the non-wed partners of a long-term stable family even though they might be sharing in the tasks of child-raising, home-creation, and most importantly be in beautiful consensual love with their partners.
It genuinely sucks and it’d be great if we as a society could find a way to protect them, whether it’s creating another category or expanding the institution of marriage.
But it’s not gonna happen anytime soon and both you and I know damn well why. Fuck, your knowledge of why is the only reason you are bringing up this shit as a last-ditch effort to smear the queers on your way to the dustbin of history.
And that reason is fucking creepy Mormons. Fucking creepy Mormons means that loving triads will probably not have legal protections in my lifetime. Is why if I marry, I will only be able to marry my partner and not my girlfriend even if we are together 20+ years. Because fucking creepy Mormons and their fucking creepy polygamist cults with their shit ton of religious baggage and their propensity with playing fast and loose with not only the age of consent, but the very notion of consent itself is all anyone thinks of when they think of the words “poly marriage”. And the endless stream of bullshit reality shows trying to put a happy face on it all ain’t really helping.
There will be no poly marriages for you to rail against outside the same non-legal religious or areligious ceremonies that queer people had to make do with for so long for a damn long while. And you know it. So let’s both save ourselves the effort of going over this old chestnut for the five millionth time.
On a related note, for fuck’s sake people, I know you are reflexively opposed to change, but you could at least change your bullshit once it has completely filled the shed.
I have met would-be polygamists who cohabitate as groups and I can tell you that they seemed to be very committed to one another, to be very intimate and to be “in love.”
You probably have. Poly relationships aren’t exactly new and they are in many ways and in some communities not at all rare. Hell, I probably know more romantic asexuals who are in poly relationships than in mono ones. Love happens and it happens in many different ways, even spreading out from what to the outside world looks like a proper white man, white woman two-person legal and religious marriage.
And as your stone heart can attest, it can be just as loving and intimate as any two-person romantic long-term relationship.
But hey, let’s not let you admitting that even if poly marriages were allowed it wouldn’t be the end of the world stop your attempt to argue that any step down the slippery slope towards eventual poly marriages will end the world.
Gay rights groups criticized me for suggesting that their bid for marriage rights would lead to polygamy being green-lighted.
Criticized. Mocked. Two words that may sound similar, but are in fact rather different. I know. I was shocked to discover the truth myself!
I received threats of being raped and being killed from gay people who didn’t like the point I was making and seemed to think I should be brutalized or die for it.
Cool story, (hete)ro.
Bet that totally happened as much as all the “death threats” poor Faubus received from all those uppity niggers or Louis XVI received from all the peas- Okay, that one I’ll grant you, but the rest… not so much.
Well, now U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups has found parts of Utah’s anti-bigamy law unconstitutional. His ruling comes in a case brought by Kody Brown and his four wives, who are featured in the reality TV show, “Sister Wives.”
I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold that finding, if Utah challenges it.
Ha! With that many Catholics on the bench and Justice Kennedy having to do a hem and haw dance when one side literally showed up to court with zero legal case and only barely the right to present it? Uh huh, sure, and on that day pigs will fly out my ass and discover the lost island of Brigadoon.
As I predicted, this will officially make marriage the Wild West,
Are you really allowed to crow about having predicted something when the thing you are predicting has yet to (and in fact will never) come to pass?
Or is that not how that phrase works in wingnutland?
Also, on the subject of enhanced interrogation techniques on turn of phrase enemy combatants, um, “Wild West”.
A) The period of Southwestern American history popularly regarded as the “Wild West” was not in fact anything like what was popularized in Western movies. Most famous outlaws were just scrawny little kids trying to survive. You could become the most famous “gunslinger” just by having the insane idea to stay sober for gunfights and one could pretty much end violence in a town by banning guns at the drinking establishments or at the town entrance.
B) Giving you instead the John Wayne fantasy, um, exactly what the hell are you seeing as the parallel here? “Good” guys fighting “bad” guys with guns? Random train heists? I would guess you are trying to stretch a metaphor to lawlessness, but hey, you know what word would work a hell of a lot better for that? ANARCHY!
C) How? Cause, see, that nightmare future where queers could get married has come to pass and the only parts of America that in any way resemble Somalia are the ones in which Libertarians have gotten too many electoral votes. There’s no rioting, no warlords, in fact, if you were to go about your bigoted day, I doubt you’d see any real fucking difference. And guess what? If poly marriage suddenly became legal (which it won’t, not anytime soon), then the same who gives a shit will come to pass then as now. Monogamous straight people will still get wed. Monogamous straight people will still get divorced. And no one who isn’t the poly people getting married and their friends and family will be affected in any way.
D) Which, to wrap it all up to the extreme boredom that most characterized the actual “Old West”, then perhaps yes, it was an apt metaphor after all.
in which groups of people can assert that they are married and should have all the benefits of that status, including family health plans and the right to file taxes as married people.
Wait, rewind that.
As I predicted, this will officially make marriage the Wild West, in which groups of people can assert that they are married and should have all the benefits of that status, including family health plans and the right to file taxes as married people.
This is your Western fantasy, lawless violent hellscape of sand and blood?
People having access to health care and joint filing taxes?
This is your anarchy strewn climactic fights of white hats and black hats, where bandits reign until the last third of the movie? People stating things and having legal protections if someone falls ill or dies?
Um, AIEEE, I guess, what a nightmare, or whatever.
Seriously? I don’t know whether to pity you or fear for whatever poor creature ever crosses your path in a dark alley.
It will also, eventually, lead to test cases in which a few unusual sisters and brothers insist that they can marry,
Probably not. I mean, cousins maybe, and it’s worth noting that in several states cousins have more legal rights to create legal families than loving gay people, but not siblings and not parent and child.
And the reason for that goes far beyond the social taboo onto the point which is that such relationships, much like teacher and student or boss and worker can be inherently coercive against consent.
Oh, sorry, did I get in the way of your tired little slippery slope argument with my facts again? I did, didn’t I? I’m so sorry. Please. Do continue.
because they are in love and promise not to procreate, but, instead, to use donor eggs or sperm.
And, I predict, the courts will agree with them.
Heh. It’s kind of funny, after Nate Silver and others accurately predicted the election, to see the right-wing turn against the very notion of “making accurate predictions” as a left-wing bastardization against the true faith of being aggressively wrong all the time.
I swear we are one or two reality checks away from the right-wing deciding that breathing is dangerously liberal.
Given this dissolution of support for society’s vested interest in providing children
I don’t know. We seem to be doing all right. People are still reproducing at an unsustainable rate and kids continue to be cared for by loving families and neglected by abusive housesholds that view them as ambulatory property, just the same as usual. I mean, we could use a bit more funding in education and an expansion of child care and other legal protections, but on average, I’d say we’re doing an almost tolerable job as a society in caring for our kids. Certainly no worse, and in many respects, better than previous generatio-
with a mother and father
Oh, you wanted to couple the former with a framing of hetero marriage only so that the goodwill of the former would bolster your bigoted “defense” of the latter. Sorry, my bad.
Clearly, now that the fags can wed and have legal protections for their kids, all straight people must huddle outside for heat barred from ever forming legal unions of their own due to the zero-sum nature of marriage and other human rights.
Poor poor heteros.
they can point to with certainty,
Um, can I get a rewind again?
Given this dissolution of support for society’s vested interest in providing children with a mother and father they can point to with certainty,
Um… not to sound uncaring to your “plight” in this lawless marriageless anarchy, but um… who gives a shit?
I mean, it’s not like children’s minds will literally explode if they have two people called mommy or two people called daddy. It’s not like they are so stupid that they need to have two clearly labeled individuals with massively differing gender performances or else they’ll be emotionally and socially scarred.
I mean, for fuck’s sake, I know you are reaching to paint a ho-hum eventuality as some dire earth-shattering Apocalypse, but um… no. Just no.
Sigh, at least it can’t get more inane-
in households where both genders are equally represented,
Well, look who’s wrong!
I don’t… I don’t even know where to begin with this pile of fractal wrongness. I mean, it’s so stupid, I can’t even detangle what errant thought process first afterbirthed it into existence.
So instead, I just have to ask whether Dr. Keith Ablow would strangle his kids if they didn’t have the decency to be male-female fraternal twins, because anything less would be disrupting the all-too-critical gender balance of the household.
Sigh… once again I fear for all small mammals who carelessly wander under his bridge.
it is very clear that government should get out of issuing marriage licenses, entirely.
Yes… that proves that other thing.
We all agree with that. Now, can you please put down that knife and hand over the baby gently. I know it messed up your 50/50 gender split, but- OH GOD, THE HUMANITY!
People who wish to create special partnerships of the heart and home should sign prenuptial contracts with one another and then exchange vows at their churches or temples or in front of gatherings of family or special friends.
Wow, wherever did us nasty queers get the notion that conservatives are anti-love? Fuck, if prenups and a random ceremony are all you think marriage is, then damn boy, you should be fucking grateful to be rid of exclusive ownership of that, not bitching and moaning that the queers stole a piece of the cake and made it all fag-looking.
Also, totally entering this into evidence as yet another example of how much conservatives seem absolutely in exile from the notion of joy and togetherness. I swear they are just about 2 human rights struggles away from dressing up in a Santa costume and trying to steal Christmas.
No different status or privilege should flow to married people, whatsoever. All individuals who earn income should file taxes, separately.
Ha! As if you straight people would let yourselves be even moderately inconvenienced just to punish gay people. I mean, for fuck’s sake, you bawled like street cats at the fact that your invasive airport security theater was stopping everybody, you’d last five seconds without the conveniences legal marriage affords you.
I mean, oh noes, Mr. Hetero, please don’t break the marriage toy just because you don’t want to share it! Even though that action shows how mature and noble you are!
The truth is that government never had a defensible role in marriage.
Except for, you know, always being the governing body in charge of marriage and the only institution in any way affected by the unions.
I’m terribly sorry your attempt to steal marriage for Team Church Dominance was as fumbling as everything else you’ve ever tried, but I’m fairly sure you’re not going to get your way just by having a giant temper tantrum like a sleepy three-year-old.
It should always have been the exclusive domain of the individuals and institutions that choose to recognize such interpersonal unions.
Um… it is?
I know you’ve gotten really high off the “Government is an evil alien entity” product, but it doesn’t mean that it’s in any way changed it’s actual definition.
Sorry to break it to you. Better luck next time.
Churches should be allowed to define marriage as they wish and offer marriage certificates only to those who comply with their definitions. Temples, just the same. Communes can do it, for all I care.
Indeed they do.
What you are bawling on the ground pounding your fists over is the fact that not only is your religious institution allowed to grant marriage licenses as it chooses, but others are allowed as they choose. And not all agree with your narrow-minded bullshit. And in fact, what you are really clawing the drapes and howling lamentations to the sky over is the fact that you’ve ripped off the mask and revealed to the world that your narrow-minded religious bullshit really didn’t fucking matter when all was said and done.
Your little church and it’s little regulations on marriage do not and have never mattered except as a nice little toy to make easy marks like you feel extra special on your “special day” as if your personal God was honoring you personally for getting hitched.
And because you were brats who wanted your church to trump all churches and people everywhere, you broke the illusion and showed everyone the truth. That you and your “God” do not matter in this arena. That they do not affect anything outside your little tiny church in the middle of nowhere.
At least, not where marriage is concerned. And certainly not to where others needed to follow your narrow religious idea of what a marriage “looks like”.
Congratulations on that. I’m sure your asshole God would be proud on so completely fucking that up.
Any organization, in fact, should be able to award the status to anyone they like. But, states and the federal government should have no part in it, whatsoever.
I know I’m repeating myself a little bit, but there’s really there’s no other way to take this argument but as the spoiled little rich kid trying to break the day care center’s toys because he doesn’t want to share them with anyone and being shocked and hurt that the center isn’t just letting him get away with it.
I’m sorry, dickwaffle, but they’re just not your toys and you need to share or go back into the time-out corner. Your choice.
Ah, right, time-out corner it is.
Only child support should be mandatory, because the state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that minors not be without financial resources.
Oh don’t let the massive MRA component of the religious right and libertarian right hear you on that one. Child support is second only to castration in their book of all-time injustices and horrors to befall people.
Marriage is over.
Ding dong, the witch is dead?
It was always at least a little funny that a huge percentage of people swore to stay together until death, then divorced and remarried.
But, now, it is, officially, judicially, a joke.
Did you just take our wry commentary on how “hallowed” you treated the “sacred” act of marriage when denying us the right and try and straight up steal it?
Um… I’m not entirely sure you are allowed to do that.
Also, what is with the massive uptick in anti-divorce activism on the right. I mean, I know that was always waiting in the wings if they won on the gay marriage issue, because the notion of people marrying out of love and not just being trapped in a sexist institution bugs the hell out of them, but they kinda needed to… you know… win for that to even be remotely viable.
I really don’t think the squishy moderates who are getting on board with love=love are going to be super keen on “and now you normals can’t ever get divorced too” anytime soon.
If two men can marry, and three men can marry, and five women and a man can marry, and three men and two women can marry, then marriage has no meaning.
Cause, see, I’ve seen this “meaning” argument thrown around for literally years now, and there has yet to be a conservative who has remotely begun answering the critical question of why. Why would mere numbers or configuration render marriage meaningless?
Is this institution so fragile after so many transformations that the mere notion of two people of same genders or where one partner doesn’t define themselves to a binary gener or where multiple partners exist renders it moot and meaningless?
I mean, even if we were to sacrifice the notion of marriage as a union of love, between partners making what they hope will be a lifelong commitment in whatever form they define that, and grant you your “traditional” marriage as a loveless exchange of property, then how would numbers or genders really break it, really render moot the baggage the word has carried-
And that’s the issue, isn’t it? That this is the same fight against the notion of wives having the right not to be raped or to own their own property or have careers outside the house. That the baggage of marriage, all the critiques of its institutional sexism, the way the popular image of church weddings and drama have undercut the people trying to celebrate a romantic connection. That all of that has been losing.
Year by year, marriage as an institution has become less horrible and constricting with cruel gender roles and unhappy couples clinging to each other out of nothing but spite and bitter acknowledgment of the bear trap of children. That it instead has begun growing into a new kind of institution. One where love is the central focus. Where it can end if both parties are unhappy and that staying together through abuse or neglect isn’t necessary for “public appearances”. Where both parties can define what being married means to themselves. Where one group can have a suburban home with a grill and another can swing down to the dungeon every week and separately have some fun. Where that first one can be two gay men and the latter can be a conservatively dressed hetero couple and where it’s not the end of the world if two people love each other or twelve.
Where marriage as a trap and a bitter pill is giving way to marriage as a celebration and where the people in a relationship matter more than the “relationship” or the “marriage” as societally defined.
That you have, in every meaning of the term, lost “traditional” marriage and all its potential to wound and must give way to marriages between equals full of love and regard for each other.
In short, you have lost.
Aw, we’re already finishing each other’s sentences, clearly it must be lov-
Go get rings, go get lawyers, go rent a nice hall,
I don’t know. This is awfully fast. I mean. I only just met you and you are in every respect a repulsive and overly controlling old toad and-
but City Hall should bow out.
B-b-but we’ve been dating for years and now you just want me to dump him out of the blue so we can get wed. That’s just… no. I’m sorry, you seem like a very nice, bigot, but that’s a little too damn forceful for a first date.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. I’m a heartbreaker. And by that I mean, I rip out men’s hearts and then snap them over my knee like dry twigs. Hope that’s not a turn-off. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™