the sappiest conspiracy since Jesus

Even ignoring David Brooks, one can't help but notice that the New York Times publishes many pieces about marriage. Today's is about how it feels when a wedding band falls off:

I noticed the indentation left by the ring, like a phantom band, and the skin tone of this narrow groove, a shade paler than the rest. I felt guilty, as though I had committed an act of infidelity. I imagined my wife’s quiet disappointment; there is nothing in the world quite like it. My hand grew heavy.

The essay is both uninformative and drab. There's only one possible explanation for why the Times printed it: monogamism.

A lot of otherwise sober individuals and media outlets are flamboyantly sentimental when it comes to marriage. I call them the monogamists. These people aren't just personally monogamous. They choose to flaunt their monogamous lifestyle, talking about their spouses in inappropriate venues such as law school classroom discussions and the New York Times. They tell single and polyamorous people "don't worry, you'll find someone" and then peck their legally special someone on the cheek, "mwah." They try to convince me and themselves that marriage is both normal and AWESOME. No one ever points out that, like the miracle of birth, that's a contradiction in terms. Normal is rarely, if ever, awesome.

The most offensive monogamist is the New York Times. First, because it's an otherwise intelligent newspaper, so its sponsorship makes marriage sound like an intelligent choice (contrast with Bill O'Reilly or the Roman Catholic Church).

Second, because they favor gay marriage. This is scary-shrewd of them. Gay people used to be the one group in our society that stood for alternative lifestyles. When marriage was a straight thing, single heteros could hang around gay cliques and be normal. But now gay people are just as likely to be smug monogamists as straights.

Because telling a gay person she doesn't have to be single is like telling a female lawyer she doesn't have to wear skirts. In an already pants-wearing world, that means women are going to stop wearing skirts. Wouldn't it be better if we encouraged men to wear skirts? (Trust me guys, it would. Skirts are awesome!) The New York Times has co-opted us, and now single people are homeless.

I'll keep track of monogamism here because somebody has to. Monogamism is the new Marxism and I am scared!