Gay Marriage and the Curse of Rumpelstiltskin

Gay Marriage and the Curse of Rumpelstiltskin

By Robert Oscar Lopez


This Election Day, voters in Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota will be asked to cast their ballots on the issue of same-sex marriage.
Now is a good time to discuss this issue beyond the squeaky-clean casefor gay marriage that has been marketed to well-intended, and in some cases gullible, straight allies. First, let's dispense with the maudlin myths and reductive propaganda.
Same-sex marriage will do nothing to address the five real-life crises facing people with same-sex attractions, many of whom do not end up in lifelong couplings: depression, eating disorders, suicide, sexually transmitted diseases, and addictions.
While bullies, biblical verses, Republicans, and chicken sandwich impresariosmay cause some hurt feelings, the five aforementioned crises are overwhelmingly the result of the way gays treat one another. Straight people do gays no favors by feeling guilty and then blindly endorsing the demands of gay activists, who are largely responsible for the currents of gay culture and therefore the state of gay people's lives.
By convincing a large part of the country that people have no choicebut to act upon biological instincts -- going as far as barring psychotherapistsfrom counseling patients to resist same-sex urges -- post-Stonewall activists have created an alternate social world.
In this alternate world, people are subservient to Freud's pleasure principleand incapable of rising above their id to attain higher transcendentals such as the one, the good, and the true (where is Aquinas when you need him?).
I can see where gay activism came from. There was a century of ghastly repression to bring to an end. This repression was against "homosexuals," a group first labeled and classified in the 1860s by snooping and perhaps priggish Victorian scientists.
To end the century of police raids, surveillance, and violent suppression, gay activists chose to embrace a certain ideology about man's relation to the carnal realm. After 1969s famous Stonewall revolt in New York City, the movement based its empowerment on the notion that people are gay against their will and can't help acting the way they do.
The idea was that they could defend their pleasures as a civil rights movement, because their identity as homosexual was as natural and unavoidable as the color of a person's skin. Soon, too, there developed a fanatical belief that gay people had "gaydar" and could sense another person's homosexuality, no matter how hidden, through telepathy.
With one reckless feint, the gay movement conjoined a natural trait like pigmentation with behavior and soon insisted that not only they, but all people, were governed by mandates in their bloodstream.
Self-determination, free will, and moral accountability were swept away in one Neronian flourish. The gay world was born. It was a place where people were not only encouraged to act on urges (the baser the urge, the more urgent the need to act on it); in fact, they were condemned as closeted, self-hating, or lying if they did not act on their perceived orientation. Hence the particular vitriol against ex-gays, priests, and bisexuals who chose to marry the opposite sex.
By the early 2000s, a new term was coined to describe people with same-sex attractions who married the opposite sex: "mixed-orientation marriages." The new gay world somehow resurrected taboos against "miscegenation" in a place where rational people could have hardly predicted it. As a bisexual married to a woman, I've gotten attacked enough by pro-gay zealots to have a vague sense of what it was like for biracial couples in the 1950s.
Some gay leftists have objected to the gay-marriage movement because they feel that it seeks to remake the gay world to look more like the boring, hegemonic straight world of white picket fences and baby strollers. I see it the other way around. Gay marriage is about remaking the whole world so it looks more like the gay world. That's not good.
Almost all religious faiths warn against carnal impurity because they see a danger in being trapped in one's urges. Gay identity politics, through the choices of its spokespeople, chose to base selfhood on submission to urges rather than mastery of urges. Had they not made this rhetorical choice, things might have been different.
As things stand, we cannot endorse gay rights without endorsing the sexual philosophy underneath it, which is really a philosophy about who we are and what we seek in life. Such a philosophy is ultimately destructive and alienating.
The results are predictable. Not all gays, but disturbingly many of them, are literally powerless against immediate lusts, desperately seeking validation in ephemeral pleasures, and unable to express friendship or love on a higher plane than voluptuous carnality. Hence, even with all the measures to stop bullyingand promote positive imagesabout gay people, psychological surveys find that "gays" are unhappy.
As I discuss in my book The Colorful Conservative: American Conversations with the Ancients from Wheatley to Whitman, three of the greatest early American writers -- John Winthrop, Henry David Thoreau, and Walt Whitman -- celebrated love between members of the same sex as spiritually pure. This was what used to be known as friendship or comrade love, and it is exalted by authors as ancient as Homer, Sappho, Virgil, Plato, Demosthenes, and Cicero. Same-sex love was a brotherly or sisterly refuge from the raw passions and intrigues of male-female lust, with its political burden of dowries, lineage, inheritance, and rivalry.
None of these writers intended same-sex love to reach its pinnacle in glory holes, the Folsom Street leather fair, circuit parties, lesbian cruises, amyl nitrates, or surrogacy contracts with impoverished women in the third world.
None of these great writers thought that same-sex love could be a source of erotic pleasure totally free of one's obligations to the opposite sex, especially if one wanted children. Sappho was married to a man. Fairy-tale villain Rumpelstiltskin may have sought to acquire a baby without making love to a woman, but he hardly comes across as a great example for social engineering. (Remember that the hapless queen figures out who he is and, by naming him, tricks him and keeps her baby; women have a way of not letting men take their babies even when there is a contract in place.)
As a bisexual professor, I find myself woefully torn, even overwhelmed. There are people in the "gay" community whom I love. I want to see them prosper. For some of them, prosperity means staying in same-sex relationships but distancing themselves from dangerous influences. If there are children in trouble who need foster homes, it seems perfectly reasonable for stable same-sex couples to cooperate with the children's biological parents and help kids get back on their feet.
For other gays I know, prosperity might mean finding some peace with the opposite sex and having children through heterosexual unions, gay naysayers be damned. Many of them have wonderful fatherly and motherly instincts. They might have never had a problem expressing such instincts had the gay community not given them the idea that it was their "right" to have children without a partner of the opposite sex in the picture.
In bygone centuries, their intense emotional attachment to the same sex would have found some balance with their spousal needs. Today, because of gay rights rhetoric, their emotional attachments to the same sex have become a barrier. The language of gay rights tells them they don't have a choice and that children have to be acquired through fraught asexual arrangements -- the most problematic one being the contrivance by which a biological father or mother is magically rinsed out of the picture.
Voters in Maryland, Minnesota, Maine, and Washington face a painful choice. I cannot tell them how to vote. All I can say is that they should mind the consequences of redefining marriage. It would be a permanent change, one like Roe v. Wade. We cannot reverse it if we find that it isn't going well.
I must credit Doug Mainwaring for a great piecerecently that pulled together some of the key arguments against gay marriage. I know how hard it must be for him to write the words "I am gay" while arguing against gay marriage. I also know where he comes from. It isn't hate for gays, but a love for all humanity.

More hate from the loonies. Thanks, crazy person. Every time I read shit like this, I'm reminded of why I'm a yellow dog democrat.

Republicans suck.

More hate from the loonies. Thanks, crazy person. Every time I read shit like this, I'm reminded of why I'm a yellow dog democrat.

Republicans suck. Originally Posted by timpage

yellow dog? You mean yellow backed........

yellow dog? You mean yellow backed........ Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

Serious question Choom, if you are capable of entertaining one. Why shouldn't gay people have the right to pursue their lifestyle peacefully and lawfully? They're doing no harm. What is it with you that you are compelled to discriminate against them? Every single gay person I know is a decent upstanding person, just normal folks, they just have different feelings than you and I about sex. Why do you think they should be denied the normal rights that every other US citizen enjoys? Why the hate and intolerance? I just don't get it.

I was not aware that anyone was stopping them from doing what they want. They can live together and call themselves anything they want. What they want is to force the rest of us to applaude them and smile at their life style. It is like WTF, he can go home everynight and chronically masturbate. No one is stopping him but he wants to get taxpayer support for his Viagra so he can continue to wack the weasel on our dime.

Gay marriage? Well it worked for Bush in 04 ... Leading to the downfall of America. Middle Americans would rather starve than let homos marry.

Serious question Choom, if you are capable of entertaining one. Why shouldn't gay people have the right to pursue their lifestyle peacefully and lawfully? They're doing no harm. What is it with you that you are compelled to discriminate against them? Every single gay person I know is a decent upstanding person, just normal folks, they just have different feelings than you and I about sex. Why do you think they should be denied the normal rights that every other US citizen enjoys? Why the hate and intolerance? I just don't get it. Originally Posted by wimpage

Serious answer:


First, I need to address two assumptions in your post, then the answer......marriage is more detriment than benefit and government discriminates in virtually everything they do......

All you liberals keep talking about the benfits of marriage. Marriage is more about detriments and obligations rather than benefits. Marriage laws are government regulation of personal relationships. When you are married you have an obligation of support to the other person and legal constrictions on your behavior. Your property interests are restricted and subject to the other persons legal interests. I suppose I could go on and on but I'm already boring myself so I'll move on. Most of the benefits of marriage to the individual really can be obtained outside of marriage....

The purpose of marriage has always been the creation and raising of children in the best possible environment humans can provide, ie: nuclear family. Marriage evolved in human societies to promote mothers and fathers staying together for the best interest of their children. Marriage evolved to make it difficult for parents to leave each other.....

Government discriminates all the time. Courts even have tests to see whether particular discrimination is permissible discrimination [rational basis test, compelling governmental interest test, strict scrutiny test].....the most popular discrimination permitted by government discussed on this board is Affirmative Action......we could sit here and discuss forever everything government does and how it discrimates against somebody......

Anyway, straight couples and gay couples are different in one fundamental way that goes to the heart of marriage laws and purpose....gay sex will never result in the creation of a human being......heterosexual sex results in the creation of human beings.....government has an interest in protecting the welfare of children and government has an interest in seeing that the responsibilty [financial and otherwise] for caring for children falls on the parents and not society in general [a well raised child becomes a productive tax paying member of society who stays out of the criminal justice system]......marriage laws are the best mechanism humanity has created to protect those governmental interests.....as you can see, when marriage became easier to get out of in the past 50 years, disfunction has increased and dependency on society to raise children has increased......

Marriage laws are governmental regulation....conservatives like me don't believe in no government, but we believe in limited government [small as reasonably possible]....I don't believe gays should have governmental regulation imposed upon their personal relationships...straights do need governmental regulation over their personal relationships because a child can be born or adopted into that relationship and society can be harmed if that relationship fails.....


well, there is my answer....some may not agree with it, but noone can reasonable say it doesn't make sense....of coarse I'm right, as usual.....I know there will be minor points people will want to bring up about old people getting married, adoption, blah blah blah, but fuck you turds who just want to argue with me that gay sex is just as valuable as straight sex.....I realize gay sex is a liberal sacrament, but it's disgusting.....us mainstream people really don't care what you do in your personal lives, just don't push your depravity on us and our children.....you want to force us to think your gayness is normal and mainstream. You want to destroy our institutions which keep society functioning.....

Serious answer:


First, I need to address two assumptions in your post, then the answer......marriage is more detriment than benefit and government discriminates in virtually everything they do......

All you liberals keep talking about the benfits of marriage. Marriage is more about detriments and obligations rather than benefits. Marriage laws are government regulation of personal relationships. When you are married you have an obligation of support to the other person and legal constrictions on your behavior. Your property interests are restricted and subject to the other persons legal interests. I suppose I could go on and on but I'm already boring myself so I'll move on. Most of the benefits of marriage to the individual really can be obtained outside of marriage....

The purpose of marriage has always been the creation and raising of children in the best possible environment humans can provide, ie: nuclear family. Marriage evolved in human societies to promote mothers and fathers staying together for the best interest of their children. Marriage evolved to make it difficult for parents to leave each other.....

Government discriminates all the time. Courts even have tests to see whether particular discrimination is permissible discrimination [rational basis test, compelling governmental interest test, strict scrutiny test].....the most popular discrimination permitted by government discussed on this board is Affirmative Action......we could sit here and discuss forever everything government does and how it discrimates against somebody......

Anyway, straight couples and gay couples are different in one fundamental way that goes to the heart of marriage laws and purpose....gay sex will never result in the creation of a human being......heterosexual sex results in the creation of human beings.....government has an interest in protecting the welfare of children and government has an interest in seeing that the responsibilty [financial and otherwise] for caring for children falls on the parents and not society in general......marriage laws are the best mechanism humanity has created to protect those governmental interests.....as you can see, when marriage became easier to get out of in the past 50 years, disfunction has increased and dependency on society to raise children has increased......

Marriage laws are governmental regulation....conservatives like me don't believe in no government, but we believe in limited government [small as reasonably possible]....I don't believe gays should have governmental regulation imposed upon their personal relationships...straights do need governmental regulation over their personal relationships because a child can be born or adopted into that relationship and society can be harmed if that relationship fails.....


well, there is my answer....some may not agree with it, but noone can reasonable say it doesn't make sense....of coarse I'm right, as usual.....I know there will be minor points people will want to bring up about old people getting married, adoption, blah blah blah, but fuck you turds who just want to argue with me that gay sex is just as valuable as straight sex.....I realize gay sex is a liberal sacrament, but its disgusting..... Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

As usual, you're not right. As usual, you come across as a crazy person who utterly lacks insight into the absurd positions you assert. Gay sex is a liberal sacrament? Where do you get this shit?

Serious answer:



well, there is my answer....some may not agree with it, but noone can reasonable say it doesn't make sense....of coarse I'm right, as usual.....I know there will be minor points people will want to bring up about old people getting married, adoption, blah blah blah, but fuck you turds who just want to argue with me that gay sex is just as valuable as straight sex.....I realize gay sex is a liberal sacrament, but it's disgusting.....us mainstream people really don't care what you do in your personal lives, just don't push your depravity on us and our children.....you want to force us to think your gayness is normal and mainstream. You want to destroy our institutions which keep society functioning..... Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

Shouldn't have added that last paragraph. The trolls on Eccie have some style though. I have to say. It's no surprise that you guys use a conservative platform though. Easiest way to troll. Go someplace liberal, be conservative.

Kudos. I don my flame vest for you today, sir.

Of course this is when you go "HUH TROLL WAT IS THAT? I NO TROLL!" kay.

Serious answer:
..I realize gay sex is a liberal sacrament, but it's disgusting...... Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

This tells you all you need to know about Marshall folks. Ignorant, homophobic, idiot.

He says gay sex is disgusting, yet he describes gay sex acts in his posts against "liberals" all the time. What does that tell you folks? Clearly homosexual sex makes him uncomfortable because secretly it turns him on a little. I would bet you old Marshall here has seen his share of trannys and then hated himself for liking it so much.

Don't feed the troll folks. Ignore this bigoted sock puppet until after Obama gets re-elected. Then we can enjoy him going totally bat shit crazy (yea I mean even more than usual).

This tells you all you need to know about Marshall folks. Ignorant, homophobic, idiot.

He says gay sex is disgusting, yet he describes gay sex acts in his posts against "liberals" all the time. What does that tell you folks? Clearly homosexual sex makes him uncomfortable because secretly it turns him on a little. I would bet you old Marshall here has seen his share of trannys and then hated himself for liking it so much.

Don't feed the troll folks. Ignore this bigoted sock puppet until after Obama gets re-elected. Then we can enjoy him going totally bat shit crazy (yea I mean even more than usual). Originally Posted by markroxny

I lol'd at his post. I have to admit.

You have to think that Mashmallow has only one site bookmarked on his computer ... The American Thinker ... That's where all his hate mongering cut and paste seems to come from.

As for the other bookmarks, I'm betting on buttsex.com, rumpwranglers.net and ILOVECOX.com.

Not that there's anything wrong with it!

Shouldn't have added that last paragraph. The trolls on Eccie have some style though. I have to say. It's no surprise that you guys use a conservative platform though. Easiest way to troll. Go someplace liberal, be conservative.

Kudos. I don my flame vest for you today, sir.

Of course this is when you go "HUH TROLL WAT IS THAT? I NO TROLL!" kay. Originally Posted by Sativa Slims

FYI: The Sandbox is a right wing dominated board......using the term "troll" in the Sandbox is hysterically funny, but you're new, so.......

I lol'd at his post. I have to admit. Originally Posted by Sativa Slims

seems to me most of the liberal posters here would like to meet up with you for a date.....

FYI: The Sandbox is a right wing dominated board......using the term "troll" in the Sandbox is hysterically funny, but you're new, so....... Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

I like how you refer to your little corner of Eccie by its proper name. "Don't say troll in The Sandbox, bro."

That's cute.

seems to me most of the liberal posters here would like to meet up with you for a date..... Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

Wait, you mean... we're not friends? We're the same, you and I.