I’ve long argued that the State should stay out of the marriage business, mostly by joking that if I can get Jennifer Aniston AND Angelina Jolie to marry me, well, shouldn’t I get a prize or something? (Neither of them are particularly appealing to me beyond their public sexuality; a better, more honest example for me would be the happily, long time married Meryl Streep and the endlessly enchanting Emma Thompson, but those two don’t work as well in the joke.)

I don’t care who consenting adults marry, nor how many of either gender. It has no impact on my life as a straight, perpetually single dude. I simply don’t get why anyone would give a shit about someone else’s personal decisions to the point of publicly ridiculing them. I personally think Mona, somewhere in her deep dark heart, wants her some pussy. If there’s anything the last 8 years should have taught us, it’s that those who screech loudest about Teh Gay are more likely to have the disease.

Mona C. is a moron of the first order; a scold of the worst type. “Marriage matters?” To whom? Near half of heterosexual couples wind up in bitter, children-defiling, hate-filled divorce. I just don’t get it.

I’m with IOZ, as usual.

Everyone should have IOZ on their daily read list.

Update: Mona’s funniest paragraph:

Where do you draw a line? Once traditional marriage — supported by centuries of civilization and the major Western religions — is undermined in the name of love, there is no logical or principled reason to forbid polygamy, polyandry, or even incest. Gay activists recoil from incest. But on what grounds exactly? Suppose, after we formalize gay marriage, two 25-year-old sterile (to remove the health of offspring argument) twins wish to marry? Let’s suppose they are loving and committed. What is the objection? That it offends custom and tradition? That it offends God? Isn’t that just bigotry?”

Just taking these senselesstences one at a time, “centuries?” Old Testament stuff, and indeed much of civilized society since time immemorial has more or less expected, much less accepted, polygamy or at minimum infidelity for the Kings. My goodness, until 300 or 400 years ago, marriage was a property arrangement, and the woman was the property. I’m no gay activist nor incest proponent, but in Mona’s example above, in which children are impossible, I personally have no objection. So yeah, it’s just bigotry, combined with a good deal of cultural, historical (see, Royal Family, British) and political myopia.

Plus I just love the phrase, “undermined in the name of love.” The horror! Jesus must surely be weeping.

Advertisements