Stating The Obvious 003 thru 006: Monogamous Marriage Debunked

These are episodes 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Stating The Obvious. Recorded in 2005 when I was a right wing minarchist.

I take on monogomy, marriage and offer up the logic of homosexual marriage long before the LGBTMNY63FD/PY community decided they wanted permission from the government to get married.

I also destroy the essay “Two Becoming One Flesh: Marriage as a Sexual and Economic Union” by Allan Carlson. Oddly enough I now find I may agree with him more than I did back then. I really need to read this essay again and see how much my opinions of it have changed.

Image: We see Christian abstinence mongers using sex to sell virginity. Notice the perfect breast, the tight sweater, the blond hair / blue eye arian look. Why don’t they use the image of a fat, ugly bible thumper looking homebody? Because sex sells, that’s why. On top of that notice that it says “the best is worth waiting for”. Not only is she hot, but she is the best fuck on Earth. Ever. Impressive. Bullshit, but impressive.

The diamond wedding ring: A very classy property tag.

16 FEB 05: (time 60:00): Philosophy: Monogamous Marriage, Part 1: I begin the attack on the idea of monogamous marriage as has been drilled into the minds of most people. I explore the fallacy of monogamy, the hypocrisy of those who preach it, and just how moral is this form of slavery. What is the real purpose of marriage? More than anything it is driven by the duel purpose of keeping the population under control and generating economic activity. Much taken from the move Crimes and Misdemeanours.

25 FEB 05: (time 42:42): Philosophy: Monogamous Marriage, Part 2:

01 MAR 05: (time 66:21): Philosophy: Monogamous Marriage, Part 3: In which I destroy the essay “Two Becoming One Flesh” by Allan Carlson.

Click here to get the original essay “Two Becoming One Flesh” by Allan Carlson in PDF format.

07 MAR 05: (time 78:57): Philosophy: Monogamous Marriage, Part 4: I continue the assault from part 3, take on the abstinence movement, and direct your attention to the wild fear caused by the simple mention of gay marriage and polygamy.

Show Notes

Monogamy & Marriage: Bad Ideas

observations from the movie Crimes And Misdemeanours:
1. shows us how marriage ruins lives
2. is having sex with multiple people wrong or right (w/r):
it’s right
but if you take vows or make a promise to not boink others
then go and boink others you have broken the promise, which is wrong, but
the actual act of having sex with multiple people is still not wrong
3. marriage causes these problems:
woody can’t have the chyck he wants
woody stuck with a chyck he don’t want
martin has to kill to cover up his affair, but why cover it up? to fit in the with morality of the majority, yet had he been able to be with both women openly then he would not have had to kill her, in fact could have helped her get a shrink or whatever, yet because he felt forced to conform to a belief system which he could not operate within, he had to kill someone and do something which is clearly unethical.
4. this film is totally M. do Sade
woody is the most moral character and is a total loser
martin is moral most of the time, but does 3 questionable things and has it all.
5. the Klintons and martin. the Klintons did exactly the same things and got away with it, thus bringing us to the fact that morality is not about the weak keeping the strong in check, but about the strong keeping the weak in check. the powerful work outside of morality, create their own morality. not just the bad people, but also the good people like Gandhi and MLK.
6. what does the film show us marriage is? stagnation, emotionally crippling, familiarity breeds contempt, psychological & emotional slavery, people trapped in hells of their own making.

the actual purpose of marriage:
1. keep the population under control
2. generate sexual tension
3. stimulate the economy via:
tension / release
need for more manufactured goods

the current “gay marriage” debate:
a. the religious right thinks marriage should be only between a man and a woman, the atheist left wants to add a man and a man or a woman and a woman to that list. you might think this puts them on opposing ends of the spectrum, but take a closer look.
b. each side thinks only the government should decide who gets married. how did this become the realm of the government?
c. each side thinks the government should be telling you what the correct number and gender of participants should be. this from the left who tell us the government can not legislate morality.

men before marriage want to boink all these women yet they want to marry a virgin.
if your woman fucks good how do you think she got that way? reading Cosmo?

marriage is a trap if you can’t divorce or seek refuge – why put someone you love in a trap? what if you become a wife beater?

if “moral” is that which promotes society, how is polygamy immoral?

notice that virtually every false argument used against homosexual marriage is used against polygamy.

if marriage is a religious ceremony/tradition/institution:
1. why is the religious right so insistent that government decide who can marry who?
2. if the left is so against “legislating morality” why do they insist marriage can only be with the permission of the government and between only 2 people?
3. for homosexuals – if not being able to express their preferences is discrimination and causes tension & psychological problems – doesn’t the same hold true for polygamy?
4. If 2 homosexual parents are better for a child than 2 heterosexual parents who are abusive, then wouldn’t 3 or more good parents be better than 2 bad parents? if stability of the family unit is so important how can one argue that 2 parents are more stable than 3 or more? in a larger family unit it would be more difficult for one of the member to be abusive towards the other adults or children, thus polygamy creates a much stronger and safer (emotionally and physically) family unit.

how does “love” work if you can only love one person at a time? if you can only love one person at a time, doesn’t this make you a piss-poor excuse for a human?

you tell someone “I love you” then decide you don’t for whatever reasons. do you:
1. get the love back
2. take the love back
3. never really give it to them
4. does it grow back
5. did you lie
how does this work? how much of your limited amount of love did you give? is it gone forever? how exactly does loving only one person at a time work? love is an emotion, how do you only have X amount of an emotion?
note: when I say limited amount of love, I don’t mean “making love” aka fucking. we know there is only a limited amount of that. I can do 7 or 8 minutes of serious fucking then I need 8 hours of sleep and a bowl of Wheaties. if I’m expected to last longer that 8 minutes then I need the Viagra and the vibrator.

if monogamy is related to trust, do you trust your friends? have your friends had sex with other people? then how can you trust them?
is it because your friends don’t have sex with you but your lover does?
so what if your lover had sex with others before sex with you – can you trust her?
can the person she had sex with before you trust her now that she has had sex with you? if not, then she is untrustworthy right? so how can you trust her?

if you say you believe in monogamy but have had sex with more than one person you are lying and unethical by your standards, so why should I get moral beliefs from you?

additional reading material:
Monogamy: A Critique by John McMurtry

disclaimer, don’t boink you kids. it’s called inbreeding

Stating The Obvious (STO) & Cynical Libertarian Society (CLS) Legal Disclaimer: These opinions are right. If you disagree with me, you are an idiot. Any response to the opinions presented in STO, in any form to include private email or written correspondence, public or private internet forums, spoken word or any form not specifically mentioned here is the property of CLS/STO and may be used by CLS/STO in any manner desired by any authorized representative of CLS/STO. This includes unlimited reproduction in speech, print and/or digital media to include editions of STO, notes on the STO website and postings on internet forums. By responding to any edition of STO, either in the form of written notes or the audio presentation you waive all copyright and ownership of your response. This is legally binding now, in the past and in the future. This transfer of rights can not be revoked. You agree to these conditions by responding in any way to STO in whatever form it may take. Don’t like it? Move on.