MRA's, Patriarchs and Gay Marriage

**Lester Burnham** · 14th-August-2009

This is a very rough draft. As always, it will be shaped and molded here. With that said, let the fireworks begin.

It is hard to turn on cable news any more without having your senses assaulted by some ersatz conservative wailing like a bagpipe about the evils of gay marriage.

“We need to stop this from happening,” they say. “Marriage is one man and one woman. God-almighty Hisself said so.” And then there is the obligatory, nauseatingly redundant, “We need to protect the sanctity of the institution.”

Excuse me? The sanctity of the institution?

It makes me wonder if they have a rehab for this type of thinking.

Modern marriage, in case these Einsteins haven’t noticed, has all the sanctity of a ten dollar hooker. Matrimony has devolved into just another throwaway institution in a throwaway culture and it wasn‘t homosexuals that got us here. Nor will it be them that drives the final nail in the coffin.

As usual, we are not facilitating any real understanding with sound bites from talking heads. “One man and one woman,” no more illuminates the problems of modern marriage than nonsense like “my body, my choice,” illuminates the issue of abortion.

Worse yet, as any men’s rights advocate knows, marriage hasn't been "one man and one woman" for a long time. The reality of the times is that men marry the state they live in. The woman just comes with the deal for a few years. When it's fini with the woman, things really heat up with the state, shearing the man of his assets and adding a new, bizarre dimension to “till death do us part.”

And allowing gays into this fiasco is going to hurt the institution?

I wish I could corner a couple of these pundits and make them answer some questions. Maybe Hannity, or the anorexic looking chick with stringy bleached hair.

The questions would be simple. Where were you? And what are you doing about it now?

When the feminists pushed for and got no fault divorce, and the divorce rate consequently hit the stratosphere creating legions of dysfunctional, fatherless children, where were you? What are you doing about it now?

When feminist ideology spread like cancer though the media, academia, government and the culture, demonizing all things masculine and creating the fundamental rift between the sexes that plagues marriage to this day, where were you? What are you doing about it now?

When the family courts started taking Title IV-D money, turning benches into private fiefdoms, profit centers whose stock-in-trade became eviscerating the father-child bond, where were you? What are you doing about it now? And add to that another question. Do you even know what Title IV-D money is and how it makes it's way from the federal government into family court coffers? Or would that take more information than you can squeeze in between Cialis commercials on Fox News?

Of course, the point is that we already know where these people were and where they are now. They're in the place they have always been, crawling like roaches over every media news outlet that will call on them to say something profoundly meaningless about profoundly meaningless topics, in the name of plugging profoundly meaningless books.

These vultures want to protect the sanctity of marriage in the same way Courtney Love wants to protect chastity.

And those that caterwaul the loudest about the supposedly sinister prospect of gay marriage are the same ones that can't stop wagging their tongues about the virtues of constitutional conservatism.

I'm fascinated by people that call themselves limited government conservatives, but sit by complacently like grinning, plastic bobble-heads, as long as the government is enforcing their religious and moral beliefs on the rest of the population.

News flash, that is not conservatism, it’s not even a cheap imitation. It’s theocracy. Ayatollah style. And it's about as conducive to men's rights as feminism.

I wouldn’t be bothered by this all that much if it were contained to media pinheads. I expect them to say a lot and understand little. It’s what they get rich doing.

But when I see MRA’s espousing this cause célèbre, it puts a spike in my "shoot-yourself-in-the-foot" detector.

Why, for the love of Pete, would men’s rights activists seek to protect the sanctity of an institution that is currently the most prolific source of oppressive discrimination against them?

But I see it all the time, from MRA's, rather from patriarchs who think they are MRA's.

Just as theocratic zealots shouldn’t confuse themselves with constitutional conservatives, patriarchs and shouldn’t confuse themselves with MRA’s. In this writers opinion, our agendas are diametrically opposed.

Patriarchs want to return to the imagined days of chivalry and glory for men, when they were the heads of their homes and women did the dishes and pretty much anything else they were told. I’m sure it was a nice world for the control obsessive, but that toothpaste is out of the tube is not going to be squeezed back in. And chivalry, in that it hinges on putting women first, has much more in common with feminism than it does with men's rights.

MRA’s just want to escape the sexism and bias and treachery involved in marriage and every other institution that affects men. And that puts us, again in this writers opinion, in the ironic place of finishing what feminists started; an all out assault on marriage itself.

For what marriage has become is not salvageable. It's water that can't be decontaminated; a cripple that can't be healed. And the best thing to do is to put it out of its misery and start the whole shebang over from scratch. Hopefully that would be sometime after the culture has recovered from the damage of feminist doctrine and placed some sanity back on the table.

So if gay marriage erodes the sanctity of the institution, I say fine, let’s print them licenses by the truckload. I’ll spring for some rice.

There are plenty of real issues, the ones the pundits ignore, that need plenty of real attention. I won’t be bothered to invest in anything else, especially something that ultimately undermines men even more.

It was no doubt feminists that put marriage on life support. We should morn that and look to the future for renewed hope that some day men and women will share life again with love and dignity. But today, MRA's should do the decent thing with marriage and pull the plug.

**TheOldOligarch** · 14th-August-2009

Quote from Lester Burnham

The reality of the times is that men marry the state they live in. The women just comes with the deal for a few years.

That's going in my sig, brilliant!

**Zuberi** · 14th-August-2009

I don't give two damns if sodomites want to be married!
I would care if the thug of the state tried to forced me to accept it!

**haahoo** · 14th-August-2009

Indeed, marraige was already in the coffin before the idea of gay marraige nailed the lid down..

But, I do believe it is possible for a man and a woman to define their own "state-free" marraige, which can of course be based on what marraige is truly about..

**Zuberi** · 14th-August-2009

Quote from haahoo

Indeed, marraige was already in the coffin before the idea of gay marraige nailed the lid down..

But, I do believe it is possible for a man and a woman to define their own "state-free" marraige, which can of course be based on what marraige is truly about..

State free marriage is history!
A man is either a babysitter for his wife or a peonage slave! A woman is either a tyrannical bitch or public property!!!
We're fucked either way!
That's why I've decided to remain single until the day "BIG GUY" calls me home!!!

**Percy** · 14th-August-2009

A fine and forceful rant, Lester, but I see you and I will have to lock horns at some point.

You see, I believe in Marriage.

Yes, I know. I am not a one to talk it up, having been through two.

But......

To the essay. It is great. Very passionate against the wreckers but perhaps you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. With respect, Sir.

You introduce 'theocracy' but need to indicate right at that introductory point just what religion it is you are talking about.

Feminazism.

The Marxist State religion.

The opium of the masses that has turned minds to mush.

MRAs are not just Patriarchists. Some old nutters and young seem to want to be, but I want MEN of Integrity and Authenticity.

And I want women ofthe same calibre.

We cannot go back to the old unhealthy form of male-exploitative marriage but the paradigm of Two People Joined as One is essential.

Marriage was never perfect and feminism showed up the fault lines, shoved a rock-splitter in and hammered it to pieces. But it was a means for men and women to create a safe and wholesome place to raising children in Love and care. If they tried hard.

Many were and are successful.

I do not seek the restoration of the old and misused form, but as an MRA I want to see a restoration of the good parts, the paradigm structure, in a newer and updated Marriage form.

For men and women and children and families, together.

I care not that some sodomites want to bugger one another with State blessing.

I care not that some lesbians want to with diddle one another's clefts and shove plastic penises into each other instead of real ones, and call upon their freinds to watch and cheer.

I care not that they all beat each other senseless after either.

I totally agreee with most of your points about the State and the fatuous, hypocritical talking heads pontificating on matters that they have proven themselves incompetent about. Whatever the colour of their political plumage.

But there is a strong movement within the MRM for Marriage as it could become. David Usher is a spear-carrier for it and I admire the fact that he has bitten off a huge chunk and is chewing like hell.

Maybe you could allow for some different views within your essay frame.

**Lester Burnham** · 14th-August-2009

Quote from Percy

A fine and forceful rant, Lester, but I see you and I will have to lock horns at some point.

You see, I believe in Marriage.

Yes, I know. I am not a one to talk it up, having been through two.

But......

To the essay. It is great. Very passionate against the wreckers but perhaps you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. With respect, Sir.

You introduce 'theocracy' but need to indicate right at that introductory point just what religion it is you are talking about.

Feminazism.

The Marxist State religion.

The opium of the masses that has turned minds to mush.

MRAs are not just Patriarchists. Some old nutters and young seem to want to be, but I want MEN of Integrity and Authenticity.

And I want women ofthe same calibre.

We cannot go back to the old unhealthy form of male-exploitative marriage but the paradigm of Two People Joined as One is essential.

Marriage was never perfect and feminism showed up the fault lines, shoved a rock-splitter in and hammered it to pieces. But it was a means for men and women to create a safe and wholesome place to raising children in Love and care. If they tried hard.

Many were and are successful.

I do not seek the restoration of the old and misused form, but as an MRA I want to see a restoration of the good parts, the paradigm structure, in a newer and updated Marriage form.

For men and women and children and families, together.

I care not that some sodomites want to bugger one another with State blessing.

I care not that some lesbians want to with diddle one another's clefts and shove plastic penises into each other instead of real ones, and call upon their freinds to watch and cheer.

I care not that they all beat each other senseless after either.

I totally agreee with most of your points about the State and the fatuous, hypocritical talking heads pontificating on matters that they have proven themselves incompetent about. Whatever the colour of their political plumage.

But there is a strong movement within the MRM for Marriage as it could become. David Usher is a spear-carrier for it and I admire the fact that he has bitten off a huge chunk and is chewing like hell.

Maybe you could allow for some different views within your essay frame.

I have been checking back every few minutes for your post, and as usual, you not only didn't disappoint, but you brought cogent and thoughtful IMPROVEMENT to the core of what I am trying to say. I have 500-600 words left to include in this, and I think when you read them you will smile.

I will indeed include feminazism as a counterweight to the theocracy I mentioned. Great point. But it is not the theocracy itself I was referring to.

Let me put it this way. Marriage is a religious institution. Churches should have the final say in who they marry and who they don't. And yes, I do believe that if a church wants to marry two men, it is within their provence to do so. It just shouldn't make a turtle turds difference when it comes to legality. And nor should heterosexual marriage.

But the theocrats I originally referred to were American fundamentalist Christians that claimed to be about small government, but want the government to run marriage according to their religious doctrine. My take on that still stands, but I will certainly weave your apt and accurate observation about the Church of Estrogen into the piece.

I understand you still believe in marriage, but I think it must be approached in such a radically different paradigm that we wouldn't even call it that any more. I will explore this some more before placing the "final" tag on the piece/

The bottom line being that people will still pair bond no matter what. The will have children no matter what. And there should be a system of fairness and decency that allows people to do that without the state turning it into a racket.

Just so you know, Percy, as another foolish old man, I still believe in love between a man and a woman. I just don't think it will be the investment it could be until the day comes that women are forced to wake up to the fact that men are right and good and deserve the respect and honoring they are so quick to demand for themselves.

I don't think they will ever fully get that till the day comes that men won't take care of them any more.

As always, hermano, thanks for your wisdom and well crafted thoughts.

**Lester Burnham** · 14th-August-2009

Quote from TheOldOligarch

That's going in my sig, brilliant!

I am most honored!!

**Percy** · 14th-August-2009

Quote from Lester Burnham

I have been checking back every few minutes for your post, and as usual, you not only didn't disappoint, but you brought cogent and thoughtful IMPROVEMENT to the core of what I am trying to say. I have 500-600 words left to include in this, and I think when you read them you will smile.

I will indeed include feminazism as a counterweight to the theocracy I mentioned. Great point. But it is not the theocracy itself I was referring to.

Ahha ! Good job the issue is raised then.

Let me put it this way. Marriage is a religious institution. Churches should have the final say in who they marry and who they don't. And yes, I do believe that if a church wants to marry two men, it is within their provence to do so. It just shouldn't make a turtle turds difference when it comes to legality. And nor should heterosexual marriage.

Good points. I could make an issue of that as well but I agree fundementally that marriage is Sacremental. And that is a matter of its deep humanity more so than religious convention.

As for a 'church' doing the job, therein lies a whole host of problems as we can get all the way to the church of the rolling stone and the 'Tubleweed-smokin Bongers for Christ. Even the Anglican Chrutch - leader onto the field of a whole disgruntled team of protesting ratbags - started in order to destroy marriage.

But the theocrats I originally referred to were American fundamentalist Christians that claimed to be about small government, but want the government to run marriage according to their religious doctrine. My take on that still stands, but I will certainly weave your apt and accurate observation about the Church of Estrogen into the piece.

Yes, Look I could get into a LOT of trouble here criticising fundementalist loonies of the American persuasion But the effect they had on formulating 'religious freedom' in the Constitution was more a way of settling internal sqaubbles and pecking order than sound Government.

I understand you still believe in marriage, but I think it must be approached in such a radically different paradigm that we wouldn't even call it that any more. I will explore this some more before placing the "final" tag on the piece/

The bottom line being that people will still pair bond no matter what. The will have children no matter what. And there should be a system of fairness and decency that allows people to do that without the state turning it into a racket.

THis is the issue, isn't it.

Just so you know, Percy, as another foolish old man, I still believe in love between a man and a woman. I just don't think it will be the investment it could be until the day comes that women are forced to wake up to the fact that men are right and good and deserve the respect and honoring they are so quick to demand for themselves.

Yeh, Brother.

I don't think they will ever fully get that till the day comes that men won't take care of them any more.

As always, hermano, thanks for your wisdom and well crafted thoughts.

**Rothzael** · 14th-August-2009

As Chris Rock said, "Gay people got a right to be as miserable as everybody else."

**Feckless** · 16th-August-2009

Something to add by me...all old posts, but still. First speaking out for Gay marriage *gasp*:

Oh oh oh....I have another one, why do people complain about marriage, call it a peonage contract men should stay away from, but once you mention "the gays" suddenly the peonage contract it is a holy contract with god. For once this has nothing to do with religion or bringing up children or long forgotten times. These days no matter what you believe in, you can get married. These days no matter if you have children or not, you can get marriage. What should the negative effects of a small part of a minority getting married be? That suddenly our whole youth turns gay? Won´t happen. That marriage looses its values? It already has no value these days, just look at the divorce numbers. It is a long time contract (I´d say 7 years) between two parties working together.

Last but not least who gives a damn? I mean seriously what does this have to do with men rights? Quite honestly every "those damn gays" just help us to be portrayed in a bad light and distracts us from more important topics.

Secondly speaking out for marriage (in Germany) *uber gasp THE HORROR THE HORROR*:

1.) If you marry you can marry in a church. If you don´t sign the contract, this is not possible.
2.) If you marry you can split your income tax. This adds an additional 2000-3000 € a year on my bank account. If you do not marry you can´t do that
3.) If you marry the breadwinners partner and children are automaticly insured. If you do not marry the one who stays at home has to pay for insurance
4.) If you marry you get one additional pension.
5.) If you marry and have children you automaticly as a man get custody. If you are not married you have to "beg" for custody as noone can force the mother to give it to you. (You have to pay though)
6.) If you marry and something happens to your partner you are allowed to visit and make certain decisions in a hospital. If you do not marry you have to fill out paperwork plus pay money to get one of these.
7.) If you marry and your partner dies you can demand a certain part of the inheritance and you have to pay much less tax for it. If you do not marry you can´t do that.
8.) Some even marry just for a green card so their partner (and children) can stay in this country.
9.) If you want to work for the church (which is a huge employer here (1.2 Million people working for them)) you can´t cohabit and have to marry.
10.) If you marry you don´t have to testify in a court situation. If you don´t you have.

That is the situation here and I am not even thinking about benefits you have when you start a company.

A lot of those are uninteresting if you don´t want to have a long term relationship and fuck arround. But, if you meet someone you plan to be together with your hole life, have children, a lot of these points (like what happens to you when I am not there anymore, hospital-, court-scenarios) become very important. Heck if you get children out of wedlock you have far less rights than a married father and still have to pay.

Given the fact that you still have to pay alimony for cohabiting (after some years) what is so great about that? What is your strategy? Only date women for some years?

So bumb this shit back up

**Ohso** · 16th-August-2009

Hmmmm... Methinks that someone is dodging a whole lot of issues, and playing the same ole 'bait and switch' scam of others pushing the Sick Hatreds and Vile Perversions of the Radical Gender Feminist / Homosex political agenda - BAMN = By Any Means Necessary.

For example - there is Already a thread on this board which has considerable background information about the topic -
Radical Homosex Attack on Marriage (

1 2 3 ... Last Page)

But instead of posting in to that ongoing thread and addressing any of the Issues raised there - the author wants to begin a different one that will conform more to the Hate Propaganda of the Coprophile Caucus.

Thus avoiding any 'Ungood' analysis of the many and varied - valid arguments - against pandering to this Apect of Misandry.

Given that much of the campaign against Normal Marriage is from Dyke Separatists wanting to establish a Turkey Baster Matriarchy free of "Rape" (normal heterosexual procreation) - and their desire to use Homo-Anal Males as stalking horses in the MRA movement - I would say that the RADICAL HOMOSEX ATTACK ON MARRIAGE thread is the right place to continue this analysis...

If the author actually desires to address rather than duck the Real Issues of MISANDRY inherent in this scam.

Ohso
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

**TheDude** · 16th-August-2009

Quote from Rothzael

As Chris Rock said, "Gay people got a right to be as miserable as everybody else."

HAHAHAHAHAHA love it.

**Lester Burnham** · 17th-August-2009

Quote from Ohso

Hmmmm... Methinks that someone is dodging a whole lot of issues, and playing the same ole 'bait and switch' scam of others pushing the Sick Hatreds and Vile Perversions of the Radical Gender Feminist / Homosex political agenda - BAMN = By Any Means Necessary.

Oh my, aren't you the seer of all!! That's it man, you exposed me for my sick hatreds and vile perversions of radical genfem homosex political agenda. (SHVPRGFHPA) I thought I was quite well disguised and totally incognito, but you figured me out, you clever bastard!

Oh, the shame of exposure.

I suppose now I will be forced to deal with the issues you caught me with in my wiley "bait and switch" Perhaps you could actually bring one of them up?

For example - there is Already a thread on this board which has considerable background information about the topic -
Radical Homosex Attack on Marriage (

1 2 3 ... Last Page)

That's it! I knew those issues were hiding somewhere on another thread I have never seen. By any chance, is the WMD hidden in there too?

But instead of posting in to that ongoing thread and addressing any of the Issues raised there - the author wants to begin a different one that will conform more to the Hate Propaganda of the Coprophile Caucus.

Curses, foiled again! Damn, you're good. I even fooled myself because I thought I had written that piece on my very own. I wonder if MPD is a possibility. Could it be that another one of my personalities read that other thread and prompted me to start this here thread to avoid the real facts? Only the shadow knows!

Thus avoiding any 'Ungood' analysis of the many and varied - valid arguments - against pandering to this Apect of Misandry.

You may henceforth address me as Lester Burnham, master of misandrist pandering, advocate for all things perverse and vile, purveyor of fine lies and cookware.

Given that much of the campaign against Normal Marriage is from Dyke Separatists wanting to establish a Turkey Baster Matriarchy free of "Rape" (normal heterosexual procreation) - and their desire to use Homo-Anal Males as stalking horses in the MRA movement - I would say that the RADICAL HOMOSEX ATTACK ON MARRIAGE thread is the right place to continue this analysis...

If the author actually desires to address rather than duck the Real Issues of MISANDRY inherent in this scam.

.

In all seriousness, do you shove a mop handle up your rectum before you post? Theatrics this cheap and gawdy are better suited on a runway full of drag queens than in a forum expressing intelligent debate.

Sorry, I wish I could take you more seriously. I actually love a good debate. But you have left me little choice but respond to your with all the seriousness you derserve.

But should you choose to, you can remove said mop handle (don't fret, it's but for a bit) wipe off your runny mascara, and write like your were educated somewhere besides the internet. I'll be happy to afford you a bit of respect. Until then, I'll have to regard your post as the Ohso lame little diatribe that it is

**Ohso** · 17th-August-2009

Sniff Sniff - Awww, snookums wittle feewings is hurt.

And like (the Roman Lawyer) Cicero, the best he can come up with is "When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff."

Regadless - your thread is a Lame attempt to push Homosex Misandry under an innocuous guise of standing up to 'feminism"... Ahem.

The Big Issues relating to the Attack on Men and Boys via Mandatory Pandering to the Coprophile Cult of Feces Focused Homo-Anal perversions and related depraved homosex deviants, are being deliberately ignored in your thread - apparently on purpose, in order to push the Radical Homosex Agenda, hence you do come across (whether actually true or not) as a Homo-Anal Stalking Horse for Dyke Hatemongers...

The attempts to turn Normal Heterosexual Men against Normal Heterosexual Women - in order to satisfy the Hate Driven Bigotry of Radical Homosex Misandrists (and drive more recruits in to the Dyke / Coprophile camps) - is just one of the standard dirty tricks in the filthy bag of hatemongering that is their playbook

Sorry if the image in the mirror is too harsh for you, maybe you could take your trusty mop handle (ewwww) to the glass and show it who is boss.

Ohso

BTW - - there is Already a thread on this board which has considerable background information about the topic - Radical Homosex Attack on Marriage (

1 2 3 ... Last Page), and there are no mop up jobs in operation there.