[this post came out of a heated discussion i got sucked into tonight. they didn't understand it, and most of you probably won't either.]
before i start, lemme just say that there is no question that straight folk have done a pretty good job of fucking up the institution of marriage without any help from the gays.
but you know what? i'd be willing to bet that if you asked every straight couple about to walk down the aisle if they intended to honor their vows of fidelity and monogamy until death they do part, a good 90% of 'em--even in this day and age--would unhesitatingly say "yes."
you asked the same question of gay male couples? i'd daresay--if they were being honest anyway--most of that same 90% would look uneasily at each other and hedge and stammer all over the goddam place.
and it doesn't matter that at least half the straight folks would ultimately be lying--fidelity and monogamy, for them, is still the standard to which they aspire.
because on some level they innately understand--before they start bickering and screwing around and divorcing and remarrying, of course--that fidelity and monogamy create the optimal environment for raising stable, well-adjusted children. and when you look at the bigger picture, that's really what marriage is all about: two people making the personal sacrifices necessary to produce the next generation so that civilization can continue. the family is the building block of society, right?
yeah, for breeders, maybe, but not for us--hell, we don't even pretend, because most of us aren't about to agree even in principle to make the sorta sacrifices to our lifestyles that the commitments and responsibilities of traditional marriage have always entailed. we may get married in order to obtain the status, benefits, tax breaks and legal protections said institution provides, but most of us are gonna continue to screw around (and thus undermine our marriages) just like we always did.
will gay marriage further dumb down the institution of marriage? of course it will--and while i'm apparently the only faggot with the balls to actually come out and say it, anybody with a three-digit IQ should goddam well know it.
then again, considering the rapid rate at which western civilization is declining, maybe it'll just make the whole thing more honest.
* * * * *
having said all this, is mkf against gay marriage? nope--to my mind, anything in this deteriorating day and age that encourages two people to come together, assume the mantle of adulthood and make a family--any kind of family--should be supported (or, at least that's what i keep telling myself).
but unlike my gay brethren, i have no illusions about the ultimate societal trade-offs, and that's all i'm sayin.
8 comments:
Mike, I have to disagree with your perspective, because in my opinion there's heterosexual marriage which has one set of mores, and there's gay marriage which has, by the very use of the word gay, a different set of mores.
In gay culture, we make the rules. We want marriage for the legal protections, for the tax breaks, and for the political triumph of finally having what all the other Americans get in terms of enfranchisement and respect for relationship of the men or two women getting together because they love each other.
Before the issue of gay marriage came up, the radical right and the church fundies put us down by saying that we were sex-crazed, promiscuous, and could never form decent relationships (they were fucking around all the time but they had the icon of marriage and shitloads of denial on their side). Once gay marriage became possible, their only recourse when faced by the reality that we DO make stable, decent, loving relationships was to keep marriage out of our grasp by defending it from our alleged intent to destroy it. We were damned when we didn't and damned when we did.
But we're gay--when we marry WE make the rules. I've never bought the argument that that same-sex marriage is "the end of gay." Monogamy doesn't exist in straight marriage anyway, but most of the married gays I know (self included) have had the monogamy conversation honestly and have concluded that outside activity will happen. They then establish the perameters.
Examples I know of--you must know of some within your circle--are:
Anything goes singly or as a couple just so it's safe and we remain steadfast in our love (this is a couple together for about 35 years who are still crazy about each other even though--maybe because--hundreds of men have passed through their bed);
We want other guys but will have them only as part of threeways with each other (any number of couples;
Each is on his own provided it's safe and we discuss it openly when it happens;
Each is on his own provided it's safe and I don't care to know about it (Will raises his hand). We looked at the subject and the husband made the totally rational statement, "we're gay men--sex happens."
I understand your statement fully and that you do, in fact, support gay marriage. My personal view about "the ultimate societal trade-offs" is that we do not and should not imitate the hypocritical and now wholly corrupted institution of heterosexual marriage, but remake it into our own image which is OUR business, not their business.
P.S. to those who say the only purpose of marriage is to breed and raise children: show me the examples of your refusing marriage licenses to post menopausal couples, to couples where the man is sterile, or where the woman has had to undergo hysterectomy, etc., etc. Only when you do that will I have the slightest respect for your motives.
Well, I kinda like Will's reply.
I would say that your post has just such a moralistic tinge to it.
Gay marriage will not destroy marriage generally, but it may change our conception of marriage a little.
Marriage has evolved. It was first an institution of property: men owned women. The idea of "love marriages" is still a novel concept in some parts of the world. It really only began in the Victorian/Romantic period.
Marriage will continue to evolve. If the sole point of marriage was building a stable foundation to raise the next generation, then many gay couples would qualify, but some straight couples would not (Bob and Elizabeth Dole come to mind...they never had children).
Also, your view of "gay marriage" is really "gay male marriage" -- I do not think that most lesbians would subscribe to your view of infidelity. At least, that would be the lesbians I know who got married and whatnot.
One final point: marriage may also change gay culture. It may make people less promiscuous.
The idea of marriage evolving to accommodate gay marriage is well considered. But, the radical idea that marriage would change gay culture -- making it a more conservative place -- has not been well considered.
will: you've made the standard pro-gay marriage argument, and you've argued it well.
but statistically speaking? i'll stack up one monogamous couple's chances of making it over the long term against any twenty "open" couples' chances you want to name, because that's what's been proven out in the real world.
the truth is, while there may be any number of individual couples you can point to who can withstand the jealousies and insecurities that follow the inevitable dropping of boundaries in any open relationship, the vast majority of couples cannot.
bottom line, will? for most gay men i've ever known, mutual fucking around would generally cheapen the once-sacred concept of "marriage" to next-to-nothing--which, i fear, will be just enough for most gay men of the future (as long as they can still get their partner's health benefits, of course).
noblesavage: yeah, i'm moralistic, and for damned good reason.
to both of you: see part two of this post (and, since i'm a three-part kinda guy, the one that'll probably come after that).
Omnia mfk in tres partes divisa est?
will: damn you for making me use babelfish so early in the morning, but yeah, that seems to be my pattern. i still hold out the vague hope, however, that my life will turn out to have a fourth act.
I have every confidence that it will, Mike.
I was delighted when the idea of the paraphrase hit me because it's the first time I have ever found a use for the two years of Latin I was forced to take in Catholic high school.
MKF: you ballsy honest bastard you. I support gay marriage, but agree that we have to live our lives not according to the hetero model, but to our own, because we gay dudes are quite horny and piggish! At least I am! LOLOL
"then again, considering the rapid rate at which western civilization is declining..."
OOOOO WEEE, those words are music to my ears!
will: from your lips to god's ears.
wat: i'm glad you appreciated the honesty. the point of this post was to try to get folks to at least address the question of whether what you said in the first paragraph of your comment might have anything to do with the second.
Post a Comment