June 28, 2013

Xanax for Gay Summer Weddings

Here's the recent Saturday Night Live fake commercial for the new pharmaceutical spinoff brand, Xanax for Gay Summer Weddings. (If that link to the video doesn't work, try Hulu.)

Back in 2000, I wrote in National Review:
But could it be, instead, that fewer gay men want to be married than 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?

And for the joke at the end of the SNL skit -- "Xanax for Gay Summer Weddings is not prescribed for lesbian weddings" -- see "Why Lesbians Aren't Gay" from 1994.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Gay Man Adopts His Partner to Avoid Inheritance Tax"

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/gay-man-adopts-partner-avoid-inheritance-tax/story?id=19512067

"John met Gregory at a gay bar in Pittsburgh nearly 45 years ago and immediately fell in love. Today, the couple has weathered the early days of the gay rights movement, the death of friends in the AIDS crisis and constitutional laws in their home state of Pennsylvania that have prevented them from marrying.

Now, as lifelong partners facing the financial and emotional insecurities of old age, they have legally changed their relationship and are father and son -- John, 65, has adopted Gregory, 73.

The couple was worried about Pennsylvania's inheritance tax.

"If we just live together and Gregory willed me his assets and property and anything else, I would be liable for a 15 percent tax on the value of the estate," said John. "By adoption, that decreases to 4 percent. It's a huge difference."

Because John's dad is still alive at 95, he could not legally have two fathers. So Gregory, though older, became the adopted son. The Daughin County Court judge who signed their papers was adamant in telling them that the adoption was "forever" and they would never be able to legally marry."

Anonymous said...

I'm not gay, nor did I look forward to monogamy at the time, but I did enjoy the process of assisting to plan the wedding. If you have WNish or sympathies or are even just conservative, you really ought to, too. You can pick the venue, and if you aren't religious you can write your own ceremony. That means you can put a sermon of your own in there to (subtly) remind people that the construct of marriage was originally invented to ensure that the children resulting from the union were provided for, with an oath in front of many witnesses. This history stretches far back in time, because this need has been there since the dawn of civilization.

For most of you, it will be the only opportunity in your life where you get to write your own sermon/ceremony, and have all your friends and family listen to it. Take advantage of it. Be subtle, but you can certainly make a statement and inspire others by choice of venue and how you write your ceremony.

Anonymous said...

Can't get your link to work, so

http://www.hulu.com/watch/491727

elvisd said...

Your "Why Lesbians Aren't Gay" is a stone classic.

SGOTI said...

I always liked the SNL "Homocil" Ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmzfiTa1pmM

Anonymous said...

"Drag queens brawl at beauty contest after winner mix up"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23098260

MKP said...

"And anything that discourages straight men from marrying would be widely harmful."

Let's be honest, though, Steve - if we're making a list of things that keep straight men from wanting to get married, "gay men seem to enjoy this, therefore, I now dread it" is nowhere near the top 50.

Reasons that would be nearer the top:

- Your wife can divorce you on a whim and ruin your life anytime she wants to.
- Family law judges routinely favor women, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
- Even seemingly intelligent, sane women will not hesitate to make up outrageous stories of abuse in order to get their way.
- Men with looks, charm, a good job, or some combination of such traits can usually get all the sex they can handle while remaining single and making no commitment.
- If your wife DOES decide she wants to divorce you, your church will blame you and celebrate her independence - because, after all, "God wants her to be happy" (this is what literally 97 percent of the churches in the country teach).

I could keep this up all day, but you get the idea. Your statement from above, "anything that discourages straight men from marrying would be widely harmful," almost makes it seem like you understand that men rationally respond to positive and negative incentives. And yet, if someone lays out some of the positive aspects of remaining single and the negative aspects of getting married, the response from the (otherwise intelligent and plugged-in) Sailersphere will be "you need to MAN UP and DO YOUR JOB" or "oh, you must be a bitter little boy who lives in your Mom's basement!"

Snotty, entitled, self-indulgent white women are culprits 1 through 20 if we're making a list of the reasons for the demise of marriage as an institution in White America. No one with the intelligence to be reading this site can look at the last 50 years and deny it. Dredging up tangential issues such as "gay men enjoying their wedding so much might make straight men less optimistic about marriage" is, quite frankly, beneath you. Sorry to be rude, that's just how it looks from where I sit.

Anonymous said...

Because John's dad is still alive at 95, he could not legally have two fathers. So Gregory, though older, became the adopted son. The Daughin County Court judge who signed their papers was adamant in telling them that the adoption was "forever" and they would never be able to legally marry."

But sodomizing your own son is just fabulous.

Anonymous said...

"Gay Man Adopts His Partner to Avoid Inheritance Tax"

I am sure they have already enjoyed 45 years of "monogamish" bliss together not to mention countless numbers of freaky threeways fourways fiveways which don't count as "cheating" because both partners agreed beforehand and participated.

Funny thing his I am still stuck with my hetero-normative expectations that one of the reasonable expectations of marriage was that one could be relatively secure against being a cuckold or being tricked into raising another man's KooKoo's egg.

Anonymous said...

- Your wife can divorce you on a whim and ruin your life anytime she wants to.

I think you overstate your case. Any sane woman knows that the choice to stay married with children is much better than to be single with children. Problems with being divorced-with-children:
-having to provide all the necessities of life (house, car, food, clothes etc.), while the husband has to do the same. It's not quite double the expense on the same income, but near enough. Child support only goes so far.
-possibly having to work instead of being a stay at home mother.
-far less protection, especially in countries with gun control. A man of the house is a serious deterrent to criminals.
-value in the dating market being a 30+ woman with a mother's body and someone else's kids in the house.
-the devil you don't know in a future partner.

Now, you do have some idiot women having extramarital affairs, but unless the guy is abusive, there is not much incentive to leave even if the guy is some loser beta male (queue Whiskey).

Anonymous said...

MKP,

What guy wants to go through all the hassles of getting married if in the future the subversive Cultural Marxists celebrate the overwhelmingly "Monogamish" nature of the vast majority Gay Marriages as a superior arrangement to hetero-normative monogamy and should be allowed to be adopted as the "New Normal" for all.

What if in the future on the marriage license one could check off options based on what type of marriage you wanted Open, "Monogamish" or Monogamous. What if the dominate partner could find legal angles to amend the martial contract so they could move from one option to the other.

You laugh at this? Hell this is exactly what the NYT anticipates as not a "bug" but a "feature" of Gay Marriage that Heterosexuals will learn to someday embrace because it just provides them with so many more options.

Let's face it, in the Islamic world which the New Left adores, all marriages from the man's side are "monogamish" already. And in some Islamic societies pederasty is not gay. In Europe it is now the norm to look the other way at polygamy in order to celebrate Islamic diversity.

Yeah, a guy is going go into debt, just so that his guests can take bets on which partner cheats first or whether or not he gets stuck raising another man' bastard.

Anonymous said...

"Ex-policeman ‘found rent boys for Rome priests’"

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article3801163.ece

"The former Carabinieri police officer pulled up outside a bar known as Twink — slang for a gay youth — next to Rome’s central station. He was driving a Fiat Panda marked “Emergency Blood” so he could easily park. There, he picked up Romanian immigrant “rent-boys”, some underage, for gay encounters with Catholic priests around Rome."

David said...

>Any sane woman knows that the choice to stay married with children [in an unabusive relationship] is much better than to be single with children.<

By that criterion, a sizable number of women out there aren't sane. I know several who divorced their husbands - children were involved - on the grounds that "I didn't need to be taking care of another child" (i.e., the husband is the other child). (It's a pat cliche line that peaked in the South about five years ago.)

A typical case was that of an overweight 30-something female who left a skinny more-or-less-steadily-employed non-abusive guy and took their two girls to go live for years in her parents' house, unemployed, with no prospect of getting another man. When I pressed her about this, she half-heartedly made the claim that dude cheated on her or thought about it. It boiled down to her feeling bored. To me, this is Dalrymple depravity - think of what it did to those girls - and yet, the couple weren't criminals or otherwise in the underclass. They didn't make six figures, but they were university educated.

When MKP commented earlier about women divorcing their husbands on a whim, that wasn't hyperbole. The smart, classy gals don't, but lately there has been something of a dip in smarts and class generally.

ben tillman said...

Snotty, entitled, self-indulgent white women are culprits 1 through 20 if we're making a list of the reasons for the demise of marriage as an institution in White America.

No, they're just responding to incentives put in place by the culprits. Your perspective is pathetic.

"The former Carabinieri police officer pulled up outside a bar known as Twink — slang for a gay youth — next to Rome’s central station. He was driving a Fiat Panda marked “Emergency Blood” so he could easily park. There, he picked up Romanian immigrant “rent-boys”, some underage, for gay encounters with Catholic priests around Rome."

So they're gypsies. Are they married like the ones in France?

Zoink said...

"Romanian immigrant “rent-boys”, ...
So they're gypsies."

Romania seems pretty awful for non-gypsies. Why aren't they leaving too? Nominal per-capita GDP is about 25% lower than Mexico. Maybe because the average age there is very high due to a very low birthrate.

I've encountered a few gentile Pole immigrants, but other than this every eastern european immigrant to the USA I've met has been a secular Jew. Supposedly non-Jewish Russian immigrants are common in Brooklyn (stereotype: ruthless mobsters and Medicaid defrauders) and Sacramento (stereotype: evangelical clannish proles). I can't confirm, these are two places I have not had the pleasure to visit.

"Let's be honest, though, Steve - if we're making a list of things that keep straight men from wanting to get married, "gay men seem to enjoy this, therefore, I now dread it" is nowhere near the top 50."

You're absolutely right. But Steve came up with this about 5-6 years ago when the mainstream right was in the middle of a big brainstorm of arguments against gay marriage other than "tradition/bible" (polygamy is standard practice in the Old Testament) and "homosexuality is a choice/gay sex is immoral" (non-fundies under 50 who believe this are extremely rare).

I'd also point out that there are plenty of liberal heterosexual couples who live together who refuse to get married until gay marriage is legal in their state, or in some cases not even liberals, just where one of them has a gay sibling.

Gene berman said...

"But sodomizing your own son is just fabulous."

And don't forget the versa vice.

CrankyProfessor said...

Actually, Romanian can go both ways in Italy - they can be Gypsies OR they can just be Romanians. In the aftermath of communism LOTS of Romanians moved to Italy - the language was fairly easy for them. One of the standing jokes of 2000-10 on Italian t.v. was "My husband is screwing the Romanian." They didn't have to even say "maid." Everyone's maid was a Romanian.

MKP said...

"I think you overstate your case. Any sane woman knows that the choice to stay married with children is much better than to be single with children."

I think you pretend to have a case when you don't. Whatever reasons women have for not divorcing their husbands, they're still doing it.

About half of all marriages (40 percent for first marriages) end in divorce. And 70 percent of the time, it's the wife who initiates the divorce. So instead of giving me the well-reasoned explanation as to why women SHOULDN'T divorce their husbands, you should give it to them.

"Oh, not my niece - she got married and stayed married, and is a great wife!"

"Oh, not my neighbor - she wanted to stay married, but her husband cheated on her!"

Yeah. And the guy who works in the office next to mine is black and from a single-mother household, and is a bright, well-behaved citizen. But that doesn't negate the truth of human bio-diversity.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

I think you overstate your case. Any sane woman knows that the choice to stay married with children is much better than to be single with children.

Now, you do have some idiot women having extramarital affairs, but unless the guy is abusive, there is not much incentive to leave even if the guy is some loser beta male (queue Whiskey)."

Then there must be a lot of insane women, because the thing you are saying does not happen, happens often. Or perhaps you don't socialize much out of your immediate circle. I've known plenty of cases where women left their husbands (and the fathers of their children) for no other reason other than that they had unrealistic assumptions about life and what they could expect from it. These were men who were stable, decent family men - good providers, not physically abusive. The women did it because they could, and the courts would support them.

Mr. Anon said...

"Back in 2000, I wrote in National Review:"

Wow! I actually remember the days when NR featured writers like Steve, Peter Brimelow, John Derbyshire, and Ann Coulter. Then it was given over to milquetoasts (Rich Lowry), vulgar nitwits (John Podhoretz), and simpering, girlish name-droppers (Jay Nordlinger). Does NR still exist? And if it does, who would care?

JSM said...

"About half of all marriages (40 percent for first marriages) end in divorce. And 70 percent of the time, it's the wife who initiates the divorce'

I'm so sick of this logical fallacy from the so-called Mens Rights Activists, marketed to young White men with the express purpose to scare them from forming families and making White babies.

No-fault divorce laws in America mean, which person *files* for divorce says NOTHING about which person *broke* the marriage.

If, for instance, hubby cheated and wife files, you can't blame her. But because no-fault means she doesn't state her reason for filing, you wouldn't *know* that she was justified to do so when reading the intellectually lazy paper upon which the MRAs rely when they bash us for the 70 percent rate.

Because no-fault divorce means the filer no longer states the reason for filing, therefore, you can assume NOTHING from statistics about which marital partner initiated the paperwork.


Let's drill down at the stats: 40 percent of first marriages end in divorce means 60 percent DO NOT. This is true, even now, when divorce is so easily attained and anti-Whites have created a pop culture engineered to encourage divorce (feminism, no-fault divorce, AA for women) and to denigrate nice White married folks in every way possible.

Also, 70 percent of 40 percent = only 28 percent of all first-time wives ever file, meaning 72 percent do NOT. 72 percent, nearly 3/4ths, take their vows "til death do us part" seriously.

And for men, 30 percent of 40 percent means 12 percent of first time married men file. This, despite all the alleged horrors for him of child support payments and having to look for hot new honeys.

So, at worst there are only a bit more than 2x as many women filing as men -- this despite ALL the advantages that MRAs claim women supposedly garner from marriage.

And remember, no-fault divorce laws mean WHO files says NOTHING about who BROKE the marriage.

MKP said...

"Because no-fault divorce means the filer no longer states the reason for filing, therefore, you can assume NOTHING from statistics about which marital partner initiated the paperwork."

Patently false. The value of statistics is in the evening out of information through large numbers. Research has repeatedly shown that husbands and wives cheat on each other at roughly the same rates, and get caught at roughly the same rates. Therefore, if men and women are "cheated on" in marriages in equal numbers, but women still file for divorce more than twice as often, we can see how your excuse ("women file for divorce because mens' cheating drives them to do it") falls apart upon examination. We certainly can't use these statistics to prove anything particular about a specific case of divorce, but we can safely say that women and men have cause to divorce over infidelity at equal rates, but women still file for divorce over twice as often overall.

"Also, 70 percent of 40 percent = only 28 percent of all first-time wives ever file, meaning 72 percent do NOT. 72 percent, nearly 3/4ths, take their vows "til death do us part" seriously.

And for men, 30 percent of 40 percent means 12 percent of first time married men file. This, despite all the alleged horrors for him of child support payments and having to look for hot new honeys.

So, at worst there are only a bit more than 2x as many women filing as men -- this despite ALL the advantages that MRAs claim women supposedly garner from marriage."


You need an introductory course on statistics. Over twice as often is a HUGE difference.

"I'm so sick of this logical fallacy from the so-called Mens Rights Activists, marketed to young White men with the express purpose to scare them from forming families and making White babies."

Young White men don't need anonymous commentors on the internet to scare them from forming families with White women. They're scared enough by the real-life behavior of White women they observe by themselves every day. Out of my circle of friends from high school (maybe 11 or 12 guys), 5 of them had their Moms leave their Dads for little or no reason during their lives, and 2 of those women relied upon absolutely fabricated claims of abuse. One guy's father committed suicide (and he wasn't even one of the 2 who was falsely accused of abuse).

I'd also be willing to be that you, yourself, can name several men you know who were horribly and unfairly treated by the divorce courts. You won't admit that in a conversation like this, of course, because you're too scared of criticizing your noble, infallible princesses, White women.

Did I stutter, old man? Too fucking scared.

Anonymous said...

Any sane woman knows that the choice to stay married with children is much better than to be single with children.

You go girling from Oprah et al have been very misinformative.