As Brad at Sadly, No! points out, this is possibly the most bizarre and fucked-up "argument" against gay marriage that has ever been written. The basic argument being that gay couples are somehow cheating society by not being as miserable as Sam Schulman (and, obviously, his multiple brides) have been in their connubial not-bliss. And Jeebus knows that teh gheys need a serial groom like Schulman to explain that marriage is not for them because it’s all about the patrimony and the naughty bits:
Third, marriage changes the nature of sexual relations between a man and a woman. Sexual intercourse between a married couple is licit; sexual intercourse before marriage, or adulterous sex during marriage, is not. Illicit sex is not necessarily a crime, but licit sexual intercourse enjoys a sanction in the moral universe, however we understand it, from which premarital and extramarital copulation is excluded.
If it is true, as Schulman writes:
It is that marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality. The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage. This is why marriage between men and women has been necessary in virtually every society ever known. Marriage, whatever its particular manifestation in a particular culture or epoch, is essentially about who may and who may not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult, and is also about how her adulthood–and sexual accessibility–is defined.
Then it is also safe to assume that when women go looking for a "protector of the pearly gates" they’re not going to be looking for a guy who looks like this.
Sitting around the house all day and masturbating to Straw Dogs is no way to go through life, Sam.
It’s just not.