You have absolutely, positively got to read this.

[cali]

it's a kos diary about a Weekly Standard piece about why same sex marriage can never be akin to hetero marriage- and it may be the wackiest piece of wingnuttery I've ever seen. No, strike that. It is the wackiest piece of wingnuttery I've ever seen- and boy is it revealing.

WTF? OMG!?! Bwahahahahahahaha.......
by LaFeminista
Share this on Twitter - WTF? OMG!?! Bwahahahahahahaha....... Sun May 24, 2009 at 04:41:58 AM PDT
Oh this is a mind-blowing article, and I am still having problems typing, cross eyed and shaking with laughter.

I always knew that The Weekly Standard inhabited a very strange parallel reality but this hilarious piece of garbage really takes the biscuit .

Its amazing just how much social conservatives whine when they really get their teeth stuck into something.

Talk about losing your way in your own argument and then making a total ass of yourself at the same time, as I say a classic of the genre.

LaFeminista's diary :: ::
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.
Right gotcha your kids are a right pain in the ass, had your wallet raided recently?

Onerous? Oh good grief.

OK on we go...

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.
Undeclared war in the Schluman household is my guess, somebody squeeze the toothpaste at the wrong end again?

They are replicating what we might call the "romantic marriage,"
Sniff....poor baby no flowers this week-end?


Here we go the first real zinger

The first is the most important: It is that marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality. The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage.
What the Fuck???/

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha

Its too much......

;)

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
Sam are you glaring at the pool-boy again?

It gets better.

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.
So a husband = biological chastity belt?

**snicker**

<snip>

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/24/734887/-WTF-OMG!!-Bwahahahahahahaha.......

[aquart]

1. Well, that IS why marriage originated.

But Judeo-Christians should be ever so leery of basing decisions on origins of customs. The reasons why Jews are forbidden pork is that is used to be one of our sacred animals. Taboo means sacred, not merely forbidden.

That wafer and wine? Real body. Real blood.

It's not the origin that counts, it's the magnificent rationale of the transformation.

[TahitiNut]

3. For many, "was" = "is" = "should" ... they're called conservatives

I see people all the time who're invested in figuring out "the way things are" and they seem to be obsessed with preserving that investment. God forbid they figure out "the way things are" and then have someone else (an evildoer) change it and make their efforts in figuring it out worthless. Poor babies.

[TahitiNut]

2. [blockquote] is your friend [/blockquote]

:eyes:

[cali]

5. I decided to go for bold

hope that meets with your approval. or not. (hint: you might make a suggestion without :eyes:)

[eShirl]

10. Try going to the link and reading it there.

It's far easier to tell when the diarist is commenting and when she's quoting.

[Toucano]

4. Wow. I would not have thought it possible that someone could so profoundly misunderstand

humanity, sexuality, history, and civilization.

It is as if that article is written from the perspective of a Martian who knows earth only through a handful of mid-20th century movies and a few old issues of National Geographic, but has never actually visited.

Sam Schulman is from another planet.

I can't even pick the central argument apart because it is so fundamentally flawed.

[cali]

6. There is no central argument- unless you consider Sam's pathology

to be a central argument

[Z_I_Peevey]

7. I'm not sure I share your outlook on the columnist's first point.

"This most profound aspect of marriage--protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex--is its only true reason for being..."

This IS the primary reason for marriage. I agree. Which, to me, argues against the institution of "marriage" for anyone--gay, straight, bisexual or asexual. But until we evolve enough to shed this patriarchal relic, everyone should have equal access to the legal benefits marriage confers upon its participants.

The columnist's second, third and fourth points? Ridicule at will. He's on the same level as Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum.

[no_hypocrisy]

8. That twisted logic that "defines" marriage reminds me of what Emma Goldman called marriage:

Legalized Prostitution.

That too is all about female sexuality and free market capitalism to boot.

[sniffa]

9. This is tough on the eyes

It's like tourettes in print form.

[Toucano]

12. The actual article is tough on the brain.

;)

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Is the author from Lubbock, Texas?

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock

[Toucano]

13. That is a gem. n-t

[mmonk]

14. Access to a woman?

Did I do something forbidden before I got married?

[Fuzz]

15. The person who wrote this watched too much Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.

[Control-Z]

16. These are my personal favorites:

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.

Bingo and watch out mommy.
This man has some serious issues.

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

Wondering are you Sam?

Edit: to add underline