Who you calling fecund?
CommentsGaysDefendMarriage.com got a very nice plug today in the National Review Online, in a thoughtful and frankly scary piece marking today’s new definition of marriage in California. Maggie Gallagher calls our Web site “intellectually fecund” and quotes one of my posts about monogamy.
Mm, this site does bring up topics that other blogs shy away from, and even allows for open debate; much more than I can say for Ms. Gallagher, unfortunately. Additionally, I agree with you on your review of her article; A lot of thought was put into putting together a nice slippery-slope argument (coupled with select excerpts from several publications) in an article designed to scare everyone into forcibly divorcing soon-to-be thousands of loving couples.
From her article:
“Mr. Erbelding said, in what to the old-fashioned ear is the most astonishing single sentence in the whole piece: most married gay couples he knows are “for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way.””
Obviously, it doesn’t take a genius to realize this gay man doesn’t know what marriage is supposed to represent.
But unfortunately for Ms. Gallagher, in this case one bad apple -doesn’t- spoil the whole bunch. As much as this man is without a clue, does it mean that because of his errors, thousands of -good- marriages in California should be forcible divorced? To put it this way; this man represents how little -all gays- know about marriage about as much as he represents how little -all men- know about marriage. After all, to further quote him,
“I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.”
So, how does this man represent gay marriage as a whole?
Exactly like my name’s link represents heterosexuals marriage as a whole.
The misconduct of a few couples is not grounds for forcibly divorcing thousands. -That- is simply badly tainted logic.
Andrea
When the minority forces beliefs on the majority it is commonly known as FASCISM. The gay mafia should be tried under R.I.C.O. laws before they use so called “anti-discrimination” laws to redefine our democracy. The US Constitution does not afford GAYS or anyone else special rights. Laws that do are unconstitutional and will eventually be overturned by the sane majority. This person who has struggled with same sex attraction wretches each time I see radical gay political operatives sucking face at their so called, “marriages”. The legacy of Sodom is alive and well and still after all angels. Fight the narcissistic cult of conspicuous sexuality with every cell in your person. If they win the law will reflect their mercilessness and self destructive folkways. The end of civilization as we know it. I was among them for 28 years and deeply regret every dark moment spent there. Should society embrace the so called, “Gay norms”, there will be no society but anarchy and destruction.
Interesting site.
Gives me more to read and think on– while I disagree with you on many points, I admire the courage to follow your religion before your, um, urges. (Would that more folks of ANY persuasion would do so!)
If nothing else, you seem to be one of those folks who doesn’t equate disagreement with attempted murder, which makes you basically alright in my book. ;^p
I had to look up fecund myself. A nifty one to add to the vocabulary, I think. I agree with Foxfier–this is an interesting site. I’ll be doing come catching up here.
Myself, I didn’t read Ms Gallagher asserting that Erbelding represented gay marriage as a whole– only that GLBT representatives/married people like him have shifted from carefully avoiding mention of the disrespect, if not hostility to monagamy in marriage to frankly and openly admitting it. Whether Mr. Erbelding is normative of gay marriage or not, he is a member of a gay marriage and the NYT presented his views on the front page.
Andrea- I’m curious which issues I bring up that other blogs shy away from. I certainly know I bring up unusual topics (my curse) but I wonder which ones you think other blogs specifically try to avoid.
I can pick out one, right off the bat– the idea that who you are attracted to doesn’t automatically select your political views.