The Stranger can be amusing but Savage himself is a shockingly vulgar writer, so much so that I won't link you back to his link from this blog which, after all, should be readable by your whole family.
Speaking of families, I've heard Savage on the radio talking about his "marriage" to another man with whom he has adopted a son. Who knows what Savage is like as a father. Maybe he's a model dad -- as well as being a wonderful, faithful "husband." Let's stipulate that he is both. I do know, however, that I would never publish anything that I wasn't comfortable with my kids reading. The idea of any father engaging in such public displays of vulgarity -- well, it could hardly be a worse advertisement for the societal stamp of approval on homosexual activity that Savage himself ardently seeks. If he really thinks he is advancing his own cause, what a delusional trip the gentleman is on.
Incidentally, on further reflection, the instructive point I took away from Professor Berman's citations from Roman literature is that a society that formally approves male-male sexual intimacy is approving something else that goes along with it. What's that?
Men are unruly in their passions, far more so than women with their natural affinity for monogamy. This is not a stereotype. It's reality. I suspect that women in the lesbian community would confirm that it is so. Normally, men's unruliness is somewhat limited by women. In gay culture, that's not the case at all. An important break on male sexuality has been removed.
Savage himself has written, "Monogamy is nice, but it sho' is over-rated." He notes, "men are bad at monogamy, and gay men are especially bad at it."
The creation of gay marriage by a society means the approval, too, of gay culture with its unique mores. To the extent that the culture, not necessarily the practice, of homosexuality permeates the society, then brutalization and vulgarization will likely follow -- of a kind that, yes, can't help but hurt women even more than it does men.
UPDATE: As with the previous post on this theme and its accompanying thread, I will unpublish any comments that cross the line into obscenity or pointless, grotesque insults, name-calling, etc.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Really? You refuse to link him because of the potential delicate sensibilities of the children that are probably not reading your articles, yet you insist on making assumptions as to his nature, and character as a father and a gay man?
I'm going to have to assume integrity is not on your list of things to learn from scripture.
Gay activists like Dan Savage get mad at you because you're misrepresenting them, their culture, and their lives to further suit your personal ideology. (There's also the additional bit where you've got a fair share of women mad at you for not knowing the first thing about human biology, but that's a story for a different day I suspect.)
Make up however many reasons you like, darlin', ain't ever gonna make them true.
For the record, I'm a woman who knows herself, supports and fights for gay rights, is a faithful Quaker, and has a loving relationship with another woman.
Hmm... You don't seem to know much about homosexuality, women's sexuality and people in general do you? Only in America do you see a sort of separation between gays and straights, and that's because the US is one of the most homophobic industrialized countries.
Basically, most men are straight, or mostly straight. While certainly functional as homosexuals (in prisons, etc), most men would almost certainly prefer a woman's company to another man's. "Gay" is not something catching, like some sort of mental disease. A few, and I do mean a few, men prefer the "company" of other men, but these are the minority.
Now, instead of just leaving them alone like in most countries, and watching the show, because gays certainly are entertaining, it seems people want to blame them for this and that, exclude them from here and there. What's the deal?
And furthermore, most lesbians I know would be deeply offended with your presumption that "sex" somehow requires a penis' involvement...
"Marriage is a spiritual relationship, not merely a legal one, or it's nothing at all. Canada's putting its seal of approval on Dan Savage's "marriage," in itself, means absolutely, absolutely nothing."
If civil marriage means so little to you (nothing at all, you say), why do you expend so much energy fighting against it?
You don't make sense. Your world-view is not even internally consistent, never mind whether it matches up with reality (it doesn't).
TRiG.
During the 1980's the CDC found that the AVERAGE gay male had over 350 sexual encounters per year; many with multiple partners in a single night. In order to get mainstream America to approve of Gay people they had to be portrayed as wanting marriage/monogamy but being denied long term committments. By allowing marriage for gays, we shift the focus away from gay culture to what we know--family life. We do not find family life scary, hence gays are no longer objectionable, and their underlying culture ignored.
You have not more right to lobby for a law that would outlaw a same-sex marriage in a Reform Shul anymore than Reform Jews have a right to lobby for a law that would force Orthodox Shuls to accomodate same-sex marriages if they do marriages at all!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.