I've heard and read some ridiculous arguments against homosexuality in my lifetime, but an article I've just read on Beliefnet.com, titled How Women Will Be Hurt By Gay Marriage, is by far the most amusing.
In it, writer David Klinghoffer offers what he believes to be a "brilliantly insightful answer" to the question, Who will be hurt by gay marriage? He arrives at his answer with the help of author Joshua Berman (pictured at right), who last year wrote "Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought."
Berman, a teacher at Israel's Bar-Ilan University, reasons that gay marriage should be forbidden because homosexuality is so enjoyable that when most men try it, they'll not only love it, but also prefer having sex with men over having sex with women, who will be the ultimate losers in the same-sex marriage deal.
Yes, he's serious:
...On the issue of same-sex marriage, we have much to learn from the writers of ancient Rome. ... ancient writings demonstrate that feminism and homosexuality are on a collision course ...
Because of what you read in the the writers of imperial Rome. Some people are indeed homoerotic by nature. But others, as Aristotle noted, develop this as an acquired passion. Homoeroticism is, to a large degree, socially constructed. It turns out that where homoeroticism is granted full social sanction, as it was in Rome, it flourishes -- so much so, that one writer noted that the emperor Claudius exhibited an unusual trait: he was sexually interested in women alone!
Men, we learn from ancient Rome, will enjoy sex with other men, if there is no social censure. Now, all of this should be fine for us as well -- after all, we should let free choice and tolerance reign.
The real problems begin, however, when we read what these writers had to say about marriage. Consider this piece from the first century BCE poet Catullus (Carmen 61:134-141), in which the poet addresses himself to a bridegroom on the eve of his nuptials:
"You are said to find it hard, Perfumed bridegroom, to give up Smooth-skinned boys, but give them up... We realize you've only known Permitted pleasures: husbands, though, Have no right to the same pleasures."
The social history behind this piece is clear: once they've experienced sex with other men, Catullus tells us, men are unsatisfied with what their new wives provide them. Notice that the poet is unconcerned about the husband's dallying with other women -- it's the other men around that threaten the marital union. ...
And so now we come back to the idyllic day of free choice and tolerance envisioned by the gay and lesbian movement. It turns out that that day has winners and losers. The winners -- big time -- are homosexual men, because the historical record shows that they can expect their potential pool of partners to expand exponentially. Of note here is that this expanded pool of partners accrues to gay men, but not to homosexual women. At the risk of getting too explicit, I leave it the reader's basic grasp of anatomy to figure out why in ancient Rome a man who found pleasure in a woman, could also find pleasure in a man, while the record shows that a heterosexual woman rarely found sexual satisfaction in the company of another woman.
The losers from all this will be the vast majority of women. With full social sanction given to homoerotic activity, the historical precedent suggests that tomorrow's women will have a harder time finding and holding on to suitable men. As women will suffer, so will the vitality and stability of the nuclear family....
Read the entire post here (after you finish laughing, of course).
That's seriously fantastic......this is something everyone should read just for the good laugh of it all.
Posted by: Tara | June 24, 2009 at 01:24 PM
So, men will do...anyone?
Posted by: Elizabeth | June 24, 2009 at 01:41 PM
Allowing individuals the right to legally consent to a marriage contract so long as they're adults capable of consent can only help women because it helps dismantle the gender roles tied so strongly to so-called traditional marriage.
You want to play those roles? Fine. But leave me and everyone else out of it. Taking on traditional and religious roles should be a choice, not something automatically tied to my genitalia with no respect to my own beliefs.
Posted by: Ssam | January 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM