Maggie Gallagher on Carpenter and Blankenhorn
I want to address this point of Dale Carpenter's:
". . .(And why do we care what marriage radicals think anyway? Though prolific in academic journals, they’re a small group and are not very influential in public policy. They won’t be able to control how heterosexuals or homosexuals think of their marriages or how they practice them. . . "
It's not unrelated to the problem Dale and David are having in "achieving disagreement" BTW. Dale is basically insisting that the only kind of evidence he would acknowledge is scientific proof of unilateral causality. David is arguing (Or perhaps I should say I am arguing) rather differently: It is very hard to hold in your head at the same time two opposing propositions: "Marriage is about uniting social and biological parenthood: getting men and women to make and raise their children together" (a big idea that generates a lot of subsidiary notions like "people who want children should marry" to name one) at the same time accepting the central argument for gay marriage, which is an equality argument: "there is no morally or socially relevant difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples that is justly related to marriage, and so it is unjust (bigoted) to exclude same-sex couples from marriage."
This is not a fringe argument of nutjob left radicals, it is the main logic that leads to SSM. The inability of many mainstream SSM to acknowledge that a. this requires changing core understandings of marriage in ways that b. reasonable people might be concerned about is hidden under Dale's demand that the burden of proof be shifted to those who are oppositng dramatic change in marriage, not to those who are advocating for it.
The question is not: what are the motivations of the people advocating for SSM? I take Dale and Jon and others at their word that they have no intention or desire to undermine marriage. I also take at their word people like Judith Stacey, a pro-SSM sociologist who clearly understands SSM as part of a move to embrace more diversity in family forms as the social norm.
The question is: what is the main idea SSM advocates are asking us to embrace and what implications over the long term will accepting this core idea about gay marriage have for our ideas about marriage in general? I don't see how one can avoid noticing that the "no relevant difference" is in fact the main argument. Go to any public hearing, read any newspaper article, listen to just about any SSM supporter on this website or any other. This is what "marriage is discriminatory" means.
posted by maggie at
11:22 AM | Link |
"It is very hard to hold in your head at the same time two opposing propositions: "Marriage is about uniting social and biological parenthood: getting men and women to make and raise their children together" (a big idea that generates a lot of subsidiary notions like "people who want children should marry" to name one) at the same time accepting the central argument for gay marriage, which is an equality argument: "there is no morally or socially relevant difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples that is justly related to marriage, and so it is unjust (bigoted) to exclude same-sex couples from marriage."
Why? I see no contradiction at all between the two ideas. I'm only a tepid supporter of the first idea, but I don't see why I couldn't be a passionate supporter and still be for SSM.
Mark B.
Mark B., I don't see how you can simultaneously hold both position A: "getting men and women to make and raise their children together", and position B: "Heather has two mommies and no daddy" without first acknowledging position B as a failure of position A. Perhaps a socially acceptable failure, a lesser of evils sotospeak, but an obviously suboptimal situation nonetheless.
Otherwise, you'd be arguing that when it comes to gender -- to mothers and fathers, to husbands and wives -- that separate is in fact "equal". Is that really what you're saying?
For my money, I'll take the diversity behind curtain A.
anon: I see no contradiction at all between the two ideas.
Perhaps a high school health class would clear it up for you. Because both sexes are required for reproduction, holding "uniting social and biological parenthood" as important in the first statement clearly conflicts with holding it as "morally or socially" irrelevant in the second.
Uh, simple, Mark, that term "biological parenthood" applies only to heterosexuals. If marriage is androgynized, it's really not about biological parenthood anymore.
OMG, Mark B.! How can you not see the contradiction between the idea that marriage is centrally about procreation and the idea that procreation is not a relevant difference between hetero- and homosexual couples? This is a major contradiction, and if you can't even grasp it, let alone offer a way to resolve it, how on earth can you expect to convince traditionalists to your point of view?
Mark B.,
The nature of marriage is extrinsic to the one-sexed arrangement.
The SSM argument shifts emphasis from the nature of marriage to the nature of the one-sexed arrangement.
That shift is highly contentious for many good reasons, however, let's try to do a comparison.
I think Maggie Gallagher has briefly described the core of marriage according to the defence of the man-woman criterion.
What is the core of marriage, according to the SSM argument which seeks to abolish the both-sex requirement?
Maggie Gallagher,
I expect that Dale Carpenter will deny that he proposes a big change in marriage.
He will claim that the core of SSM is not in opposition to the core idea you have defended. He will say the two ideas coexist already within marriage. In other words, he won't concede the either/or proposition.
In effect, he will ask us to embrace diversity of sexual orientation as a boost to "getting men, and women, to form couples to raise children."
In other words, he will use other words to gut your outline of its intended meaning and to replace it with his own.
Well, that's just my prediction. If he does this, he will, by his own hand, concede the point you have made in your post above.
-------
Dale Carpenter cited Sullivan's book, published 20 years ago, which implies the starting line for assessing various trends that Kurtz and Blankenhorn have described in terms of nonmarital trends in behaviors and in attitudes.
The mid-1980s.
If you don't like gay marriage don't have one.
Dont forget that murderers and sex offenders are able to marry...
Give it a rest folks...
The question is: what is the main idea SSM advocates are asking us to embrace and what implications over the long term will accepting this core idea about gay marriage have for our ideas about marriage in general?
==========
Hi Maggs,
Two observations to start. Who is "us"? Aren't 'gay people' part of "us" too?
When you say, "our ideas", who do you mean by that? If it is you or if it is David Blankenhorn, don't you think you ought to at least specify what the basis for your beliefs are, in a nutshell? If they are theological, as it might be suspected, then so be it. Also, in your own words, what do you think is the "core idea" of gay marriage, most favorably put?
Last, and directly to your point I quoted, can you use your imagination and the experience that you have with gay couples to suggest some positive answer to your own question? If you cannot, then (a) perhaps your mind is closed, (b) you don't have enough experience, or (c) something else.
In other words, can you imagine a way in which the raltionships of gay and lesbian people may be favorably integrated into society, long-term or otherwise?
To All,
Thank you for the replies, which nicely illustrate the point that I was getting around to making, which is that "marriage is about procreation" is strategically vague, and means different things to different people and/or in different contexts. When I say there's no contradiction I mean for one particular but very defensible reading.
First, I choose to read it non-exclusively. Trivially, marriage can be about procreation and also about other things. In particular, marriage has always been considered to be in part about the relationship for its own sake. I'm afraid I think that insinuating (without ever quite saying) that marriage is _exclusively_ about procreation is playing dumb to avoid the obvious implications that it also being about relationships has for recognizing same-sex ones.
Second I choose to read it in the narrow sense that people who intend to procreate should be in, and intend to remain, in a stable relationship with their prospective other biological parent. Of course, there are very tight limits on how much legal and social pressure I would be be prepared to endorse to force that, but at least to some extent I can honestly endorse it.
And I make no apology for such a narrow reading, because that's the way it's pretty much always introduced and argued for, as when Maggie emphasises that it's 'a big idea that generates a lot of subsidiary notions like "people who want children should marry" to name one'. Now of course, she's wrong about that. It's not a big idea that generates lots of notions, it's a mushy idea that's compatible with lots of notions but has no specific implications and generates nothing. In fact, the statement is backwards: "people who want children should marry" is the starting point, which serves, albeit imperfectly, a clear social purpose. It then implies "marriage is about procreation" in one particular narrow sense, but not any of the other baggage that it could also be read to include, such as, "married couples _should_ procreate", "married couples should be _able_ to procreate", "married couples should not have non-procreative sex".
And in this narrow sense it has no implications whatsoever for whether same-sex couples either should be allowed to marry (or should marry if they're allowed), because trivially, same-sex couples don't procreate as couples. If you have a problem with Heather having two mommies, then you can't fix it by banning gay marriage. You need to ban some combination of divorce, gay relationships (period), gay adoption (legal and/or de facto), surrogate parenting arrangements, etc.
Mark B.
Mark B.,
Just because those of who replied to your first comment didn't all use the exact same words to explain the contradiction you fail to see, doesn't mean we aren't in agreement. On the point of how procreation and marriage are related, we are apparently in perfect agreement. It's not vague at all.
"I'm afraid I think that insinuating (without ever quite saying) that marriage is _exclusively_ about procreation is playing dumb to avoid the obvious implications that it also being about relationships has for recognizing same-sex ones."
I have not seen a single argument that insinuates that marriage is _exclusively_ about procreation. It is the core and fundamental purpose. Of course, everyone agrees that marriage has other purposes as well.
"people who intend to procreate should be in, and intend to remain, in a stable relationship with their prospective other biological parent. Of course, there are very tight limits on how much legal and social pressure I would be be prepared to endorse to force that, but at least to some extent I can honestly endorse it."
If you can honestly endorse the idea that someone who wants to procreate should be in a stable relationship with the other biological parent, then you are saying that gay people either shouldn't procreate, or that if they want procreate, they should marry someone of the opposite sex in order to do so. Is this your argument?
"It's not a big idea that generates lots of notions, it's a mushy idea that's compatible with lots of notions but has no specific implications and generates nothing."
That's completely untrue. It does have specific, and logical, implications, including the ones you claim it doesn't:
"married couples _should_ procreate", "married couples should be _able_ to procreate", "married couples should not have non-procreative sex".
These implications are essentially Catholic theology on family. You can disagree with it, of course, but it is still logical.
"And in this narrow sense it has no implications whatsoever for whether same-sex couples either should be allowed to marry (or should marry if they're allowed), because trivially, same-sex couples don't procreate as couples."
How can you claim that you support the idea that people should marry the other biological parent of the children they hope to have, yet then claim that this has no bearing on whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry _because_ they don't procreate as couples? Your position is completely illogical.
"If you have a problem with Heather having two mommies, then you can't fix it by banning gay marriage. You need to ban some combination of divorce, gay relationships (period), gay adoption (legal and/or de facto), surrogate parenting arrangements, etc."
I don't think that anyone is really trying to "fix" the fact that Heather has two mommies. It's just that many of us believe that public policy that ignores the fact that Heather can't have two biological mommies, and that biology matters at least to some degree, could have negative consequences for society as a whole.
And personally, although I don't want to ban divorce, I think reform of no-fault divorce laws are in order. And although I don't want to see a ban on gay adoption, I think it's reasonable to give preference, on average, to married opposite sex couples. And although I don't want to outlaw surrogate parenting arrangements, I would favor stricter regulations on the fertility industry. It's not about Heather and her mommies, it's about public policy that encourages men and women to get married and have babies. The rest is complicated, but it does follow logically.
Mark B. it looks like you imagine totalitarianism as the only alternative to treating the nonmarriageable combination as marriageable.
It is not society that says two men are not capable of forming a conjugal relationship.
You think it best that society call their relationship something it is not and to treat it as if it was more than it is. To get there you would have society treat marriage as less than it is.
Responsible procreation. Integration of the sexes. Combined. The nature of marriage unites social and biological parenthood: getting men and women to make and raise their children together.
This is not the nature of the same-sex combination.
* * *
Anonymous, Maggie told you who she meant by "us" when she said, as you quoted, SSM advocates are asking us. Not all advocates are gay and not all gay people are advocates.
Apparently not all advocates of SSM think alike on the basic point that Maggie raised. But perhaps you think there is just one possible way to think about SSM if you adhere to the gay identity?
As varied as SSM supporters are, who comment in public hearings, newspapers, radio call-ins, or on this and other blogs, perhaps there will be varied responses to what has been asked.
It is an underlying assumption, it seems, in how Dale Carpenter dismisses what marriage radicals think, that some opinions are not as important as other opinions, in how the debate goes in general.
However, I think Maggie has hit the nail on the head. But maybe you know of more than a few, very quiet, SSM supporters who openly assert that there are morally or socially relevant differences between same-sex and opposite-sex couples that are justly related to marriage.
Do you, as one among the rank and file of SSM supporters -- seperate from, or as part of, your self-identifying as gay?
Mark B: If you have a problem with Heather having two mommies, then you can't fix it by banning gay marriage. You need to ban some combination of divorce, gay relationships (period), gay adoption (legal and/or de facto), surrogate parenting arrangements, etc.
I'll settle for stigmatizing sexism, and the idea that when it comes to Mothers and Fathers, separate is actually equal.
Surely we all know better by now.
PS: But yes, I'd be happy to ban most divorce. Adults who pledge 'til death do us part' should expect to be held to their word.
"it looks like you imagine totalitarianism as the only alternative to treating the nonmarriageable combination as marriageable."
Not as such. Between gay people and sympathetic straight people, I'm cautiously optimistic of doing this democratically before too long. of course, if you choose to regard it as a tyranny of the majority, it's no skin off my nose.
"You think it best that society call their relationship something it is not and to treat it as if it was more than it is. To get there you would have society treat marriage as less than it is."
You speak as if there were some fact of the matter about what marriage is independent of what society thinks it is. I'm afraid I just don't accept that. I'm aware of course that many religions think it was instituted by God as opposite-sex only, but I don't for a moment regard that as authoritative. In fact, over the long term, I don't even regard it as a practical problem. I look forward to the day when most major religions have "discovered" that opposition to SSM was a "mistake" the way the Southern Baptist Church did for slavery.
"PS: But yes, I'd be happy to ban most divorce. Adults who pledge 'til death do us part' should expect to be held to their word."
That's certainly a possibility to be seriously considered. However be careful of unintended consequences. We know what the reaction will be - the reaction of the disciples in Matt 19: If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Nowadays you have much less leverage to get people into marriage in the first place, so if you just make it more difficult to exit, you'll wipe it out.
We know what the reaction will be - the reaction of the disciples in Matt 19: If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
It's true, that was their first reaction, but it wasn't the net effect. When his teaching was taken to heart, it actually encouraged marriage. At least it did until the "Reformers" like Henry VIII came along with the predictable result; you know, tail... wagging dog... need I say more?
smmtheory
Anonymous, Mark B. declared that disagreement about merging SSM with marriage recognition left only totalitarian alternatives:
... banning gay marriage. ... ban some combination of divorce, gay relationships (period), gay adoption (legal and/or de facto), surrogate parenting arrangements, etc.
That declaration says very little about democracy and far more about the limits of the SSM argumentation that would produce the false dichotomy that Mark B described.
"It's true, that was their first reaction, but it wasn't the net effect. When his teaching was taken to heart, it actually encouraged marriage."
It depends on what you mean by "encouraged marriage". Very likely it increased the average duration of marriages. At the same time, it's very implausible that it didn't decrease at least slightly the fraction of people marrying, and you certainly don't have statistics showing differently. And if we somehow magically clamp back down on divorce today and do nothing else, it's likely to be a substantial effect because the pressure to get married in the first place is currently quite low.
Mark B.
Mark B. Two words: Matouschek and Rasul. There is some empirical work on this question (although not obviously on the counterfactual of 'banning divorce.') These two economist investigated three possible theories of how nofault divorce affected entry into marriage--the one you proposing being that lowered exits costs to divorce reduce the risk of being married which should lead to more marriages on net. The second theory is that people marry rather than cohabit because they are seeking an effective commitment device. When the law fails to provide one (or reduces the power of marriage as a commitment device) people respond by delaying marriage, searching for a stable partner longer, and by avoiding marriage alotgether.
Empirical work foiund no evidence of the former but evidence of the latter. The more like cohabitation marriage is, the less reason people find to marry.
"Two words: Matouschek and Rasul. [...] Empirical work foiund no evidence of the former but evidence of the latter. The more like cohabitation marriage is, the less reason people find to marry."
Fair enough. Perhaps the author of "Matthew" and I were taking a too guy-centred perspective and underestimating how successful women could be at leveraging more onerous divorce into offers of marriage ("no ring, no sex" or the like). But looking at the paper it seems that this was inferred from a _decrease_ in the divorce rate for people marrying after no-fault divorce was instituted. The inference seems plausible, but to the extent it's right it raises the question of what if anything was being achieved. It implies we know that in the old days people were leveraging more onerous divorce into offers of marriage precisely because those marriages were falling apart.
- Mark B.
"The more like cohabitation marriage is, the less reason people find to marry."
This is exactly what I observe as the predominant paradigm among my 20- and 30-something peers, including myself.
Mark,
Why would you choose to refer to it as 'more onerous divorce' instead of 'more stable commitment'? Does that say something about your pre-conceived notions of marrital commitment and how it relates to this debate?
smmtheory
smmtheory - "Why would you choose to refer to it as 'more onerous divorce' instead of 'more stable commitment'?"
Because "more stable commitment" would have been too vague to convey what I was trying to say. I could have made the same point by saying "more enforceability of commitment", but I didn't think of it. I leave it to you to decide whether that's Freudian or not.
- Mark B.
I have not seen a single argument that insinuates that marriage is _exclusively_ about procreation. It is the core and fundamental purpose. Of course, everyone agrees that marriage has other purposes as well.
mystical wife (and others),
Focusing on procreation focuses the argument on the one aspect of marriage that same-sex couples cannot fulfill, which is an easy rhetorical way to logically exclude same-sex couples without (apparently) denigrating them and their commitments.
But I don't think that that is an honest reading of the purpose(s) of marriage, either from a modern perspective or from an historical one. A more accurate way of outlining the purpose of marriage is not procreation, but family formation. Family formation has one required phase and one optional, though very common, one: joining and extension.
The first notable purpose of marriage is the creation of a new family. The second two people get married they have joined their two families. Any cursory examination of historical marriage or modern day families reveals this. Stanley Kurtz even touched on this recently when discussing cousin marriage in Islam and the importance of joining different clans.
The second phase of family formation is family extension. This normally happens by procreation but does not need to; you can adopt, use artificial insemination, or not have children at all.
But to focus on the latter as "fundamental" is, I believe, a misrepresentation of the historical and actual realities of the institution. It is an over-abstraction devised, in part, to definitionally exclude same-sex couples, who share all the family formation motives and requirements that preceed family extention.
Finally, it is instructive to look at the laws and practices of actual people. I know that it is unpopular to trapse out the elderly in these discussions, but that we as a society, without hesitation or question, allow and encourage the elderly to marry does not exemplify an unconcious connection that we have to an abstract representation of procreativity embodied by the male and female form; this is an afterthought to rationalize the argument that procreation is an non-negotiable for marriage recognition. The real reason that we let the elderly marry is that we intuitively realize the importance of not only pair-bonding but family formation is to the human psyche.
But if we allow for that notion of marriage, the notion that nearly everyone who gets married holds, then we have no rational reason to exclude gay couples. And it is in that way that I believe the focus on procreation is misplaced.
The redefinition of marriage to place the emphasis on the creation of “new family,” without fundamental regard of either complementarity or procreation, is thoroughly flawed and has nothing to do with any objective historical examination of marriage or family. It is precisely through the heterosexual couple’s ability to procreate that two families are joined together by virtue of the fact that children born from two separate families carry the bloodline (genetic material) of the two families.
There have been arrangements by which two or more people cut themselves and symbolically mix their blood to emphasize social unity, but these are merely symbols of tribal treaty or pact arrangements and have nothing to do with marriage.
Historically marriages were consummated through one family giving its daughter to the son of another family. We cannot appeal to historical family or marriage for any justification of homosexual relationships. The non-procreative and non-complementary nature of the activity prevents it from ever being referred to as a marriage in any real sense. A partnership is not a marriage and homosexuals simply can never form a marriage.
“Focusing on procreation focuses the argument on the one aspect of marriage that same-sex couples cannot fulfill, which is an easy rhetorical way to logically exclude same-sex couples without (apparently) denigrating them and their commitments.”
This is partially true. The complementary nature of marriage is another aspect. It is long past time for homosexualists to give up this ludicrous notion that people of the same sex can form a marriage. That term is explicitly reserved for a totally different form of relationship. If the term marriage is As I have repeatedly advised they should simply and honestly speak of their affair as the “homosexual relationship.” If they are not ashamed of engaging in homosexual activities they should call it what it is. If they wish they could seek benefits and privileges under that banner and not confound their affair with marriage.
P.S. The elderly may form a marriage because of their complementarity and because we cannot invade someone’s privacy to see if she/he can reproduce, though homosexualists have gone so far as to try and introduce such a bill.
Jose: There have been arrangements by which two or more people cut themselves and symbolically mix their blood to emphasize social unity, but these are merely symbols of tribal treaty or pact arrangements and have nothing to do with marriage.
Actually, this was called "blood brotherhood" for exactly the reason michael claims to want a neutered marriage -- to "join families".
This whole "husband + husband == marriage" business would be far less laughable and insulting if these men would simply become "blood brothers" using any of the time honored traditions still available, rather than mocking the institution of marriage itself.
I mean, it's not that any of these people are incapable of fulfilling a marriage committment in its traditional sense -- it's that they want something completely different.
"I mean, it's not that any of these people are incapable of fulfilling a marriage committment in its traditional sense -- it's that they want something completely different."
If by marriage commitment, Marty, you mean honestly telling your partner of the opposite sex that you want them, that you want to be with them, that you desire them. Then yes, many of "these people" are incapable of fulfilling a marriage commitment.
As for Blood brothers or Homosexual relationships, fine by me. Bring them on. Any legal arrangement that addresses the needs that homosexual couples face would do a great deal to remove the driving force behind the SSM movement. But as we all know, anti-gay warriors are nearly as adamantly against those arrangements as they are against SSM. Instead it seems they would prefer the status quoe or even to roll things back a few decades. Homosexuals have some good arguements in their quiver and they've been making progress even outside of the dreaded legal system. Either some kind of non-marital arrangement needs to be made or, eventually, they will simply integrate into marriage itself.
Social conservatives can't make this one just go away by covering their ears and yelling "la la la". They can certainly stand athwart history and yell stop but even if they slow down the movement of history it will still slide forward. Homosexuals aren't going to give up on this. They live it every day. They can't/won't ignore it. If you don't want homosexuals to be integrated into civil marriage then an alternative has to be offered in good faith. It won't stop the "seperate is not equal" crowd but if it is a practical solution then it'll reduce the movements power and ability to grow and it may well fade away.
"Blood Brotherhood" or sisterhood! An excellent option for them to use rather than usurp a term that is totally unrelated. If and when they decide to marry and raise a family they can simply stop misusing their bowels and sexual organs and still have a brotherly relationship.
However, I do not advise ritualistic blood letting ceremonies, particularly within the homosexual community where AIDS is so prevalent.
“As for Blood brothers or Homosexual relationships, fine by me.” Anonymous at 8:10 PM.
This is great. It looks as if we can make an honest compromise. Let’s get all the homosexualists to call their relationship what it is, the homosexual relationship, and then let them work to obtain whatever benefits and privileges they can get through the democratic process. I’ve been working for a long time to prevent discrimination against homosexuals in the work place, housing, etc.
Thank you.
anon@8:10:
If by marriage commitment, Marty, you mean honestly telling your partner of the opposite sex that you want them, that you want to be with them, that you desire them. Then yes, many of "these people" are incapable of fulfilling a marriage commitment.
And you don't find this the least bit sexist?
I don't buy it anyway -- I cannot accept that in the year 2007, anyone can claim that they are completely incapable of loving another person, soley because of their gender.
Anyone besides the most sexist of bigots, that is...
The only question, Jose, is if people who want to keep Civil Marriage opposite sex only would actually create an alternative. Gays are not going to just pack up and go home on a promise. There's no trust on the subject on either side and they know perfectly well what social conservatives think of them. I'll believe that conservatives genuinely care about marriage when they create an alternative. Until then it looks more like a campaign -against- homosexuals than a campaign -for- marriage.
And if they wait long enough and delay and obfuscate too much. They're liable to loose the whole kit and kaboodle. Now you and I may disagree on the dirability/consequences of that, Jose, but it's liable to happen if some other option isn't presented. Whatever happens this much is certain, things won't stay the way they are now. One way or another.
Anonymous at 2:25 PM
I think this is the first real breakthrough that I have encountered on this highly divisive subject. In the blogosphere many good ideas start as a meme. The seed needs to be planted for a new concept to take hold in society. John Harold is doing this with regard to same-sex conception. We can start it with advocating the use of only the term “homosexual relationship” for homosexuals seeking to obtain benefits and privileges from government and the people.
Homosexualists must delineate precisely what they want government to grant them and provide whatever justifications they may have. Contact your friends and have them immediately write to their state representatives to make certain that homosexuals seek no other appellation in any bill being introduced than the “homosexual relationship.” Contact all the major homosexualist organizations and tell them the same. Tell them that an agreement is being worked out between conservatives, liberals like myself and homosexual relationship advocates that there will be no opposition to homosexuals naming their relationship what it is. We will abide by the democratic process in awarding benefits and privileges to persons involved in homosexual relationships without necessarily affirming their practices.
Peace.
Marty,
I don't find it sexist. It is not sexist that you do not experience those emotions towards other people of your own sex. It is equally not sexist that homosexuals have a similar lack towards members of the opposite sex.
Personally, as a homosexual, I am perfectly capable of loving a woman as a person, a sister, a dear friend, a parent. But that is not the love that you're talking about. You're talking about love and desire and all the emotions that're supposed to be wrapped up in a marriage. What woman would want their married partner to feel not the slightest inkling of attraction to them sexually? What kind of cold bitter relationships would you impose on us? And what women do you hate so much that you would propose they be shackled a man who has no true interest in them beyond the platonic? I keep getting the feeling that you know this and that you're being disingenious to preserve the sexist trope you keep wheeling out. It's a cute line but come on, seriously, there's nothing to it but a cute line. Homosexuals are not any more or less sexist than the rest of the sexual people on this green earth.
Post a Comment
<< Home