Saturday, November 15, 2008



Since I wrote this, I have had something of a change of conclusion on this topic. Not because I have changed the opinions I wrote below, but because the basis/criterion for marriage in our country is not really as I described it. The one I used is, essentially, obsolete.

We no longer, in fact, consider marriage a contract between a reproducing couple and Society for the purpose of raising up the next generation of mothers and warriors. We, pretty much, as a historically ill-educated mob, believe marriage to be about (awwwww.....) "love"

You know, something akin to big-eyed puppies and rainbow-farting unicorns.

So, since we have descended into this morass of effulgent emotionalism, we no longer have an argument to keep people from marrying chimps or goats or their mommies. If marriage is about (awwwww......) "love" (and it seems that we have, as a culture, decided that it is) refusing to allow gays to marry is just kind of pointless and a little cruel.

After all, they (awwwww.....) "love" each other.

My argument below was operating on notions and societal rules that are no longer in effect. We passed beyond that boundary sometime while we were sleeping. 

The Gunslinger  (February 19, 2011)


Marriage recognized by the state is a privilege...not a right. And society deems it good to reward the privilege of marriage to those people who are willing to vow fidelity to each other for the purpose of making and raising the next generation.

"Marriage" is not about "love" or the "fulfillment of the partners" or any other such drivel. It is about the recognition by society that couples thus dedicated will be taking on the burden of perpetuating the species.

Homosexual unions simply don't qualify for this particular privilege.

Society does, actually, have some right to determine upon whom it will confer privileges.

And every privilege conferred by society is not a "civil right" automatically due to everyone.

Homosexuals have the EXACT same right to marry as I do. I have to marry a member of the opposite sex. So do they. There is no "discrimination" at all.

They want "special" rights for themselves: The privilege of marriage without the duties & responsibilities.

(Gay part of the radical homosexual "marriage" agenda, it is not an argument, it's circular reasoning!)

It's quite simple really.

Heterosexuality is the norm. Obviously. If it were not, we would not be here. Heterosexuality is the planetary norm. Homosexuality is a deviation from the norm.

Assuming for the moment that homosexuality is inherent, it may be considered "natural", but it can't be considered "normal".

I don't hate homosexuals anymore than I hate people born blind. But it makes as much sense to privilege homosexuals with marriage as to privilege the blind with drivers licenses.

They are not qualified.

The Gunslinger


  1. Homosexuality has no value to the State.

    The State has a vested interest in privileging the institution of hetrosexual marriage above all others, as it produces and nurtures the next generation of Americans. It must maintain a previledged place, because with it, there is no future.

    Homsexuality should be discouraged, as it creates social costs of managing STDs and spreading HIV. Homosexual sex is unhealthy, unnatural, and should never be endorsed by the State by licensing such practices.

    Homosexuality is a disorder that needs treatment, not endorsements using state licensing vehicles.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Would you mind if we changed "The State" to "Society"?

    As in: "Homosexuality has no value to Society."

    And, "Society has a vested interest in..."

    I prefer to use "The State" to mean our enemy...the greatest threat to freedom.

    Otherwise...right on!

  3. I would only caveat, that the State, not society, licenses marriage. I believe that to be the only interest of the secular State, to promote procreation and protect its fruit (so to speak). I would agree that homosexuality has no value to society as you said (or the preservation of the human race for that matter), but its the State which decides what it will or won't license.

    Society at large, can do whatever the hell it wants, and generally does ...given no moral constraints. Homosexual movements would probably be satisfied if States stopped licensing any kind of marriage, but I believe the plight of children would worsen in society at large, as legal motives to protect and nurture them would be destroyed. What would replace marraige would be a complicated set of legalisms that would certainly cause children to question their purpose and value as a member of a family or society in general. The institution has been destroyed by defacto in Hollywood (seen a passe), and the elite pass children and pardners around like furniture.

    Homosexuals want State licenses for marriage for one purpose, to force society (churches included) to legally accept these relationships.

    I don't advocate big Government, but licensing marriage for the protection and nurturing the next generation has benefited our society in my view. For that reason, hetrosexual marriage should be uniquely recognized and protected.

    If States didnt license any type of marriage, this wouldn't be an issue for homosexuals.

    You know, the left has redefined tolerance. It used to mean, "agree to disagree". The left has changed the meaning to "accept all values as equal to your own".

    Someone told me one time, that I was a bigot for not believing Buddists would go to heaven. I told them if I believed that, I would be a Buddist.

    Cheers. Enjoy your perspective.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. If we had a strong cultural base we could retreat to like the Amish or certain Muslims, this might be a good thing.

    Tie the state to the success of progressive policies and force Joe six-pack to deal with them.

    We've fought long enough. Let the common man deal with it. It might enlighten them.

  5. Wilber, I only meant the term, the particular words "The State" not actual government.

    THE STATE is a tyrant. American GOVERNMENT is supposed to be of, by and for the people...and should generally be a reflection of majority society, not be the one forcing us to accept things we don't want or approve of.

    When American Government does that, it becomes THE STATE...the enemy.

    "I don't advocate big Government, but licensing marriage for the protection and nurturing the next generation has benefited our society in my view. For that reason, hetrosexual marriage should be uniquely recognized and protected."

    Yep. Precisely my point.

  6. Anon, the Common Man is being victimized by the elites and their parasites in our story. (This isn't Atlas Shrugged.)

    "Joe Six-Pack", The Forgotten Man, is us!

  7. Of course the common man is being victimized by the elites.

    By Joe six-pack I meant the great mass of people who don't get involved or informed. The masses that still get their info from TV news.

    I see the marriage debate as aimed at the children primarily.

    Between private, Christian, and home schools, there are a lot of opportunities to "opt out". With the status of public education, we should probably do that anyway. If enough kids come home spouting homosexual dogma it will get the attention of the politically unmotivated better than any activism on our part.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. Ryan Faraday16/4/09 3:04 PM

    As funny as it is that I'm gay and posting here, I have to say I agree with some part of what you wrote. First of all, I do not agree with many things you wrote on this blog, and the only reason I even came here was because I was googling my favorite book, the Gunslinger. And I also support President Obama.

    Either way, the point is - and most homosexuals will not accept this - that homosexuality ís a deviation from the norm, and that heterosexuality ís the norm.

    Also, I think same-sex marriage is a bit awkward. Not only because of the sense of tradition connected to it that now seems "mutated" (poor choice of words, I know) - but also the point that indeed marriage is intended (in my eyes, at least) as a commitment to carry on the human race together. If it were an expression of love, any form of legal contract would do - such things are already available to homosexuals.

    If they (perhaps I should say "we"?) want equal rights, then indeed why should there be a gay parade? Why should they be "proud" of being gay, when heterosexuals are never "proud" of being straight? Equality means you don't stick out in a negative light, but also don't overdo things in order to make things look overly positive. My advice is, have a seperate form of "love-contract" (poor choice of words, again) for homosexuals and leave marriage in the traditional sense of the word to those who will bring forth the next generation.

  9. I'm late to the show, but my position has always been "Why shouldn't homosexuals know the joys of divorce court?"

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. Sorry to see you've changed your views. It demonstrates the decline of our society when 6000 years of tradition is wholely destroyed based on an emotional argument that denying gay marriage may hurt someone's feelings.

    When I see emotional comments like this, it makes me wonder whether women should have ever been allowed to vote. You were right the first time. Stand with your principles, or fall with your compromises.

  11. My views haven't changed. The culture has. I wrote the update in a moment of pique. I should delete it...but I hate to obscure the record.