"How Women Will Be Hurt by Gay Marriage"

[Dan82]

http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofp...-marriage.html

National support for state-sanctioned gay marriage has slipped recently. Thank goodness.
A while back I pointed out to you a midrashic tradition on Leviticus 18:3 that notes a feature of life in morally corrupt ancient Canaan: they practiced gay marriage, which is one reason God chose to displace them from the holy land, to be replaced by the children of Israel. I know, I know. It sounds so bigoted. Why be bothered if a nation chooses to officially sanction any combination of lovers that may please its citizens — man and woman, man and man, woman and woman? Who gets hurt?
Ultimately, women do. That’s the brilliantly insightful answer from a reader of this blog, Joshua Berman, an American scholar who teaches at Israel’s Bar-Ilan University while serving as a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem. He’s also the author of an excellent new book, Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought. I’m proud to publish his reflections on the question, special to Kingdom of Priests. Keep in mind that if you want to disagree with this analysis, you’ll have to explain why the historical parallel doesn’t apply:

As a scholar of ancient civilizations, I know that we gain invaluable insights by drawing from the observations of others who grappled in their time with the experiences that we are just beginning to face. On the issue of same-sex marriage, we have much to learn from the writers of ancient Rome.

Reading them brings me to the conclusion that were I a woman, I would be concerned by the tide of legislation now sweeping our country.

To see how these ancient writings demonstrate that feminism and homosexuality are on a collision course, we need to first take a step back and consider the end-game of the gay and lesbian movement. The immediate aim is to win in the courts. But the ultimate aim is to win over the culture: to arrive at a day when homoeroticism is fully accepted.

Let’s fast-forward the video-tape and see what that day would look like. Johnny, a teenager, has pals who date boys and pals who date girls. In the movies, on billboards, Johnny sees depictions of men in love with men and of men in love with women. Johnny admires the picture in his principal’s office of the principal and his husband on their honeymoon. In this day, no one uses the word “homosexual” anymore, in just the same way that today no one uses the word “negro” — it’s so laden with the baggage of yesteryear’s bigotry. In fact, in this day, no one makes a big deal about sexual orientation at all. Johnny knows that when he seeks intimacy he is free to choose a blonde, a brunette, a Latina, a Phillipino, a guy, a girl; it’s all cool. Free choice and tolerance take the day.

But reading his history books about the 20th century, Johnny is shocked to discover that the percentage of men who were sexually interested in other men stood only in the single digits. He is shocked because everyone he knows engages in this regularly.


Why do I say everyone?

Continue after the jump to find out why...


http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofp...-marriage.html

[Pret Allez]

I'm sorry, but if Joshua Berman thinks that feminism and male homosexualities are on a crash course because he worries men won't find women attractive or nearly as exciting after having sex with other men, that's just too bad. It is not our duty to have sex with women, and that's not a valid way of being hurt. The fact that he seems to think it is our duty makes him an ideological rapist. End of story.

Now, to move to the rest of what's problematic about his account. Is he aware that gay and bisexual women even exist? The whole way his bit is written, the argument (as terrible as it is) could be applied to women too. I mean, clearly once a woman has fucked another one, nothing that a man could give her would possibly be that good. So if we encourage lesbianism, men will suffer. Oh wait! He doesn't make that argument, because he's so focused on condemning gay and bisexual men. His account completely erases lesbians and bi women, so it doesn't even make a complete account about homosexualities anyway.

Aside from that, his concern for feminist perspectives is not even close to genuine, or else he would interrogate the history of socially authoritarian religious intellectuals (who, let's face it, have a shitty track record).

[Rakkaus]

So the argument from that mess, if I'm reading it right is...

If LGBTQ people become fully accepted and integrated into society, this will cause lots of men who aren't gay to experiment with other men. They will all find that having sex with men is more satisfying than being with women. Thus women will not be able to hold onto any man as husband since every man has basically become gay and prefers to be with men. Therefore, same-sex marriage hurts women.

My head hurts from the stupidity.

Religion kills brain cells.

[SkyDiver]

The immediate aim is to win in the courts. But the ultimate aim is to win over the culture: to arrive at a day when homoeroticism is fully accepted.

Sounds about right. Which we WILL achieve.

Let’s fast-forward the video-tape and see what that day would look like. Johnny, a teenager, has pals who date boys and pals who date girls. In the movies, on billboards, Johnny sees depictions of men in love with men and of men in love with women. Johnny admires the picture in his principal’s office of the principal and his husband on their honeymoon. In this day, no one uses the word “homosexual” anymore, in just the same way that today no one uses the word “negro” — it’s so laden with the baggage of yesteryear’s bigotry. In fact, in this day, no one makes a big deal about sexual orientation at all. Johnny knows that when he seeks intimacy he is free to choose a blonde, a brunette, a Latina, a Phillipino, a guy, a girl; it’s all cool. Free choice and tolerance take the day.

And that's a problem.... how?

[Pret Allez]

Originally Posted by SkyDiver

And that's a problem.... how?

But, think of all the women who will never get to enjoy your cock. You're hurting them!

[Eponine]

The article itself is what's hurting women.

[Rakkaus]

Originally Posted by Pret Allez

I'm sorry, but if Joshua Berman thinks that feminism and male homosexualities are on a crash course because he worries men won't find women attractive or nearly as exciting after having sex with other men, that's just too bad. It is not our duty to have sex with women, and that's not a valid way of being hurt. The fact that he seems to think it is our duty makes him an ideological rapist. End of story.

Now, to move to the rest of what's problematic about his account. Is he aware that gay and bisexual women even exist? The whole way his bit is written, the argument (as terrible as it is) could be applied to women too. I mean, clearly once a woman has fucked another one, nothing that a man could give her would possibly be that good. So if we encourage lesbianism, men will suffer. Oh wait! He doesn't make that argument, because he's so focused on condemning gay and bisexual men. His account completely erases lesbians and bi women, so it doesn't even make a complete account about homosexualities anyway.

Aside from that, his concern for feminist perspectives is not even close to genuine, or else he would interrogate the history of socially authoritarian religious intellectuals (who, let's face it, have a shitty track record).

Actually, he briefly touches on why he is only talking about male homosexuals with his comment about anatomy, and it is part of his subtle sexism. His whole argument, after all, is basically that you need to have a man to achieve true sexual satisfaction- for both men and women:

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.

So basically that sums up his entire argument. Everyone, male and female, naturally craves dick to obtain the greatest sexual satisfaction. Men will obviously then prefer to stick with other men, while women will be out-competed for men since they don't have the right genitals to offer.

Utterly asinine. Also I wonder if the author is a closet-case, since his argument is based on the idea that gay sex is more fun than straight sex. Either way he is deluded if he thinks all women want him.

[Pret Allez]

Originally Posted by Rakkaus

Actually, he briefly touches on why he is only talking about male homosexuals with his comment about anatomy, and it is part of his subtle sexism. His whole argument, after all, is basically that you need to have a man to achieve true sexual satisfaction- for both men and women:

So basically that sums up his entire argument. Everyone, male and female, naturally craves dick to obtain the greatest sexual satisfaction. Men will obviously then prefer to stick with other men, while women will be out-competed for men since they don't have the right genitals to offer.

Utterly asinine. Also I wonder if the author is a closet-case, since his argument is based on the idea that gay sex is more fun than straight sex. Either way he is deluded if he thinks all women want him.

I didn't read that paragraph as an acknowledgment of women. In fact, I found it to be an even more damning erasure. The very fact that he thinks all women crave dick means that he automatically doesn't give a shit about lesbians or bi women at all.

Also, I did find that paragraph kind of funny, and the picture of it made me almost shoot the tea I'm drinking through my nose. It does not say what he think it says, because my basic grasp of anatomy is that if a guy who enjoys having sex with women can also enjoy it with a guy, then he's doing some chicks up the butt. Except, wait a minute, he's religious so that can't be okay. But I guess my basic grasp of anatomy is wrong. We have vaginas.

EDIT: Of course, the more charitable I get, the stupider his argument sounds, because if he's just saying men enjoy penetration and that's it, then he still has to account for why so many of us enjoy bottoming. He also has to account for why we don't want to stick our cocks into Caesar salad.

[Level75]

Let’s fast-forward the video-tape and see what that day would look like. Johnny, a teenager, has pals who date boys and pals who date girls. In the movies, on billboards, Johnny sees depictions of men in love with men and of men in love with women. Johnny admires the picture in his principal’s office of the principal and his husband on their honeymoon. In this day, no one uses the word “homosexual” anymore, in just the same way that today no one uses the word “negro” — it’s so laden with the baggage of yesteryear’s bigotry. In fact, in this day, no one makes a big deal about sexual orientation at all. Johnny knows that when he seeks intimacy he is free to choose a blonde, a brunette, a Latina, a Phillipino, a guy, a girl; it’s all cool. Free choice and tolerance take the day.

That sounds pretty good, actually.

[Gold Griffin]

Well, if the anti-feminists are correct, feminism will turn women into lesbians, so problem solved.

Oh wait, then no one will have any children anymore, and humanity will go extinct. Because that is what liberals want because they worship Gaia the earth, hence the legalization of abortion and pro-environment measures.

/real life conservatives' views

[Emberstone]

I wonder if the conservative bible thumpers realize jesus never talked about abortion or homosexuality... and in the book of Numbers, God commands abortions to be preformed.

[Pain]

Um, wouldn't the same go for women too? Women can be gay too

[Pret Allez]

No, not according to Joshua Berman.

[silkfrog1292]

If only it was that easy...I wouldn't have problems getting a boyfriend, and so many of us wouldn't have to deal with falling in love with straight guys. Lol

The stupidity of that article is unbelievable

[Hot Pink]

The fundamental religious's agenda to turn homosexual men against feminists is actually a very old dividing tactic. They've been trying since the the mid-20th Century. Most of us see through this obvious tactic, though. It also assumes that most--if not all--feminists are lesbians, though, which is why it's so face-palm worthy.

[spectrumsigner]

This is all kinds of ridiculous. Then again, so is the whole fundie agenda. I go to a super-strict Fundie (Southern Baptist) college, and pretty much everyone thinks like this. Sad that there are so many people who actually buy into this stupidity. Sad but TRUE.

---------- Post added 24th Sep 2012 at 05:16 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Rakkaus

So the argument from that mess, if I'm reading it right is...

If LGBTQ people become fully accepted and integrated into society, this will cause lots of men who aren't gay to experiment with other men. They will all find that having sex with men is more satisfying than being with women. Thus women will not be able to hold onto any man as husband since every man has basically become gay and prefers to be with men. Therefore, same-sex marriage hurts women.

My head hurts from the stupidity.

Religion kills brain cells.

I feel like this is what they're saying, but I can't even deal with how illogical and dumb that is... I just... I can't... *brain short-circuits*

[thecat06]

That article hurt my brain... It makes no sense at all.

[AshenAngel]

This guy is an idiot. It seems he has forgotten that there is in fact a percentage of the female population that DOES NOT WANT anything to do with having sex with men, myself included. Fucking moron....

[patience]

Oh wow. I can't even wrap my brain around the misogyny in this little piece of word vomit. This kind of thought process scares the crap out of me.

[madi]

He must be gay....Why else would he think that only a dick can satisfy people sexually?