http://dennisprager.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/05/20/california_decision_will_radically_change_society?page=1
But my favorite part is the second to last paragraph on the first page which, as near as I can figure, is suggesting that if we allow gay marriage a lot more women will choose lesbianism. I find this amusing for several reasons
- It's probably untrue. While there may be a continuum of sexual orientation, I doubt there would be that much of an increase in lesbianism.
- Considering how much Lesbian porn is marketed to the straight male (I know I shouldn't know that) that could be the biggest selling point for gay marriage: LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE AND INCREASE THE CHANCE THAT YOUR WOMAN WILL SWING BOTH WAYS, MAYBE EVEN TRY A THREESOME.
The paragraph is generally flawed with the notion that marriage is effectively channeling sexual activity at all. Infidelity has been a constant since long before marriage and has been throughout all of marriages history. Marriage's ability to channel sexuality has been further undermined by birth control, a fluid economic system, and women's liberation. (All of which are good things by the way.)
1 comment:
The assumptions are indeed faulty but so is the logic. The arguments used are the same ones that we heard during the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) fight. If we allow equal rights for men and women we'll see all restrooms labeled unisex, Fathers Day and Mothers Day will have to be combined, women will be allowed to fight on the front lines in the army (horror of horrors!), etc. ad nauseum.
Where does this guy get off thinking that it is society's duty to channel sexuality in the proper direction? Whatever "proper" means.
Even his statement about this being so much more than the change from banning interracial marriage is downright ludicrous. Religions certainly banned interracial marriage because race was conflated with religion and national origin. The bible describes many instances where marriage to an outside people (Philistines, Samaritans, etc.) was prohibited or punished by loss of priesthood.
I really see this essay as a warmed over anti-ERA diatribe.
Post a Comment