Over at RightNetwork, Stuart Schneiderman warns us that by allowing gays to tamper with reality and perception, we risk tearing open the very fabric of the space-time continuum, which would be disastrous, because it would let all the stuffing fall out. So we civil rights absolutists have been playing a very dangerous game by pretending that same-sex marriage exists when it really doesn't, and now we don't know if we're Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi dreaming we're a butterfly, or if we are, in fact, a butterfly dreaming that we've gay-married Zhuangzi.
So who is Stuart Schneiderman? According to his bio, he has "taught English literature and practiced psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Currently, he works as a consultant and life coach in New York City. Throughout, he has written articles and books about topics psychological and cultural. He is currently the proprietor of the blog: HAD ENOUGH THERAPY?"
Well, I've probably had less than I need, but I somehow doubt that Stuart's column is going to meet the court-ordered definition.
Same-sex marriage is a fiction. Even if everyone believes that the fiction is real.So it's sort of like the Bible.
I'm all in favor of marriage equality, but I do think it's kind of unfair that gays and lesbians who wed get to become fictional characters. I believe that option should be open to all matrimonial couples, and I think you should be given the chance to select your fictional alter ego from the same window where you purchase your license. Personally, I would have gone with either Fantômas, Spring-Heeled Jack, or Scrooge McDuck.
When a happy young couple says “I do,” their marriage is contingent on their performing a specific sexual act.It's called "The Hammer Dulcimer" and requires a penis, a vagina, three feet of twine, a quarter cup of waffle batter and a picture of Eve Arden.
If they want to make their marriage real, they must consummate it.While Stuart is filming them. Pics or it didn't happen!
And that means that the meaning of marriage lies in the possibility of procreation. A marriage unconsummated is not a marriage. It is nullified, as though the ceremony had never happened.The caterer's invoice begs to differ.
To become real, a marriage requires the possibility of conception.This new ruling should make Rush Limbaugh's next divorce much smoother than the previous three.
It does not require conception. Failure to conceive has never been grounds for nullification.Annulment, sure, but South Carolina didn't threaten nullification because it couldn't get the federal government pregnant.
Older, presumably infertile, couples are allowed to marry because if they had performed the same act in the past they might have conceived a child.So your mom is free to remarry so long as the ceremony is performed in the Time Tunnel. Then she and the groom can just nip back before the reception to 1969 and do it in the mud at Woodstock.
From its inception, the institution of marriage has always granted male/female couples the presumption of fertility.It's just like our justice system, except with more sperm.
A couple that can never, between themselves, perform the generative sexual act cannot be married, regardless of what the state and the courts say.The state has nothing to say about marriage, which is why we had to buy our license from Lady Footlocker, and get married at Pinkberry. And though my mother would have loved to have taken my father to court, she had to obtain her divorce from the cut-out bin at Licorice Pizza.
Moreover, marriage has always been a universal human institution.If you don't count all the gay people.
If Jack and Jane are married in Paducah or in Xian they will be commonly recognized as such anywhere in the world.Unless Jane was black, in which case their marriage was recognized anywhere in the world except Virginia.
You cannot say the same of Jack and Jim, regardless of whether they were married in Boston or Buenos Aires.Unless they were married in Boston anytime in the last six years.
If Jack and Jim travel the world and present themselves as a married couple, most people will be sufficiently polite not to challenge them. But they will look askance at Jack and Jim.Gays have had an easy ride in life up till now, but if they persist in shoving this equal rights thing down our throats, they'll have to put up with people glancing at them!
For their marriage to be real, a couple must perform a specific action.To you, it's the sacred bonds of Holy Matrimony. To Stuart, it's a live sex show.
Similarly, if you attend a funeral where all of the ceremonial requirements have been fulfilled… except that no one has died, you have not attended a funeral.However, if you perform a certain sex act with the corpse, it's a marriage.
And you cannot have dinner if you sit at a table and go through the motions of eating, when there is no food or drink on the table.If this happens to you, don't panic, because there's a good chance you're just Marcel Marceau.
Same-sex marriage is a fiction.Well, at least it's not a blood libel.
Even if everyone believes that the fiction is real-- or be too afraid to say otherwise-- that does not make it less of a fiction. The world does not become flat just because everyone says it is.And people don't become 3/5s of a person just because it counts them that way in the Constitution.
In many ways the strangest part of the current debate over same-sex marriage is how little of it involves rational argument.But if you're looking for sexual repression and unreasoning hatred, dig in -- there's loads!
Proponents of same-sex marriage declare that if infertile couples are allowed to marry, then fertility cannot be a basis for marriage.
Grant that they do not understand the difference between possible and impossible. More importantly, it is nonsense to say that same-sex couplings are infertile.
If two people, between themselves, cannot perform any action that might lead to conception...Like juggling, chiropracty, or turkey-brining...
...they are both might be perfectly fertile. Since they cannot perform an action that would actualize their reproductive potential and resolve the issue of their fertility, we cannot say that they are either fertile or infertile.Grandma will be happy to know that wherever her uterus is right now, it's potentially fecund.
If Jack and Jill or Jack and Jim shake hands, and if no conception results, we would not say that this makes them sterile.Just graduates of an Abstinence Only sex-ed curriculum.
Others have argued that without same-sex marriage then gay couples cannot fall in love or live their love. Does anyone really believe that, given the absence of institutionalized same-sex marriage, gays have never fallen in love? And since when did marriage become the way to find romantic love?It is, and always has been, a medium for the orderly transfer of livestock.
Throughout most of human history romantic love and marriage have existed in separate domains. The Western tradition of romantic love begins with courtly love, which was, by definition, adulterous. Only a miniscule percentage of all human marriages have even pretended to be expressions of romantic love.
More often than not people have considered marriage to be the graveyard of romantic love.You can see why the gays want to get in on it.
What happens if Jack and Jim are declared by the state to be married? At the least, everyone will be required to play along, for fear of hurting their feelings.Courtesy is the new fascism.
Anyone who might be inclined to tell the truth will be forced to shut up.And since nothing seems to be impeding your gum-flapping, I guess that means this column isn't exactly an affidavit.
It’s like the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” ... Only one boy was sufficiently naïve to blurt out what everyone knew: “He isn‘t wearing anything at all.” If same-sex marriage becomes the law, you do not want to be that little boy. You will instantly be denounced as a bigoted hate-monger.Or you'll be a spectator at the West Hollywood Pride Parade.
After all, it’s just a harmless illusion, so why not just go along?
Not to be too dramatic, but what happens to us when we are forced to accept that reality is what we say it is? What happens to us when we believe that we can change reality by controlling what people say and how they think?
All of a sudden, this does not feel quite so harmless.I know there's been a lot of debate and disagreement about the real meaning of the Chris Nolan's Inception -- often, it seems as though no two people watched the same story -- but I'm pretty sure that Stuart is the only who sat through it and saw a gay porn film.