|
Drift
Reality > Washington,
DC > Gay Marriage
In
July 2004, GW gave a radio address in which he reaffirmed his
support of a constitutional ban on gay marriage:
A
great deal is at stake in this matter. The union of a man and
woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution,
and the law can teach respect or disrespect for that institution.
If our laws teach that marriage is the sacred commitment of a
man and a woman, the basis of an orderly society, and the defining
promise of a life, that strengthens the institution of marriage.
If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as
a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural,
religious, and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is
lost, and the institution is weakened.
In
supporting the constitutional ban, Bush was reaffirming his support
for the conservative Christians who are such an influential part
of his constituency. In the eyes of many (including myself), he
was also overstepping his bounds and blurring the lines between
church and state while implicitly calling same-sex marriages "unnatural."
I
would like to add a third view on this political situation, called
the "Gay Marriage = Good for Straight Men" perspective.
My logic relies on the following axioms:
1.
Gay men tend to have characteristics that are appealing to heterosexual
women.
2. Lesbians (I'm not talking about the lesbians you see in Vivid
Videos) tend not to have characteristics that are appealing to
heterosexual men.
3. Gayness
is proportional to the number of gay men added to the number of
gay women in the general population.
Using
axiom #3, I establish the following:
[more
gayness] = [higher proportion of gay men] + [higher proportion
of lesbians]
Through
the transitive property of equality, I can then reason as follows:
[more
gayness] = [higher proportion of men who are attractive to straight
women are unavailable to them] + [higher proportion of women who
tend to be unattractive to straight men are unavailable to them]
or,
from a straight male-centric perspective,
[more
gayness] = [smaller proportion of men who are attractive to straight
women are available to them] + [smaller proportion of women who
tend to be unattractive to us are available to us]
The
qualitative explanation of this equation would the be, "Widespread
gayness leads to less competition for attractive women while decreasing
the number of women who we tend to be unattracted to."
Basically, I have just proven how the long-term effects of gayness
benefit straight guys. This is why when a straight guy is homophobic,
I automatically explain my "Good for Straight Men" theory
to him. If he still is homophobic, I assume
he is either gay himself, and in-the-closet; or simply too stupid
to understand my logic. (Foot note: This assumption is applicable
to the Christian-Right)
Now, here is the tie-in with gay
marriage: There are still a large number of men, who are gay and
they don't want to accept their gayness because it is frowned
down upon by popular society. I feel very strongly that marriage,
as an institution that involves a union between two individuals,
should be blind to sexuality just as it is blind to race, religions,
and culture. Once there is no more institutionalized discrimination
against gays, it is just a matter of time before all those in-the-closet
gays start affirming their gayness, stop occupying the interest
of straight women, and start making the world a better place for
straight men.
I suggest that all straight men
start adopting my theory. Instead of being homophobic, I think
more straight men should encourage homosexuality in guys who are
obviously in-the-closet as a way to decrease the total number
of straight men (and alternative options for women) in the world.
Hell, with enough hard work, we might someday live in a utopia
where straight women outnumber straight men 10-1.
Think about it.
|
