Friday, May 01, 2009

Real reason to oppose gay marriage: People speculate why someone like me opposes gay marriage. I've been told it's religious bigotry, some irrational hatred of homosexuals, or I might even add Bradlaugh's comment over at Secular Right that we have an instinct against it.

In my case, all three are incorrect. I do have a natural yuck-reaction to gay sex, but myself, I wouldn't be against people getting married because they do gross stuff. As for hate, that is just silly. I don't instinctively have feelings about groups, but if I think about it, I have a mildly positive feeling about homosexuals.

Yes, my religion teaches that homosexual sex is wrong, and gay marriage is a slap in the face of every traditionally religious person in the country, but my orientation to social policy really is secular.

So, what's my real problem with it? It's one part of a much larger problem. In my view, the country made a huge mistake in the 1960s when it began to dismantle the traditional moral regime. You folks can tell me where I'm wrong, but America has functioned optimally when there was a consensus that: premarital sex is bad; promiscuity is bad; loose womanhood is bad; playboys are bad; pornography is bad; masturbation is bad; out-of-wedlock births are bad; single-parent families are bad; abortion is bad; divorce is bad; prostitution is bad--you get the point--and, finally, homosexual sex is bad.

Much of the country has rejected many of those values, and the division has been dismantling and discrediting the old system. Even if a kid is raised the old way, he can always say, but my buddies' parents don't believe that. What once was authoritative is now just one viewpoint, one lifestyle.

The reigning morality has become, choose for yourself the moral way. All too often, that means choose the selfish, short-sighted way. In my view, the result has been: more out-of-wedlock births; more divorce; more mother-only famlies; more men not civilized by marriage and fatherhood; more disappearing fathers; less child support; more welfare dependency; more poor kids; more crime; more STDs; more abortion; more girls who are pumped and dumped a hundred different times.

To the mention of girls who have many sex partners, let me add: more pornography; more strip clubs; more girls gone wild. Now, you might respond that freer female sexuality is not a problem. I simply cannot imagine a greater tragedy in my life--and I am not exaggerating here--than to, say, read about some girl at a party who had sex with a bunch of guys in front of everyone, and to learn that the girl was my daughter. It's painful to even contemplate it. I'd be tempted to find the guys responsible and go all Taxi Driver on their asses.

So, what does this have to do with gay marriage? Gay marriage is the further discrediting of a moral system that I argue is a constructive and rational system. The old way seems to be correlated with a thriving society, and to my mind social policy should aim to optimize societal success. Not only should we throw out gay marriage, we should work for a moral revival across the board.

16 comments:

togo said...

It seems clear that gays have a tendency to revel in all sorts of bizarre sexual practices-and increasingly to publicly tell us about it.

Why for example did Anderson Cooper feel compelled to make snide remarks about "teabagging"? Also that POS on MSNBC.

This is enough for me to say it's time to draw the line on further mainstreaming.

togo said...

In my view, the country made a huge mistake in the 1960s when it began to dismantle the traditional moral regime.Look at footage of participants in the 1963 March on Washington(pre-Great Sixties Cultural Revolution) and marvel at the utter Fifties-style normality of those on stage and in the audience-with the possible exception of Bob Dylan.

These were people who certainly gave the impression that they were trying to assimilate into the old, traditional(now dead) America. Including even the notorious queen Bayard Rustin.

kurt9 said...

The big transition was from around 1965 until the late 70's. There has been no change since this time.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/06/your-generation-was-sluttier.php

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/06/your-generation-was-more-violent.php

I think the sexual revolution is as permanent as the industrial revolution. I also think it is not as big of deal as the social conservatives think it is. It is simply not possible to expect people to forgo sex until they get married because it is not reasonable to expect people to get married at an early age like they did 100 years ago.

Most intelligent people get college education, then often go to grad school. One does not want to get married until one is financially successful. This usually does not occur until the early 30's. Also, I lived as expat for 10 year following graduation from graduate school. I had experiences that I could not have dreamed about previously (I've seen things you people wouldn't believe). All of the experiences that I have had (that are far beyond those of 95% of most people) that define who I am would not have been possible had I got married at an early age.

So, I think the reasoning of the social conservatives is flawed.

kurt9 said...

I have come to the conclusion that only two things matter in this world. Health and wealth. Nothing else in this world is of any value at all to me.

Ron Guhname said...

kurt9: So why do you read blogs?

kurt9 said...

That's a good point, Ron.

Since the culture war is essentially over, there is no point for me to be on social conservative blogs any more.

Ron Guhname said...

The war is over for you, but, in the voice of Al Pacino in "Scent of a Woman", I'm just gettin' started!

Anonymous said...

Not to get into an argument over nothing here, but women are the sexual gatekeepers. Your hypothetical situation would not have happened if your hypothetical daughter were not a slut. While gangbangs are not my cup of tea, I can't blame the guys in that scenario for taking it where they can get it, and don't think they deserve the Taxi Driver treatment. The cultural movers and shakers who made this sort of behaviour acceptable, on the other hand...

Ron Guhname said...

Who can blame a guy? Typical modern-day degenerate rationality. If the guy's gotta an urge to shit, you can't blame him if he does it in the middle of the party. It's only shitting. It's perfectly natural. What's the big deal?

Anonymous said...

Looks like I touched a nerve. I guess even in hypothetical situations, fathers don't like to think that their daughters are responsible for their own actions. But the bottom line is that they are.

I already admitted that sex in public is déclassé. All I'm saying is that men are dogs (at least that's what my ex says! lol). Check out the survey if for some reason you don't believe me. Do a search for "have you thought about sex in the last minute?". I'll bet it's 100 to 1 in favour of men. It's up to women to keep them in line by denying them the wilder stuff.

Why do you think gays are so promiscuous and do it in every public space imaginable with friends and strangers alike? It's because it is two men with male sex drives getting together, instead of a man and a woman.

Mark said...

"As for hate, that is just silly. I don't instinctively have feelings about groups, but if I think about it, I have a mildly positive feeling about homosexuals."

Aw. That's sweet, Ron. I have a mildly positive feeling toward you too. :-)

Sgt. Joe Friday said...

As the stepfather to a 20 year old young woman, I think I have to agree somewhat with Ron. Back when I was a more, um, regular consumer of pornography, the thought would cross my mind now and then when seeing a young woman smoking some guy's pole "I'll bet her daddy is really proud of her."

Girls these days don't understand the concept of "damaged goods." Go read Roissy's blog, and the number of comments from guys agreeing with the notion. An exceptionally beautiful woman can get away with promiscuity, but only up to a point. If she's "too experienced," she's going to have problems finding a guy who will trust her.

Whiskey said...

Kurt9 --

The culture war may be over, but I don't think so.

First, the arguments against Gay Marriage are: few benefits (few gays get married), secondly legalization of polgyamy (happened everywhere Gay Marriage was recognized) and finally, making marriage and weddings "Gay."

When Weddings are "gay" men will flee them even more. As Marriage becomes normed to gay sexual behavior: wild promiscuity, men will simply abandon marriage and things will get worse.

Your description of delayed marriage, is true and holds for every wealthier nation, including Iran and Algeria and Tunisia, all with TFR rates below 1.7. Replacement fertility is 2.1.

Which means: declining demographics, far less people, a far older nation, poorer, no youth culture, little risk taking, end of consumerism (each generation, fewer consumers), more angry isolation (fewer and fewer people to make friends/lovers with) and general poverty, huge vulnerability to more numerous neighbors.

The history of the Greeks, Romans, Visigoths, British Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Irish, Scots, Welsh, and French all suggest that low birth rates = conquered by a bigger neighbor.

And yes, most men don't care about committing to a woman with many sex partners. She's "damaged goods" and good for non-committal sex, that's it. Pump-and-dump. Why would any man commit? All that sex with different partners makes a woman (or man) unable to form lasting bonds because the powerful effect of sex hormones that cause bonding is diluted. This is why "first love" is so powerful -- Evolutions' way of bonding mammals that need lifetimes to raise vulnerable kids.

But hey, you are right, no going back. The likelihood is what the Black Community in the Urban Core degenerated into: from 24% illegitimacy in 1965 to 90% today. [Whites went from 4% to 28% today, or 41% if you include categories for divorced, separated from married/unmarried partner, etc. Hispanics from 17% in 1980 to over 50% today.]

Most young men growing up will have a few partners, none of whom they will respect, a few will spread their seed wide, most women if they have kids will have them alone, and the big battles will be over polygamy, and the angry/resentful men without any significant partners fighting over paying welfare to men with many wives.

Old style morality made sure most men ended up with woman they did not have to share, and who was able to bond with them not the jaded result of many sex partners. This created a level, even sex pairing and had most men invested in society.

The current system works for a few Big Men, most women, and leaves most men open to any gamble that overturns the whole system. Why do you think these apolcalyptic themed shows are so popular? Because in them guys denied babes now suddenly get them [favorite theme of them.]

Jewish Atheist said...

So, just to be clear, you oppose gay marriage because of a culture war you admit you lost 50 years ago?

But gay marriage wouldn't increase promiscuity, it would reduce it. It would presumably have no or a negative effect on pornography. It would have no effect on female sexuality. Etc.

Your argument makes no sense.

Ron Guhname said...

JA: I didn't say the battle was lost--don't get gleeful just yet. I said the consensus collapsed.

Jewish Atheist said...

I misspoke. I guess you haven't admitted it yet. ;-)