If monogamy is defining quality for marriage, should we permit female-female marriage but not male-male marriage?

Sorry, lesbianism is not compatible with conservative principles, and this idea would be completely sexist to boot.

women in charge usually spells trouble concerning production, moral, profit, growth, organization, creative expansion and an endless list of other problems, not the least of witch is the never ending need to deligate the meat of the work to men. i have seen it over and over in my own business life. many women understand but fear the “sista hood”. another “problem” that doesn’t seem to be solved when women are in charge is their penchant for favoritism toward other women. more specifically, not holding women accountable to the degree men are held. not being catholic or a believer, as such, i should conclude the church understands this very well. some churches ARE putting women in the top spots and the results are there to see. they lose their men quickly and become a hen house. ok by me!

Here’s a model that has worked since the dawn of human history: Man + Woman = marriage.

It’s just that simple.

I understand in MA that one can marry their same-sex brother and sister. Such an enlightened and free-thinking crowd of people is hard to match with reality.

If women wish to hook up together as ‘married couples’, then let them go right ahead. Then they can put up with what men have had to for so long. Apart from that, I care not a whit what they want, but I will watch with wry amusement as they rip each other apart in Family Courts. At least it will be two for the price of one.

As for the suggestion that it would be OK for two women but not for two men, pure sexism – if a man said it. Women of course have carte blanche to say whatever divisive thing comes into their heads.

Lets take Government out of the religious institution of marriage all together…..that includes divorce and family law as well.

The 2 women scenario would rob a sex strike of its power but cause a boom in strap-ons. Buy stock in pastics companies.

One of the reasons fidelity was important to men was that a woman’s promise of fidelity meant a man could be assured any kids she bore were his. Men had no interested in raising other men’s children. Today, of course, men paying for another man’s child is required by law.

Two women create a different situation. They reproduce independently–either the old-fashioned way or by use of a sperm donation. By definition, at least one is raising someone else’s child, so the traditional reason for resisting adultery does not apply to lesbians (or gay men).

There is, of course, the emotional effect, but the law doesn’t care about that.

It’s my observation that the reason for fidelity has been forgotten–it was to ensure a child had a bio mom and dad.

And I agree with Virtue–it’s time to take the government out of marriage. What was once a holy sacrament has become a den of thieves.

What is this insane feminist propaganda doing on MND?

There is little evidence that lesbians are monogamous. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that NOW wants gay marriage so a women can fully replace men in the institution of marriage.

There is nothing to be learned, no wisdom to be gained by these sorts of preposterous musings about the vicarious advantages of sick lifestyles.

David R. Usher said,

What is this insane feminist propaganda doing on MND?

(Denise) This isn’t feminist propaganda, Mr. Usher. I was just pointing out where we might go from taking certain premises to their logical conclusions.

Usher: There is little evidence that lesbians are monogamous.

(Denise) It was Midge Decter, not I, who wrote “women are by nature monogamous.” I actually don’t believe women are any more monogamous by nature than men are. However, it is common knowledge that lesbians usually from unions in which the parties are “supposed” to be faithful to each other while gay men tend to incorporate allowances for the parties to have relationships with others.

Usher: There is plenty of evidence suggesting that NOW wants gay marriage so a women can fully replace men in the institution of marriage.

(Denise) “Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.” Female-female relationships may end up showing that they’re as full of cheating and beating and squabbles as male-female relationships and that the flaws ascribed to “how men are” are really flaws about “how people are.”

Usher: There is nothing to be learned, no wisdom to be gained by these sorts of preposterous musings about the vicarious advantages of sick lifestyles.

(Denise) What about their disadvantages? Or the problems that are exactly the same as those in heterosexual relationships?
Have a nice day.

Denise,

I do not debate radical feminists. As you have aptly demonstrated, there are no morals, rationality, or balance in pursuit of their goals.

Have a nice day, all by yourself.

Denise said:

“It was Midge Decter, not I, who wrote “women are by nature monogamous.” I actually don’t believe women are any more monogamous by nature than men are. However, it is common knowledge that lesbians usually from unions in which the parties are “supposed” to be faithful to each other while gay men tend to incorporate allowances for the parties to have relationships with others.
”

The longer I’ve lived, the more convinced I’ve become that women cheat just as much as men, but that men are more honest about their cheating than women. Women pretend to virtues they have not.

As a culture, we keep buying into the myth that men cheat more than women without raising a basic question: who are these men cheating with? The answer is usually “with a woman.” So for every man cheating there’s a woman cheating. The rules of math say the numbers are equal.

I find it to be an interesting cultural blinder.

David R. Usher said,

Denise,

I do not debate radical feminists.

(Denise) So I’m a “radical feminist”? Please check out:
“Differing Pay for Men’s and Women’s Sports is Justifiable”
“Courtesy and Society’s Matriarchal Aspect”
“Fear and Men”
“Gangsterdom and the Man’s World Myth”
“Men’s Socialization into Risk and Expendability”
“The Titanic and What Men Are Like”

I don’t think the above essays, all of which I wrote, would find favor with those usually called “radical feminists.”

I think that homosexual and heterosexual marriage should be treated the same.

Both should be abolished!

bobh…good show chap!

It appears that both women and men, and perhaps a few in-the-closet LGBT spokespersonmanwomentrannieambiguousdikefaghermaphrodite….

are questioning the biological certainty of gender assignment.

Now what?

No no no, David. Denise is no radical feminist. She explores the field, often very pro-men, pro-rational, but also, often, confused. Infuriating ain’t it.

If lesbians do not need men, how do they get pregnant? Last I knew, sperm (as in the seed FROM A MAN is what makes the egg worth something) was required.

So a femikook utopia with no men, how long would it last? One generation I would surmise. Right?

What has this got to do with the topic? Nothing. I was just curious….

TMOTS

Hello Denise,

I can’t help but comment about how this ties into another thread we had about women spending most of their time fearing sex and men spending most of their time wanting it (and how this relates to the “scientific” notion that women are as capable of enjoying sex if not moreso than men.)

Lesbians don’t have as much sex as gay men because lesbians don’t enjoy sex as much as men, silly! It’s interesting that the other traditional gender roles are often reversed (the gay men being into fashion and grooming and the lesbians looking like they just came out of home depot.)

The worst problem of any failed marriage is what to do about the children and that would tend to be a greater problem with lesbians since they have the ability to gestate children and the gay men don’t.

PolishKnight said,

Hello Denise,

I can’t help but comment about how this ties into another thread we had about women spending most of their time fearing sex and men spending most of their time wanting it (and how this relates to the “scientific” notion that women are as capable of enjoying sex if not moreso than men.)

(Denise) Mark, does anyone know how to read when they read what I write????? Most women don’t spend most of their time fearing sex! I can’t understand why I’m so completely misinterpreted in my beliefs about male and female sexuality. Both men and women may enjoy sex. Both men and women may want sex. Neither men nor women are naturally monogamous. However, monogamy is an adaptation to the fact that both men and women are naturally jealous.
The difference: sex for women is both more high risk and more high return. They have more to risk in partnered sex than men do and are more likely to have painful or neutral experiences. They have a higher possible return in their potential for more and stronger orgasms. Have I made myself clear? Again: sex for women is broader in its range with a potential for more problems and a potential for more pleasure.

PolishKnight: Lesbians don’t have as much sex as gay men because lesbians don’t enjoy sex as much as men, silly!

(Denise) Enjoyment is not the same thing as desire! As Arianna Huffington once observed, “Men have greater drive and women have greater capacity.”
Boredom can set in during any longterm relationship. However, since women desire sex somewhat less than men — even though we have the potential to enjoy it more — Lesbian Bed Death is notorious. However, straight couples and (gasp!) yes, even gay male couples can stop being intimate after they’ve been together for a long time. Gore Vidal said that he and his male life partner had stopped being intimate a few years before the man’s death.
When you have a full bladder, you probably have a more urgent desire to empty it than you usually experience to have an orgasm. Does that mean you enjoy urinating more than you enjoy climaxing?

PolishKnight: It’s interesting that the other traditional gender roles are often reversed (the gay men being into fashion and grooming and the lesbians looking like they just came out of home depot.)

The worst problem of any failed marriage is what to do about the children and that would tend to be a greater problem with lesbians since they have the ability to gestate children and the gay men don’t.

(Denise) That might be right.

amfortas,

I see no anger from Denise in this article. She takes a National Review piece and happily carries it to the next feminist logical conclusion. That is what radical feminists do.

This is the same kind of garbage that goes on in Dave Blankenhorn’s organization. All these supposedly pro-marriage people “study” all sorts of strange things, but when it comes to making a conclusion, they can’t come to one. These people do not study to reach logical conclusions, they study things in the Frankfurt School style. In the end, Blankenhorn’s people end up sitting on child support advisory panels.

Its rather like the old National Geographic Society of the early 1900′s “studying” the primitive cultures of the south sea islands, featuring with great curiosity the women who did not wear much of anything — all in the name of “science”. Similarly, Denise’s article clearly has an alternate agenda.

In the end, Noe takes no stand in against what she has illuminated. She makes a proposition that is, in essence, a suggestion to radical feminists that they might want to start pushing solely for lesbian marriage because gay men are now holding back feminist “progress”.

This is exactly what I have been telling gay men for years. Do not think N.O.W. is out to help you. They are using you for bait. When they get what they want, they will turn on you, must like they turned on hetersexual men after getting no-fault divorce and child support entitlements. If feminists get gay marriage (or civil unions) the gay guys will be the ones doubly taken to the child support office. They wee experience a double sucking noise at the bank and in society, inuring to the radical feminist mother-mother family.

Denise is a feminist plant, put here to soften up the men’s movement and/or to create uproars — to feminize the men’s movement. Feminists are terrified that men will wake up, figure out who they are, what they want, and organize to get it. It is common practice for feminists to send plants to obfuscate organizations and create internal dissent.

Denise isn’t as pointy as some feminists are. But she has no business on men’s news daily. Nobody here gives a damn what feminists want, unless they are gullible or are feminist men. There are tons of places for feminists to do their thing. Let them do it elsewhere because we have a movement to organize. We do not need pink smog clouding up the living room.

PS: Debating feminists is a waste of time. It keeps you from achieving real change. That is another reason why we don’t need feminists in the living room. It only takes one or two of them to keep the whole room busy.

David R. Usher said,

Denise is a feminist plant, put here to soften up the men’s movement and/or to create uproars — to feminize the men’s movement. Feminists are terrified that men will wake up, figure out who they are, what they want, and organize to get it. It is common practice for feminists to send plants to obfuscate organizations and create internal dissent.

Denise isn’t as pointy as some feminists are. But she has no business on men’s news daily.

(Denise) So I’m a feminist plant? I oppose the Equal Rights Amendment, strongly oppose sending women into frontline infantry combat, have defended men who want submissive or subservient wives, and believe in reviving the custom of chaperoned dating. Yes, a standard issue feminist.
As far as “creating uproars,” I still haven’t got a fix on what columns will get feedback and which won’t. A lot of my columns get no comments at all. I was expecting to receive feedback on my column about writing about the Albert Snyder murder case and how I would have written it differently if I were writing it now but nary a nibble.
The reason Mike LaSalle gave me a blog is to bring an oblique angle into issues because I often have an unusual take on things. A poster on the soc.men newsgroup referred to me (affectionately) as “our anthropologist from Mars.”