Mass weddings have always struck me as a “cult” thing

BrideQuestion for you — when you think of mass weddings, does your mind head in the direction mine does, and think of the Moonies?  The cult followers of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, after all, have long been famous for their mass weddings.

It makes sense that Moonies would happily go in for group weddings. After all, the nature of a cult is that you subordinate your individualism to a group. Once having done that, why in the world should you and your affianced have a special day, dedicated just to you? You’re no longer an individual; you’re a member of the Borg.

Knowing about the Moonies, when I heard about the massive group wedding on the Grammy’s stage, I didn’t think, “Aw, how romantic,” nor did I think “What a great political statement,” nor did I even think “How nice it is that ordinary people are willing to subordinate their special day to Macklemore’s and Ryan’s careers.”

I didn’t think any of those things. Instead, I thought of the Moonies. After all, when you think about it, one impersonal mass wedding is pretty much like the next, whether you’ve subordinated your individuality to the Rev. Moon or to the Gods of Political Correctness.

Moonies mass wedding

One mass wedding (this one for Moonies) . . . .

Mass wedding at the Grammys

Looks just like the next mass wedding (this one at the Grammys, with the couples lined up in aisles to be ogled by media elites).

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Libby

    Yes, I thought of the Moonies, too.
    My next thought was, “Geez, these people can’t stop rubbing this in our faces, can they?” It’s not about tolerance, or live and let live, it’s about obligatory group celebration (you , in the back row – you’re not clapping with enough enthusiasm!). It really has become  ‘the love the won’t shut up’ as (I think) Steyn put it.

    • Matt_SE

      Yes. I’ve long suspected that “X-equality” is more about personal feelings of inadequacy than anything else. They want to be accepted and validated as “normal.”
      This explains why “tolerance” isn’t enough; because “tolerance” implies that you are accepting something that, if left to your own devices, you would label as distasteful…and that just won’t do.
      No, you must celebrate the profane lest anyone doubt your commitment to diversity ™.

      • Matt_SE

        And another thing:
        Is it just me, or does having to “demonstrate one’s commitment to diversity” smack of Mao’s self-confession episodes?

  • Matt_SE

    That’s liberals for ya: bravely demonstrating their individuality by following the herd.
    I wonder how many in the mass-gay marriage crowd think of themselves as “thought leaders?”

  • Matt_SE

    Without the glibness:
    I suppose there must be a certain feeling of safety and security in never having to think for yourself. All the answers are already provided.
    In that light, it is a state very similar to being an infant.
    A realistic view of humanity, without hyperbole, would recognize that there is always a certain percentage of the population that prefers safety to the inherent uncertainty of freedom. These people are much more likely to be Democrats.
    Republican entreaties to self-reliance hold no appeal for these people.
    As I’ve said before, an effective political strategy must start with determining what your audience wants. Without changing our fundamental positions, we must find ways of demonstrating to these people how our policies will give them what they want.
    Or barring that, at least show them how Democrats’ policies will not result in them getting what they want.

  • Eidolon

    I’ve been deeply disturbed by the way gay activism has advanced. If the issue was similar to civil rights, as has been claimed many times, then they could make an argument a la MLK, not just bully those who don’t immediately fall in line. Watching supposed Christians fall all over themselves backpedaling on the slightest implication of disapproval of homosexuality has been bizarre and disheartening.
    I can only understand this as a bunch of people having no real political understanding or even ideology of their own, and being completely controlled by what others tell them to think. I remember at the beginning of The Brothers Karamazov, a character was described as having the politics he reads in the paper, such that if the paper’s opinion changes then so will his.
    As a Christian this is absurd to me. MLK made a convincing argument that treating people differently based on race was inconsistent with our country’s founding principles and our Christian faith. With gay activism it’s all “shut up, he explained.” Nothing in our understanding of homosexuality has changed in any way — the only thing that’s different at all is that there may be a genetic component, which is irrelevant to whether a particular type of behavior is immoral, abnormal, or bad for society. Doesn’t it disturb people to see others savaged for the opinions they themselves held only a few years ago? I always thought the “we have always been at war with Eurasia” thing was unrealistic in 1984, but I see now that it’s really true. People who are against gay marriage are, to a man, awful bigots — now. But 2 years ago, when everyone was against gay marriage including Obama and Hillary, it was okay then, I guess. Holding a position that’s hateful now was alright then.
    People don’t seem to have an understanding of societal dynamics. It’s fine for there to be some deviant behavior, as long as it’s recognized as deviant. People can even be fairly accepting of it as a harmless weirdness. But when you declare it to not be deviant, then all the people who know that it is are forced to either fight the elites and their imposition of this obvious falsehood, or acquiesce while knowing it to be false because the consequences of resistance are too high or it’s just not an important enough truth to defend (as I believe most people do in the case of gay marriage).


    You can pick it up at the 5 min. mark. One minute is more than enough drivel.  
    Aside from my own nuptials, public memories for me began with the Johnny Carson Show circa 1969.
    Not a mass wedding, but certainly a mass production for the mass consumer.

  • Zhombre

    I skipped the Grammy’s — being a born again curmudgeon who pays no attention to the meretricious nonsense that is pop culture these days.  But reading these secondhand reports, about group weddings and Katy Perry performing some version of the Black Mass, all I can say is jeez, how appalling. What trash. I have nothing against trash, mind you, but ostentatious, self congratulating trash, splashed out as mass entertainment, is another story.  It’s adolescent posturing writ large.

  • Bookworm

    If I could, I’d put a little “like” next to all of your comments.  The irony is that I have the blog, but that all of you can out-write and out-think me.

  • Charles Martel

    If I dress a bunch of chimpanzees in tuxedos and seat them, if only temporarily, around a long, formally set table, is it a dinner party? If I get a bunch of people of the same sex together and proclaim them “married,” are they? What a silly crock this whole same-sex “marriage” stuff is. It’s a parody and a farce, and I’m sick of it being dangled before me as some sort of wonderful, touching paean to true love. What a bunch of bullshit. If you want to make love to your mirror image, go ahead. But don’t ask me to sanctify it or pretend that is is anything other than a pathetic Bizarro World imitation of what real adults do.

  • Ymarsakar

    My review of gender roles and authorities have led me to believe in one thing.
    The Left had to break the respect a single woman held for her man, the same way they had to break that man’s respect for his woman. The idea that love can bind two people tight enough that they can consider owning each other, in mind, spirit, body, or soul, was something that group hierarchies and hive structures could not tolerate.
    The stronger two individuals are, the stronger their bond can become. That is why cults destroy an individual’s sense of self. It makes them easier to control.
    What many gay couples do not understand is that they are extremely outnumbered and that using government coercion will only work in so far as the government in power hasn’t decide to round up gays yet. The more they utilize the benefits of government power and mass psychology on the rest of us, the less personal space they will be allowed. If it was just one person agreeing to a deal with another person, outside influences can be kept to a minimum. If you leave us alone, we leave you alone. By following the Left’s decree that we are to “manage” each other in our public and private personas, they have tied their chain not between their soul and their loved one, but they have tied their soul to us and vice a versa.
    What they don’t accept is that some of us don’t want to be so attached and that kind of human emotion will produce consequences. Consequences far more negative then merely sitting around and watching your partner die of AIDs because you lack the tax and medical advantages of a marriage.