- Gender and Relationships»
- Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender
Gay Marriage : True or a Travesty ?!
The ' gay marriage ' ( i.e. ' same-sex marriage ' ) is a new and novel concept, as I see it. Gayness ( i.e. homosexuality ) or gay sex is, to my way of thinking, an innocent natural aberration like left-handedness or infertility. ( I've thrown light on this point in my discourse RIGHT ATTITUDE to TRANS- and HOMOSEXUALITY. ) Nevertheless, the ' gay marriage ', to a sensible human, appears very odd and outright unintelligible. Matrimony in itself is a heterosexual institution. It doesn't appear natural, and as it'd be evident from falling marriage rates and rising divorce-to-marriage ratios in the advanced civilasations, matrimony is a fast dying institution, as well. Under the circumstances, when civilised humans the whole world over are keenly awaiting the day its knell would sound to rid humanity of the silly, obnoxious, useless, senseless, and barbaric institution that is matrimony, curiously enough, some people are demanding, to my utter astonishment, the recognition of something as queer and hard going as the gay marriage is. And among those that have given the issue their full backing are not only the gay and the lay but also many noted people and experts like the researchers affiliated with the American Psychological Association, etc. And one of those great men that have thrown their weight behind this issue happens to be none other than President Obama, the present incumbent of the White House, and a Nobel laureate. Naturally, the question arises as to what side a humble guy like me or you should side with in this debate. No sensible humans ought to sidestep this issue. This discourse is an attempt on this author's part to present an elaborate analysis of this issue from a sensible human's viewpoint and thus expose the fallacy and absurdity of arguments for the pro-gay-marriage position.
Reasons & Sophisms
[ scientific SOPHISTRIES : the American variety ]
If you went through the BRIEF of the amici curiae in support of plaintiff-appellees in the case No. 10-16696, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, you'd find out that the experts from the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, etc strongly advocate legalising the ' gay marriage '. The arguments they've advanced in support of their stance are, as I see it, plain silly. I find it astonishing that some people as intelligent as a scientist should use such silly stuff as serious arguments. One of such arguments is that they think the view that the gay cannot make as ' Fit or Capable ' parents as their straight counterparts can, or the view that the children brought up by the gay or the lesbian are not as much ' Psychologically Healthy and Well Adjusted ' as those raised by the straight is devoid of any ' Scientific Basis '. ( See the ARGUMENT IV. B. and the CONCLUSION; BRIEF of the AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES in the lawsuit No. 10-16696 . )
In essence, if you've got the capacity to make a good parent, you deserve, by their arguments, to be reckoned a worthy hubby or a good wife, no matter what your sex or sexuality is. The point missed is, by such reasoning, a pair of a brother and sister, or a mother and son, or even a pair of mother and daughter deserves to be recognised as a married couple. And not only that but all the polygamous and the polyandrous alliances and liaisons deserve to be recognised as valid marriages as well. Haven't they really witnessed any brother-and-sister pairs or any mother-and-son pairs raising one or more kids, I wonder. Haven't they witnessed any single-parent families raising one or more kids? If they came in India, they'd witness many joint families with children that are being raised together by their parents, grandparents, uncles, and aunts, who are really not, and who don't feel they need get, married to each other. And if they ever visited Afghanistan or any similar backward country in Africa or Asia, they would witness far larger joint families each of which has got a large number of kids ( all of them are brothers and sisters, both natural and collateral ) who are raised together by their parents, grandparents, uncles, and unmarried and widowed aunts. Have all the joint families become extinct in America? Have Americans stopped looking beyond America?
' The Children of Same-sex Couples Will Benefit If Their Parents Are Allowed to marry. ' ( ARGUMENT IV. C. ( ibid) )
Fine stuff to befool yourself and others! My dear sirs and madams, you all seem to have failed to take account of the simple point that your own children ought also to benefit the same way if you're allowed to marry your natural brothers or sisters, or your mother or father or both parents or grandparents, or your brothers-in-law, your sisters-in-law, your all parents- and grandparents-in-law, etc, etc.
But how are the ' Children of Same-sex Couples ' expected to ' Benefit If Their Parents Are Allowed to Marry '? ' [ I ]n at least three ways, ' they respond. ' First, those children will benefit from a clearly defined legal relationship with both of their de facto parents, ... ' ( ARGUMENT IV. C. (ibid) ) It seems implied that those people believe that all relationships other than those based on marriages are illegal, and that matrimony is a licence for entering into a relationship with someone. That means all relationships between friends, siblings, between parents and children, etc, etc are illicit, right? They also seem to believe that children would die off if their parents or foster parents didn't get married to each other. They seem not to have seen any children's homes where children are brought up by salaried people who are neither their parents nor their married-to-each-other foster parents. There's no scientific basis for the thesis that children raised by non-parents like paid people at children's homes or unmarried Norwegian foster parents paid by the state for this job are less ' Healthy and Well Adjusted ', psychologically, as I see it. They also believe it's for the benefit of your children that you should get married to their parents. If you've fathered two kids in the wombs of two women, you must marry both of them, and I do hope the US Congress would enact new laws to allow your polygamy for the benefit of the US children. And if two guys father two uterine kids, and then they each father a second kid in the womb of another woman, the US Congress must make new laws to legitimise both polyandrous and group marriages for the good of all these children, right? If two gay men are recognised as married for, supposedly, the good of their foster children, there's no reason you should refuse to recognise a gay or lesbian trio fostering a kid as married. And if you allow the gay and the lesbian to indulge in polygamous and polyandrous marriages, you cannot deny the straight, on any fair grounds, the pleasure of indulging in similar things, as I see it. The US law makers should keep these points in mind while recognising the travesties of gay marriages as true marriages.
They believe marriage is meant to benefit the kids. They also seem to believe that a man turns a lion of a man through his marriage to a woman or another man. Thus, after marriage the distinction between a penniless pauper and a billionaire just disappears. Women need not bother worrying over the social and financial security of themselves and their kids. All they've got to do is just get themselves married to a man, no matter what his sexuality is, or how much he is worth. Both a pauper turned a lion of a man and a billionaire turned a lion of a man make equally worthy hubbies because they're both true lions of men. And President Obama need not pass sleepless nights thinking hard to find ways to deal with the federal funds-crunch problem and gargantuan debt burden. He shouldn't fail to see the easiest solution to all these problems and convince the Congress to give its seal of approval to a new bill that should, after being a law, make it obligatory for every Yank to get married to a Yank. Nor need Mr Prez bother worrying at the growing gulf between the rich and the poor in the USA. By placing every American under obligation to marry, Mr Prez can save billions of dollars on education*, health care*, Public Housing Program*, National School Lunch Program*, numerous other welfare programmes*, tax relief and tax credits*, etc, etc. If American lions of men are true, they ought to be capable of taking full care of their spouses and children. I should like to ask Mr Obama to, in order to prove that American men are true lions of men, discontinue welfarism. Nevertheless, I feel I ought also to warn Americans of its most likely negative effect, namely that if American lions of men proved not-true, America would just disappear from the world atlas.** [ * See below. ** See below. ]
Those that love and stand for the idea that matrimony is a licence don't seem to be sensible people. I feel dubious of whether they're really aware of what its true implication is. If matrimony is to be a licence, all extramarital relations must be made penal and people must be prevented from availing themselves of the opportunity of indulging in such relations without being found out, otherwise the whole exercise would prove nonsensical. Thus, to make sure heterosexuals can't have access to such opportunities, heterosexual women must be robbed of all freedom to step out of home or travel around alone and kept under constant surveillance ( because, as I see it, it doesn't seem sensible to suggest that men should stay at home and women replace men in the army, navy, and air force ( if women replaced men in the armed forces, it would mean no defence, hence the disappearance of your motherland, as I see it ), and the police force ( with an all-female police force, the law and order is certain to collapse, I can assure you ). I don't think the sensible men and women of the 21st century would agree to approve of such things. Further, those fools want to recognise the farce that is gay marriage as a sort of marriage that is a licence too. How would they make the gay respect it, I wonder. If they made the gay men stay at home under surveillance, the lesbian and the bi would remain free to engage in as many illicit liaisons as they'd please. Making the lesbian or the bi stay at home doesn't seem to be an answer to the problem. You may feel moved to suggest that the entire gay community is kept confined in their homes and kept under close surveillance. First, it doesn't seem a practicable proposition as it isn't writ large on their faces whether they're gay or straight. Second, all the sensible tax payers should, and not unjustifiably, view the huge funds spent on the gay for these purposes as sheer wastage of their hard-earned money and take strong exception to such silly things. They should also point to the fact that the idea that matrimony is a licence is in itself plain mistaken. Society doesn't need such a licence as free love, be it hetero- or homo- or bisexual, causes no harm to any individuals or society, the way I see it. Why should the society or the state care whether you were born out of wedlock or in legitimate wedlock ? The society needs doctors, nurses, lawyers, engineers, teachers, traders, workers, etc, etc, and the state needs competent men to man the armed forces and the police force just as a factory owner needs skilled men to man his factory. The society need not know whether the parents of its members are married or not, nor need the state bother to know who the true father of the Prez or the Gen. is just like the factory owner that need not care whether the mother of his MD was married, before his birth, to the man that fathered him, to my way of thinking. The fact that the USA, like all other civilised states of the world, recognises and respects the extramarital relations and children born in such relations incontrovertibly testifies to the view that neither the society nor the state needs something like marriage.
[ In the section ' Is MATRIMONY a LICENCE for SEX ? ' of my discourse A Treatise on MARRIAGE, MORALITY, and SEX, I've dealt with this issue. Interested readers may also refer to the sections ' THE US OFFICIAL ATTITUDE & EXTRAMARITAL RELATIONSHIPS ' and ' American ATTITUDE towards UNWED MOTHERS ' ( ibid ). ]
' Second, children will benefit from greater stability and security that is likely to characterize their parents' relationship when legally recognized through marriage. ' ( ARGUMENT IV. C. ( ibid ) )
What about high divorce rates and short marriage life ? Need a relationship, for ' greater stability and security ', really be ' legally recognized through marriage ' ?
In the USA, divorce-to-marriage ratio was about 53 % in 2011. That means about 53 marriages out of every 100 ended in divorce. ( See Divorce demography From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . ) It's to be noted that the divorce to marriage ratio in the USA was 45.8 per cent in 2002 ( DivorceMag : World Divorce Statistics ). In 2008, the marriage rate ( defined as the number of marriages per 1,000 population ) was 10.6 and the divorce rate ( No. of divorces per 1,000 population ) was 5.2 in the USA ( Table 1335. Marriage and Divorce Rates by Country : 1980 to 2008; US Census Bureau Statistical Abstract of the United States : 2011 ). Thus, the divorce to marriage ratio for the year 2008 works out at 49.05 per cent. It's now obvious that the divorce-to-marriage ratios in the USA are on the rise. It's not to be missed in this regard that since 1980 marriage rates in the USA seem to have declined continuously from 15.9 to 10.6 in 2008 ( Table 1335. Marriage and Divorce Rates by Country : 1980 to 2008; ibid ) and further to 6.8 in 2011 ( Divorce demography From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). This is the real situation in the USA : marriage rates are falling whereas divorce-to-marriage ratios are going up. And along with them, both the number of births to unwed American women and the number of single-parent households are rising too.The former has gone up from 18.4 per cent ( of all live births ) in 1980 to 40.6 per cent in 2008 whereas the latter has increased from 19.5 per cent ( of all US households with children ) in 1980 to 29.5 per cent in 2008. ( See Table 1334. Births to Unmarried Women by Country : 1980 to 2008 & Table 1336. Single-Parent Households : 1980 to 2009; US Census Bureau Statistical Abstract of the United States : 2011 .)
The situation in the USA is of course no exception that proves the rule. It should be clear as day if you had a close look at the corresponding figures for other advanced civilisations. Marriage rates of France have fallen from 9,7 in 1980 ( Table 1335. Marriage and Divorce Rates by Country : 1980 to 2008; US Census Bureau Statistical Abstract of the United States : 2011 ) to 3.8 in 2010 (Divorce demography From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) and divorce to marriage ratios have risen from 24.74 % in 1980 ( calculated from Table 1335 referred to above ) to 55 % in 2010. ( Divorce demography From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
The marriage-rate figures of Germany, Netherlands, and the UK are as follows.
Germany : 8.2 ( 1991 ); 4.7 ( 2010 ) Netherlands : 9.6 ( 1980 ); 4.4 ( 2009 ) the UK : 11.6 ( 1980 ); 4.3 ( 2009 ) ( Table 1335 & Divorce demography )
And the divorce-to-marriage ratios for these countries are as follows.
Germany : 30.49 % ( 1991 ); 49 % ( 2010 ) Netherlands : 28.13 % ( 1980 ); 43 % ( 2009 ) the UK : 35.34 % ( 1980 ); 47 % ( 2009 ) ( Table 1335 & Divorce demography )
The percentage of out-of-wedlock births in France has also gone up from 11.4 per cent in 1980 to 52.6 per cent in 2008 in conjunction with the percentage of single-parent households which has gone up from 10.2 per cent in 1982 to 19.8 per cent in 2005. ( Table 1334 and Table 1336; US Census Bureau Statistical Abstract of the United States : 2011 ) The same tables also show that both the percentage of single-parent households have risen in other European states as well.
' The crude marriage rate in the EU-27 declined from 7.9 marriages per 1000 inhabitants in 1970 to 4.4 marriages per 1000 inhabitants by 2010, ... an overall decline of 36 % in the absolute number of marriages. ' ( Marriage and divorce statistics, European Commission, eurostat )
It further says : ' The share of extra-marital births has been on the rise in recent years in almost every EU Member State. Indeed, extra-marital births accounted for the majority of live births in Estonia ( 59.7 % in 2011), Slovenia ( 56.8 % ), Bulgaria ( 56.1 % ), and Sweden ( 54.3 % ), as well as in France in 2010 ( 55.0 % ). An even higher proportion of live births outside of marriage was registered in Iceland (65.0 % in 2011). ' ( ibid )
From the foregoing,it ought to be, there's no reason it oughtn't to be so, as clear as day to a sensible human that the institution of matrimony is a dying institution. I expect sensible people to try to find and comprehend the factors underlying the sorry state of this time-honoured institution and if found inevitable and desirable, accept the reality. Instead, some people seem to have chosen to waste their precious time inventing silly sophisms and dreaming they can save and make this silly, senseless, and useless institution last in perpetuity thus. ( Interested readers might find my THESES on the INSTITUTION of MATRIMONY and my discourse A Treatise on MARRIAGE, MORALITY, and SEX helpful if they wanted to see the true nature of the institution of matrimony and learn why it has become moribund. )
' Children benefit when their parents are financially secure, physically and psychologically healthy, and not subjected to high levels of stress. ' ( ARGUMENT IV. C.; ibid )
My dear sirs, marriage happens to be a class culture. Matrimonial alliances take place between people belonging to the same class, e.g. billionaires choose their beloved spouses from billionaire families, a middle-class-family woman enters into the bond of holy matrimony with a middle-class-family man, and the below-the-poverty-line folk have to choose their life partners from those that are below the poverty line. There might be some exceptions, but exceptions prove the rule, as we all know. Because the truly rich are insignificant few ( according to Prez Obama, the wealthiest in America consist of only ' 2 % of Americans ' ( see ' Congress Passes Cliff Deal … ' by Janet Hook, Corey Boles, and Siobhan Hughes ) and the poor and the down and out make up the overwhelming majority of Americans, it passes my comprehension how a rational being can expect the institution of matrimony to ensure financial security of American children. Maybe, by ' Children ' they meant only those that belonged to families of only ' 2 % of Americans '. If so, they ought to have stated it clearly.
Americans, bar the wealthiest few ( ' 2 % of Americans ' ) themselves lead a life that's outright insecure, financially, as I view it. These Americans themselves, both gay and straight, are badly dependent on state-welfare alms and assistance for their own survival. Does it become a sensible human to stand for the silly idea that people that are themselves standing on shaky ground and haunted constantly by a sense of insecurity would make, if they got married, good parents and ensure the good upbringing of their own and foster children. ( My discourse A search for a true LION of a MAN would give you an idea of how much financial capacity you need be possessed of in order to be able to discharge your matrimonial duties and obligations duly and fully, and how many Americans are really possessed of it. )
Recently I read in a newspaper the story of a brother and sister, both in their teens, who have stopped going to their schools because their father has been, on charges of economic offences, in custody for about a year and stopped providing for them. The two helpless kids have withdrawn into themselves. They spend 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, within the four walls of their flat. To be noted their mother is married to their father, and they were not born out of wedlock. In another story, a teenage haemophiliac with bleeding knees, who immediately needs the ' factor-8 ', an expensive element of human blood, and essential for the treatment of such illness, is groaning with unbearable pain as his parents don't have money to meet the cost of it. Such moving stories of innocent kids testify to my thesis that matrimony is a vile ' luxury that is far inferior to and far more obnoxious than your addiction to drinking '. ( See my THESES on the INSTITUTION of MATRIMONY . )
If you get addicted to drinking, it's you yourself alone that would suffer all ill effects of your addiction. If you wasted your hard-earned money on alcohol and went without food and medicine, you would meet with your untimely end before long. And thus you'd pay a price for your own folly. There's nothing wrong with it. You wouldn't suffer for any wrongs done to you by anybody. But in marriages, it's a lot of innocent humans ( i.e. the guy's wife and children ) who suffer for no wrongs of theirs but for all wrongs of the guy that indulges in the luxury of matrimony.
Don't such things take place in America? I should like to know how the pro-marriage Americans view such things. I should further like to know whether the pro-gay-marriage Americans have come across similar stories about the foster children of some gay guy. They do not seem to be aware of what happens to children when their parents or foster parents fall ill or are placed behind bars, or for some other reasons, known or not known, they fail to provide for their children. Nevertheless, they're aware of that ' [t]he death of a parent is a highly stressful occasion for a child and is likely to have important effects on the child's well-being. ' And the solution to the problem which they prescribe is really novel : the legalisation of the marriage of parents. They believe that ' the stable legal bonds afforded by marriage can provide the child with as much continuity as possible in her or his relationship with the surviving parent, and can minimize the likelihood of conflicting or competing claims by non-parents for the child's custody. ' ( ARGUMENT IV. C.; ibid )
By their logic, marriage is meant just for the ' continuity ' in the child's ' relationship ' with parents or foster parents. Marriage has nothing to do with the child's need for food, shelter, clothing, schooling, health care, etc. Parents should get married only to ensure the ' continuity ' of their relationships with their children. It's not parental responsibility to provide kids with a secure home, to ensure the supply of adequate wholesome food and decent clothes for the kids, to bear the cost of their education and health care, etc, etc. And to ensure the ' continuity ' of their relationship with the children, parents must get married to each other, and the state has got no other option than to legalise such travesties in the name of marriages.
' The Institution of Marriage Offers Social, Psychological, and Health Benefits That Are Denied to Same-Sex Couples. ' ( ARGUMENT III.B.; BRIEF of the AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES in the lawsuit No. 10-16696 )
Is that so ?! Matrimony isn't a silly, useless, senseless, and loathsome luxury ?! My THESES on the INSTITUTION of MATRIMONY are all wrong ?! ' The Institution of Marriage ' is truly the source of so many ' Benefits ' ?! The ' Social ' and ' Health Benefits ' aren't welfare alms and assistance made available by the state to the married with the implicit aim of luring the unmarried into the train of silly matrimony ?!
As regards the ' psychological ' benefits the married seem to derive from matrimony, I would say such stuff is no use to the sensible just as the psychological benefits a drinker derives from drinking are no use to a non-drinker, or as the psychological benefits the theists obtain from their silly prayers and worship have got no use value to the atheists, as I see it.
' [T]wentieth-century sociologists characterized marriage as " a social arrangement that creates for the individual the sort of order in which he can experience his life as making sense. " ' ( ARGUMENT III.B.; BRIEF of the AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES in the lawsuit No. 10-16696 )
The amici made this comment to justify their stance on the ' gay marriage '. As I see it, they outright missed a most simple point, namely that because you believe something, it doesn't follow what you believe is true. Einstein believed in the Spinoza's God, but Newton believed in the Biblical God. The problem is the two great men's beliefs are outright irreconcilable with each other. Many in the twentieth century believed that homoeopathy was efficacious, and that astrology was scientific. Those sociologists must have inferred that homoeopathy also cured illness, and that astrological calculations were all true. Nevertheless, every sensible human knows and understands that because some fools believe matrimony or a travesty in the name of matrimony have added some sense to their life, it doesn't follow getting married makes sense.
' and suggested that " in our society the role that most frequently provides a strong positive sense of identity, self-worth, and mastery is marriage. "' ( ARGUMENT III.B.; BRIEF of the AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES in the lawsuit No. 10-16696 )
What led them to believe that we, the unmarried, are lacking in the ' strong positive sense of identity ' and ' self-worth ', I wonder. And what they meant by ' mastery ' isn't clear to me. ' [M]astery ' of what or over what or whom ? And how something as silly as matrimony can help you gain such ' mastery ' is unintelligible, isn't it ? Would they elaborate on this point ?
' Although it is difficult to quantify how the meaning of life changes for individuals once they are married, empirical research demonstrates that marriage has distinct benefits that extend beyond the material necessities of life. ' ( ARGUMENT III.B.; BRIEF of the AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES in the lawsuit No. 10-16696 )
So long as it would remain ' difficult ', I'd also remain rigid in my stance on the ' distinct benefits ' some fools believe matrimony has got for them. As alcoholics believe that life is meaningless without alcohol, similarly the married seem to believe that they're unable to keep alive without marriage, the way I view it.
" As a legal institution, marriage also gives legally-wed spouses access to a host of economic and social benefits ... Because they are denied the opportunity to marry, California partners in same-sex couples are denied these benefits. ' ( ARGUMENT III.B.; BRIEF of the AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES in the lawsuit No. 10-16696 )
The institution of matrimony isn't the source of the ' host of economic and social benefits ' the ' legally-wed ' have access to. And the ' California partners ' would never ever need to have recourse to the silly stuff such as the travesty of ' gay marriage ' if the US law makers paid due respect to the Fourteenth Amendment* and made both the wed and the unwed equally entitled to the ' host of economic and social benefits ' in question. [ *It guarantees the equal treatment, under the law, of all the US citizens. ]
' Married men and women generally experience better physical and mental health than their heterosexual counterparts. ' ( ARGUMENT III.B.; BRIEF of the AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES in the lawsuit No. 10-16696 )
Do bacteria and viruses distinguish between the married and the unmarried ? Are the unmarried more prone to have spondylosis or diabetes than the married ? Do the married paupers really enjoy as much good health as the the married billionaires ?
' Of course, marital status alone does not guarantee greater health or happiness. ' ( ARGUMENT III.B.; BRIEF of the AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES in the lawsuit No. 10-16696 )
Of course, there are some married people that enjoy better health and happiness than some unmarried guys. From this fact, you may deduce that matrimony is the source of health and happiness in life. The problem with this line of reasoning is if you ever encountered a religious guy that happens to be healthier and happier than a secularist, you'd have to infer that religiosity means good health and all the happiness and secularism bad health and all the unhappiness, and then if you ever ran across an unmarried guy that really leads a far healthier and happier life, you'd have no other option than to subscribe to the view that getting married means getting into a sea of sorrow and sickness, right ? I outright dismiss the view that suggests that marital status has something to do with good health and happiness in life. Fools that love to believe such silly stuff are advised to run an eye over the hard facts regarding uxoricides, dowry deaths, and other cases of domestic violence in India and the rest of the world. I'd also like to bring to their notice the falling marriage-rate figures and rising divorce-to-marriage ratios in almost all parts of the advanced world, which give the lie to what they believe.
' Nevertheless, married couples who are satisfied with their relationships consistently manifest higher levels of happiness, psychological well-being, and physical health than the unmarried. ' ( ARGUMENT III.B.; BRIEF of the AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES in the lawsuit No. 10-16696 )
It's as much disgusting and exasperating as silly that an intelligent human should miss the point that it may not be their marital status but satisfaction ' with their relationships ' that is underlying the ' higher levels of happiness, psychological well-being, and physical health ' of those married couples.
' Lacking access to legal marriage, the primary motivation for same-sex couples to remain together derives mainly from the rewards associated with the relationship rather than from formal barriers to separation. Given this fact, plus the legal and prejudicial obstacles that same-sex partners face, the prevalence and durability of same-sex relationships are striking. ' ( ARGUMENT III.B.; BRIEF of the AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES in the lawsuit No. 10-16696 )
Same-sex partners don't lack ' rewards ' needed to motivate them ' to remain together '. And despite the ' legal and prejudicial obstacles ', the ' prevalence and durability of same-sex relationships are striking. ' Then, why should sensible people squander their precious time on such a silly idea as the travesty of ' gay marriage ', I wonder.
[ *US public spending on education : In 2011, the USA spent a total of $ 595.1 billion1 ( as against $ 602.6 billion spent in 20102 ) on the education of American boys and girls ( according to an estimate, around 89 per cent of all the American elementary and secondary school students attended free public schools in 20093 ) of the public elementary and secondary schools and the average per pupil spending figure was $ 10,560. Did parents of those students ( i.e. 11% of the total American elementary and secondary school children ) who attended private schools in 2009 bear the full cost of their kids' education? As I've heard, in America both the public and the private educational institutions receive funds from the federal and state governments and the US taxpayers. According to a study ( published in 2011 ) by American Institute for Research and Nexus Research and Policy Center, each American student earning a bachelor's degree at a public college or university received over $ 60,000 in subsidies ( known as ' taxpayer subsidies ' ), which figure rose substantially and reached ' nearly $ 110,000 in the most selective public institutions. '4 These figures ' reflect the amount of money colleges and universities receive in direct government support and tax breaks. They do not include loans and grants provided by state and federal governments to help students meet tuition costs. '4 Thus, it follows that the actual cost of obtaining a bachelor's degree from public institutions is far higher than the cost figures cited above and that without ' taxpayer subsidies ' and ' loans and grants ' from the federal and state governments, an American's dream of obtaining an academic degree would turn into a mirage.
USA's health care projects : Obamacare ( The Affordable Care Act of 2010 ) is the latest federal health care project that's designed to make health care affordable for all Americans under 65 and make sure that they have adequate health cover. The federal govt also runs three more health care projects. They are Medicare, Medicaid, and Children Health Insurance Program. The per-capita health-care spending figure in the USA was $8607.9 in 2011, of which around 45.9 per cent ( i.e. $ 3954.2 ) was government spending.
( ' $ ' stands for PPP int. $. )
Public Housing Program run by The US Department of Housing and Urban Development is meant to make federally subsidised low-rent homes available to the American poor and down and out ( are they all fathered by unmarried men, I wonder ).
National School Lunch Program is a ' federally assisted meal program ' run by The US Department of Agriculture and aimed at serving ' nutritionally balanced ' meals ( breakfasts, lunches, and after-school snacks ) to millions of American children daily. A packet of lunch costing $ 3.10 is charged at 40 cents currently ( i.e. for July 2013 through June 2014 )5.
Some other Welfare Programmes are Special Milk Program, Summer Food Service Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, etc, which are meant to afford poor American children and adults adequate food and nutrition. Billions of dollars are spent every year to run all these programmes.
Tax Relief and Credicts ( viz. the Child Tax Credit, the New American Opportunity Tax Credit, etc ) are meant to help the American non-wealthiest ( who make up, according to Prez Obama, 98 per cent of Americans and have per-capita earnings per annum not over $ 250,0006 ) spend a little more for the well-being of their families and the upbringing of their kids ( are they all fathered by unmarried men, I wonder again ).
**Interested readers might refer to the section titled Can the States SURVIVE without WELFARISM ? of my discourse The US GOVT SHUTDOWN from the COMMUNISTIC VIEWPOINT to learn of what would be the inevitable outcome of the discontinuation of the free elementary and secondary education system in the USA.
1 Figure 2 and Table 8 of Public Education Finances : 2011
3Table 254. Elementary and Secondary Schools ̶ Teachers,Enrollment, …; US Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States : 2012
6According to the US President Mr Barack Obama, the wealthiest in America consist of only ' 2% of Americans ' and they comprise only those American citizens that have per-capita income per annum over $ 250,000. ( See ' Congress Passes Cliff Deal … ' ( an article ( updated on January 02, 2013 ) in The Wall Street Journal ) by Janet Hook, Corey Boles, and Siobhan Hughes. ) Obviously, by this estimate, the American non-wealthiest add up to 98 per cent of Americans. ]
President Obama's Presidently NONSENSE
In May 2012, in an interview with ABC News, President Obama made public his ' change of position ' on the ' gay-marriage ' debate and openly stood for such queer, nonsensical things as the ' gay marriage '.1 ' I think same-sex couples should be able to get married, ' remarked Mr President1, and his main arguments are as follows.
1. Denying you your right to engage in same-sex marriages ' doesn't make sense ' to his beloved daughters.1
2. ' [I]t's important to " treat others the way you would want to be treated. " '1
3. ' We need to recognize that people are going to have differing views on marriage and these, even if we disagree strongly, should be respected. '1
It's astonishing that Mr President should consider it matters much how his teenage daughters view as serious an issue as the one of whether same-sex marriages ought to be recognised. What the two girls that are only two of numerous American teens have done or achieved so far so that what they think of matters like this deserves to be given serious thought to is not known. Are they really aware of the gravity of the issue, I wonder. Do they understand what true marriage is, and what a travesty of a marriage is? Are they aware of the basic features of matrimony? Are they aware that the institution of matrimony is resting on two great big lies2? Are they aware of the fact that matrimony is basically anti-feminine3, and the fact that we, men, aren't lions of men 4 ?Do they have a sensible and mature attitude to life? Do they have any concept of healthy and meaningful living? Are they really bothered about the principle of healthy and meaningful living? Are they aware of the fact that neither marriages nor ' gay marriages ' fit in with the principle of healthy and meaningful living? Are they aware that matrimony is a luxury that is far viler and far more obnoxious than your addiction to drinking?
The gay marriage is a SILLY idea.
Matrimony is essentially a HETEROSEXUAL institution.
Matrimony is essentially a MASCULINE institution.
Matrimony symbolises the IMPRISONMENT of women.
Feminine freedom is INCOMPATIBLE with matrimony.
Matrimony is BASICALLY an anti-feminine institution.
I wholeheartedly subscribe to Mr President's view that you should ' treat others the way you would want to be treated. ' But I find it hard to comprehend how this relates to the issue being discussed .Does Mr President really expect to be still respected after having said or committed something silly? The point is the ' gay marriage ' is a silly idea. The point is matrimony is essentially a heterosexual institution. Would Mr President state by what definition of matrimony, he thinks the ' gay marriage ' deserves to be recognised as marriage? Historically, matrimony is essentially a masculine institution. There's no denying it. Matrimony was introduced by a lot of men with the primary aim of fulfilling an exclusively masculine purpose, namely, the procreation of a male child of undisputed paternity.5 Barbarians were they that did it. They did it because they wanted to ensure the paternity of their kids, and because by laws of nature, it isn't in the hands of men to ensure the paternity of kids as long as their mothers remained free. Barbarians knew nothing about the DNA test, and so men of that era could not know for sure who the true father of a kid was if the mother of the kid had free access, before it was born, to more than one man. For that reason, barbarian men had no other option than to imprison the woman, the mother of the unborn baby, before conception. They could do it because already before that they had established the masculine rule over women. Obviously, matrimony symbolises the imprisonment of women. Matrimony is reduced to a farce if the woman fails to assure the paternity of her kids, and since a free woman can't assure it, feminine freedom is incompatible with matrimony. Thus, it follows that matrimony is basically an anti-feminine institution. It's not to be missed in this regard that by laws of nature it's in the hands of women to ensure the paternity of their kids. Unlike a man, a woman that is free and has multiple liaisons can know for sure who the actual ( i.e. natural ) father of the kid she's conceived is. Nevertheless, she's unable to prove it. But then she doesn't need to prove it in order to serve any interests of hers. Matrimony serves no feminine interests, and so women have got nothing meaningful to gain from matrimony, the true matrimony, not a travesty, which symbolises the imprisonment of women. By being robbed of freedom, what meaningful thing a woman, barring the insignificant few unusually lucky women that constitute some exceptions like the wife of Bill Gates, the former CEO of Microsoft Corporation, or the wife of Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar, the former legendary cricketer, has got to gain from the institution of matrimony isn't known. It's important to note at this juncture that you'd prove a rank idiot if you missed what I view as a most important point, namely that a man, just like a woman, happens to be an insignificant member of society. As we all know, a man's capacity, like a woman's, is too limited to make him equal the great big mission of discharging his matrimonial duties and obligations, i.e. to ensure the social and financial security, in the main, of his wife and children. A lion of a man is none of us. ( See A search for a true LION of a MAN . )
From the above it also follows that matrimony with the primary aim of procreating a male child of undisputed paternity is essentially a heterosexual institution. Thus, it appears as clear as day that the ' gay marriage ' is an outright absurdity. Is a gay guy a truer lion of a man than a straight guy ? Is a gay guy capable of making a worthier ' hubby ' than his heterosexual counterpart ? Matrimony in itself is a senseless, useless, silly luxury that is far viler and far more loathsome than your addiction to drinking, as I view it. Is the ' gay marriage ' to any degree a better luxury ? Does Mr President expect the ' gay marriage ' to perform any more meaningful or useful part in society or in the life of an individual than the straight marriage ? I should like to learn of Mr President's view of healthy and meaningful living and how Mr President would reconcile matrimony and the ' gay marriage ' with the principle of healthy and meaningful living. I think it's unbecoming of the President of the USA, the most advanced civilisation of the world, to fail to respond to all these points and queries.
Does it become a sensible human to approve of everybody's view of marriage and respect the view even if it doesn't deserve respect ?
Mr President is very willing to respect different people's ' differing views on marriage ' and wants us to respect them ' even if we disagree [ with them ] strongly '. On the surface, Mr President's appears a noble attitude, but is it really so, I wonder. Does it become a sensible human to approve of everybody's view of marriage and respect the view even if it doesn't deserve respect ? Right now, Mr President makes me remember an American woman that holds the view that ' [m]arriage is not a padlock on a woman's vagina ' and firmly believes that ' [m]arried women are as free to sleep around as anyone else. ' And if asked, ' But what for ? Why should a freedom-loving woman at all get into so silly and useless bond as matrimony is ? ', she would just parrot the same words : ' Marriage is not a padlock on a woman's vagina. Married women are as free to sleep around as anyone else. ' Does Mr President respect these views of hers ? And does Mr President respect this author's view of marriage as well ?
Mr President fails to see the distinction between the right to do something and the thing done .
Mr President said all this to justify his ' change of position ' in favour of the ' gay marriage '. Evidently, he's all for recognising such a queer, illogical, and ridiculous thing as the ' gay marriage ' is out of sheer respect for different people's ' differing views on marriage '. I feel dubious of whether Mr President is aware of where he's likely to be led to by this attitude of his. With such an attitude, Mr President can have no option but to approve of not only everyone's view of marriage but every act people are used to engaging in and indulging in in the name of marriage, to my way of thinking. Thus, a penniless, homeless pauper and a guy that's worth a billion dollars both make, to Mr President's presidently eyes, equally worthy hubbies, right ? And I wonder how Indian law makers that stand for the Indian anti-dowry legislation are going to view it now. If they approved of Mr President's view at issue, they should find nothing wrong with the giving or taking of dowries, the way I view it, and so they should revoke the anti-dowry act. Mr President, I'm afraid to say, doesn't seem to be aware of the clear distinction between your freedom or right to do something and something that you do. You're free to squander your hard-earned earnings on alcohol or horse racing and pretend not to see millions going hungry and homeless around yourself. But I don't think such doings befit a sensible human. I do respect the former cricket legend Sachin's right to indulge in the squandermaniac luxury of forty-one luxury cars, but I can't respect such silly things, and I don't think things of this sort become a Bharat Ratna* given that millions in India do not have food security.**
[ * A recipient of the highest Indian national award BHARAT RATNA . ** According to the National Advisory Council's report ( 2011 ), 90 per cent of Indian rural folks suffer the lack of food security. ]
I respect the gay right to indulge in the travesty of ' gay marriage ' as much as I respect ...
I respect the gay right to indulge in the travesty of ' gay marriage ' as much as I respect the straight's right to indulge in the loathsome luxury of silly matrimony or a plain travesty in the name of matrimony. I think the gay, like the straight, ought to be free to indulge in such silly or similar innocent things. I should view with the strongest disapproval any proposal or act meant to deny them this freedom. Nevertheless, I don't respect such stupid stuff, and I don't think it becomes civilised societies or states of the 21st century to recognise, and thus encourage indulgence in, such and similar nonsense.
[ a few more points of great significance ]
Mr President doesn't seem to have considered a few more points of great significance from the practical point of view.
If the ' gay marriage ' ( or ' gamarriage ' ) was legalised, what sort of it would be legal, and what sort would be made illegal ? Would federal law approve of or penalise ' gabigamy ' ( i.e.' gay bigamy ' ), ' galygamy ' ( i.e. gay polygamy ' ), and ' galyandry ' ( i.e. ' gay polyandry ' ) ? Would it follow logic, or an arbitrary path ? Is the rationale for such actions clear to federal law makers ? Would they penalise ' gadultery ' ( i.e. ' gay adultery ' ) too ? ( Is the ' gamarriage ' a licence ? As matrimony isn't a licence, adultery can't be an offence. If the ' gamarriage ' isn't a licence, ' gadultery ' can't be viewed as an offence, either. Therefore, penalising ' gadultery ' appears indefensible, as I see it. ) Would they legalise ' gaparation ' ( i.e. ' gay separation ' ) as well as ' gavorce ' ( i.e. ' gay divorce ' ) and penalise the ' gamarriage ' before the dissolution of the legally-valid existing ' gamarriage ' too ? Would they make ' gavorcees ' ( i.e. ' gay divorcees ' ) entitled to ' galimony ' ( i.e.' gay alimony ' ) too ? ( I wonder how they'd deal with the case of two siblings, if one of them, after they've separated, seeks ' sibling alimony ' ( or ' salimony ' )from the other. ) Would they make a gay parent pay ' calimony ' ( i.e. ' child alimony ' ) meant for their foster children after the dissolution of their ' gamarriage ' too ? ( I wonder whether they'd make it compulsory for a child's uncles, aunts, or grandparents to pay regular ' calimony ' for it too. ) Would they penalise ' gay incest ' or ' gaycest ' ( if I'm allowed to call it thus ), too ? How would they enforce laws preventing such things ? Would it be right for a civilised nation to leave any of these questions unanswered before legalising the ' gamarriage ', I wonder.
2For what these lies are see my THESES on the INSTITUTION of MATRIMONY .
4For the definition of a lion of a man and how many men deserve this appellation, see my discourse A search for a true LION of a MAN .
5For details about it, see The Origin Of The Family, Private Property And The State by Frederick Engels. Interested readers may also see my discourse A Treatise on MARRIAGE, MORALITY, and SEX .
[ some more interesting sophistries ]
' RESPECT for the PRINCIPLE of EQUAL treatment '
Surely, it's a noble principle− the PRINCIPLE of EQUAL treatment, as I view it. I do believe Americans should pride themselves on the Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees the equal treatment, under the law, of all American citizens. But it passes my comprehension how respect for the principle of equal treatment can be a justification for the recognition of the ' gamarriage '. The point is this ' gamarriage ' is outright illogical. To a sensible human it appears outright outrageous and ridiculous that you should use your respect for the noble principle of equal treatment as a pretext for approving of such silly stuff. Nevertheless, you might argue that what heterosexuals indulge in in the name of marriage these days are plain travesties*, as well, and that as such things are recognised by law, the gay can claim that their demand that their ' gamarriage ' should also be recognised is justified. I must wholeheartedly subscribe to this viewpoint of yours.
[ *By my thesis that feminine freedom is incompatible with matrimony ( see my THESES on the INSTITUTION of MATRIMONY ), all marriages in the free world, the US First Lady's marriage included, are rank travesties. ]
' The human YEARNING for LOVE can lead to an equally human YEARNING for FAMILY '
Your YEARNING for LOVE is a justification for your YEARNING for marriage and family ?! Does a guy's YEARNING for LOVE make him eligible for marriage ? If your YEARNING for LOVE is accepted as a criterion for your marital eligibility, then a penniless pauper is to be accepted as as much eligible as a multibillionaire as there's no telling how much your YEARNING for LOVE will go up, or whether it'll go up at all, with the growth of your wealth and possessions.
The penniless, the jobless, the homeless, etc all make as worthy hubbies as multibillionaires ?!
( Interested readers may consult my discourse A Treatise on MARRIAGE, MORALITY, and SEX in which I've dealt with the question of whether love matches are true marriages or plain travesties. )
[ conclusion ]
Matrimony is essentially a heterosexual institution. ' Gamarriages ' ( i.e. ' gay marriages ' ) are plain travesties. Nevertheless, the gay, like the straight, are free to indulge in travesties in the name of marriage. But I don't think such silly things become sensible humans. And I don't think, either, that it's right for civilisations of the 21st century to recognise travesties of marriages or ' gamarriages '.