Larry Auster observes that yet another word has been ruined by the sinister modern drive to dehumanize every institution by discussing it in the grayest and least personal terms available:
Partner means, or used to mean, two people engaged together in some shared enterprise, or who are friends and are doing things together as a team. But now "partner" has become the quasi official term for two unmarried people--whether homosexual or heterosexual--who live together. And for the truly politically correct, "partner" is even the obligatory term for married persons, since it would "privilege" heterosexual married couples for them to be referred to as "husband" and "wife" while homosexual couples and unmarried heterosexual couples are deprived of those honored titles. Therefore, in the name of equality, husband and wife must be called partner and partner. And with the spread of homosexual "marriage," this change is working itself into the law as well, as I have pointed out many times.
The shift from "spouse" to "partner" is perfectly emblematic of the social-organizational transition from status to contract. Spousehood is a permanent arrangement, unfree after the initial choice of marriage and spouse. Partnership, by contrast, is a fluid arrangement -- fluid by virtue of its meaninglessness -- adopted when useful and casually flouted when it becomes inconvenient, another restrain imposed unjustly on sovereign and absolute wills. Husband" or "wife" is what you are. "Partner" is what you want to be, for as long as you want to be it, and no longer.
Here, as always, the muddling of language is instrumental.
The degenerates' lobby continues its remorseless march through the institutions of American society -- and if you believe certain alt-right bloggers, apparently we're all supposed to not care.
No really, I don’t care, and neither should you. If you’re expending any serious amount of energy opposing gay marriage, there’s something seriously wrong with your head. Defending the integrity of marriage in America at this point is like defending the chastity of a crack whore. No-fault divorce and feminist family courts, among other things, have so debased marriage that letting gays join the club isn’t going to so much as leave a ripple in the pond. Marriage has been long dead, and all the people in the gay marriage debate are doing is playing tug-of-war with the corpse.
And from AD (a deeply unimpressive and unoriginal thinker whose close connection to Ferd and the alt-right hub that is IMF makes him a useful barometer of whatever horrible thing the alt-right is about to adopt or succumb to):
I have a question-
Why do some people oppose gay marriage?
Given the absolutely pathetic state of heterosexual marriage in developed countries, especially the USA, is it even possible to debase the “institution” of marriage any further? What part of this pathetic institution can you still desecrate?
Have you ever seen shows like Bridezilla? If you think that they are fiction, you have probably never overheard a group of women talking about their upcoming wedding. Here is the unpleasant truth-
‘Empowered’ women have debased heterosexual marriage beyond repair.
Two guys marrying each other might actually raise the state of marriage. In any case, the married life of two guys is likely to be less fucked up than its heterosexual equivalent.
Some commenters at IMF argue that we should focus our efforts on combatting financial fraud rather than wasting it on gay marriage.
First, I agree completely that financial fraud is a very important issue and should be first and foremost in the attentions of our political class, especially because it's a side-effect of our unsustainable and catastrophe-bound monetary system. But that's a condemnation of the left, for distracting us from the issue by harping on about peripheral ones, not a condemnation of the right for resisting them.
Financial fraud stems from the collapse of public morality of which "gay marriage" is part and parcel. Homosexual behavior, to the extent it is self-evidently contrary to natural law, is also part of that collapse. And all morality stands and falls together. There is no sense arguing that one has an obligation to respect justice while arguing that the foundation for that justice -- that is, morality, from which sexual morality also derives -- doesn't exist or is irrelevant, as many alt-right bloggers and readers do.
But they cannot do otherwise, because to do so would be to expose the rank disorder of their own lifestyles. Most of the "game" practitioners at IMF do to unsuspecting women what bankers do to unsuspecting borrowers: they take advantage of their ignorance and simple-mindedness to screw them (literally in the former sense, figuratively in the latter). Thus, their complaints about financial fraud and the injustice propagated by our feminism-mired legal system amount to so much utilitarian argument from self-interest: they have no sound moral basis from which to criticize either, after all, since it would entail criticism of themselves, as well.
To quickly get back on topic, it's worth asking ourselves what the purpose of marriage is. The left says that justice demands that gays be allowed to marry, but obviously that is only the case if it is unjust -- that is, contrary to the purpose of marriage -- that they are denied from marrying in the first place. If "same-sex marriage" is obviously contrary to the essential purpose of marriage, then permitting it is unjust; and if it is not contrary, then forbidding it is unjust. Either way, justice demands some positive position on same-sex marriage: "I don't care" is simply not acceptable, and is in fact a position borne of thoughtless cowardice.
Marriage as both a social and a legal institution historically was understood to arise from natural law: that is, an understanding of the general normative behavior of things which derives not from convention but from nature itself. It's a simple observation to note that men and women's physical sexual configurations exist and are different from one another because some aspect of human nature (specifically, the need to propagate the species by procreation) demands it. Thus the simple reality of physical sex (that is, the male/female dichotomy) points toward some end: procreation.
Because procreation can naturally occur only in the context of the reality of the sexual dichotomy and because male/female conjugal relations are therefore the basis for the continuity of society and the species, a number of rights and obligations follow. First, because it is good for parents to care for their children (in the sense that nature demands that they do so), parents have both an obligation to care for their children and a right to do so against the claims of society; likewise, children have a right to be cared for, and by their own parents. Marriage law is simply a legal framework within which these rights and obligations are subject to society's impetus -- society, after all, has a vested interest in the care and disposition of children, since raising children is not only a matter of individual good but of the health of the community and the state, as well.
Clearly, then, "love" is not the purpose of marriage. We might say that it is a necessary condition for marriage to operate but not a sufficient one, else it would imply a right to incest that virtually no society has ever recognized. Moreover, there is no compelling reason why the state ought to legislate based on the whims of the human heart; if it were, in fact, the case that marriage law was simply about recognizing love and commitment, that would be a case for abolishing it entirely, not extending it to include others. Obviously, "commitment" is not the purpose of marriage, either, since commitment is not an intrinsically good end in itself. Parents, after all, are generally speaking committed to their children, and children likewise to their parents, but no one would term this relationship a "marriage" (even though it, too, clearly involves love). I'd argue, too, that to say that commitment is the purpose of marriage is rather a non sequitur, since commitment is, by nature, rather causally prior to marriage.
Nor is "consent" a foundation of marriage, except in the sense that it is necessary but not sufficient for it. For one thing, to say that "the purpose of marriage is to consent to be married" is profoundly retarded circular reasoning. For another, to say that consent is a sufficient basis for marriage would mean (a) that there is no compelling reason for the state to limit marriage to two people (which would imply a right to polygamy that no advanced society has, to my knowledge, ever endorsed); (b) that there is likewise no reason to limit marriage to human beings (which would imply a right to bestiality* that, again, no advanced society has, to my knowledge, ever endorsed); and (c) that there is no reason to forbid people from, say, marrying inanimate objects for which they have fetishes (like the neurotic child-abuse victim who recently "married" the Eiffel Tower and apparently masturbates with a bit of fence post for which she's developed an attraction).
Rather, the purpose of marriage is intrinsically bound up with man's conjugal nature. It is impossible to separate it. Marriage is heterosexual sex (although not all heterosexual sex is marriage). Thus, "same-sex marriage" is an ontological non sequitur.
The usual objections to traditional marriage are easily dispatched by an understanding of natural law. Because natural law is concerned with the norms that arise from nature, marriage, too, is normative: that is, because the essence of man and woman is fertile, the essence of marriage is simply the union of a man and woman, even if individual couples may, by happenstance, be unable to have children. A marriage in which, say, the woman has had a histerectomy and therefore cannot have children may not as perfectly instantiate the essence of marriage as a fertile couple, but it is nevertheless still a marriage. By contrast, "same-sex marriage" does no such thing because a same-sex union is intrinsically infertile.
Of course, a gay man can still (hypothetically) have children with a woman. But under the law, he is free to marry that woman if he chooses. The typical leftist response, that people said the same thing about laws against interracial marriage (i.e., "blacks can still marry other blacks") and that opposition to gay marriage is thereby analagous to irrational racial bigotry is, again, a non sequitur: race is irrelevant to the end of marriage; sex is not.
This is what conservatives mean when they say that gay marriage is an affront to the nature of marriage: by treating marriage as any ordinary contract, it reduces it from the status of an organic institution arising from human nature to the level of a manufacturer's warranty on an old air-conditioning unit.
What's most maddening about all this is that gays in no meaningful way had their rights restricted under a traditional marriage regime. As Reason points out (in a pro-gay marriage puff piece that proves decisively that mainstream libertarianism is really just left-wing libertinism), gays were already free to go to churches and exchange rings and vows and even go around for the rest of their lives saying they're "married" and absolutely no one could do anything to stop them. And, of course, if they truly wished to enjoy marriage in a manner consistent with their nature, they could foreswear their homosexuality and marry someone of the opposite sex. Yet this, apparently, wasn't enough: they demanded not just the freedom to practice their degeneracy but the whole of society's endorsement of it, an endorsement to which they were in no way entitled by natural law or the common good. And by way of their bullying and the sinister judicial warfare of their leftist co-conspirators, they have finally succeeded in getting that endorsement at the expense of all reason, justice, and order.
Alte, a Catholic, comes closest to making sense here:
Yeah, I don’t care either. Notice I have not been reporting on it. It’s all irrelevant. Legal marriage is totally and permanently dead. Over. Done for. The RCC needs to stop defending it, and start boycotting it.
Take a stand on something, Mother Church.
If the church hadn't already completely surrendered in the cultural war, it'd have arrested this trend years ago -- for instance, by excommunicating all the pro-gay "marriage" Catholic politicians for scandalizing the public, and perhaps even absolving married Catholics of their moral obligation to obey the legal terms of their marital contract, which has been absurdly renegotiated without any respect to their own conditions. The wages of Vatican II is moral confusion and impotence.
If the right (even the alt-right) follows suit and lays down its arms because gay marriage is "irrelevant," they will forfeit preemptively every battle to come. If morality -- including the justice that the bankers' gross criminal behavior demands -- is all a matter of personal subjectivity and irrational value judgments (a concession automatically made by declaring one's uninterest in the sanctity of the marital institution), then there is no such thing as justice, and therefore no reason to care about its violation. Seriously, can you even think of any reason to care that is not somehow related to natural law? By giving up on this, you surrender all rights in perpetuity to complain that modern society is not organized to your liking. Not that most of the alt-right would ever do anything but complain, anyway.
What happens next? These few inches being grudgingly conceded, the relativist left will proceed to demand the next several miles. Within a decade, there will be a concerted movement to compel state recognition of polygamous relationships, probably spearheaded by some celebrity degenerate, most likely in the form of expanding "civil union laws" to allow multiple-person contracts. (Ultimately, people united under such laws will be folded into marriage law by Supreme Court fiat). To the extent legalized polygamy is opposed by the left at all, it will only be because of its continuing association with the Mormons, although that may not prove to be too strong a consideration since it would demand just as equally censure of some Muslims. Prohibitions against bestiality and certain forms of incest will probably be eased (don't believe me? At least one leftist paragon is already on board). No doubt the future will be one in which people are permitted to sign contracts in life to sell their corpses after death to necrophiliacs, or allowed to donate their bodies for that purpose in a manner similar to how they're currently permitted to donate their organs.
And why not? If you divorce "marriage" (indeed, the sexual act itself) from its procreative context, all manners of absurdities follow. There is nothing except personal distaste stopping one from rationalizing those absurdities as "good." And personal taste, as the devolution of attitudes toward homosexual behavior just these last ten years suggest, is subject to revision.
*Of course, the libertarian (who sees consent as the basis for all social interactions and cannot even conceive of a nonconensual arrangement) will respond that we forbid bestiality because the animal doesn't consent. But we do not get animals consent before we kill, cook, and eat them, or sheer their excess wool to make clothes, or test hygiene products on them. Animals are by nature subordinate to man, and thus in his interactions with them it is his consent alone that ought to matter. Even this, I think, would be outrageous: to claim that consent can legitimate just any interaction with an animal. Man has a duty to cultivate the capacities that are essential to his nature, and one of these capacities is compassion, which obviously requires that animals be treated, if not necessarily with the "respect" that would accrue to a human person, certainly with no more violence or cruelty than would be justified.
**The liberal will argue that this is a "slippery slope fallacy," betraying in the process his total ignorance of rhetorical principles. The slippery slope argument is not a fallacy in and of itself; it is fallacious only when it rises (or falls, rather), to the level of a non sequitur because no clear logical relationship is demonstrated between the present act and the forewarned future ones. I have clearly so demonstrated a relationship: if sex does not exist for the purpose of procreation, and if marriage does not exist to attach society's impetus to the intrinsically fertile heterosexual relationship, then there is literally no compelling reason whatsoever to impose any further limitations on what sexual behaviors may be tolerated.