Aug
06
2013

Ah, the pitfalls of same-sex marriage. …Which is to say, bourgeois expectations.

Speaking as a same-sex marriage supporter myself, my reaction to this email that Glenn Reynolds got (“Gay Couples May Be Pressured into Marriage: Benefits May Be Terminated for Unmarried Same-Sex Couples”) is the same as Glenn’s: “Well, yes. Just like straight people!”

…Yeah, sorry to tell folks this: but coming with the ability to get married is this entire societal expectation that you will get married. I understand that some sub-demographics of the gay community are a bit upset about this: ach, well, cultural assimilation is a trial for us all.

Moe Lane

PS: Just wait until it becomes clearer that our ongoing fertility rate problem will eventually produce the societal expectation that of course gay couples will adopt, too.

PPS: Yes, I know: it is great fun to stay up until 3 AM drinking at clubs. I dimly remember such things, before I married and had kids. Alas, while my current state of mind is hardly misery… it loves company, too.

12 Comments

  • acat says:

    Heh. If I’m up at 3:00am, it’s because a server has puked, not because I have or am going to.
    .
    That said, this is part of why I’ve thought gays trying to ape straights by getting married is a foolish notion .. why not, instead, create a social status that is uniquely (and more suitably) gay? Why marriage, with all it’s limitations and legal liabilities?
    .
    Eh. Suppose I’ll just file it under “be careful what you wish for”.
    .
    Mew

  • jbird says:

    File this under, “be careful what you wish for”.

  • Robert Mitchell Jr. says:

    Now, sir, show a little sympathy. They were not the ones pushing for “Gay Marriage”. It has, from the start, been a vanity project for the Democrats and the Left, a chance to get the Civil Rights movement right this time. The numbers from Canada show the reality. The adoption thing does warm my heart. How karmically pure that the vain rich liberal women who pushed this might “lose their Right To Choose!?!” (We can’t fill the demand for adoptions now, thanks to the lack of babies and a Vile and Racist bureaucracy. Imagine the pressure when it becomes required…..).

  • Cameron says:

    So being treated like everyone else isn’t as much fun as they thought. heh.

    • jbird says:

      I bet they will be subject to the marriage tax penalty at a higher rate as well. Maybe the Log Cabin Republican and GOProud ranks will swell.

      Divorce, alimony, and child support/custody issues should be a trip for the courts.

  • Aruges says:

    How does adoption fix a fertility rate problem?

    • acat says:

      Who says they’re adopting local product, Aruges?
      .
      Mew

      • Aruges says:

        Ah, yes. However, I’ll bet that even if society encourages married homosexual couples to adopt, the amount will be vanishingly small. So far, countries and states that instituted same sex marriage have seen very few actual marriages beyond the first year or so of availability. Perhaps this will change, but given the weakening of support for marriage in the hetero population, I have my doubts.

        • acat says:

          The benefits, to men, of being married have been declining dramatically. It’s well beyond getting milk gratis.
          .
          Mew

    • Moe_Lane says:

      Lots of countries out there that inexplicably don’t value girl babies.

  • Christine says:

    Interesting – didn’t see this one coming. Of course, any company which expanded benefits to any unmarried “domestic partners” will have a tougher time backing out…but with ObamaCare looming, perhaps…

    • jbird says:

      Shoot, I lost my medical benefits from my wife’s company and we’ve been married 13 years (thanks Obamacare!). They dropped all spouse coverage for anyone who couldn’t prove an inability to get insurance elsewhere. Obamacare only mandates coverage of “children” under 26, not spouses.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com