Saturday, August 28, 2010

Funny: Dog Bites Teenager on the Crotch

Just like the video title says, it's a funny video of a teenage boy getting bitten on the crotch by a dog. Enjoy.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Barely Political: Ke$ha and Twitter Parody

I found a couple awesome parodies from Barely Political (the satire group on Youtube that used to have Obama girl) that I needed to post on the blog. The first one is about Ke$ha's intervention:

The second video is about the worthlessness of Twitter as a social media outlet:

I think that the Kesha parody is better than the actual song. The Twitter parody is also pretty good.

Here is my obligatory cute girl to keep my viewers interested (and to provide a cool thumbnail).

Campus Cute Girl
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, August 27, 2010

Five Random Images of Hot Non Nude Girls


Tasteful and not sleazy sexy girl
Since these types of entries end up accounting for nearly 2/3 of my traffic historically, I decided to do another one. Don't worry -- I'm a blogger, not a pornographer: no images of nude girls here. Just for the sake of SEO, I probably should keep repeating that phrase, but I don't want to keep talking about nude girls or non nude girls or girls who wear watermelon shells on their heads. Non nude girls:

1.  Sexy girl from Youtube

Sexy Youtube Girl -- would you watch her channel?

 2. Random Hot Asian Girl

Cute Asian Girl - I Like The Skirt

3.  Hot Female Sports Fan:

Hot Girl Sports Fan - Go Team!

4.  Hot Fresh Faced Sexy Girl

Cute Faced Girl with Necklace

 5.  Cute Latina Girl on Stairs

Cute Latina Girl Waiting on Stairs

Well, I hope that these pics made all of the guys (and possible lesbians) days brighter. I had to look hard to find pictures even this clean and tasteful. I know this will generate huge amounts of traffic in about a month or so. Somehow, I still feel dirty . . .

Enhanced by Zemanta

Selling my tweets on Ebay

I had the bright idea a few weeks ago that I would get rich by selling tweets on my Twitter account on Ebay. After all, I reasoned, I have two active Twitter accounts, one with about 4,000 followers and one with about 2,000 followers. So, I decided to put up an ad and see what would happen.

 I thought that my estimated 5,000-6,000 followers would count for something, 1$, 2$, maybe even 5$ or more. I even had dreams of starting a bidding war where the attention of my thousands of loyal fans could command top dollar and I could retire from my day job and get rich off the fame that my month or so of aggressive following on Twitter has brought me.

Except, it didn't happen.

Days passed, and the end of the three day deadline neared. I fully expected to to have some bids on my item, some indication that a person besides me thought that tweeting was worth something in life.

And then it came: a buyer purchased my tweet. The final selling price?

5 cents.


So, if you've ever wondered what your tweets are worth to the larger world outside of Twitter, I could answer this in two words.

Almost nothing.

Twitter sucks.

Hot Ebay Girl

P.S. Tweets are so worthless apparently that the buyer never even sent me a tweet to send out to my followers -- he just paid me the 5 cents. I'm pretty sure the guy either bought it as a joke or as a mistake.

Think of this story next time you're bragging about how many followers you have on Twitter.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Stupid News Stories in the United States Replacing Real News from Other Countries

Fox News ChannelImage via Wikipedia

Too often, news stories from other countries are ignored in by the United State. Take this hostage situation from the Philippines where 8 people died as an example. If I remember correctly, the Philippines story had a shelf life of about 4 hours and was quickly replaced by some sort of crap about John McCain's reelection or Sarah Palin -- the political pseudo celebrities forced upon the American public by Fox News and friends. Note that I would complain about the left's pseudo celebrities too, except they're not in the spotlight as much lately. 

I think that a lot of this comes with the rise of the 24 hour news channel. Before, news stations had to cram all of their news into a 30 minute TV nightly news program, so they had to be a bit more selective and report real news. Now, it's almost the opposite effect. News stations can't afford to be selective because they have to run something, so news stations keep running stories, no matter how tiring or trite.

What do you think about the news situation inside the United States? Am I being too harsh, or am I on target?

Maria Venus Raj (impersonator): A Philippina hottie!

Maria Venus Raj

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, August 23, 2010

Nicolas Cage Punches A Woman Whilst Wearing A Bear Suit

Scene from The Wicker Man -- want to see Nicholas Cage punch a woman while dressed in a bear suit? Wait, wtf? Just watch the clip to find out.

Yahoo claims that this is one of the worst movies of all time. I say that anything that has Nicholas Cage wearing a bear suit has to be an instant classic. I guess only time will tell which of us is right.

Hot Girl with a Teddy Bear (that just sounds sick and wrong):

Hot Girl w/ a Teddy Bear

Enhanced by Zemanta

Family Guy - Who Wants Chowder?

This Family Guy clip about a barfing contest between the family members is between is disturbing -- disturbingly funny. If you have a weak stomach, you may want to skip this one. Otherwise, "Who wants chowder?"

Then, to settle your stomachs, my obligatory picture of a cute girl:

Cute girl in a red dress

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, August 20, 2010

Black Swan: Fake Lesbians vs. Real Lesbians

For those of you with too interesting of lives to care about the latest scheme by Hollywood to sell extra movie tickets, I thought that I would take a few minutes to tell you about the latest movie designed to squeeze a few more bucks out of the pockets of men everywhere: Black Swan.

As much fun as I think that it would be to see Mila Kunis and Natalie Portman kissing anyone in a movie, I do have to object a little bit when they start kissing each other. On the one hand, I find the display visually pleasing, just like any guy would. At the same time, I get the same kind of uncomfortable feeling that I get when I see a pretty waitress at a crowded restaurant spending just a little too much time over at a table full of single guys and bending over just a little too far when she picks up their plates: the waitress might be flirting with them because she likes them, but in my experience she probably just wants a bigger tip.

Hot Waitress: Wants Your Money, Not Your Number

This is the exact same feeling that I get in this case. I can't shake the feeling that Hollywood is making yet another movie with a lesbian kiss, not because they want to express an idea artistically but because they want to sell more tickets to lonely guys who think both Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis are super attractive. This brings me to the whole point of my article: Hollywood and its obsession with "fake lesbians". 

Selma Hayek: Another Hollywood Fake Lesbian

Fake Lesbians are Hollywood's Best Friends:

From Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis in Black Swan to Denise Richards and Neve Campbell in Wild Things to Katy Perry singing about kissing a girl, Hollywood is very persistent in promoting this illusion that the sell to guys across the world that hot, normal looking, sexy girls are bisexual reservoirs of uncontrollable hormones that need other girls as a safety valve.

Wild Things: Denise Richards & Neve Campbell

The reality is that most real world lesbians that I've ever met fall into the category of either an Ellen Degeneres clone, Rosie O'Donnell's twin sister, or someone who could easily be mistaken for the half man, half woman character from 50 First Dates played by  Lusia Strus. For most of these women, the idea of femininity is about as foreign and unrealistic as the idea of me having lunch on the moon.

Katy Perry in "I Kissed a Girl"

Still not convinced? Lets look at some examples:

Fake Lesbians: Tatu (singers from Russia)

Tatu: Singers from Russia

Tatu: they're not lesbians, they just play them on TV.

Real Lesbians:

Real Lesbians: Sexy, huh?

Not exactly the type that you're likely to see in a movie any time soon.

Another example:

Fake Lesbian: (think Cruel Intentions)

Sarah Michelle Gellar -- Fake Lesbian

Real Lesbian: (think fat arse talk show host):

Rosie O'Donnell -- Real Lesbian

For those guys among you who think that I'm being too harsh here, as Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars Episode III would say, "Search your feelings. You know it to be true." For all of the women who think that I'm being too harsh, well, you either are one or you know one so STFU!

I hope you enjoyed the pictures. Now, if I could only figure out a way to use fake lesbians to make me rich  . . .

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Kenny Rogers Reality Show

I decided to make another quick entry with another funny fake Kenny Rogers movie via Mad TV -- this time where Kenny is the host of their version of The Apprentice. Enjoy and let me know what you think.

Cute Asian Girl: 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Associated Content: Splogs, Sploggers, and Splogging from Splogfrica

I am fed up with looking for information on Associated Content, EHow, HubPages, Helium, or any of the other similar myriad pages that pay people to write articles. Most of the information is complete and utter junk. Here are some examples.

A brief and poorly written "dissertation" on time travel

So this is a good example of what I'm writing about with contentless Associated Content articles. Read the article (it only takes about a minute) and ask yourself how much effort you feel that the author of that article put into writing it. If your answer was that he or she (probably he) put less than 10 minutes of effort into writing it, you're almost certainly right. I would have said under five minutes of effort, except for the fact that the article was largely free of spelling and punctuation errors, which means that the author probably couldn't have written it stream-of-consciousness style.

Also, to be fair, I wouldn't expect something much deeper than this, given the article's title. However, it is frustrating when you're looking for information that is a little more in depth and useful. Here is an example:

How to change the locks on your door

If you read the article carefully, the author basically tells you to take the old locks off and put the new ones on. Well, thanks and duh, which is exactly the problem with associated content articles -- lots of information that literally resembles the types of answers you get when you ask a the girl at Best Buy what is the difference between the two televisions and she responds with an answer like, "Well, this one is a Toshiba, which is a good brand . . . I guess . . . and this one is a Sony. I guess this one is a little bigger, um, and it has higher D-P-I, whatever that means, and um, it costs a bit more but . . . it's more fun to watch . . . um, I think this is actually the kind my brother has, like an LCD, which is cool . . . and . . . this one has big speakers. I don't know -- I just started working here last week." In other words, she doesn't know anything and is there as floor furniture and to make sure you don't shoplift.

However, the last type of article is even more annoying -- the articles where people actually give out the wrong information. Here is a good example:

Should You Go to Mexico for Plastic Surgery?

I'm not going to go into all of the reasons why this article sucks other than to say that there are 120 million people in Mexico, many of whom even make frequent trips to the doctor and live to tell about it. In fact, a large percentage of Mexican doctors have been trained inside the U.S. or in Europe, not that the Mexican medical schools are inferior or anything. Remember, brown does not equal dangerous, as much as Fox News and the Republican Party would like you to think otherwise. Here is my poorly written article debunking the myths in the first poorly written article:

Hospitals in Mexico: Debunking the Myths

In summary: If you don't know how to use Google, lack common sense, or have recently injured your brain, you will benefit from the articles on Associated Content. If none of the above applies to you, do a little more research and get your information from more reputable sources -- like rumors and small children.

Cute Black Girl:

Enhanced by Zemanta

How Many Visitors Do You Get Per Day from Twitter to Your Blog?

Q: I thought that I would take time to write a short post and answer this question for the curious internet users out there. The question: how many hits to your blog does a given number of followers on Twitter generate? For example, if I have 5,000 followers on Twitter and update my blog regularly, how many visits can I expect per day from my Twitter followers.

A: The long answer is that it depends on a lot of factors. The short answer is that, in my case, I get about 1 hit per day per 1000 followers.

Of course, I'm probably not as interactive on Twitter as I should be. My strategy for gaining new followers is to follow back everyone who follows me and to periodically follow a few hundred users per day (and unfollow anyone who doesn't follow me back). If I happen to make a friend or have a real conversation in there somewhere, so much the better.

If you take a more interactive approach and engage your Twitter followers more, I'm sure that you'll generate more visits for your blog from Twitter. At the same time, Twitters really is a numbers game at a certain level. Just because you add someone with similar interests on Twitter to you doesn't mean that they will actually interact with you. So, the more people you add, the better.

Hot Girl Camisole:

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, August 16, 2010

Kenny Rogers Punk'd

There You Go AgainImage via Wikipedia
After several serious, boring posts, I've decided to get back to doing what I like the most: posting lots of Youtube videos centered around immature humor. This one is Mad TV's impression of Punk'D featuring Kenny Rogers.

To quote Kenny, how could he not know he was going to get kicked in the balls?

Hot School Girl:

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, August 12, 2010

What Marriage is -- response to Critics

The world's first drivers' licence, issued by ...Image via Wikipedia

I've had a rather vocal critic over the past few days visiting the blog and throwing down challenges in the comment box. Never one to pass up a good challenge (assuming I have the time to answer), I thought that I would respond.

First, his initial statement about what marriage isn't:

What is "marriage" anyway? "Marriage" isn't about love. You can be in love and not be married. You can be married and not be in love. "Marriage" isn't about sex. You can have sex and not be married. You can be married and not have sex. "Marriage" isn't about children. You can have children and not be married. You can be married and not have children. "Marriage" isn't about religion. You can be an atheist and be married. You can be married without a preacher. "Marriage" isn't about vows. You can make vows without being married. You can be married without vows, only an affirmation; "I do". "Marriage" isn't about rings. You can wear rings without being married. You can be married without exchanging rings. Marriage is legally only about property, citizenship, kinship and inheritance. The marriage license is an application for State and Federal benefits granted a specific class of people. All arguments about love, romance, reproduction, religious dogma, tradition and family values are PERSONAL BAGGAGE and cultural ignorance of the legal fiction called marriage. Arguments that aren't about property, citizenship, kinship and inheritance are moot, leaving out most arguments against same sex marriage. Supporters and h8ters both need to learn what marriage ISN'T before trying to argue what it IS. Denying US Citizens benefits granted others on the basis of their sexual orientation is unconstitutional. Denying gays benefits because they offend the sensibilities of bigots is no more valid than denying the bigots the same benefits because "I" am offended by them. - Anonymous
 First off, let me say that I agree with about the first 1/2 of the statement. There are a lot of things in life that marriage is not about that seem to get inserted into the debate.What marriage is about, in a  short sentence (unless Walker gets his way) is regulating procreation. As the author points out, it is not about procreation itself (as many people have children outside of marriage) but about the regulation of procreation.

As a parallel example, consider my article about gay marriage leading to drivers licenses for the blind. Having a drivers license is NOT about driving (by the same arguments as above) because you can drive without a license. However, it IS about regulation of driving, just like marriage is about the regulation of procreation by the state. In the case of driving, most people avoid driving without a license because the penalties are so severe. In the case of procreating without a marriage, the penalties are not severe enough (perhaps unfortunately) to prevent most people from doing so.

Strangely enough, I also agree with the author's assertions that:

"Marriage is legally only about property, citizenship, kinship and inheritance. The marriage license is an application for State and Federal benefits granted a specific class of people"
 To this, I would add the part of the definition that he left out and say that it is done to regulate procreation for the benefit of children. But, yes, marriage is about that, and only that. It is NOT an inalienable right granted to us under the constitution (other than if someone has a right to marry a person of the opposite sex so do you under the equal protection clause) -- only an issue of state recognition of  an institution and licensing system created for a specific purpose.

All arguments about love, romance, reproduction, religious dogma, tradition and family values are PERSONAL BAGGAGE and cultural ignorance of the legal fiction called marriage.

One persons religious dogma is another persons moral values I would say. All laws are ultimately based on morality, so I see no reason to demonize moral values. Also, love romance, family and tradition all seem to be good things to me. What, did the author not get enough hugs when he or she was young? Is that the reason for the acrimony against family, etc?

Arguments that aren't about property, citizenship, kinship and inheritance are moot, leaving out most arguments against same sex marriage
 I would acquiesce to the fact that most arguments against same sex marriage touch on these ideas at some point, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that all arguments against same sex marriage that touch on ideas outside of these points are invalid. I'm personally pretty careful about using words like "all" anyway since it is easier to prove such statements wrong. 

Denying US Citizens benefits granted others on the basis of their sexual orientation is unconstitutional. Denying gays benefits because they offend the sensibilities of bigots is no more valid than denying the bigots the same benefits because "I" am offended by them.

This is the point where the argument gets confusing. Didn't the author just say, only a few sentences ago, that marriage is a licensing issue? So, which is it? Is it a "fundament right" or the state "granting a license"?  In the first case, fundamental rights are protected under the constitution. In the latter, it's something akin to the state allowing people to go hunting, a license which they can deny to any subgroup of people for an arbitrary reason.

Even though the comment had a good start, it seemed to fall apart and contradict itself by the end. I guess that the authors stopping point was a good one so that he or she avoided seeming even more silly.

Cute Heterosexual Girls:

Enhanced by Zemanta

Proposition 8 Decision -- Giving Blind People the Legal Right to Drive Since 2010

Image of an Austrian driver's license, valid 1...Image via Wikipedia
I've been thinking about the Proposition 8 decision a lot lately, and I've decided that it can be extended beyond licensing homosexuals to marry to other types of licenses. All you need is a sort of shared complicity between the plaintiffs, judge, defense attorney, and media to make it work. At last, you can help blind people obtain the fundamental right that they've been so long denied: the right to have a drivers license!

Here's how:


1.Make sure to file the case in a district where you're sure that the judge will be sympathetic towards the cause of the blind. In fact, it would be even better if the judge were secretly blind himself, although there has to be enough ambiguity there that nobody knows the status of the judge's sight abilities for certain. Also, make sure that your blind-loving judge is the chief judge in his district so that he can be sure to assign himself to the case.


2.Have the judge attempt from the start to make the case as much of a show trial as possible. Try at first to get cameras into the court room so that you can have something akin to the "Scopes Monkey" trial. When a higher court overturns that, insist on a bench trial, as opposed to a narrow legal ruling, so that you can create as much of a circus environment as possible.

3. Turn the issue of licensing (a state right) into an issue involving the U.S. constitution by creating a fundamental right where none existed before. To bolster this, use the country's unfortunate racist history to bring in decisions about sighted black people having the right to drive a car and make the large legal jump to all blind people having the right to a drivers license.

4. When people object and say that, even in principle, a blind person can't drive a car, make sure to claim that the original laws prohibiting people from driving a car were based only on "moral" grounds. Don't mention the fact, in your ruling, that blind people can't drive a car safely, even in principle. In fact, make sure to avoid any discussion of that rather obvious point in your decision at all costs.

5. To further bolster your decision, and to make it harder to overturn on appeal, use the bench trial to find several "facts" about the case -- 80 or so should do the trick. Make the findings as broad as possible, including a combination of facts that are laughable misrepresented (i.e. "your chances historically of being hit by a blind driver are much lower than your chances of being hit by a sighted driver"), thinly veiled ad hominem attacks on the law's original authors (i.e. "the laws were misrepresented to the voters and passed to oppress blind people"), and facts disputed by the the general scientific consensus (i.e. "blind people are better at detecting peripheral objects than sighted people") . When people object, particularly to the unscientific facts, have your supporters in the media meekly explain that, these facts are supported by the evidence presented at trial. However, make no mention of this in your decision, instead pretending like these facts are universally known and accepted in the scientific community.

Defense Attorneys:

6. Make sure that the defense of the current drivers license laws is lead by the most bumbling and inept attorney that you can possibly find, one that almost certainly found his juris doctorate in the bottom of a Cracker Jack box. Have him give evasive and stupid answers when asked relatively simple questions, answers like, "I don't know" and "I don't need to present evidence of that." Also, have the defense counsel call idiots as witnesses that repeatedly contradict points of their own testimony and actually act to support the plaintiff's position. Also, only call two witnesses (compared with the plaintiff's 20 or so witnesses, even though there are scores of expert witnesses to choose from who would be happy to testify and could greatly strengthen your case.


 7. Have your supporters in the media celebrate the ruling that you make as widely and loudly as possible. Make sure to leave out any legal or logical flaws in the ruling -- those things shouldn't detract from the "historic ruling" that extends "equal rights to all".

8. Also make sure that your friends in the media marginalize anyone who opposes your ruling as "old fashioned", "ignorant", or "bigoted". This works even better if you can find a single group among the many who opposed your ruling and fought for passage of the original laws -- say . . . I don't know . . . the Mormons -- and point out all of the silliness in their history as justification for the silliness your judge friend just passed in court.

9. Downplay any "slippery slope" arguments that crop up as a result of the ruling as "ridiculous". Say things like, "A blind person driving a car makes perfect sense, but this is a totally different case from a quadriplegic driving a car. And, two or more blind people driving the same car at the same time? I can't even begin to tell you what's wrong with that idea!"

Using this method, society can help to rectify the injustices long suffered by the blind and ensure that the fundamental right to a drivers license is enjoyed by all!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, August 9, 2010

D Cimber Flicks Update -- please don't stop the music

I thought that I would update my readers with one of the newest videos from a couple of aspiring musicians who go by the name of "D Cimber Flicks" and their cover of "Please Don't Stop the Music" by Rihanna. If you've never heard them before, they do quite a nice job singing, at least IMHO. Without further ado:

Leave me a comment and tell me what you think. Do you think that they can make it big?

If you want to check out more of their music, check out their Youtube channel

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Three Arguments Against Gay Marriage

I'm not going to post too many more times on this topic because I like to keep my posts and my interests fluid in life. Since the religious arguments against gay or same gender marriage are probably more widely known and easier to understand, I found a video on Youtube that explains some of the secular arguments against gay marriage, made by a legal scholar speaking at UC Berkeley. As usual, if my esteemed readers are too lazy to watch the video, I summarize the content briefly in my comments below.

The gentleman in this video presents three basic secular arguments in this video against gay marriage.

1. Gay marriage is radical: Heterosexual marriage has been the norm for our society since its inception. Moreover, nearly every society in the world, and in the world's history, has embraced some form of heterosexual marriage while very few have ever embraced homosexual marriage. The gentleman also points out that the right to marriage, especially gay marriage is not present under the "positivist" view of the law (in other words, the right is never specifically mentioned as existing in the constitution). Thus, in order to transform the institution of traditional marriage, gay marriage advocates have the "burden of proof" in explaining why society should accept gay marriage.

I agree with this point wholeheartedly.

2. Gay marriage is risky: Because gay marriage is such a radical departure from past ideals and institutions present in our society, the consequences of instituting this new right will likely be difficult to predict. I covered some of the ripple effects that could potentially occur from gay marriage in both a serious and humorous way in a couple of my previous posts. The speaker also states that a transition away from marriage may have been partially responsible for the fall of Roman society.

While I agree with the basic premise of his arguments (and have posted both serious and humorous supporting material), I would like to see more support for his idea about a change away from traditional marriage being a partial cause of the decline and fall of Roman civilization. While the idea is interesting, to my knowledge it isn't a commonly known idea or fact and needs to be substantiated heavily before I can accept it.

3. Gay marriage is a departure from the norm: The speaker argues in this video that gay relationship comprise only a small minority of all relationships that exist in society. The speaker then argues that the three options for this situation are: prohibition, tolerance, and acceptance. The speaker then argues against the latter because, although some gay people are good people, the characteristics of the group -- including high rates of infidelity and STD infection rates -- are undesirable.

I agree with this point as well. Unfortunately, if gay marriage is ultimately legalized, I can see a very plausible future where traditional marriage is no longer the norm in our society, as I have mentioned in an earlier post.

Happy Family:

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, August 6, 2010

Proposition 8 -- The end of marriage (in 50 years)

I found an interesting video on Youtube that inspired me to write another post, this time about why gay marriage is ultimately bad for and will harm society by dissolving the institution of marriage. As always, if my readers are too lazy to watch the video, I have summarized the main points below.

To summarize, marriage -- in the opinion of Mr. Keyes (apparently a former opponent of Obama in some past political race) if you take away the idea of centering marriage around procreation, you take away the need for marriage altogether. The conveyance of these ideas by Keyes in the video is a bit strained (largely due to repeated interruptions by the host) but, to summarize, Keyes was restating the observation that the exceptions don't disprove the rule. I agree wholeheartedly. Let me explain.

How does "the exceptions don't disprove the rules" apply to gay marriage?

Let me start my argument by stating two facts that I hold to be "self evident": 1. Marriage exists and has existed in nearly every culture in the history of the world and 2. Marriage is mainly centered around the idea of regulating procreation. The first point is easy to prove, simply because even a small amount of research will verify that practically every culture on earth, even those sometimes considered "primitive" by western standards, has a form of marriage. If you don't believe me, try Googling it. The second point is a bit more difficult to argue but can probably be adequately proved through an observation that the reason why marriage is ubiquitous is because the requirement for procreation is ubiquitous.

Assuming these two propositions, then the establishment of marriage for the purpose of regulating procreation becomes "the rule" and marriages for other reasons -- including couples who are infertile, don't want kids, are too old to have children, are of the same sex, etc. -- become "exceptions". Also, as happens in every other institution in the world, the exceptions cannot disprove the rule. Another example of this is the concept that people shouldn't steal food from grocery stores but a man does steal food in one particular case because his family is starving. In that one case (or other cases like it) the theft was justified; in general, it isn't.

But how will letting gays marry "dissolve" the institution of marriage? Why are the two even related?

Again, to prove this point, I refer back to the arguments made by Keyes in the video. Essentially, what he argued here was that, in principle, any heterosexual couple can conceive a biological child. An infertile or older couple can use fertility treatments or in vitro fertilization and a couple that doesn't want kids can change their mind and decide to have kids. Gay couples, without extensive intervention from science, cannot have kids, not even in principle.

Without getting into the discussion of whether gay couples can adopt kids (they can) or whether they make good parents (some do, some don't probably), let me refer the argument back to the original premise: marriage is about society's ability to regulate procreation. If you allow marriages that are literally impossible for parents to produce natural offspring in, even in principle, you essentially negate the need for marriage at all. Why else would marriage exist if not to facilitate procreation?

That's the entirety of Keyes' argument from the video. For my part, I would like to agree with his viewpoint and expand on this a bit in the next section.

If marriage no longer exists to govern procreation, why have marriage at all?

This is the 800 pound elephant in the room that nobody in the gay rights movement wants to address directly. Ask any gay marriage advocate what the purpose of securing the right of gays to marry is, and they're sure to say something about equal rights. I have yet to meet one who says openly, "We want to do away with the institution of marriage." Yet, if you're going to allow marriages that negate the reason for having marriage in the first place, society will have two logical choices left: a) dissolve the institution of marriage (either gradually or suddenly) or b) change the reason behind having the institution.

From what I've seen from the gay marriage advocacy movement, they've opted (at least publicly) for the latter approach. In place of marriage as a vehicle to regulate procreation, gay marriage advocates have decided to redesign it as a relationship based on "mutual attraction, love and affection". While this sound difficult to refute on the surface (who can argue against love?) it has some interesting outcomes if you take it to the logical conclusions. I think that gay marriage advocates refer to this as the "slippery slope" argument, something that has admittedly been discussed before but I would like to rehash again to make a few points.

The road to polygamy and more:

When marriage eventually becomes (as I believe it will) to be associated with love between people instead of regulating marriage, there is really nothing to stop it from including more than two people in that "love bond". Why not three people? or four? If marriage is really only about love, then why not allow "big love" (pun intended) to replace the smaller love of traditional marriage. For example, say that a woman has a husband and a lesbian lover. With the only requirement for marriage being love, why can't she love, and be married to, both partners simultaneously?

Okay, fine, we'll have polygamy then: so what?

Unfortunately, situations like these can be taken to ridiculous extremes. If three is okay, how about four, five, six? How about a cult leader who wants to marry all 150 of his followers? What about a man who wants to marry a new woman every week without bothering to divorce his current wives? Even though situations like these might elicit scorn from the current gay marriage movement, I would bet good money that the ACLU will be defending cases like these in 20 years.

And the absurdity doesn't need to stop there. For example, what about incestuous relationships? If marriage is only about love, why not let brother and sister or mother and son (or daughter) marry? Why not take it to even a further extreme and allow children to marry? After all, if a 15 year old boy can be tried for murder as an adult, surely he can be allowed to marry as an adult as well.

I could even see the marriages becoming more absurd from there. What about if a man wants to marry his horse, or a woman who is already deceased? What if he wants to marry a futuristic robot or even a ham sandwich?

But, gay marriage is legal in some parts of the world, and this hasn't happened.

Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it's not going to happen someday. If you expect to see an institution as embedded as marriage disappear, you have to give it a while to happen.

Even in places like Canada, where gay marriage is legal, my guess would be that, if I were to poll 100 people on the street, the majority of them would have some notion that a "traditional marriage" is the model that most people in society either follow or strive to emulate. However, I really don't see, in an environment of "anything goes" with respect to marriage, I just don't see how that common perception of traditional marriage as being the standard can last. At most, I'd give it 50 years -- after gay marriage, polygamy, etc. have been legalized and embraced by society -- that the majority of the people on the street would not say that traditional marriage is the norm. And, when that happens, society is going to change dramatically.

And that will lead to the end of marriage, at least in the form in which society presently knows it. But, the implications of that are best left for another post.

Enhanced by Zemanta


Related Posts with Thumbnails
comments powered by Disqus