March 30, 2013

Being married v. getting married

Ross Douthat writes:
Yet for an argument that has persuaded so few, the conservative view has actually had decent predictive power. As the cause of gay marriage has pressed forward, the social link between marriage and childbearing has indeed weakened faster than before. As the public’s shift on the issue has accelerated, so has marriage’s overall decline. 
Since Frum warned that gay marriage could advance only at traditional wedlock’s expense, the marriage rate has been falling faster, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has been rising faster, and the substitution of cohabitation for marriage has markedly increased. Underlying these trends is a steady shift in values: Americans are less likely to see children as important to marriage and less likely to see marriage as important to childbearing (the generation gap on gay marriage shows up on unwed parenting as well) than even in the very recent past. 
Correlations do not, of course, establish causation. The economy is obviously playing a leading role in the retreat from marriage — the shocks of recession, the stagnation of wages, the bleak prospects of blue-collar men. Culturally, what matters most is the emergence of what the National Marriage Project calls a “capstone” understanding of marriage, which treats wedlock less as a foundation for adulthood and more as a celebration of adult achievement — and which seems to work out far better for our disciplined upper class than for society as a whole. 
But there is also a certain willed naïveté to the idea that the advance of gay marriage is unrelated to any other marital trend. For 10 years, America’s only major public debate about marriage and family has featured one side — judges and journalists, celebrities and now finally politicians — pressing the case that modern marriage has nothing to do with the way human beings reproduce themselves, that the procreative understanding of the institution was founded entirely on prejudice, and that the shift away from a male-female marital ideal is analogous to the end of segregation. 
Now that this argument seems on its way to victory, is it really plausible that it has changed how Americans view gay relationships while leaving all other ideas about matrimony untouched? 
You can tell this naïveté is willed because it’s selective. There are plenty of interesting arguments, often from gay writers, about how the march to gay marriage might be influencing heterosexual norms — from Alex Ross’s recent musings in The New Yorker on the sudden “queer vibe” in straight pop culture to Dan Savage’s famous argument that straights might do well to imitate the “monogamish” norms of some gay male couples. It’s only the claim that this influence might not always be positive that is dismissed as bigotry and unreason. 
A more honest, less triumphalist case for gay marriage would be willing to concede that, yes, there might be some social costs to redefining marriage. It would simply argue that those costs are too diffuse and hard to quantify to outweigh the immediate benefits of recognizing gay couples’ love and commitment. 
Such honesty would make social liberals more magnanimous in what looks increasingly like victory, and less likely to hound and harass religious institutions that still want to elevate and defend the older marital ideal.
But whether people think they’re on the side of God or of History, magnanimity has rarely been a feature of the culture war.

Back in 2000, I wrote in National Review:
But could it be, instead, that fewer gay men want to be married than to get married? Does gay marriage appeal more because sexual fidelity offers a role for a lifetime, or because a wedding provides the role of a lifetime? ... 
So legalizing single-sex marriage isn't likely to prevent the next gay venereal epidemic. Yet, will gay weddings destroy society? Overall, I'm not terribly worried. Still, the fervor with which some gay grooms will pursue the perfect wedding will make straight men even less enthusiastic about enduring their own weddings. The opportunities for gays to turn weddings into high-camp farces are endless. For example, if two drag queens get married, who gets to wear white? And anything that discourages straight men from marrying would be widely harmful. While most straight guys eventually decide that being married is fine, the vast majority find getting married a baffling and punitive process. (You may have noticed that while Modern Bride magazine is now over 1,000 pages long, there is no Eager Groom magazine.) About the only comment a straight man can make in favor of his role is that at least it's a guy thing … not a gay thing. But for how much longer?

My experience with being married has been that it’s great. On the other hand, my experience with getting married (e.g., worrying about the color of tablecloths, registering for domestic gifts that I never wanted and couldn’t imagine using, etc.) was that it was a nightmare than any self-respecting masculine man would only put up with for love. From a self-respect standpoint, about all you could say for being a groom was that it was, legally, a guy thing, not a gay thing.

Now, the gays are trying to make getting married de jure into even more of a gay thing than it already tends to be de facto.

Those of us on the right half of the bell curve ought to ask ourselves what guys on the left half of the bell curve are going to think as gays increasingly become the most theatrical participants in getting married? Is this really going to be good for society on the whole?

I'm not predicting that many guys will articulate this feeling, but that's who we need to worry about: the less articulate.

Of course, the notion that gay marriage most disturbs men with two-digit IQs is widely seen as a feature, not a bug. A boot stamping on the human face of a social inferior forever is nirvana.

77 comments:

Anonymous said...

the catchy summary:

if gays are allowed to marry, then marriage will become gay

Phat Medic said...

I think Key and Peele did a pretty good skit which touched on this issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jitocz4kB3k

Anonymous said...

Good piece Steve...per the commenter above, marriage naah that just sooo gay!

Nick SA

Anonymous said...

The phrase "A boot stamping on the human face of a social inferior forever is nirvana" is priceless. (Kudos to Orwell.) It really captures what I think is happening to straight white Gentile men in general, not just those below the median IQ. They are being overrun by a coordinated assault from white elites (e.g., Hollywood writers, MSM elites, lefty social "science" academics) and the many and various lefty identity groups. So much of contemporary culture basically shrieks that straight white Gentile males are boring, uncool, stupid unconscious oppressors of everyone else. Honestly, I'm just at a loss for words with all this. We straight, white, male Gentiles are hopelessly bad at playing the victim.

Anonymous said...

if gays are allowed to marry, then marriage will become gay

Marriage became gay once divorces became common and one-sided.

DR said...

I forget the comedian that I heard this from, but something along the lines of "Gay weddings? Have you been to a wedding, they're all gay."

Definitely have to agree with the sentiment. Luckily my wife did almost all of the planning, but even then it was definitely no fun. You see some women insisting that their husbands attend every meeting with every florist, invitation printer, etc.

I'm pretty sure that the trend of increasingly insane weddings has less to do with gays. For one thing my general observation is that most gay weddings are between men in their 40s, 50s or later. Whereas most (first) straight marriages are people in their 20s or 30s.

So it's unlikely that your typical 25 year old bride would have any married gay friends or even have attended a gay wedding.

Second it just seems like people are more into planning big events. Look at bachelor parties. 50 years ago a bachelor party was a bunch of guys going out drinking at a local bar the night before the wedding. Nowadays it involves a weekend trip to Vegas or some such place, coordinated activities, etc.

The rise in bachelor party intensity has largely mirrored the rise in wedding intensity. And I doubt bachelor parties have been getting bigger because of the influence of gays.

Anonymous said...

The bath-house crowd doesn't give a damn about 'marriage', 'civil partnerships' or monogamous relationships of any type.
Really just what is the point of all this?

x said...

gay marriage seems pretty benign to me. sure, the hysterics surrounding it and the incessant blathering about its seminal importance are offputting, obnoxious and histrionic a lot of us to but really i can't think of many, if any, good reasons why it shouldn't be allowed. it's pretty innocuous. while the conservatives who scream bloody murder about it we're being invaded by third world masses and not a word is uttered. how about no fault divorce? now there's something that is damaging to the "sanctity of marriage" meme and genuinely socially destructive to boot. imagine if conservatives (many of them with divorces in the first place) would spend some time hyperventilating about that instead of gays.

Anonymous said...

Basically DR you are describing Tom Hanks career.

Bachelor Party=bigger more sophisticated bachelor parties

Philadelphia=slow dancing gays=gay marriage

It all started with a pimp that looked alot like Ghandi. Someone shot a cross bow too in that movie right.

Matthew said...

"Marriage became gay once divorces became common and one-sided."

One-sided, indeed. When I was single I dated a divorced woman. She wanted to marry me, but it was very, very hard for me to entertain the idea of marrying someone who had walked away from her first husband, a man who didn't really seem all that bad.

70% of divorces are initiated by the woman, which means women are more than twice as likely as the man to initiate divorce. Among college-educated couples I believe something like 90% of divorces are initiated by the woman.

I think the biggest reason marriage is on the rocks is that, financially, husbands just don't compete very well with big brother. An increasing number of available women are single or divorced mothers, and on some kind of government assistance - EITC, Section 8, food stamps, etc. The number of Americans on food stamps has nearly tripled, from 18 million to 48 million, since 2000. We will be above 60 million by 2016, especially if the proposed amnesty becomes law.

Most of those welfare recipients are women, and they have to give up all of it when they get married. So why would they or their boyfriends want to?

Anonymous said...

Straight men can't prance

Honestly you think the left would have learned about this effect be observing how studying has become "honky-thing" in urban schools

Luke Lea said...

Somehow I can't see the Supreme Court ruling against Douthout's traditional view of marriage. I think a majority of the justices will leave it to the legislative process rather than making such a fundamental change in a bedrock institution. I also see the gay marriage movement fading once the Court rules, much as the movement for the Equal Rights Amendment did after it failed to pass.

Luke Lea said...

PS Even if gay marriage does become a Constitutional right what is to prevent Congress and state legislatures from redefining marriage to be an institution whose legal consequences (privileges and responsibilities) only apply if children are involved?

Matthew said...

"Somehow I can't see the Supreme Court ruling against Douthout's traditional view of marriage. I think a majority of the justices will leave it to the legislative process rather than making such a fundamental change in a bedrock institution."

Yes. Despite all the predictions based on Justice Kennedy's comments, I have to think he'll flinch from using the judicial power to redefine marriage. He might make it an issue of federalism, and rule that the federal government has to recognize gay marriages for the purposes of federal benefits, but even on that issue I think he'll back down.

But of course the Left will file one lawsuit after another, probably with the help of the Ninth Circus, especially if Obama gets to replace a conservative. The ruling is never right until the Left wins. Then it becomes settled law. Stare decisis, you know.

Average Joe said...

I have often wondered if the Left's war on marriage might be an effort to bring the white illegitimacy rate up to the level of the black one.

Big Bill said...

"Somehow I can't see the Supreme Court ruling against Douthout's traditional view of marriage."

I suspect they will leave it up to the states to decide, as it should be under the Constitution.

When the welfare state collapses in a few years, the whole single-mom-living-off-of-Uncle-Sugar situation will self-correct.

2Degrees said...

"My experience with getting married (e.g., worrying about the color of tablecloths, registering for domestic gifts that I never wanted and couldn’t imagine using, etc.) was that it was a nightmare than any self-respecting masculine man would only put up with for love. From a self-respect standpoint, about all you could say for being a groom was that it was, legally, a guy thing, not a gay thing."

We spent very little on our wedding and my wife made all the preparations with minimal input from me. She complained about the "stress", but I've never seen her so happy.

I have never had my IQ measured because I might not like the result, but I do have a PhD in Ancient languages and degree in geology, so I'm educated even if I'm not smart. As a result, I tend to mix with the higher-IQ half of the population.

My dad was also gay. When I give my reasons for opposing gay marriage, I am left breathless at the sheer venom of the reaction I elicit. It's like being punched in the stomach.

Anonymous said...

"gay marriage seems pretty benign to me. sure, the hysterics surrounding it and the incessant blathering about its seminal importance are offputting, obnoxious and histrionic a lot of us to but really i can't think of many, if any, good reasons why it shouldn't be allowed. it's pretty innocuous. while the conservatives who scream bloody murder about it we're being invaded by third world masses and not a word is uttered."

You really don't get it. The idea is ridiculous and offensive. Ridiculous because of what gays are. And offensive because it assumes that what gays do with their organs is of equal value with what straight people do. It is also selfish. Gays say they should be free to do as they wish. Okay, we say, and we let them. But then, they say they should have the right to 'have kids'. They reject real sex but want its fruits. It's like Jews yelling non-stop about equality but rigging the system so that Jews have special privileges in Ivy League and Israel.

But there are bigger implications. If the elites with their media and academia power can drive people into such a frenzy and buy up politicians with such ease in order to push an agenda so ridiculous, what can't they do?

So, it may seem 'innocuous'--though not to me--, but the power-workings behind it are downright frightening. The mechanisms isn't much different from how Germans were led to worship Hitler, how Chinese were led to go along with Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, and how 80% of Americans were led to wildly support the Iraq War as some great rock concert.
No, I'm not saying 'gay marriage' is Nazism or communism or equally murderous; I am saying the power and machinations behind it are essentially the same, the implication being that if the elites can easily push 'gay marriage' and make so many Americans go along mindlessly, they can push just about anything with their manipulations of the sources of information, advertising, and symbolism.

It boggles my mind that 'intelligent' liberals, who loved to scoff at the kitsch of Nazi and communist pageantry, are now pulling and/or falling for the same thing with mass parades, signs and symbols, and pageantry around the gay cult. What is this? Stalinist Russia, Ceaucescu's Romania, or North Korea? THIS is what 'rational' liberals do to sway public opinion? Reduce people to infantile lemmings who laugh along, cry along, and etc?
The machination behind 'gay marriage' is like Oprah's Christmas special. It may seem innocuous, but the implications are not.
If college-educated liberals who pride themselves on rationality act like this, democracy is over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ogvwCT8c48

It means the elites can make us believe or do anything. We are living in HUNGER GAMES universe.

So, if the elites could make the masses go for something as stupid as 'gay marriage', they can use similar tropes, taboos, hysteria, and pageantry to push amnesty, war against Iran, and taking away our guns. Mindless masses will just go along.

Anonymous said...



So, don't regard this 'gay marriage' thing as just some silly thing. See it as an experiment of power, and what the elites can make us think and do.
And I must say that so many people--including conservatives--changed so dramatically from opposing 'gay marriage' to embracing it(even rabidly) makes me lose faith in human reason. It seems a lot of liberals really are stupid children whose brains are PC mush. And a lot of conservatives are gutless cowards who will always eventually go with the winning side.
One thing I admire about gays. They are tough. Right or wrong, good or bad, they stuck by their guns, worked hard to gain power, and now they got what they want. Conservatives? They are cowards who suck up to Wall Street Zionists and now, to gays as well. Pathetic.

American conservatism should be called cowardism or opportunism.
Consider Victor Davis Hanson. He's so eager to suck up to globalist Jews who loathe Putin that he champions the Pussy Riot, a gang of lunatics who shove raw chicken into their vagina and interrupt church meetings.

Geoff Matthews said...

We've seen a rejection of educational attainment in some quarters in the black community (acting white), so how h as red is it to assume that this will happen?

I believe open marriages will be the norm with SSM, and this will bleed into marriage in general. And this behavior just isn't scalable. And as its frequency increases . . .

As well, the push for SSM has been financial issues. For the poor, who don't have estates to leave, or work benefits to grant, what is the point of marriage?

Aging Hag said...

Luke - you forget that Phyllis Schlafly led the movement against the ERA. She was widely detested, but did a good job marshaling the forces against the ERA. People disliked the ERA more than they disliked her, so she succeeded. There is no counterpart on the anti-SSM side today.

I know nothing about the law but I would not be the slightest surprised if the Supremes struck down DOMA but left the matter to the states, leading to a bruising state by state battle that will leave the anti-SSM forces even more exhausted & demoralized than they are now.

Look for the words Justices Scalia and Thomas and blistering and dissent in the news in upcoming days.

JMO.

guest007 said...

I think the future of marriage is something that only the affluent will do. Only the affluent will want to spend the time and money it takes to have a modern marriage. For everyone else, marriage will be a very rare thing with white males approaching the attitude that black males have concerning marriage.

Anonymous said...

OT a bit, but we still don't really know what the hell was going on with the Greeks and the Romans and homosex, pederasty, etc., do we?

Is it really so out of the question in this era of "Ask no questions about big social changes and forget about consequences" that we ponder the question: will policies that promote homosexuality not only have long-range influences on the family, but will such policies/laws actually give rise to man-on-man, man-on-youngster sexual practices since yes, the male sex drive is a very powerful thing, and because it is, the removing of societal sanctions might find males, even those who are not what we'd consider "biologically homosexual," engaging in, persuing all kinds of heretofore unmentionable behaviors when the urge strikes? After all, the left will scream, "We must be tolerant."

The left, as I see it, is really of a mind to leave one issue for another. They are about whatever is counter-culture, and once they get it, they simply move on to the next issue. It's their entertainment. They must have causes or their lives have no meaning. There is never a consideration of consequences. Indeed, the left is about living life with no consequences...for themselves, that is.

The way they pursue issues is to grab the young (who are always stupid, let's face it, and who can be made to enjoy their power in numbers), to tell the young it's about tolerance, and then to use the emerging technology to spread the word.

Your post about Google and its ignoring of any mention of Easter while they put up a faux pic of someone like Chavez whom most people know little about, is proof that the culture cannot combat the decisions made by media monstrosities. I mean, do we really think the right will establish an anti-Google?

I don't consider it at all out of the question that in another decade, NAMBLA will have success (under another name, of course) lowering the age of consent. I also have no doubt that on some level, there will be increased male-to-male sexual experimentation, and that in some way, pederasty will be practiced just under the radar, existing the way polygamy exists in some states like Utah and Idaho, with the authorities looking the other way as long as it doesn't seem to spread into town. In 20 or 30 years, who knows?

I can say this. The "youth" of America (ironic, since I mean those in college or the actual collegd-educated who are under 30 or so) deserve whatever mess it is they have created with their self-indulgence, their immaturity, their sense of entitlement, their self-glorification through social media and the like.

Perhaps bringing a sense of reality back is the answer: bring back the draft.



Anonymous said...

Big fancy weddings are gauche. I don't care who you are. The more elaborate, the tackier they are. A classy wedding is simple. Very simple. The less the better. No matching bridesmaid outfits. No tuxedos. Ladies in modest dresses. Simple receiving line. Cake, punch, champagne and good night. And no, I am not a guy.

Anonymous said...

Personally I have no problem with gay marriage but I doubt it will catch on over the long haul. An initial flurry of activity, tapering off into pretty much what straight marriage is now but less of it.

However once it becomes a 'civil right' and Bob can now marry Ted, why can't Bob marry Carol and Alice both?

Or Carol, Ted, and Alice all three?

Or his sister Grace?

Or his brother Joe?

Or Grace and Joe?

I have an uneasy feeling that if the SCOTUS OKs gay marriage as a right, the Feminist Majority will soon find itself having to deal with polygamy among some very un-feminist types.

Be careful what you wish for.....

Mr. Anon said...

"Luke Lea said...

I also see the gay marriage movement fading once the Court rules, much as the movement for the Equal Rights Amendment did after it failed to pass."

I wouldn't bet on it. The people with the bullhorn will still have the bullhorn. And even though the ERA failed, the movement continued. A lot of the things that the ERA was supposed to accomplish have come to pass, even without the ERA. Standards have been lowered enough and affirmative action for women promoted to such an exten that women now occupy all sorts of jobs for which they are unqualified.

The teeth of the liberal ratchet have not dulled with time.

Anonymous said...

"Really just what is the point of all this?"

Forced faux-acceptance.

For decades gays were looked down upon as deviants. They still often are, outside of the media and right-thinking people. They can't really change the opinion Aunt Julie has towards them, but they may have enough muscle to change the law and legalize gay marriage. Then they can tell Aunt Julie "See, I'm married, so I'm not deviant after all, and the State says so, so there." I'm rather skeptical that this will affect Aunt Julie's opinion of them.

From a financial standpoint most of the effects of gay marriage could be accomplished with a dot release of Turbo Tax.

Anonymous said...

What is interesting is the social accept of Gays goes along with the rise of having kids out of wedlock among the general population. Its that the gay movement open to anything goes. Granted, Gays are only 3 percent of the population and some of them don't like illegal immirgation or some legal immirgation like the late Van Gough in Holland who I agree on Islamic immirgation.

Anonymous said...

Luke Lea said, "Somehow I can't see the Supreme Court ruling against Douthout's traditional view of marriage. I think a majority of the justices will leave it to the legislative process rather than making such a fundamental change in a bedrock institution. I also see the gay marriage movement fading once the Court rules, much as the movement for the Equal Rights Amendment did after it failed to pass."

I hope you're right, but I'd not bet a penny on it, esp, on the "gay marriage movement fading." It's not in the nature of well-organized, well-funded, self-righteous groups aided by the all-powerful media to stop at "no" or at no action taken.

The ERA amendment failed because most women didn't feel we needed it and because there was no organizing through something like social media pushing for it.

Gays want marriage not because they want to get married but because they want to be noticed, want to be "legitimized" and by "legitimized" I mean want to be considered typical, normal, not brain-damaged in any way.

Ironically, in the next few years, we'll probably discover the brain damage that, while leaving them typical in most ways, robbed them of some very important cells necessary for attraction to the opposite sex and thus, reproduction.

Anonymous said...

If you are white and on the left side of the curve, do not reproduce. Why let your kids be the the source of The Elites' feelings of superiority? At some point they will only see NAMs when they are looking down their noses.

Nick Diaz said...

One of the most odious, detestable posts from Steve Sailer ever.

Yes, let's make gay men second-class citizens because otherwise it might hurt the sensitivity of "self-respecting masculine men" who otherwise won't get married.

Yes, because like I said before, Sailer, being a classic conservative, believes that the heterosexual family with kids is the "building block" of Society, a kind of people that is BETTER than others, and to favor such people all other kinds of being must be made into second-class citizens. Never mind that such Society is only the best for people who fit5 into this category, and never mind that granting gays the right to marry does not in any way disenfranchise heterosexual people. Like I said before, Sailer does not understand the concept that enfranchising minorities does not disenfranchise majorities, and that enfranchising a group to a position of EQUALITY does not disenfranchise other groups to a position of inferiority.

Putting aside this, there is the issue that the last thing the World needs is more people. 7.5 billion and counting. Funny that Sailer is constantly bitching about immigration and how increaing demographic size make slife worse, and yet he wants more people to form more families and have more kids. What kind of stupid logic is this? And then, there is the fact that many of you are eugenicists. Shouldn't you be concerned with poor, uncultured people breeding?

Steve Sailer has this ridiculous Panglossian fantasy about pre-1965 U.S, about how great the family-oriented, Puritanical America was. What he doesen't understand is that it wasn't a good place for anyone who didn't fit the petit bourgeoise mold of what an American should be. It wasn't a good place for blacks, or for women who's calling in life involved more than being a breeder, for homosexual men and women and for those of non-northwestern European descent. Why should Sailer care about the plight of those people since he is, himself, white, heterosexual, married and with kids? For instance, Sailer had no answer to give me when I confronted him about his claim that America never discriminated against Southern European immigrants by asking him to explain the 1924 Immigrantion Act.

But it is a good thing that you onservatives have no say anymore on gay marriage. Vote against it, and we are ignoring your votes on unconstitionality grounds. Get the local courts to enforce your decision, and we will get the decisions of such courts overrun by higher courts. We are smarter and better than you, and we are winning this. Also, we actually have ad populum on our side: recent polls indicate that more than 80% of those under 30 are in favor of gay marriage. So even if you get gay marriage outlawed by vote in some places, you won't be winning for long. On the big picture, you are going to lose. Do you guys have any idea of the number of gay lawyers with degrees from Ivy League there are? They are all working against you. It is extremely unlikely that you conservatives are going to win a protracted legal war against the gay lobby: they have more money than you, and some of the best lawyers and jurists are gay. We, the libertarians and the liberals as well - and even though libertarians and liberals don't see eye-to-eye on many issues, we are on the same page on this - are going to civilize you conservatives by force if necessary. We are going to ram gay marriage down your throats whether you like it or not, and if you don't, too bad. Enough with your barbarism. No more school ethnic segregation, no more women barred from positions of power. No more homosexuals treated almost as badly as the Jews were by the Nazis, denied civil rights and segregated from "normal" Society by force. We are sick and tired of your barbarism and we are going to FORCE this on you, just like we forced school disegregation in Little Rock back in 1957 . Enough with your barbaric shit. Go ahead and try to stop us. The truth is that there is nothing that you can do about it.

JSM said...

"On the big picture, you are going to lose"

Bigger picture, YOU are going to lose.

Since you don't breed, who's going to wipe your butt and spoon pablum in your mouth when you're 90? Or change your bedsore bandages and or even administer the morphine?

The children of straight (White -- because non-Whites won't concern themselves 'tall about aging gay men) men, you say? Not if there aren't any because you demanding "rights" drives straight White men not to sire and raise any.

Reg Cæsar said...

Gays are only 3 percent of the population and some of them don't like illegal immirgation or some legal immirgation like the late Van Gough...

Theo van Gogh, addled as he may have been, was apparently straight. You're confusing him with his friend Pim Fortuyn.

JSM said...

Nick Diaz, the self-appointed champion of human rights sez:

"are going to civilize you conservatives by force"

"We are going to ram gay marriage down your throats whether you like it or not, and if you don't, too bad."

"Enough with your barbarism." "
"We are sick and tired of your barbarism and we are going to FORCE this on you"
"
Enough with your barbaric shit."

"Go ahead and try to stop us. The truth is that there is nothing that you can do about it."


Sooooo....conservatives are barbarians, and are going to be civilized by...

... lefties using civilized tactics such as homosexual rape: "ram down your throat" and "there's nothing you can do about it"

Who, whom, indeed.

Reg Cæsar said...

No more homosexuals treated almost as badly as the Jews were by the Nazis, denied civil rights and segregated from "normal" Society by force. --Nick Diablo

Jews invented "homophobia". What is the Old Testament but a bunch of cranky old men in black cursing the poor pagans for their cornholery and other nonsense.

As for Leni Riefenstahl's NDSAP, the whole "pink triangle" business was simply the tops having their way with the bottoms. Leni has to be the most influential homo in history, of either sex.

When I give my reasons for opposing gay marriage, I am left breathless at the sheer venom of the reaction I elicit. --2Degrees

And that's just the "straight-but-not-narrow" folks. They're worse than the queers.

NAMBLA will have success (under another name, of course) -- anon

NAMBLA was thrown under the bus by the Gay Activist Alliance about 1994, for tactical political reasons only. They did the same 180° plié that the APA and it's DSM did for them in 1973-- not to mention the Hitler-Stalin pact years earlier--

Choose your question: Whyever did you do a 180? Or, Whyever did you have to?

Progressivism is to thought what bufgery is to sex.



Anonymous said...

Not only Kennedy but I think Sotomayor may blink as well. Can you imagine the theatrics from the Left and media if both Prop 8 and DOMA are upheld? It'll be priceless.

Whiskey said...

Nick Diaz is the perfect encapsulation of the liberal mindset: aristocratic domination. Gay Marriage is merely an act of ritual domination by upper class Whites upon non-upper class Whites. That's all it is. And that's why btw the Supremes will rule for Federal SSM to be the law of the land.

[For a sense of the domination, see Jim Carrey's video denouncing people with funny accents who have un-PC views, don't live in LA or NYC or DC, and like Charlton Heston movies or Jesus.]

Gay men who want to get married comprise about 10% of the 3% of gays, or less than a half a percentage point. Since Straight White guys have been told to bend over and grab ankles for half a century, its time for gays to do the same. After all, they seem to like that sort of thing.

Gays don't produce money and stability, so sacrificing gays and marriages among a tiny few is worth it to produce stability given that Joe Average White guy is asked to sacrifice for everything.

Anonymous said...

I don't wanna make gays feel bad, and I'm all for gays being free to be gay. But why do gays try to force us to acknowledge what any sane person knows to be untrue, namely that homosexuality is a meaningful and sane form of sexuality.

Indeed, the proof is in the pudding. Notice that gays not only demand 'gay marriage' but the right to 'have kids'. But homosexuality cannot produce kids, so what do gays demand? They demand the right to adopt kids so that they can pretend that they had the kid. Or a lesbian will get pregnant with a man but then kick the man out and forbid him from being part of the kid's life while raising the kid with the lie that he is the product of 'two mothers'? The whole thing is an empire of lies, indeed worse than the fiction that storks bring babies.

If one extreme side says 'gays are devils' and other extreme side says 'gays are angels', it seems that the sane compromise would be somewhere in the middle. No, gays are not devils but instead were born with sexual dysfunctions, something we should all acknowledge and tolerate. But since it is a dysfunction, let's not pretend it's so wonderful, natural in the normal sense, and meaningful and deserving of same recognition as real sexuality, which is the rightful basis for real marriage.

Someone please tell me the biological or moral meaning of a male sex organ going inside a fecal hole? And even if lesbian 'sex' isn't physically gross, the funny act of a vaginal hole trying to 'enter' another vaginal hole is just ludicrous. How does that work? Via gay physics unknown to straight physicists?

So, before we try to define or redefine marriage, we need to ask what is homosexuality? It is what is it, a sexual dysfunction that occurs in nature, and we should acknowledge and tolerate it as such, but we should not pretend that it is of equal value as real sex or that it is worthy of recognition by the institution of marriage.

All this 'gay marriage' brouhaha is all about money, power, glitz, hype, and etc. People are wowed by the rich and the privileged. During Roman times, the elites acted like pigs, but since they were glamorous and had it all, so many people looked up to and tried to emulated that kind of decadent behavior.

Gays are part of the new elites. They are so fancy and glitzy, and that turns on a lot of people. And because it's wrapped in the terminology of 'equality', so many suckers think it's all about human rights when it's all about elite privilege.

Dutch Boy said...

I didn't find it a nightmare because I didn't care about the secondary fluff associated with a wedding. I let my fiancee' (who did care about such matters) handle it. I showed up on time, dressed in the correct tux and sober.

Reg Cæsar said...

Wow-- Steve was using his authorial tic of 'terribly' as 'very' way back in the 20th century. Now I hear everyone saying it-- including the missus today. Evidence of influence! If people aren't reading Steve, they're reading those who read those who read Steve.

Jared Taylor has a similar way of saying 'scarcely' where most of us would use 'barely' or 'hardly'. That helped me see through some of his pseudonyms, but it sure isn't catching on.

Is our Steve the most influential Steve since President Cleveland?

Reg Cæsar said...

...and if Steve Jobs was so smart, why is his iPad inserting greengrocers' apostrophes into my comments, when I didn't type them? Is it an Arab thing?

Glaivester said...

Yes, because like I said before, Sailer, being a classic conservative, believes that the heterosexual family with kids is the "building block" of Society, a kind of people that is BETTER than others,

The nuclear family model that dominated the Anglosphere for the last several centuries seems to have produced socieites that have been much more successful than any of the others.

Never mind that such Society is only the best for people who fit into this category,

Obviously people who do not conform will not find themselves in the best position, relatively speaking, in such a society, but I doubt that there is any other type of society that can actually exist where they would be doing better.

Like I said before, Sailer does not understand the concept that enfranchising minorities does not disenfranchise majorities, and that enfranchising a group to a position of EQUALITY does not disenfranchise other groups to a position of inferiority.

Pretending that things are equal when are not does disenfranchise the thing that is better (whether better overall, or just better in respect to the thing where a false equality is being asserted).

Anonymous said...

Nick Diaz:"Sailer, being a classic conservative, believes that the heterosexual family with kids is the "building block" of Society...".

Uh, yeah, Nick, surprise, surprise: it really IS the building block of which you speak.



BTW, you really do illustrate the stereotype, histrionics and all.

You might really enjoy the blog West Hunter. There you can take a look at things from the biological side.

Derb's Mossberg said...

" Sailer, being a classic conservative, believes that the heterosexual family with kids is the "building block" of Society..."

Yeah, absolute INSANITY there, Steve. What on Earth were you thinking?

Anonymous said...

Nick Diaz: "Putting aside this, there is the issue that the last thing the World needs is more people."

Ah, Nicky, Nicky, Nicky...the old "world is too overpopulated" crap as if our nature is not to procreate.

Silly, silly man, not able to see that you will win battles here and there and ultimately lose the war. NOTE: see "deaf culture."

All your political friends in the elite group will see to it that they have hetero babies when that can be assured.

Anonymous said...

"Go ahead and try to stop us. The truth is that there is nothing that you can do about it.


You're not reading science, are you?

Anonymous said...

Steve Sailer has this ridiculous Panglossian fantasy about pre-1965 U.S, about how great the family-oriented, Puritanical America was. What he doesen't understand is that it wasn't a good place for anyone who didn't fit the petit bourgeoise mold of what an American should be. It wasn't a good place for blacks, or for women who's calling in life involved more than being a breeder, for homosexual men and women and for those of non-northwestern European descent.

Bull. My southern European, immigrant dad came here in 1953, attended university, then medical school and became a surgeon. Life was pretty damn good for him and our family.

PS. If life was so bad for non NW Euros, then why the long que among the world's vibrancy to get in? Shouldn't they have gone to a more welcoming part of the New World such as Mexico?

PPS. I think you need to take a long look at your views. You seem conflicted. On the one hand you hammer away at our "Puritan" past, well not really mine, but you know what I mean. You talk as if America was such an evil place. But then you fail to realize that maybe our past has something to do with the fact that our present is so much better than other New World nations, our New World Anglo cousins excepted. You don't seem to want to look into the mirror and figure out why your Latin American cousins are so inept. You only wish to lecture Americans about our past. Well what about your past and present?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone remember Bill Clinton and similar types telling us back in 1996, that a Constitutional Amendment on marriage was unnecessary and that the DOMA was more than adequate? I can't remember if there would have been enough support to push an amendment back then given how tough it is to amend the Constitution. But I imagine Clinton and company were well aware that simple laws can eventually be overturned by their friends in black robes.

Just something to consider the next time the chattering classes tell you to settle for something less than an ironclad guarantee.

ben tillman said...

We, the libertarians and the liberals as well - and even though libertarians and liberals don't see eye-to-eye on many issues, we are on the same page on this - are going to civilize you conservatives by force if necessary.

Wow -- you're just plain evil.

Anonymous said...

As far as I can see, this whole gay marriage thing is coming under the banner of "civil rights". What can, and most likely will happen is that gays will get accredited victim status. The marriage part is not important to them, outside of campy weddings. What they want is for us to be forced to accept them, and, of course, we will now see homosexuality as a "diversity" factor with the attendant quotas and set-asides.

KLP said...

"how about no fault divorce? now there's something that is damaging to the "sanctity of marriage" meme and genuinely socially destructive to boot"

Once gay marriage is constitutionalized it's impossible to do anything about no-fault divorce (not that anyone's really trying now) because kids are an optional part of the equation, so what basis is there for putting restrictions on it

Mr. Anon said...

"We, the libertarians and the liberals as well - and even though libertarians and liberals don't see eye-to-eye on many issues, we are on the same page on this - are going to civilize you conservatives by force if necessary."

Libertarians don't create civilizations. They feed off of them. And you obviously know nothing about civilization, you loathesome little prick.

Expressing overly much concern for women's issues (so-called women's issues, anyway) and gay issues won't get you pussy, Nick. It'll just make you one.

So, tell us, since you used the term "Breeder" - a derogatory term commonly used by homosexual activists who are insensed at the fact that other people are normal - are you a homosexual activist too?

Darwin's Sh*tlist said...

At some point in the fairly near future, gay marriage will be allowed throughout the country.

Within five years of that, the frequency of open relationships among gay male couples will be a cultural given: the sort of thing that hack writers for second-tier network sitcoms will rely on for cheap laughs.


Mr. Anon said...

"Nick Diaz said...

One of the most odious, detestable posts from Steve Sailer ever."

Whereas every post from you meets a uniformly high standard of odiousness, you stupid little schmuck.

Mr. Anon said...

A lot of women have bought into the idea of "gay marriage" because they believe the media image of homosexuals. Women are taught that gay men will be fabulous companions and confidants for straight women. The media seldom show aggressive, women-hating homosexuals.

Who is likely to come to control the homosexual movement over time? Men like Liberace, or men like Ernst Roehm? Who usually ends up taking power? "Fabulous" artsy types, or aggressive head-breakers?

Mr. Anon said...

"Nick Diaz said...

Putting aside this, there is the issue that the last thing the World needs is more people."

No, the last the world needs is more people like you.

kudzu bob said...

Nick:

I took the time to read your post all the way through and I just want you tolkjl;ol;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Whoa, sorry, fell asleep for a minute there.

FredR said...

It's healthy to have dissenters who challenge the community, but Nick Diaz doesn't seem to bring much to the table. Anyone can model those very conventional liberal views in their head. Truth is better.

KLP said...

One thing I will say, to be all "fair and balanced," is that the tribal view expressed by someone like Whiskey in this thread (hammer, nail) is kinda dumb. What matters is whether something's right or not, not ultra-abstract "cultural Marxism" arguments or this "good whites vs. bad whites" framing of the issue.

I mean if you're someone who thinks gay marriage is right/fair/what have you and aren't pushing it as some grand design to undermine Western Civilization like certain "family is whatever" academics, is the condescension of the pro-SSM side relevant? not really, and acting like that's the main consideration is sour grapes, people can be completely insufferable whether the cause is good or bad

long track record of gay civilization said...

Enshrining LGBT haughtiness over the symbol-manipulation-challenged is most certainly a feature/not a bug. Read the article he linked from some bozo at The New Yorker celebrating himself along with the commendable gayification of the known world (I'm guessing the critic doesn't know too many Muslims). One predictable outcome of this "human rights" permanent campaign will be the new accepted protocol of applying homosexuality as the automatic answer to any quandary. Just throw some more gays at it... Is there anything they can't solve?

Anonymous said...

DR's onto something there I think. Gays may have exacerbated it but they can't be driving the trend toward elaborately choreographed social-bonding rituals. My Big Fat 5-Day Bachelor Party With Helicopters & NHL Luxury Boxes is a fairly undignified turn in the history of conspicuous consumption. Look at the monstrosity that is the modern prom. It's a common question whether the ramped-up cultural clout of gay men is a mere side effect of their having similar tastes to the far more numerous liminal tween girls with new gobs of disposable income burning up their pockets; this supports Douthat's point about gay ascendancy benefiting from being in sync with the host society, right place right time

Bill said...

Nick Diaz = Troll

As for the gay marriage thing, it's a logical outgrowth of the marriage benefits setup.

Almost nobody ever mentions it, but marriage is not financially beneficial for your typical young childbearing age family. Those who benefit most of all from marriage are retirees, or at least past childbearing age.

Marriage in the US is not structured for traditional marriage. It isn't even in a young couple's interest to be married, but rather to shack up.

Take health insurance and student loans, for example. If a 20-something couple has a median-high income male and a low income female, they should not get married, because if the female gets pregnant she can't take advantage of the healthcare discounts for low income women. If she isn't married, she qualifies for WIC and gets huge breaks on healthcare bills, plus free food.

If a young couple has one in school and another working, they should not get married, either, because then the working one's income will make it so they do not qualify for grants.

On the other hand, if you're a middle aged couple of dudes who live together and have a sort of long term relationship, marriage would be awesome, because you get more options for healthcare, taxes, deductions, retirement plans, etc.

Marriage simply isn't designed for young, fertile couples any longer -- it's a essentially a raw deal until you're middle aged.

Why can't Douthat and these other pundits see this simple problem?

KLP said...

Is there any legit argument that gender-neutral language in family law (happens with "Spouse A Spouse B" forms but that's more of a linguistic annoyance) will muck things up, or has that already basically happened for a while? I remember Frum v1.0 made the argument w/r/t to custody (he thought moms should get general preference.) I dunno if he was just grasping for straws but it seemed like a potentially interesting point. there's also of course the elimination of biological parenthood/establishing multiple legal parents that is, of course, slippery-slope scaremongering...until you get CA Dems trying to say three legal parents is A-OK

likewise IVF-related arguments but of course only benighted Catholics take issue with that

Anonymous said...

"Sailer does not understand the concept that enfranchising minorities does not disenfranchise majorities, and that enfranchising a group to a position of EQUALITY does not disenfranchise other groups to a position of inferiority."

They aren't freakin' equal and calling them equal doesn't make it so, retard.

You can say that a penny and a dime are equal, but that doesn't make it true.

Normal people who get married and have kids are normal and healthy.

Gay people who can't procreate the normal way are not equal, and everyone knows it. And people do not like being forced to say something is true when they know it isn't. It is degrading.

The whole thing is so profoundly stupid.

Anonymous said...


Steve Sailer has this ridiculous Panglossian fantasy about pre-1965 U.S, about how great the family-oriented, Puritanical America was. What he doesen't understand is that it wasn't a good place for anyone who didn't fit the petit bourgeoise mold of what an American should be."

It was good for normal healthy people. It was good for the people who build and maintain civilization. What we have now is not better. It gives advantages to people who pervert and destroy. We now incentivize pathological behaviors.

Anonymous said...



Gays are defective.

They are not equal.

Anonymous said...

Marriage simply isn't designed for young, fertile couples any longer -

The trend started as soon as Uncle Sam and "progressive-thinking" states began throwing benefits at unmarried women with children.

It grew worse as the "I can't judge anyone progressive-thinking" crowd threw more money at them as such people became even lazier when they discovered that the worse they did in school, the worse became their crime, the coarser became their language, the more money would be thrown their way.

Their men? What men? The studs, rather. They went from woman to woman, making babies. The brood mares kept producing.

Middle class youngsters looked around. Girls thought, "Hey, I guess I can give in tonight. If I get pregnant, it won't be so bad. People don't think it's so bad for an unwed girl to get pregnant."

Guys thought, "Hey, so what if I knock her up. She can get an abortion or if not, she'll get money for the kid. I won't have to marry her and pay for them for the rest of my life so I guess my parents won't be all pissed off." (Of course, parents are divorced and there's not much of a family unit anyway.)

There have to be severe financial and/or social consequences for out of wedlock births or this is what you get, and it WILL grow worse.

Aging Hag said...

Wow, Nick seems to have stirred up a hornet's nest here. I hope he comes back because I want the opportunity to ask a real live homosexualist triumphalist some questions.

Nick, do you read Brian Moylan of Gawker?

Did you read his piece on gay narcissism?

http://gawker.com/5811493/the-real-reason-gay-men-dont-get-fat

What do you think of his observation that "There is only one thing that keeps gay men in shape: fear. Yes, every gay—at least those of the stereotypical abdominal-obsessed physique that populates Fire Island and Palm Springs—is brought about because gay men are afraid that they will be alone for the rest of their lives. If a gay man is not "serving body" while competing to find a trick or boyfriend in one of the more muscle-bound climates of gay culture, he will be sorely shut out. That is why gay men don't get fat, because if they don't have pecs, guns, and glutes, they're going home alone."

Do you REALLY think that SSM will change that fundamental dynamic?

Read the whole thing but I can't resist quoting: "the man-eating marathon doesn't end after marriage, they just keep on competing and competing until death do they part."

Death or something. The gay male world in my observation is brutally Darwinian. An aging queen is not a pretty sight! Take it from an aging hag.

Pretty clever article except for this: " If straight men are lacking in some area, they usually make up for it by becoming rich or powerful,"

I mean, heh. Spoken like a true media fag. Most straight men don't become rich or famous. They used to make up for it by settling down and creating legal heirs.

Now, even that is closed off to them. What a mess!

Aging Hag said...

Further to my comment above, Gawker/Moylan also wrote "Secrets Gay Men Don't Want Straight People to Know" -

http://gawker.com/5873476/

It's an exercise in gay triumphalism mixed with genuine self-loathing. That's very gay.

Most important part (to me) is this part: "We Want to #### All the Hot Straight Boys". I love his honesty.

I keep wondering why so many straight women (not fag hags but normal married middle class women with children) are so indulgent towards gays. The only thing I can come up with is that they are clueless and ignorant. They haven't seen the true full gay behavior on display. Gays are born salesmen and liars, and know how to suck up (sorry) to their straight female protectors.

Nick, you may be right that you will win this battle, because gays could teach a Russian prostitute a thing or two about selling, but the victory will be pyrrhic (sp?) because you are fighting for something you don't really want, and once you are flushed out of your closets, most of you will long for the safety of the anonymity you once had.

In the long run, you will lose by attaining your goal.

Straight will have to pick up the pieces and go on, but that's the way of the world.

Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...

Gay men don't want marriage. They want weddings and access to spousal health insurance benefits.

Anonymous said...

Nick diaz should not come as a surprise. I live in a blue city and i watch some msnbc. The left is arrogant, emboldened and ruthless. They dont just want to win more, they want to choke you while you fall. Their ultimate aim is to destroy the traditional family and traditional america. Gay "marriage" is just part of that plan. Their tactics include threats, economic ruin to those that disagree, and social penalties for those that disagree. They are horrible as PEOPLE. The right will continue losing unless it adopts these tactics. The left and its supporters must be destroyed politically, personally, and economically.

Anonymous said...

Putting aside this, there is the issue that the last thing the World needs is more people. 7.5 billion and counting. Funny that Sailer is constantly bitching about immigration and how increaing demographic size make slife worse, and yet he wants more people to form more families and have more kids.

First, the nuclear family is not driving the population increase. In fact most of the newborns in our vibrant, diverse communities are born out of wedlock. If you want to complain about too many kids, start with Africa and Latin America.

Second, people at iSteve don't want traditional Americans to pump out a platoon of children. I think most would like to see strong nuclear families with 2 to 3 children. That is enough to keep a stable population and not too much were the parents cannot devote the proper amount of attention per child.

KLP said...

lol@that Gawker article

Remember, discussing gay male nonmonogamy makes you a puritanical Catholic weirdo if your name is Ross Douthat. If you're gay and talk about it in a positive light though you're just keepin' it real

Anonymous said...

"On the other hand, my experience with getting married (e.g., worrying about the color of tablecloths, registering for domestic gifts that I never wanted and couldn’t imagine using, etc.) was that it was a nightmare than any self-respecting masculine man would only put up with for love."

My mother has a homosexual cousin who does floral arrangements for weddings; his stories of nuptial turmoil, crazy mothers-in-law, and bridal chaos are hysterical, but make the whole business sound like a miserable ordeal. The Same-Sex "Marriage" crusade is certainly not making it any easier to get the Bridal Industrial Complex under control.

Aging Hag said...

Here is another example of how SSM destroys the heterosexual ideal of marriage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/fashion/weddings/24Hanna.html?_r=1&

The announcement describes how the two "grooms" met while involved with others, and basically cruised one another at their meeting.

Tell me, would the Times do this in the case of a straight married couple?

Forget about some gay satirist in Gawker, which is nothing. This is the freaking NY Times, describing a marriage! The NY Times is at the center of American culture, and it has become an advertisement for gay debauchery.

Anonymous said...

Heterosexuality vs homosexuality and adoption.

Suppose there are 100 hetero couples and a 100 gay couples.

They all try to have kids.

100 hetero couples get at it, and 97 out of 100 can have kids. But 3 couples, due to some defect, seem unable to have kids. So, they adopt to overcome their defect. They did everything the right way, but it just didn't work. So, they get to adopt in the manner of 'A for effort'. They couldn't do it, but their effort was in the right manner and direction.

Now take the 100 gay couples. They all have 'gay sex' to have kids, but NOT a single couple is able to have kids. It's not a matter of defect among a handful of gay couples but the matter of total dysfunction among all of them. At the very root, they are not even doing it right. So, why should they be rewarded with adoption? Even their effort was in the wrong manner and direction.

Even straight couples who can't have kids have done it right. It was just that some natural defect prevented them from having kids.
In the case of every gay couple though, there was a willfully anti-natural and anti-sexual manner of having 'sex'. They were not even making the right effort but making the wrong effort that wasn't only dysfunctional but could be dangerous to the health of the male gay partners.

So, letting gays adopt just like straight couples who can't have children is to pretend that homosexuality is of equal value as heterosexuality.

Anonymous said...

A for effort, or adoption for effort.

It's like school. Suppose there is a student who studies hard at the subjects in order to pass and graduate. She spends lots of time going over math, english, science, history, and etc. But she's not very bright. But she studies and studies, and tries ever so hard. To pass, you need a grade of 70. She finally gets a 67. But because she tried so hard, we let her pass. She couldn't really do it, but she did work hard at the real thing.

But suppose there's a student who ignores all the stuff she's supposed to study. Instead, she watches tv, does drugs, and fools around. What she studies is whatever she chooses that has nothing to do with schoolwork.
Of course, she totally flunks the test, but should we give her the consideration that we gave to the other student and let her pass/graduate? NO! She didn't even work at what she was supposed to.

Straight couples who wanna adopt really did the right thing but something prevented them from having kids.

Homo couples don't turn their noses at the real thing and do their bogus gay stuff, so why should they be rewarded with adoption?
They sneer at real biological functions, but they want its fruits.