Morons: Queer Marriage

Author's note: This essay has been edited and expanded slightly since its initial posting.

"When you're bored with yourself, marry and be bored with someone else." --David Pryce-Jones

---

The Total Moron's Guide to SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

In the years before and after the start of the Third Millennium, same-sex marriage has become a hot issue around the civilized world, as well as in the USA. Same-sex marriages have never been really common in any human culture, even where customary, but human cultures are changing so fast and furiously that this is an issue that must be addressed, and soon.

But many questions must be raised before any final answers can be set in stone. Questions like: What is sex? What is marriage? What is sameness? What is man? What is woman? Who the fuck cares? Why, exactly? And what about blow-up dolls? Or animal companions? Or my imaginary friends?

Every total moron should be familiar with at least some of the issues involved, even if it's only so they know what's worth killing for, what's worth masturbating over, what's worth ignoring, whatever. Opponents of same-sex marriage make many moronic claims. Here is a complete basic introduction to these delicate topics and indelicate claims, and to marriage in general. Put both your hands on the table, and read on.

---

The Total Moron says:

"Marriage is an institution linking a man and a woman."

How are 'man' and 'woman' defined? By genetics, or plumbing, or proclamation, or whatever? Can local jurisdictions allow a person to declare their gender and/or species for legal purposes, or is this dictated by know-nothing politicians and their owners? Who decides?

Here is a probable fundamentalist definitional blueprint:

* POTENTIALLY MARRIAGABLE PERSON: any living (or maybe dead) hominid, nominally Homo Sapiens, over age 21 (or 18 or 16 or 14 or whatever), depending on local law or custom, who happens to share your belief system -- deities and other imaginary friends are sometimes included here

* MAN: any POTENTIALLY MARRIAGABLE PERSON with a penis (unless it has been removed) and XY or XXY genes, who thinks of itself as male and might theoretically want to be wed to a female

* WOMAN: any POTENTIALLY MARRIAGABLE PERSON with a vagina (unless it has been removed) and XX or XXX genes, who thinks of itself as female and might theoretically want to be wed to a male

* INELIGABLE PERSON: everybody else (homosexuals, asexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, hermaphrodites, minors, retards, cyborgs, apes, canine and feline and bovine companions, dolphins, reptilioids, pet rocks, evil twins, channeled entities, blow-up dolls, atheists, liberals, etc)

Other paradigms might not be so rigid. To bad, sucker. Thoughtful liberal wussies aren't really in control, so expect to see morons push for more discrimination. The moronic reaction will remain unchanged and violent.

Hominids can now be sculpted, morphed, transformed to any desired anatomy, plumbing, race, etc. Soon we will be able to tweak our genes to produce any desired DNA / species, with possibly viable offspring. Would you rather be a gibbon? Or hung like a horse? Soon, it can all be yours!

* "I'm hung like Einstein and smart as a horse." -Anon. Moron

Transformation has consequences. What will be the legal / contractural marriage responsibilities and rights of transsexuals, chimeras, cyborgs, transhumans, mutants, robots, aliens, artificial intelligences and lifeforms, multiple personalities, deities, hive-minds, etc? If you are married to a deity or other imaginary friend, and you separate, who owes alimony? When a hive-mind fissions, who gets custody of the eggs?

If you are transformed into something that no longer looks human, are you still a person? Were you a person before you were transformed? What is the rational basis for being considered a person? Curious morons want to know.

---

The Total Moron says:

"Marriage is a contract linking one man and one woman."

Modern marriages may last for any desired period, maybe even till end of life and beyond. Is marriage to be limited to just one man and one woman at any specific time? Polygamy (polygyny and polyandry) have long been customary in some human cultures. In modern Western culture, the poly-ness is sequential - a person often has many mates, but in series, not all at the same time. Should marriage laws be concerned with simultaneity? Should remarrying ex'es be banned?

Here are some terms of marriages versus time:

* POLYGAMY: more than one spouse at one time

* POLYGYNY: more than one wife at one time

* POLYANDRY: more than one husband at one time

* MONOTONY: only one spouse / partner at a time

* QUICKIE: mated until the parking meter expires

* REMARRIAGE: serial polygamy, legalized

* GROUP MARRIAGE: simplicity via complexity

* DIVORCEMENT: the period between spouses

* CHASTITY: the most perverse of perversions

The number and genders of those involved in these relationships have traditionally been quite varied. So have the time-spans of each relational state. Life is short, and then you're fucked. Or maybe you aren't fucked, you lonely dog. Time for a blow-up doll! Would you like to be married for just one day? Is that too long?

Togetherness can be an escape. Some men need a good woman. Some men need a good man. Some men need a good sheep. Some need all or none of the above. Some can only stand any of this for a very short time. Even a total moron should be able to figure this out. Take my ex, please.

---

The Total Moron says:

"Marriage is a covenant, sexually linking an unrelated man and woman."

Some cultures prohibit marriage between arbitrarily close relatives: parent-child, siblings, cousins, niece-nephew to aunt-uncle, step-kin, tribal or moiety affiliation, etc. Other cultures *require* such unions. Some formally forbid such relations but informally wink at or ignore them. Call it incest: keeping it all in the (physical or spiritual) family; wrong only when it is illegal.

Most cultures have some restrictions against some forms of incest. This is sort of like shops displaying anti-shoplifting warning signs. If shoplifting wasn't common, the signs would be unnecessary. Similarly, if incest was uncommon, the laws and taboos wouldn't exist. Incest is very tempting. Hey, total moron guys, you really *do* want to fuck your moms and sisters, don't you? C'mon, confess.

Must marriage include sex? No. Marriages may survive extended periods without sex, as may non-marriages, unwed companionships. Long-lasting life-sharing platonic partnerships have been enjoyed by the close relatives listed above, as well as by unrelated friends. Sex is not a requirement of close partnership, and avoidance of close partnerships cannot be rationalized or justified by an avoidance of sex.

Human sex (and non-sex) is more complex than any rulebook can specify. But some officious morons insist on writing such rules anyway. Feh.

---

The Total Moron says:

"Marriage is a sacrament, spiritually linking a man, a woman, and one or more gods."

Marriages in cultures worldwide show great variety in their metaphysical underpinnings. Monotheists, polytheists, atheists, nontheists, animists, onanists, universalists, agnostics, and alien-worshippers all somehow manage to have more-or-less successful marriages. In some subcultures, monotheists just cannot seem to remain monogamous, or even sober. (Cf. the USA Bible Belt.) So much for morality.

Specifying any single doctrinal paradigm is certain to piss-off all those who do not share belief in that paradigm. But some morons try to impose their beliefs on others anyway. What a pity.

Here are some terms defining deistic paradigms:

* THEIST: a person affected by one or more gods

* ATHEIST: a person unaffected by any gods

* ANTITHEIST: a person opposed to all gods

* MONOTHEIST: a person observing strictly one god

* POLYTHEIST: a person observing more than one god

* AMBITHEIST: a person unsure of which deity to stroke

* ANIMIST: a person finding divinity in all animals

* ONANIST: a person finding divinity in their genitalia

* UNIVERSALIST: a person finding divinity in all existence

* FUNDAMENTALIST: my god(s) is/are better than yours, dickhead

Different doctrinal paradigms provide different rules of marriage. Often even a single belief system engenders many and varied rules of marriage. Those whom the gods (or lack thereof) would drive insane, they first infect with love. Such a cosmic sense of humor, eh?

---

The Total Moron says:

"Marriage exists to promote procreation and child-nurturing."

Married and non-married couples or triads or other groups may or may not procreate and/or nurture children with any degree of success. Statistics suggest that marriage alone may not be sufficient for quality childrearing. The vast numbers of failed marriages certainly do not nurture their offspring. Civil unions (marriage by any other name) may not be adequate either. Perhaps other institutions are necessary: group and line marriages, creche-rearing, whatever. Any creative moron should be able to invent a few.

Many heterosexual couples marry with no expectation or hope of procreating. Either or both partners may be sterile or unwilling. If marriage *must* promote procreation, must marriages without offspring be dissolved? Not even many total morons would propose this.

Those who hold that same-sex parents are incapable of procreating obviously have not been around many queer households. Those who consider parenthood a simple matter of papa-mama-kiddies obviously are not aware of the complexity of human sexuality and behavior. No matter how you expect people to act sexually, they will always do something more. Even a total moron should be able to figure this out.

---

The Total Moron says:

"Marriage and the family are the foundations of civilization."

Different cultures have different foundations; families often are involved, but usually not the modern 'nuclear' family. The smallest functional social unit may be an extended family, a tribe, a moiety, a clan, a men's club, affinity group, etc. The 'nuclear' family is an artifact of industrial civilization, the reduction of human overhead to the smallest possible unit so that disposable workers may easily be swapped between tasks.

The true foundation of post-industrial culture is not an institution (family, marriage) but a process: FLOW. The flow of information, money, power, people, resources. Looking at the modern world, even a total moron should see that people and families are mere cogs in the machinery of THE GREAT GAME of global domination, masked in ideological trappings.

But some morons never make it past the propaganda, disinformation and primal incitements. To control people's minds, we need only market sex (and marriage) as if they were vital, indispensable. Get'em by the balls, and their hearts and minds will follow.

---

The Total Moron says:

"Queer Marriage will cause the downfall of society."

New technologies push both individual liberation and enslavement (these may be the same). Non-democratic globalization further fractures the social underpinnings of humanity. What refuges exist? Ideological hierarchies, masquerading as religious or philosophical or political idealism. Or free-form affinity groups, existing only as long as may be convenient for the participants. Or... family, ANY form of family, even including nonhumans.

As extended families were pulverized by industrialism, so are nuclear families dismembered by post-industrialism. Do not take my word for it; look up the statistics. Then consider that same-sex marriages, single-parent households, childrearing by grandparents, are forms of familial life that actually survive in a globalized economy. These families are not the downfall of society but its salvation.

Some argue that society SHOULD fall, that families are obsolete, that humanity is obsolete and should be replaced by cyborgs or mutant ants or alien hybrids. I suspect that those who make such arguments just do not get laid enough. They should find a good man or two. Or a good woman or two. Or a good sheep or two. Then those morons might shut up. But I doubt it.

---

And now, a joke.

"Did you hear about Smedly, from the old regiment?"

"No, what about the chap?"

"Why, it seems he's run off to live with an Orang-utan!"

"My word! Er, was it a *female* Orang-utan?"

"Of course! Nothing queer about old Smedley!" -Anon