Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


How Women Will Be Hurt by Gay Marriage

posted by David Klinghoffer

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.

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.

If Catullus addressed the bridegroom on the eve of his wedding, the satirist Martial (Book 11, Epigram 43) depicts the reality of married life itself. As satire, the section is too bawdy to be reprinted here, but the sanitized version goes like this: A woman chastises her husband for continuing to dally with male acquaintances. He counters that many other married men are doing it as well. Desperate, she offers to service him in the same way that his male suitor does. He rebuffs, concluding, that she just can’t satisfy him the way his suitor can.

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.

As Shakespeare noted, the past is prologue. The push to legalize same-sex marriage — to grant full social sanction to the homoerotic bond — is a major step in an experiment of social engineering. We might wind up ourselves one day penning the observations of writers like Catullus and Martial, and impotent to turn back the clock. It is said that all opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in religious dogma, which has no place in our legal discourse.

But there is a utilitarian argument as well: full social sanction for the homoerotic bond is opposed not for God’s sake, but for the sake of tomorrow’s women.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(279)
post a comment
Stephen

posted June 23, 2009 at 8:26 pm


Mrs. Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else
Take a gander at this informative 4 minute video. Bible-based values and a biblical worldview in a single Youtube vid, spanning chapters ‘n verses from both the Old and New Testaments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted June 23, 2009 at 8:45 pm


“Men, we learn from ancient Rome, will enjoy sex with other men, if there is no social censure.”
Sexual orientation doesn’t change based on convenience. Do you honestly believe that if tomorrow, you could guarantee that no one would be ostracized, prosecuted, imprisoned, attacked, or killed for who they partnered with, that all men would suddenly turn into homosexuals and decide girls have cooties? Would you?
There’s a reason why Johnny reads in his history book that most men are attracted to women. (Besides the fact that the author couldn’t think of enough to write on two world wars, the civil rights movement, and space travel.) The reason is that the majority of men are heterosexual, and probably will continue to be so. There’s a bit of a biological advantage, as you might imagine. And they’re not likely to suddenly “turn gay” just to fulfill your prophecy of doom.
One more thing:
“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.”
“Homosexual” is a scientific term. It’s about as much of an insult as “homo sapiens” or “carbon dioxide”. Using it as an insult doesn’t offend anyone, it just makes you look dumb. Like the Christian news site that filtered out the word “gay”, and thus posted an article about an Olympic athlete named “Tyson Homosexual”. Let’s hope that if little Johnny does read about World War II, he won’t read that the “Enola Sodomite” bombed Hiroshima.



report abuse
 

Karen Brown

posted June 23, 2009 at 8:51 pm


Besides, last I heard, ‘gay marriage’ means men can marry men, and women can marry women. Why no rush to assume that all the women aren’t going to become lesbians if it suddenly becomes more socially acceptable?



report abuse
 

Karen Brown

posted June 23, 2009 at 8:53 pm


Oh, and by the way, since Romans didn’t basically die out due to lack of breeding, we can assume that men still managed to, despite the acceptance of sex with men, bring themselves to have sex with women.



report abuse
 

Kristin

posted June 23, 2009 at 9:03 pm


LOL no.



report abuse
 

LazerA

posted June 23, 2009 at 9:37 pm


The same is true to an even greater degree with the Classical Greeks. Love was an emotion felt primarily between men. Women were viewed, by and large, as serving no function beyond bearing heirs. Most female children were “exposed” (i.e. killed upon birth). These cultural attitudes were one of the reasons that the Greeks were eventually subdued by the Macedonians, who – in their “barbaric” and “unrefined” ways – still valued female love.
When you combine our societies move towards homosexuality with the acceptance of abortion (our “civilized” version of exposure) we have the potential for a truly dark period in the history of the position of women in society.



report abuse
 

m.e.graves

posted June 23, 2009 at 9:50 pm


The fact that your picture looks like Sean Hayes from Will & Grace makes the fact that this piece is meant to be sincere and not as a piece from The Onion makes it all the more hilarious. I was feeling depressed lately but this really picked me up. Keep up the good work.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted June 23, 2009 at 9:53 pm


LazerA: “When you combine our societies move towards homosexuality with the acceptance of abortion we have the potential for a truly dark period in the history of the position of women in society.”
As opposed to that dark period where they couldn’t vote or own property and were generally considered only good for breeding purposes?



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted June 23, 2009 at 10:30 pm


Karen: As a matter of fact, there was a sharp drop in childbearing in the 1st Century BC through the 1st Century AD in the Roman Empire. The overall population held steady because of imported slaves and immigrants from conquered provinces, but Caesar Augustus was sufficiently concerned to put drastic pro-natalist policies into place, which included major financial incentives for early marriages and larger families. Whether this can be attributed to the prevalence of homosexuality or not is debatable, but the facts are there. The already-declining population was dealt further blows by the plagues and wars of the late 2nd and early 3rd Centuries AD, and the ramifications of this (e.g. increasing reliance on barbarian mercenaries) may have fed into the complex sea of factors leading to the Western Empire’s ultimate fall.
Mordred08: There is some evidence that in a more tolerant climate more young people “experiment”, and recent polls indicate the number of people who have had homosexual experiences is larger. Whether this means more actually have, or that it’s the same number but that people are more willing to say so, is debatable. Without going into a long, complex discussion, I’m inclined to agree with Kinsey (with whom I disagree on many other matters!) that sexuality is a spectrum, from “complete” homosexuals, through various degrees of bisexuality, to “complete” heterosexuals. This is probably as a result of a complicated interaction of genetic, somatic, environmental, and sociocultural factors; at any rate, it does seem to be the case.
Most people will be heterosexuals regardless; and a small percentage of the population (2-5%, depending on whom you believe) will probably be homosexual regardless. A larger swatch of the population (I’m guessing maybe 10-25%) probably is capable of bisexuality to some extent in some circumstances. Thus, while the “pure” gay or straight contingent is more or less fixed, there are probably substantial numbers of people who might tend to experiment more or be more likely to pursue gay lifestyles in a permissive society. In a less permissive society, such people would probably conform and pursue only straight relationships. Thus, I’d tend to agree with Berman’s analysis.
Also, I agree with LazarA. If you read extensively in Classical Greek literature, the misogyny is truly astounding, and the exaltation of love of men for each other (which in theory wasn’t supposed to be physical, actually, but in practice generally was) is a very common theme.
The basic thing is this: any alteration of long-standing socio-cultural institutions tends to have many unexpected effects. Rod Dreher, over at the Crunchy Conservative blog keeps pointing this out, and has even put forth commentaries by libertarians and others that either have no opinion on or actively favor gay marriage (e.g. Megan McArdle) but who nevertheless agree that the effects of gay marriage on society at large are not necessarily known or benign. Every time he posts this, he gets excoriated for it, but there it is.
Probably, gay marriage of some sort will become legal in the US, or large parts of it, in our lifetime (as it is already starting to be), so for better or worse, we’ll get to find out what happens.



report abuse
 

Lauren

posted June 23, 2009 at 10:53 pm


As a woman…I think this blog post is ridiculous.



report abuse
 

m.e.graves

posted June 23, 2009 at 10:57 pm


Lauren, David just wants you to admit what he (and gay men like me) have known all along. We’re just so much better at pleasing men than women are that if given the opportunity they would all come running to us faster than Britney Spears to a drunk quicky Vegas marriage to an old high school sweetheart. Though not as fast as Britney Spears to a divorce attorney 36 hours later, of course.



report abuse
 

m.e.graves

posted June 23, 2009 at 11:02 pm


As a matter of fact, there was a sharp drop in childbearing in the 1st Century BC through the 1st Century AD in the Roman Empire…
Yes… because 7 billion humans on the planet is nowhere near enough…
m.e.graves: I’m being fruitful. Maybe God should have been more specific.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted June 23, 2009 at 11:09 pm


Lauren: “As a woman…I think this blog post is ridiculous.”
Don’t be silly. Remember, Lauren, you’re a woman. Therefore, you can’t be trusted to decide what’s a threat to you and what isn’t. It’s up to men like Klinghoffer to protect you from the big bad homosexuals taking away all your potential boyfriends.



report abuse
 

Just Tori

posted June 23, 2009 at 11:25 pm


This post lacks a few major points about human sexuality and about history. People live on a spectrum. I know the crazy right wingers go nuts when they try to think outside of the context of black and white, but very few things fit a binary. As Alfred Kinsey pointed out, most people fall somewhere between the extremes of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Few are on the far ends.
It has been shown in studies that women are often much more toward the middle than men are, and can be pulled in either direction by culture. Studies also show that men will pretty much stick their d*cks in anything. The problem with “breeding” and the rise of homosexuality isn’t that women won’t find men, but that women will realize we’re better off without the f*ckers. Survival won’t be an issue since we’ve discovered artificial insemination, which was not quite perfected by the time of the fall of Rome.
This coming from a proud lesbian, let them keep their penises to themselves – good riddance.



report abuse
 

amy

posted June 23, 2009 at 11:31 pm


Maybe back then women couldn’t please each other because of the human anatomy, but now we have plenty of new tools. So I dont really think this post has any relevance to today’s society.



report abuse
 

My Name

posted June 23, 2009 at 11:39 pm


Fascinating, yes, but ultimately pointless.
We are in an era, like it or not, where individuals have been given autonomy in increasing amounts – harm being the standard. Real, substantive harm – not “people will do things other people won’t like.” Real harm.
No one is required to approve of actions that cause no harm. I, frankly, find NASCAR to be reprehensible. I absolutely respect the rights of anyone to choose to attend a NASCAR rally (or whatever they’re called.)
In other words, mind your own business, and we’ll mind ours. Remember – the standard you use against those who believe differently than you will be the standard used against you when you are no longer in power. It’s the way of the world. Do you really, with the way the world is going, want to become an *enemy* of those who are coming to power after you?
Really? Why?



report abuse
 

POvidi

posted June 24, 2009 at 12:38 am


Generally I find Klinghoffer’s arguments astoundingly absurb, but this is simply offensive. First of all, I am currently a student of the Classics so I have some familiarity with the subject matter here. I can tell you that while many similarities exist between the modern West and ancient Rome one big factor separates us. This factor is chauvinism.
Of course it still exists today; however, it’s now looked down upon and in many cases, such as sexual harrassment, it’s illegal. Women can vote. Women can own property. None of this existed in ancient Rome, and nobody even thought these things were worth discussing. In addition, homosexuality was not nearly as accepted as people like to think. As far as sodomy was concerned, Romans considered topping to be fine, but anyone who bottomed was automatically relegated to the lower social position of a woman. That too has changed today. It ultimately leads back to the same chauvinism that most people find repulsive.
That was my perspective as a student of the Classics. Furthermore, I can speak as a gay man and say that feminism has no stronger ally than myself and many other gays (both male and female). Feminism and gay activists have a common bedrock in their causes, and that is equality. When Klinghoffer claimed public acceptance of homoeroticism as our goal I was shocked and appalled. Such a distortion of our ideals is ignorant and possibly malicious. I simply can’t imagine the amount of hate and fear that one must posses to write such inflammatory remarks.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted June 24, 2009 at 1:37 am


Gay marriage was not legal in ancient times.
If upper-class Romans and Greeks preferred their slave-boys to their wives, nonetheless they had wives. They did not marry men. Historical examples of same-sex marriage are exceedingly rare.
So gay marriage could not have been responsible for Roman sexual behavior.
Klinghoffer is actually arguing against tolerance for gay sex.
As usual, he is dishonest in his motives and his conclusions are utterly unrelated to his premises.



report abuse
 

Margaret

posted June 24, 2009 at 3:35 am


Hilarious! And yet rather sad that someone who can clearly construct a sentence–and even something approximating a logical argument–has decided to squander his time and energy on something so absurd.



report abuse
 

hootie1fan

posted June 24, 2009 at 9:08 am


Can gay marriage cause any for harm to women than has heterosexual divorce?



report abuse
 

DML

posted June 24, 2009 at 9:50 am


“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 (sic), a guy, a girl; it’s all cool. Free choice and tolerance take the day.”
Is the above remark not racist, lumping interracial relationships together with homosexual marriage? Btw, the correct spelling is Filipino or Pilipino for those who hail from the Philippines. Mr. Berman is not doing his intolerant cause any good by misspelling the names of minority groups he is attacking.
Roman society didn’t seem to suffer from a little (or a lot of) homosexuality, they still managed quite well as a dominating imperial power in their day. Edward Gibbon linked their demise largely with the rise in religious fanaticism. This led to a preoccupation with nonproductive religious devotion and a loss of martial discipline.
Also remember that Judah’s greatest leader, King David, was bisexual but God didn’t seem to have a problem with it. He went on to have many productive heterosexual marriages after his earlier relationship with Jonathan. A casual reading of the Song of Solomon will also strike an uneasy feeling in a fundamentalist’s heart that it is partly a gay love poem.



report abuse
 

Ashley Huxley

posted June 24, 2009 at 10:11 am


Oh come on. Seriously, the logic here is so flawed.
We already have the sexual freedom that Berman talks about – legally speaking, men are free to have sex with men or women and vice-versa. Marriage has nothing to do with this. If men were to be adulterous to their partners with men instead of other women, we would see that happening now, but we don’t, except for a few minor incedents. Marriage isn’t going to change this – men will cheat if they are allowed to marry the third party or not.
Secondly, this part is just absurd:
“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. ”
Sexual attraction is not a case of anatomy. It doesn’t take a university scholar to figure out that not all men are attracted to anything with a hole and that women can’t gain pleasure from anything other than certain parts of the male anatomy. Which is really what this whole article hinges on. Flawed logic, plain and simple.



report abuse
 

Kathy

posted June 24, 2009 at 11:30 am


This is the most hysterical piece of trash I have ever read on this subject. I agree with Lauren – This is ridiculous!



report abuse
 

Mike

posted June 24, 2009 at 11:35 am


This article actaully made me laugh outloud. So let me get this straight (so to speak). The reason we should forbid homosexual activity is that its so good that most men will prefer it once they try it and women will be left alone? Forgive me, but, not only is that hysterically funny, but it alos sounds like something from someone who is personally struggling with their own homosexuality.



report abuse
 

citybythebay

posted June 24, 2009 at 11:59 am


This author’s entirely ludicrous argument hinges on the idea that if we permit same-sex marriage, there will be more gay people. People are having sex with members of their own sex because the are gay and attracted to them emotionally, sexually, romantically, not because all of a sudden the state said “hey, it’s OK and you can even get married.” As Ashley pointed out, people can already decide in our society to have a long-term committed relationship with someone of the same sex. This is about whether we all live in denial and claim they are strangers to each other in that relationship, or whether we tell ourselves the truth out loud: that they are a couple.



report abuse
 

Aquari

posted June 24, 2009 at 12:36 pm


Having read what the most thoughtful men of the era – Socrates, Plato, etc – had to say about homosexuality as a Classical cultural institution, I think for them the difference was that a male lover was a fellow man, an equal, whereas a wife was a lesser being whose experiences and interests had very little in common with theirs. In the Symposium they talk about a male partner as someone you can learn from, someone whose accomplishments you can be proud of, someone whose presence in your life motivates you to be a better human being, someone who really understands you. Even at the level of simple lust, the conquest of an equal is more exciting than accepting the tribute due to you from a subordinate. These are things we modern liberated types look for in an opposite-sex partner. That, rather than the level of toleration for homoeroticism, seems to me to be the critical difference between their sexual culture and ours.



report abuse
 

Lassie

posted June 24, 2009 at 2:42 pm


What. A. Load. (Despite all the blather about ancient marriage, as far as we can tell, women were less valuable than cattle, sub-humans kept out of sight and good for only breeding in ancient times. OR whores. Whether their husbands were jolly family men or out every night at the gay bath houses, their feelings on the matter weren’t relevant.)… And just because gay marriage in the future would be legal, does that mean that the 85% (or 90% or 95%) of young heterosexual men could CHOOSE, yes, CHOOSE to go gay???? As if there would someday be this huge cornucopia of sexual choices and they would be free to pick a partner as if off a menu??? Hot dog or Hot Pocket?…So that would, what, leave all the poor wives and assorted lesbians walking around all frustrated, having icky useless girly parts, all of them yearning for the now rare manly parts?? THE MEN WIN, YAY!…I predict that the birthrate will just plummet. And Walmart will have two massive aisles, one side selling Viagara and the other side selling artificial manly parts. The bright side is, this development will keep closet cases with a wide stance out of public mens rooms, since anything will be allowable and they won’t have to sneak around behind their wive’s backs any more….Seriously, Dave, I don’t know what flavor of Kool-aid they’re serving there at the Ted Haggard Re-Education Center, but I think you ought to put the cup down.



report abuse
 

Husband

posted June 24, 2009 at 3:33 pm


What a piece of sheer utter worthless garbage. Such a waste of bandwidth.
Is this fictional “Johhny” that stupid to believe such blatant, simplified hogwash as: “He is shocked because everyone he knows engages in this regularly.”?
Klighoffer, you’ve scraped the bottom of many barrels, but this is Scheisse. You’ve shown yourself to be “Johnny”‘s mental equivalent.



report abuse
 

David Boring

posted June 24, 2009 at 5:00 pm


You are either kidding or completely out of your mind. I don’t think that you’re kidding.



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted June 24, 2009 at 5:08 pm


Once we get past erroneous claims, ancient opinions and other various meaningless stuff the answer is: Women will not be hurt by same sex marriage.



report abuse
 

Hank

posted June 24, 2009 at 5:29 pm


The arguments against marriage equality are sounding more and more desperate.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 24, 2009 at 5:39 pm


barry,
We can even go back to the Hebrew Scriptures to note that it tells us that the Israelites got so sick of theocracy that they begged God for a king. The story goes on to say that even though God didn’t approve, they were allowed to have one anyway.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 24, 2009 at 6:45 pm


Wow. Completely insane.
It doesn’t matter how socially acceptable same sex relations become, I am never going to be attracted to other men.



report abuse
 

DMTdust

posted June 24, 2009 at 8:59 pm


“It doesn’t matter how socially acceptable same sex relations become, I am never going to be attracted to other men.”
You may not be, I might not be, but David Klinghoffer most certainly is.
what a maroon.



report abuse
 

Mojo

posted June 25, 2009 at 4:28 am


I have to admit, this makes an interesting point, but it’s fallacious to look at history as a totally accurate predictor for our future, not just as Americans but as humans. If this change occurs it’ll probably be global. It’ll probably be in Europe shortly before the US. However, this change may never occur. Look at most societies in the world. Look at lesser developed societies. This behavior is not the norm almost anywhere in the world, and it probably never will be. The Greeks had total sexual liberty and openness. Even more often than sex with other “men”, there was sex with boys. Legalizing gay marriage is not, in my opinion, going to lead to a future where pedophilia is once again accepted, especially in light of modern psychology.



report abuse
 

Saras

posted June 25, 2009 at 4:30 am


As a married woman, I ask that you stop using my relationship in your insane assault against equal rights.



report abuse
 

Peter

posted June 25, 2009 at 4:35 am


It’s also worth mentioning that many studies have found women inherently are universally attracted to both genders, and a preference for men or women is learned by life experiences for them, whereas for men it is usually something they are born with.
Why is it worth mentioning this? Well, in today’s world, and presumably tomorrow’s, women have far greater rights for working, property ownership, civil participation, etc. Women would also be free to partner up with each other. A French philosopher predicted that one day the triple would replace the couple (ridiculous but it’s an interesting concept). There would not be any shortage of opportunity for women to find women, men to find men, men to find women, or women to find men in the future because of this reason, especially if everyone is attracted to anybody. It just means more choices for everyone. So your utilitarian reason disappears in a flash.



report abuse
 

J. J. Hadley

posted June 25, 2009 at 4:45 am


What absurd bs! Simply because one western culture had predilections towards homosexuality does not mean any other ever necessarily will, and disregarding that who really gives a sh*t. There are plenty of men who have no regard for the social conventions regarding sexuality and yet have no interest in f*cking men. It makes me wonder if the person who wrote this article had predilections towards homosexuality and assumed that because of his desires he assumed every other man had the same intent. Regardless I think every man and woman has the right to live how they want to live and in my experience women would rather f*ck each other and could not care less what men do anyway. I dont feel any great sadness for the end of human kind, and in fact I believe it would be better for the rest of our wonderful planet.



report abuse
 

Robert

posted June 25, 2009 at 9:29 am


These claims assume women are non-working housewives left at home, totally dependent on their husbands. In fact more women use gay marriage than men. This is also no longer a society that requires women to marry by a certain age. So either you are sexist and superimposing what you believe is a woman’s only fate, or you are just not very thoughtful, which is surprising considering the great deal of effort it must have taken producing this contrived argument.



report abuse
 

Kiki

posted June 25, 2009 at 10:22 am


Can you please tag on a cry against men entering the priesthood here, or at least an argument supporting their right to marry? Between them and these awful, awful homos I fear we’ll all end up spinsters!



report abuse
 

My Name

posted June 25, 2009 at 10:31 am


Hah – this article went over like a lead zeppelin.
Not that the reactions here will make a difference to. Klinghoffer is “convinced.” Gay Marriage is “dangerous.” Homosexuality is too tempting for people like him. Must not let the homos marry or he and others like him will be too unable to resist.
Tool.



report abuse
 

Jeff

posted June 25, 2009 at 11:08 am


Err…
Did the author of that essentially just assert that all sexual pleasure derives from the penis and that once a man experiences sex with another man they will never choose to be with a woman?
Wow…
Oh, the historical record is also nowhere near as confirmed on this as the author would have it. He is cherry picking to support his spurious notions.



report abuse
 

snaxalotl

posted June 25, 2009 at 12:03 pm


“Let me lay a little science on you, Nina. All women are two drinks away from a girl-on-girl adventure.”
- Finch



report abuse
 

lwwalker

posted June 25, 2009 at 1:30 pm


This just doesn’t pass the common sense test. I’m a man, and I am attracted to, fall in love with, and want to have sex with women. I’ve been that way all my life. If I had grown up knowing two men could get married, I’d magically be into men? I don’t think so.



report abuse
 

Just think about if tor FIVE MINUTES, people

posted June 25, 2009 at 2:01 pm


This author basically confessed that the only thing that’s keeping cocks out of his mouth is social stigma. In other words, he’s a closet case.
Hey Klinghoffer, you’d be a lot better off if you’d just come out of the closet and quit hating on yourself and your peers. Go ahead; suck those cocks. There’s nothing wrong with being an “out” gay dude. There IS something wrong with being a pathetic, closeted, self-loathing, hateful pussy who feeds a bunch of anti-gay hostility because he’s too chickenshit to admit what he is.
Also, not all men will abandon women and start screwing men if homosexuality is accepted. See, I have a sincere attraction to women (I don’t just pretend to be attracted to them because that’s what’s socially acceptable). So I don’t have to be all terrified of the consequences of gay acceptance; I’m going to keep right on fucking women like everyone else who isn’t a closet case.
And if the Ancient Romans really stopped reproducing with women due to their love of other men, then where did all these modern Italians come from? Virgin births? Wouldn’t they have died out?
Not that I should expect a homophobe to be able to put 2 and 2 together.



report abuse
 

Just think about if tor FIVE MINUTES, people

posted June 25, 2009 at 2:07 pm


This is just proof that the anti-gay arguments aren’t really arguments. They’re excuses. The anti-gay crowd is desperately flailing around in search of excuses to justify their position, so that they don’t have to admit the truth: they just plain hate gays. They think they’re icky and don’t have the maturity to just leave them alone over it.
Or, conversely, they themselves are gay and have huge shame issues, and their means of distancing themselves from that is to hold all these antigay opinions.
Either way, their excuses are getting more and more desperate and obvious. First it was Leviticus. Then it was “family values.” Then it was “slippery slope.” Now it’s the idea that all men will turn gay if we allow gay marriage, and nobody will reproduce with women.
Notice how easily they abandon one “sincere” objection and move to another? Notice how each of their reasons for banning gay marriage gets more and more far-fetched? They are not arguments, people; they are excuses for holding such a middle-schooler mentality towards gays.



report abuse
 

Holy Crap

posted June 25, 2009 at 2:37 pm


I am amazed that the poet Catullus is trotted out as some sort of authority on psychology and anthropology. He was an infamous poet who took to regularly insulting public figures in his poetry, as well as trying to come up with the most obscene verses possible. He was, basically, the Eminem of his day. This argument is morally and intellectually bankrupt to begin with, but the somber citation of Catullus just puts it into the realm of the deranged.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 25, 2009 at 2:41 pm


Note to readers: This post must have been linked by some other site visited by lots of unpleasant people who are also cowards that don’t use their real names when leaving comments. Just so you know, I don’t tolerate vulgarity or personal attacks on anyone in this space. Comments that cross that line, when I see them, will be unpublished.



report abuse
 

Ernest

posted June 25, 2009 at 2:54 pm


That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. If men are going to cheat w/ another man, they’ll do it whether gay marriage is law or not. How desperate of you.



report abuse
 

David in Houston

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:00 pm


The person that posted as “Just think about if tor FIVE MINUTES, people” said everything I was thinking.
But this quote caught my attention: “But the ultimate aim is to win over the culture: to arrive at a day when homo eroticism is fully accepted.”
The fight for gay rights has nothing to do homo eroticism. It has to do with equality. Every law-abiding tax paying American should have the same rights regardless of their sexual orientation. It doesn’t get more simple than that… and all the crazy theories fabricated to confuse the masses won’t win out in the end.



report abuse
 

Michael DiMartino

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:03 pm


lm a gay male. Traditional heterosexual marriage IS legal. Why am I not somehow finding myself attracted to women? What a ridiculous argument. And again, falling back on ancient documents to fit today’s time is a problem. Otherwise, men couldn’t play football for fear of touching pig’s skin on sundays.



report abuse
 

Chris

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:06 pm


This is the dumbest thing I have read in a long time. Why are gay men not flocking to women? There are a lot more of them and they can get married. If you want to condemn homosexuality based on your ancient bible then go ahead, but don’t try and make up some ridiculous argument about hurting women.



report abuse
 

Mark Oshiro

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:08 pm


All right, David, I’ll use my real name and linked proof that I’m a real person.
Your argument falls apart with just the most basic application of logic: accepting homosexuality does not create more homosexuals. It might allow more people who are ALREADY GAY to publicly come out without fear of physical and emotional violence, but it doesn’t actually create more homosexuals.
I mean, seriously, take the slightest amount of time to think about this. There are millions — MILLIONS — of straight men and women who already accept homosexuality fully. To them, it is not sexual deviancy. It is not against God’s law. In fact, they believe it should be law that all homosexual relationships should be protected on a Federal level.
Now, if your argument is even the tiniest bit true, why haven’t these millions and millions of men and women divorced, broken up, and gone to bed with their same sex acquaintances? Why aren’t millions of women complaining about the men in their leaves fleeing the grasp of heterosexual love in order to sex up their male partners?
It hasn’t happened because, frankly, it never will. Your entire argument rests on such a frightening definition of sexuality that I don’t think you’ve ever actually thought about it.
Are you also suggesting that you yourself are just a Supreme Court decision away from climbing under the sheets with another male?
Please, think this through before you publish such a damaging position.



report abuse
 

Jason Steele

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:12 pm


The person who wrote this column is very uneducated on the facts. Michael DiMartino makes excellent points. The people that are against marriage equality need to stop coming up with bogus, ignorant statements and simply admit that they are homophobic and like having all the power. They are scared of what might happen if everyone is treated equally because they like being oppressors. It doesn’t matter if it is the war lords and conquerors of ancient times, the followers of Nazi Germany, or the middle-America conservative couple. They are all interested in one thing – having power to oppress other human beings so they can feel superior. Guess what really happens when everyone is treated equally – we all get along.



report abuse
 

Mike

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:13 pm


The writer seems to just have outed himself.



report abuse
 

ZnSD

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:14 pm


This is by far the MOST ridiculous argument EVER. It’s obvious that whoever wrote this just can’t wait for an excuse to be ‘as gay as he wanna be’. There are PLENTY of gay men who’ve slept with women and just aren’t attracted to them and don’t fall in love with them. Period. Because at the end of the day it’s not about the SEX, ya dummy. It’s about the LOVE: as in WHO people fall in LOVE with – either men, women or both. It’s just not difficult to comprehend is it? Are you REALLY this stupid? Time to step out of the bible bubble and into the light of reality where people live.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:20 pm


This post must have been linked by some other site visited by lots of unpleasant people who are also cowards that don’t use their real names when leaving comments. Just so you know, I don’t tolerate vulgarity or personal attacks on anyone in this space.
Yeah, people’s right-wing bosses, present or future, should totes be able to google their defenses of gay marriage. And it’s a worse “sin” to be “unpleasant” or use naughty words than to sling bullshit around.
Typical.



report abuse
 

duh...

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:28 pm


This could be a valid point, were it not for the existence of lesbians and strap-ons, oh the pleasures of the modern day…



report abuse
 

Jezebel Parks

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:28 pm


I don’t appreciate this.
Stop with the homophobia and start only speaking for yourself. Women don’t need you to ride in on your gay horse and “enlighten” us all with your completely inaccurate “facts”. We can take care of ourselves just fine, thank you very much.
If my boyfriend leaves me once gay marriage is legalized so he can start banging other guys, then guess what? He probably never loved me for myself in the first place, so who needs him? I certainly don’t want to be with someone who gives me the same respect of a blowup doll
I don’t usually degrade my vocabulary like this, but fuck you and your ignorant homophobia. There are more important causes that you should be putting your energy towards. Shame on you.



report abuse
 

Cory

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:29 pm


Anyone catch this line:
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 this sentence the author leaves you to perceive that the principal is a man (a gay man) to further illustrate his point but he does so in a way that the reader is just left to expect it because it has been a male dominated field. For someone trying to get feminist support, that’s pretty sexist of you.



report abuse
 

nhJeff

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:30 pm


I think David has just outed himself as a closeted homosexual. Not only that, he has some rather vivid sexual fantasies. I don’t know any heterosexual men who want to leave the wife at home and hopping into bed with other men.
Oh yeah: Then there’s the marriage thing. What’s at stake here isn’t uninhibited sexuality. We’re talking about two adults committing to love and care for each other for the rest of their lives. Please explain how two men making that commitment is going to hurt the women whose husbands aren’t quite as committed as they promised.
Just when I thought excuses for bigotry couldn’t get any dumber, I’ve been proved wrong again.



report abuse
 

Nina

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:31 pm


Joshua Berman’s argument is essentially that women will be lost as there are fewer and fewer men to marry. Um, is there something wrong with NOT marrying a closeted gay man? LOL. It’s a ridiculous argument. He’s basically saying that it’s ok to marry even if you don’t love the person or what to have intercourse because it preserves the perception of the nuclear family; it doesn’t matter that it’s all a lie!
His excerpt is also incredibly sexist. What does this hetero male know of lesbians? Women can love and make love even with out a penis. Don’t be absurd.
Please don’t attempt to argue for women; we can stand up for ourselves.



report abuse
 

Robert McDiarmid

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:31 pm


Let me introduce myself – My name is Robert McDiarmid, I’m a 41 year old gay man living in San Francisco. I live with my partner and we share a home with our terrier, Miss Kate. I realize with Senator Ensign and Governor Sanford doing their part for the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and privilege it must be a confusing and disheartening time for bloggers like yourself.
I’m sorry your blog entry has been targeted David by people – but honestly, did you figure that folks would read this and nod their head in agreement to a single point that you’ve made?
The idea that gay marriage would turn straight men to homosexual behavior is solidly absurd. This entire blog post had me laughing outloud. It reads like something from the Onion.com versus a seriously considered opinion on gay marriage.
You featured blogger quotes opinions from Ancient Rome like they are modern day contemporaries. I mean you are even quoting Shakespeare like he’s a marriage counselor.
I agree with you, actually, that there is a lot of wisdom to be gained from the writings of many cultures, from the Hebrew bible to the Sufi writings and poetry of Rumi to the teachings of Buddhism. In your posting you request that if I disagree with your spotlighting Berman’s analysis, that I’d have to explain why the historical parallel doesn’t apply.
I don’t know a single straight man in my life that would have sexual relations with me if gay marriage were legalized. I don’t know a single straight marriage that feels that the husband would be compelled to have gay sex if I were allowed to marry my partner. The problem is that there is no historical parallel to debate. This essay is the theological equivalent of Chicken Little screaming that the sky is falling.
Despite the yelling and screaming from religious conservatives like yourself – the definition of family in the world is changing. Gay couples and lesbian couple have thriving and fantastic families. So your nuclear family disintegration theory doesn’t hold water either.
In 20 years – I think Johnny will be shocked that people held such, with lack of a better term, ancient views about any minority in America. The one thing conservative religious ‘scholars’ like yourself want to forget is that this is about civil rights; not religious dogma or fear tactics; civil rights.
Any smart conservative religious activist (even James Dobson lately admitted) should know you are on the losing end of that battle.



report abuse
 

Axel

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:46 pm


David, you’re grasping at straws to justify your small-mindedness. Worse, this post is unethical and replete with bigotry. I laughed at first, but really — it’s not funny. As a straight man, I want to express my utter sympathy to my gay brothers. It’s rare to see this variety of intolerance these days, and it’s a good reminder to those of us who value civil rights that there is still so far to go, and that we shouldn’t let-up on our efforts to encourage a society where this sort of lynching is unheard of.



report abuse
 

brad

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:53 pm


the author of this article has brought a fresh level of idiocy to a discussion replete with ignorance.



report abuse
 

RJP3

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:55 pm


Self-Serving Bigotry …nothing more nothing less here.
For a man whose people suffered the same fate — with gay people — well I take that back this is not a man at all.



report abuse
 

Anastasia Beaverhausen

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:55 pm


You insult the “wisdom of the Hebrew Bible” by posting such utter nonsense under that banner. Wisdom is not the same thing as having an overactive (and lurid) imagination.



report abuse
 

Eric Matthews

posted June 25, 2009 at 3:59 pm


I have to say I admire the honesty of your post. Admitting a belief that the natural state of man is a bisexual goes against the grain of most religious sites I’ve read. And admitting your fear of homosexuality is pretty courageous thing to do on the Internet these days. Thanks for that!
Since your post starts out as a warning to women, however, I would like to see something in the way of evidence that women were in fact miserable, or that families were broken up because of men choosing other men in Ancient Rome. One would think there would be some more evidence of such misery in a culture that had such a bisexual standard as your author reports.
Also is your expert saying that as soon as we legalize gay marriage then the US will go the way Ancient Rome went? I’m not the expert, but I’m pretty sure Rome was one of the more successful societies of the time? I know it fell and everything, but how long did it last again? 100 years? 120?
e



report abuse
 

Pete

posted June 25, 2009 at 4:03 pm


I’ve met straight guys who tried sex with men just to be open-minded, make sure they weren’t missing out on something, or because they wanted to experiment. More often than not, it didn’t really appeal to them and they went back to seeking women. Indeed, some of them have told me they interacted with women all the more joyfully knowing that the question “could I be gay?” was settled with a clear “nope.”
This whole “once you’ve tried men you won’t go back” idea is beloved by a lot of gay men, but of course, it’s an *actual feeling* for a lot of gay men. It’s profoundly weird to hear heterosexuals trot it out. If you really believe that the male organs always trump the female in everyone’s sex life, I dunno, I suggest asking a lesbian for some thoughts on how to enjoy women more.



report abuse
 

Lana

posted June 25, 2009 at 4:09 pm


So, you’re basically telling us that the only thing that’s keeping you from laying with another man is the fact that gay marriage is currently illegal?
Nice!



report abuse
 

freddy

posted June 25, 2009 at 4:47 pm


Tax the ignorant churches.
These “belief” tirades are hurtful and, most damning, politically bent.
Religious institutions are not being forced to do ANYTHING special when marriage equality occurs. In fact, the churches that desire to marry same-sex couples are being deprived of their rights to do so. Where’s the freedom of religion there?
Put down your shellfish and strip out of that woven blend fabric and ask your slave to stone the nearest adulterer, you literalist hypocrite.
Jesus’ love, indeed.



report abuse
 

Jon

posted June 25, 2009 at 4:50 pm


What is it about male religious zealots that causes them to believe, “We must protect the poor, helpless women from the evils of the world,” makes for a good defense of their bigotry? A misogynist AND a homophobe. What a shocker.



report abuse
 

Loop

posted June 25, 2009 at 5:04 pm


I think you’re forgetting that women are better at giving cunnilingus than men. You should be worried about all the women not wanting husbands, not the other way around.



report abuse
 

ioni

posted June 25, 2009 at 5:41 pm


you are so silly, it actiually hurts.



report abuse
 

Dave Porter

posted June 25, 2009 at 5:43 pm


Wow!
And I thought only fundamentalist Christians were this deluded.
If I’m to understand Mr. Klinghoffer correctly, homosexual attraction is so powerful that the only way to control it – so those poor, helpless heterosexuals aren’t tempted – is to remove the public acceptance of homosexuality.
It’s a good thing he doesn’t live in our state. My husband and I are accepted by everyone we know.
(Of course, only one of us is a smooth ‘boy-type’!)



report abuse
 

Head In The Right Place

posted June 25, 2009 at 5:49 pm


Does the author stop to consider that the Ancient Romans, much like EVERY other culture on the planet Earth wrote smut? Can you imagine what conclusions future civilizations would draw by reading Penthouse Letters or similar?



report abuse
 

Michelle

posted June 25, 2009 at 5:51 pm


WOW. Stupidest thing I’ve ever read on the Internet. And let me just remind you… It’s a REALLY big Internet.



report abuse
 

Instigator

posted June 25, 2009 at 5:57 pm


I think what the author here is really arguing is the same thing that Kinsey argued: most people are bisexual. Most people experience some degree of bisexuality and a few expereince soley homosexuality or soley heterosexuality. However, the author seems to suggest that women experince a smaller degree of bisexuality then men. To my knowledge, as a Grad student in psychology, this is not the case. The author suggests that men will be a temptation for married men. It is a temptation for many men now, though they will not openly admit it. I wonder wether the author is suggesting that a culture that is unaccepting of certain individuals (homosexuals) is a good thing, because it reduces the chances that the majority (bisexuals) will express homosexual behavior in fear of being unaccpeted?



report abuse
 

Johan

posted June 25, 2009 at 6:18 pm


ROFLMAO, seriously. I can’t remember the last time I laughed so hard at such a completely ludicrous argument.
I also find it interesting that the author solicits the advice of millenia-old writings from Roman _men_ but doesn’t bother to quote contemporary _women_ on the same topic. Or even Kinsey.



report abuse
 

Johan

posted June 25, 2009 at 6:34 pm


So that must be why the Greeks and the Romans died out…
Wait, isn’t Greece still around?



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted June 25, 2009 at 7:02 pm


So that must be why the Greeks and the Romans died out…
Must be something like that.
Wait, isn’t Greece still around?
So is the culture of Rome. It is traditionally called “The West” these days.



report abuse
 

Cameron

posted June 25, 2009 at 7:13 pm


The logic assumes that male sexuality can be reduced to a desire to place their genitalia in a warm hole. This may be true for some, but for the vast majority of people, sex is tied to attraction and desire for love: therefore, a person who is not attracted to men will not have sex with another man. We do not know that there was a higher incidence of homosexuality in the Roman population at large, only that it was an accepted practice.
If you don’t like homosexuals or are uncomfortable with homosexuality, by all means feel that way, it is your right. However, hiding behind flat out lies such as the ones you’ve reposted. Discriminating against gays and lesbians does not quash homosexual behavior or limit it, but simply drives it undergroumd, and drives those who are attracted to people of their same sex to engage in reckless, dangerous behavior and harm themselves and those they love because they cannot live honestly.



report abuse
 

Baffled

posted June 25, 2009 at 7:43 pm


Hmm. So I can only imagine that the author is basing this on his own suppressed desires or personal experiences?



report abuse
 

Sean

posted June 25, 2009 at 7:44 pm


This argument is so nonsensical one wonders if it’s satire. Unfortunately, conservative arguments against equal marriage have gotten to be so silly it’s hard to tell nowadays what’s being said in jest and what isn’t. Mr. Klinghoffer’s argument seems to boil down to this: “Gay male sex is so incredibly irresistible that once you’ve tried it, you’re hooked! So once it becomes OK for guys to do it- they will, and women won’t find ANY sexual satisfaction because enjoying sex is contingent on the presence of a penis.”
That Mr. Klinghoffer- and many others like him- can come up with such an argument and not see the many, many flaws (not to mention the inherent misogyny) in it, is a sad testimony to the lack of intelligent discourse within the anti-equality movement.
If anything, one wonders if those espousing this kind of argument find gay sex so utterly irresistible simply because they, themselves, have trouble resisting it.



report abuse
 

Godwhacker

posted June 25, 2009 at 7:54 pm


Yes, it would be far better for women to marry men who just take lots of ‘fishing trips’. What rubbish!



report abuse
 

Catherine

posted June 25, 2009 at 7:56 pm


ROFL. Hmm. So women should be on guard against gay marriage lest their husband decide they’d rather dally with men than come home? Women must already be on guard that their husbands will decide to dally with half the women at the office already, so I don’t see this as much threat. Besides, we ladies will be free to dally with each other, won’t we, so that should be some consolation. Let the gays marry; I’ll take my chances. I’m glad I found this – I needed a laugh today.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 25, 2009 at 8:29 pm


David–I live in Canada, where gay marriage has been legal since 2005, and I can report that so far, many, many men still seem to be sexually attracted to women. Perhaps four years isn’t long enough to prove the hypothesis?
That little jab aside, your argument makes no sense, and, respectfully, it suggests you’re attracted to men and frightened and ashamed of that fact. That’s very sad (the fear and shame, not the attraction–that’s fine). I hope you’ll eventually find peace with yourself.
In the meantime, please stop arguing against gay marriage. The problem isn’t with others. It is with you.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 25, 2009 at 8:56 pm


You know, “Your Name,” I’m not going to unpublish your comment though I’ve unpublished others that use the same vulgar argumentative strategy. It’s straight out of the 6th grade when boys would (I guess still do) try to belittle other boys by calling them “fags.” I’m surprised how many of the commenters who have tried that gambit in this thread identify themselves as gay. It’s a strange world.
Now, regarding Canada, what you say is irrelevant. The writer whose comments I reproduced, Professor Joshua Berman, is talking about a scenario far in the future. Is he right? I don’t know, but I was struck by the parallels he cites from ancient history. Waving a Canadian flag doesn’t address his argument, I’m afraid.
In any event, he’s not saying, obviously, that men would cease to be attracted to women. Why do you feel you can only respond to a cartoon version of his view? He’s saying that in a society where men of all preferences are set free to pursue them however and whenever they like — and that is the end game here — women, who are much more naturally monogamous, would be hurt compared to men — who, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are far more unruly in their passions.



report abuse
 

Ms. Sharon

posted June 25, 2009 at 9:08 pm


Good god: Women are much more naturally monogamous? And please quit using the women will be hurt meme: I know you like to pretend that us wimmens are children with no agency, but I can assure you, most of us are tough. And project much? The Religous Right thinks more about teh gay sex then any gay people I know. As long as it’s between consenting adults it is none of your business.



report abuse
 

homais

posted June 25, 2009 at 9:09 pm


Never mind the rest of the argument. I find myself zeroing in on this:
“while the record shows that a heterosexual woman rarely found sexual satisfaction in the company of another woman.”
It seems strange to me because it contradicts some pretty old assumptions about the tempestuousness (today we say ‘fluidity’) of female sexuality. It’s usually women whom we think of, in modern parlance, as being ‘a little bi’. So why might the record show otherwise in previous times?
Because that’s exactly the sort of thing that didn’t get recorded. There’s little enough material on intimate life at all, and as for written accounts of what women were up to when their husbands and male kin weren’t looking, forget it.
In a comment, you say “women, who are much more naturally monogamous, would be hurt compared to men”. I suppose I’m saying that, never mind the part about men becoming addicted to men and bored of women, the argument -really- rests on an assumption of what women are like that is, umm, a little strange and hard to support.



report abuse
 

Tom

posted June 25, 2009 at 9:27 pm


Wow. This is honestly one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 25, 2009 at 9:30 pm


OK, homais, a fair objection. Anyone who went to college, as I did, from the 1980s on will know what I mean. But if women are more commonly inclined that way than men, why does Leviticus 18 feel no need to explicitly proscribe lesbianism? Even if you think Scripture is just a product of human minds, it would still then reflect social experience, right? You want to say that the male authors weren’t aware of what women might get up to? Then cast your eye down one verse, from 18:22 to 18:23.



report abuse
 

Dw3t-Hthr

posted June 25, 2009 at 9:36 pm


Because the compilers of the Tanakh, like many people throughout time and up until the modern day, didn’t think sex is real sex unless it involves a penis.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 25, 2009 at 9:46 pm


Circular, Dw3t-Hthr. Your argument takes this form: “They” didn’t care about X. Why not? Simple, because they didn’t care about X.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 25, 2009 at 10:04 pm


Complete and utter bull…. It seems to me that the author is porjecting his desires on all men.



report abuse
 

GallingGalla

posted June 25, 2009 at 10:11 pm


“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. ”
dude. tongues are very versatile. there’s more to sex than penis in vagina.



report abuse
 

Dw3t-Hthr

posted June 25, 2009 at 10:20 pm


Have you actually studied the cultural definitions of sex over time? Now that I’ve been through your comments, I see other people have pointed out that historically speaking – in Rome specifically, but in a variety of other cultures as well, including some parts of our own in the modern day – the penetrating partner is considered an acceptable man, where the receiving partner has been penetrated, and thus made female-like, and is thus a lower-status being.
Most women are not equipped with penises, and thus can never be the penetrating partner by this *very common* standard. In a time period and culture when penetration is equated to a claim of ownership – see the verse in Deuteronomy that requires bride-price to be paid by any man who has sex with a virgin – someone who cannot penetrate cannot affect anyone’s property rights in this manner. Nor can such a person change the status of a man to womanlike.
(Unfortunately, I seem to have left my copy of Dirt, Greed, & Sex somewhere other than the Christian theological studies shelf, which means I cannot efficiently cite more specific examples or analyses. I refer you to that work for at least one exploration of the sexual ethics as presented in both the Tanakh and the New Testament, complete with linguistic knowledge that I am certainly unable, as a layman, to match; my Greek was never any sort of fluent and I have no Hebrew at all.)
When the social experience states that the experience and perspective of women doesn’t matter, because they are second-class citizens required to be constantly under the hand of a man (father or husband), what things they do that have no effect on their status aren’t going to be the subject of law, which is written to govern the concerns of fully-fledged people.
Much like, one can not-ironically note, the laws in much of the United States are written to reflect the concerns of heterosexuals, to the exclusion of our queer brethren. This woman is quite glad to live in an area that is an exception to this sad rule, and to have had a married gay couple assist in officiating her recent wedding.
You wish to manufacture a harm to women by suggesting that we will not be able to get people who do not want to marry us to marry us. I, for one, did not live in an arranged marriage culture before same-sex couples got access to marriage rights, and thus if I was ever to be harmed by this, the harm is already done. I have no need to be protected from the world as it actually is; your unrealistic construction, *even were it to come to pass*, would not make this situation worse: I would still be limited in my relationships to those who want to be in a relationship with me.
And I wouldn’t want it any other way.



report abuse
 

?.?

posted June 25, 2009 at 10:33 pm


?? ?? ????? ???
??? ??? ????
Worse than a douche, this blogger is a total ignoramus



report abuse
 

homais

posted June 25, 2009 at 11:01 pm


David -
There are a number of reasons why Leviticus might not have mentioned lesbianism. For one thing, the society might not have cared all that much. There are even echoes of this attitude in some modern Middle Eastern societies I’ve had experience with, where the attitude towards women sleeping with each other is something like: “good. It means they won’t have affairs with men”. It’s sort of quietly tolerated as a way to keep the women occupied and out of trouble until the ‘real’ sex with their husbands.
Or if you’re from the interpretive school that believes the Torah’s ban on sodomy was really a reaction to Cannanite religious practices, it’s possible that the Torah only mentioned male homosexuality at all in order to make it clear that slipping into Cannanite ‘folkways’ wasn’t acceptable.
I’m not married, pardon the pun, to either of these explanations, but I do think you’re being ahistorical in the way you’re projecting the way we understand sexuality now onto antiquity (not just here, but the way the argument elides the line between modern homosexual relationships with what was essentially pederasty). And anyway, in the way we understand sexuality now, or -especially- in the way the ancients understood it, I think that the characterization of women here is really, really odd.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 25, 2009 at 11:20 pm


Basically what this says is that gay sex is apparently awsome. I’m gonna have to go try it now.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted June 25, 2009 at 11:25 pm


David, since Greeks and Romans didn’t practice gay marriage, why is your post titled “How Gay Marriage Hurts Women”?
Martial married a woman, even though he preferred boys.
You never did acknowledge, or respond, when I brought this up before.



report abuse
 

Linda

posted June 26, 2009 at 12:04 am


I would like to confirm what David Klinghoffer is saying here. Mock this man of God all you want, but what he says here hits close to home.
As a woman, homosexuality has hurt me almost everyday of my life. You see, I am hurt when a man has sex with another man because they are both having sex with someone other than me. That is rejection, and it hurts…it hurts a lot!
I do believe certain couples should be legally prohibited from marriage if their marriage somehow encourages other men to reject me (or to reject any woman, of course).
Rejection is a hard pill to swallow for insecure women like me. But since we can’t legally ban rejection, then I suggest we do the next best thing–legally prohibit same-sex couples from marrying!



report abuse
 

Declan all is i am

posted June 26, 2009 at 12:08 am


What a can of worms to open, for those who think the Romans did not marry their same sex partners can i suggest you read a book called ‘the marriage of likeness’
Us queers have been aound since time began, even the good Lord Jesus chose to have his last supper at one of our places, he knew we were the shit when it came to interiors, hospitality, warmth, entertainment and perhaps human suffering and i quote Mark 14:12-16.22-26 ‘Go into the city and you will meet a MAN carrying a pitcher of water. Follow him and say to the owner of the house he enters, ‘the Master says: Where is my dining room in which i can eat the passover with my disciples?’ He will show you a large upper room furnished with couches, all prepared. Make the preparations for us there.’
Carrying water from well to home was in those dark days always ‘womens work’ unless it wasn’t, unless it was done by another type of man, one created by God to co-exist alongside everyone else, just wanting to live in peace and harmony, a balance of male and female.
If it’s any comfort to you David, here is another quote from the new testament, Matthew 5:8-12 ‘Happy are you when people abuse you and persecute you and speak all manner of things against you, all for the sake of my name. Rejoice that same day and dance for joy, for your reward is great in Heaven. This is how they persecuted the prophets before you’
May all the queers and lovers of same keep dancing no matter what. God is good. Peace.



report abuse
 

Declan all is i am

posted June 26, 2009 at 12:10 am


Just one more thing…The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 to heterosexuals. This doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals, it’s just that they need more supervision and guidance.



report abuse
 

matt

posted June 26, 2009 at 12:12 am


SO glad to be an athiest. Once again showing logic and religion cannot coexist.



report abuse
 

jon

posted June 26, 2009 at 1:14 am


There is more to being gay than anal sex. Your logic is flawed. Following your logic, what is keeping you from chasing the ‘smooth skinned boys’ – social censure?
‘me thinks thou protest to much’
You are an idiot.



report abuse
 

Religious=stupid

posted June 26, 2009 at 1:40 am


@Linda: My ex TOTALLY rejected me for that (female) skank he cheated on me with! I think his marriage to her should be illegal!
(I’m also female, and hetero, and do not feel at all threatened by the homosexual men threatening to take my men away.)



report abuse
 

Lex

posted June 26, 2009 at 1:40 am


This is one of the most pathetic arguments against the LGBTQ movement I have ever seen.
Because I want to go to bed, I won’t list out every logical misstep or flaw.
Let me just say: Sure, guys can get pleasure from almost anything.
But it’s MUCH harder for a woman to do the same.
And much more likely that a woman would get pleasure from a caring, attentive partner-no matter the gender!!-than from a male.



report abuse
 

Deep Search

posted June 26, 2009 at 2:05 am


*It’s straight out of the 6th grade when boys would (I guess still do) try to belittle other boys by calling them “fags.”*
It’s not a vulgar argument. No one is suggesting that you could be gay and that being gay is a bad thing. It’s suggested that you could be attracted to those of the same sex and it’s sad that you’re self-loathing and rejecting and hiding it–because there’s nothing wrong with being gay. See the difference? It’s not the same as throwing derogatory cuss words around at all.
*He’s saying that in a society where men of all preferences are set free to pursue them however and whenever they like — and that is the end game here — women, who are much more naturally monogamous, would be hurt compared to men — who, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are far more unruly in their passions.*
Is that what he’s saying? He seemed to be saying that homosexual acts in men would increase and be preferable if having intercourse with the same sex isn’t opposed. Of course if a man has a preference for men, this will probably be the case. But this is just an example of men “coming out of the closet.”
Saying that women are more “naturally monogamous” and men are prone to be more promiscuous is baseless stereotyping and sexist. You do know that promoting marriage promotes monogamy, right? Shaming gay people doesn’t make them not gay or keep them from having homosexual sex. It won’t make the gay go away. It just makes it exceptionally hard for them to have a meaningful relationship with someone and leading a fulfilling life. Same sex marriage is healthy for gay people and society as it gives people the chance to openly be with someone of the same sex and marry them. Having to hide who you are and being ashamed of yourself is no way to go through life.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 26, 2009 at 2:07 am


This author is obviously male if he thinks that a queer woman couldn’t please a straight women a million times over. Really David? Have you not picked up Cosmo recently and read that the number one sexual complaint among straight married women is that they can’t get off?
Oh well. Doesn’t matter David. Your wife can always call me.



report abuse
 

Emmy

posted June 26, 2009 at 2:29 am


As a straight, married Christian mother (still married to my high school sweetheart) who has known gay and lesbian friends in loving, committed relationships with children of their own – I have to say that I don’t believe your ideas are very logical. Just off the top of my head, I have had 8 sets of straight married friends, 2 gay married friends and 2 sets of lesbian friends. Of those friends from the last decade or so, only 2 of the straight Christian couples are not divorced, mainly over cheating. My gay and lesbian friends are still together and have been for years. Obviously that is antedotal, but I actually believe that gay and lesbian couples take marriage much more seriously than a lot of straight Christians.
I don’t believe God would ever dislike any kind of committed love that remains faithful, and I don’t believe that gay men can’t be so. Looking at the divorce rate throughout the country, it certainly seems that straight couples, many of them Christian, are the ones who can’t commit their lives together and stay to each other.
Maybe watching gays and lesbians fight for the right to be married will remind some straight couples what a responsibility and holy thing it should be.



report abuse
 

Ashley

posted June 26, 2009 at 8:35 am


This is just a fancy way of wording the “it contagious!” argument. Beyond that, there are so many flaws to this logic.
One, gay marriage was not “legal” in Rome. A young man was expected to have his dalliances growing up, whether male or female, and then find a wife to settle down and procreate with. There was no “marriage” of two men. Lesbianism was actually looked down upon as a woman was to stay in a woman’s place. One should never take the role of a man with another woman! That was beyond taboo until later in Roman history. At that time woman were becoming more independent in general.
Two, you should look at the broader picture when comparing modern America to ancient Rome on social issues. In both societies, sexuality and sex were an open and free engagement. Being gay or straight didn’t, and doesn’t, matter in this case. Promiscuity on both sides of the fence are rampant. This also applies to whether you are male or female. Neither sex is more likely to cheat or be more promiscuous than the other. The main difference between Rome and America is Christianity. Christianity grew out of Rome in these times. Today, it has been around for hundreds upon hundreds of years. If homosexuality has always been an issue, where are the early Roman Christian writings on homosexuality and its affect on the moral decay of society? Perhaps I am ignorant of their existence, but I have never heard anything of the like.
Three, this is a very sexist view! I have mentioned women becoming more independent in Roman society and the fact that a female can be just as promiscuous as a man. However, to further explain this point I want to explain my first impression of this article. In my mind’s eye I could see a woman barefoot, pregnant, a small child wrapped around her legs as she cooked while her husband was off reveling in another man. Wow. Do you also believe that women shouldn’t work outside the home or be able to vote? Women’s roles have expanded to a degree that was never seen in ancient Rome. Also, men and women’s roles regarding each other have changed. It is no longer viewed as a woman’s job to “find and hold on to suitable men”. A couple, gay or straight, should hold to EACH OTHER. That is what will move us out of the divorce and family split crisis we find ourselves in.
Also, I will NEVER believe that a woman couldn’t please a man as well as another man. If that were true, homosexuality wouldn’t be so taboo. It is a man’s world after all. This statement is so unbelievably ignorant: “Men, we learn from ancient Rome, will enjoy sex with other men, if there is no social censure.” The only real social censure of homosexuality in America is perpetuated by Republicans and Christians. Yet there are plenty of non-Republican, non-Christian men who find being with another man unattractive. Why is that?
I could go on and on, but let’s suffice it to say that I do NOT agree with this point of view.



report abuse
 

kevin

posted June 26, 2009 at 9:26 am


Just come out already :)



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 26, 2009 at 9:57 am


So if I read this right, your argument is that we can not allow Gay Marriage because if we did, Women would be left out? You state that if men are left to their urges, they would reject you and your shrill logic. Maybe it is just you? Have you read the crap you write, I can not imagine what your like in real life.
Homosexuality was not taboo (you should read what you wrote, you said that it was welcomed) until you and your “Jesus” came along and said so. (on that note, Jesus never said anything about it, Paul did, but the red letters are silent on the issue).
Keep up the good work, I mean with dumb ass arguments like this, the GLBT community can not help but win. All we have to say is, “Your with us, or your dumb as this person here”
This really sounds like the shills of someone who has turned a many man gay.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 26, 2009 at 10:27 am


As a woman, I find this very offensive. By saying that if gay marriage were legalized, women with male lovers would lose them to other men then you imply that love has nothing to do with the bond between two people. You imply that sex is the only thing to rouse a man’s interest (no pun intended) and that a man would be incapable of love if being homosexual was universally accepted. This I also find offensive. To suggest that men universally will “plow it” anywhere or “hit” anyone without any regard to love, then that just shows you have a limited understanding of humans and what drive them beyond what is between their legs. The above goes to this Joshua Berman as well.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 26, 2009 at 10:40 am


Let us not forget that in the Hebrew bible women are treated as chattel. Take, for example, the offering of the two daughters to the lustful male masses in the Sodom myth. One can only surmise that the male strangers in the house were more valuable to the father than his own daughters. If we get past the idea that all the men in Sodom decided, as one, they wanted to “know” the strangers, how do we get past the notion that it is ok to rape women? You certainly must know that this is not an isolated incident in the Hebrew bible (or, the Old Testament as the x’tians call it). If the main point in your argument is that secularism or liberalism or tolerance (call it what you will) will hurt women, then argue against the misogyny of the bible. but, to allege that homosexuality will render men helpless to the wiles of beautiful boys, disrespects both men and women. how can you continue to defend the indefensible?



report abuse
 

Charlie Henss

posted June 26, 2009 at 11:21 am


The historical parallel does not, in fact, apply, and the reason is religion. Roman religion, presumably, condoned or at least took no issue with homosexuality. Many modern Christian groups (including, but hardly limited to, the Roman Catholics, the Baptists, and the Mormons) as well as modern Muslims, continue to condemn homosexuality, and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
With major religions continuing to refuse to accept homosexual behavior, much less gay marriage, homoeroticism will never enjoy the complete societal endorsement that heteroeroticism always has.
Gay people know this, of course. The quest for gay marriage is a fight for equal legal rights, not for universal acceptance (which is, of course, impossible).



report abuse
 

Bob Smith

posted June 26, 2009 at 11:55 am


That all men love sex with other men more than women, so once we allow gay marriage women will be left out? Is this really the point you want to be making?
Not only is this theory already NOT coming true in other countries where gay marriage is legalized (and other states for that matter), but it is also completely insane to believe that strait men would suddenly all turn gay overnight just because other gay men have the same rights to marriage. Gay men are having sex with gay men over women now. Straight men are having sex with straight women now. Their legal rights don’t change anything about this. Using very out-there theories about some fake world as a reason to restrict the rights of fellow citizens is ridiculous.



report abuse
 

Axel

posted June 26, 2009 at 12:31 pm


David, you’re on the wrong side of history. I suspect that you’re a good man at heart and will eventually regret taking the position that you have. It’s understandable that you should have these beliefs (that gays are mud-people, and that it is beneficial for the structure of society to hold disapproving views of them) since it is a common notion today, but I bet that you have the intelligence to dispel these convictions — at least in yourself.
I know that when you find yourself being attacked, it is natural to dig yourself in and to commit yourself even more stubbornly to your assertions, and to cling to whatever scraps of “logic” that you can find to support your position, but the theory that you’ve endorsed here is not only absurd (there’s really no parallel in ancient Rome to our current culture, either in it’s view of homosexuality or it’s view of women), but offensive and immoral. Some humility is called for here.



report abuse
 

Mike

posted June 26, 2009 at 12:59 pm


Someone please tell me this is supposed to be satire. O__O
And are you really trying to argue that if more people are allowed to partake in marriage–an institution that inherently promotes MONOGAMY–the more people will be promiscuous? That basic assumption in itself is so stupidly counter intuitive that it’s not even worth addressing the finer details of your ultra idiotic tripe.



report abuse
 

Sandra

posted June 26, 2009 at 1:54 pm


So what you’re saying is….as soon as Gay Marriage is legal, YOU’LL be coming out/turning Gay?
Remember, the modifier “EVERY” includes yourself, sir.



report abuse
 

Alan Stillman

posted June 26, 2009 at 3:37 pm


@ Linda
girl – you don’t need protection from gay men having sex with each other, you need therapy. when a man has sex with a woman who isn’t you are you also hurt by the rejection4?
well, maybe you have not yet hit rock bottom. maybe I will hurt you some more by having sex with my husband tonight and that will get you off your very mentally unwell tush and into some therapist’s office.



report abuse
 

Dusty341

posted June 26, 2009 at 4:47 pm


This article is almost childlike in it’s ignorance. Men can have male suitors legally in this society today. Homosexual tolerance is more pronounced in our society than ever before. Why wouldn’t we already be seeing the problem of men forsaking their wives for the sexual pleasures of men in the present? I’m sure there are cases of marital problems because instances of homosexuality, but we don’t need isolated cases. This article makes it sound like this problem would be like an epidemic in our society. So why wouldn’t we be seeing evidence of it in our society today? Why aren’t we seeing it in the states where gay marriage is now legal?



report abuse
 

John R

posted June 26, 2009 at 5:58 pm


You are really stupid ignorant people.



report abuse
 

Jane

posted June 26, 2009 at 6:04 pm


As a heterosexual Christian woman, I find this insulting. You imply here that the type and method of sexual intercourse should be the litmus test for the quality of a relationship. You have reduced me, as a female, to nothing more than a preferable orifice — to say nothing of all the heterosexual individuals out there who enjoy forms of sexual intercourse and loving play besides the joyless, pleasureless utilitarian fueling-station which is the only true antithesis to what you are describing here.
If we’re going to cite Leviticus, I’ll be getting my period in a week — should I leave the village in my uncleanliness now, or later? Also, it’s tough to get sacrificial pigeons in this county (Lev. 28-30).
Please don’t insult my Faith and my Religion with antiquated, plastic, ignorant sentiments such as these. I don’t need you to protect me from the infernal buggerers out to steal my husband from me. Additionally, please don’t insult my Holy Cross college education by calling this sort of tripe scholarly research. I can’t wait to show this to my Pastor and ask him why this is the sort of thing passing for theology these days.



report abuse
 

Thank You

posted June 26, 2009 at 6:50 pm


This really needed to be said – someone needs to speak out for those poor women like me who would have the right to marry a sexually repressed bigot taken away!!
Also – Linda, if you are that insecure, honey, I am sure that there are may lovely women, me among them, who’d like to get to know you. ;)



report abuse
 

Marie

posted June 26, 2009 at 8:33 pm


I think this is the second lamest argument against gay marriage next to the bible says it’s wrong to be homosexual. It seems to me that you are not talking about gay marriage at all but about men having sex. I thought you were going to show me some real, hard evidence from a past society that would make me have to rethink my belief that gay people are just normal people like all of us but you didn’t. There was no talk of love, commitment, monogamy, raising a family together. It was just that men like to have satisfying sex. Well, allowing us all the freedom to live the life in the sexuality we are born with is not going to turn heterosexual men gay. When a heterosexual man is not satisfied with the sex he is getting from his female partner, he may turn to another woman, not a man. Some people might experiment a little more freely or try to live a fantasy or even feel free to express their bi-sexuality but having an accepting community is not going to turn people gay. I think this article is potentially harmful and whomever wrote it is very ignorant. Another thing, if men really want to have sex with other men, they will. Heterosexual men won’t.



report abuse
 

Marie

posted June 26, 2009 at 8:58 pm


I think that gay marriage will not hurt women but help women. The gay women will be free to marry the one they love. The straight women will not have to worry about marrying a gay man who’s pretending that he’s straight.



report abuse
 

Mike green

posted June 26, 2009 at 9:44 pm


David, aside from the juvenile element in this thread, have you learned anything from your commentors? I’m just curious. I don’t suspect that you have.



report abuse
 

Lewis

posted June 26, 2009 at 9:48 pm


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.
This is quite possibly the most foolish sentence I’ve ever read. The flaws:
- You don’t mention the sexuality of the man who found pleasure in both a man and a woman. If heterosexual, I highly doubt his pleasure in the man. Why does it matter? Because your example explicitly states a heterosexual woman.
- Of course a heterosexual woman wouldn’t take pleasure in another woman. But do I really need to point you to the many and varied sources from bisexual women claiming that women give them greater pleasure?
Your entire argument seems to suggest that there is only a homosexual male community to benefit from gay marriage, but there is a homosexual female community as well. I shouldn’t be surprised, though – as others have pointed out, you seem to be coming from an anachronistic perspective that denies the existence of female pleasure in their sexuality, anyway. I very much appreciate the fuelling station comment left by Jane.
I’d also like to express my agreement with the comment on the “scholarly” research; if all it takes is a few select quotes from ancient plays and the Bible, I could have conducted this “scholarly” research at the age of seven.



report abuse
 

John Peterson

posted June 26, 2009 at 10:12 pm


Wow! I truly am at a loss here to decide which attitude or assertion offends me most about this article. I am a straight male and I am offended that you make the assumption that my sexuality and who I am attracted to is based on societal instruction or acceptance rather than on how I actually feel or my genetics. I am a husband of, and father of, women and I am offended by your assertion that they would be incapable of attracting partners were same sex marriage legalized. I am also offended that you feel the need to defend them. They are independant, strong willed women, and I am actually defending you from them. Were I to show them this post I imagine they would find you and kick your butt up around your ears, once they stopped laughing that is..
The writings of Imperial Rome (that you use to reinforce your position) do not support your position any more than watching movies like Die Hard will tell future generations what Policework was like in this generation or James Bond movies will tell them what a spy’s life was like.
Upon further reflection I have decided that the Christian thing to do here is not to be offended. It is to pity you and pray that you will reach a greater understanding of; women(whom you seem to feel superior to), men (whom you seem attracted to), History (which seems to confuse you), marriage (which you equate with sexuality rather than love), and homosexuality (which you equate with promiscuity, at least in men).



report abuse
 

Mike green

posted June 27, 2009 at 12:04 am


Your non-response is enough.
Still, I stand with you and yours. Bless you.



report abuse
 

Phil

posted June 27, 2009 at 12:56 am


What a pile of holy crap! This is poor literary analysis, poor history, miserable sociology and quite obvious in its intent – to argue that homosexuality is a choice rather than a natural inclination. The conclusion that women would be adversely affected is balderdash (a non-scriptural term)- but when the attempt is to box women in to traditional stereotypical roles, the conclusion almost seems logical. Women have been victimized by a culture that counseled homosexual men to get married to a woman as a means of therapy and of course it didn’t work – neither for the gay man or the woman. What we discover in the scriptures is that human kind is called to a relationship based on love – and that this love is a portent of the love between the Creator and human kind and in fact the love of the Creator to all of creation. The sexual attraction that one feels to either male or female comes somehow through our genetic wiring – and it is not a matter of either/or but something along a slide-rule type scale where most people fit into a hetero-sexual pattern and some into a homo-sexual pattern and then a very small minority who are somewhere on the edges or inbetween (i.e. persons who are born with sexual characteristics of one sex but the psychology of the other). Yet all these people are called into loving relationship – some are never inclined to marriage not for reasons of sexual orientation but simply don’t feel the need for partnership but still have loving relationships on different levels with others. Any attempt to claim that the Canaanites were so immoral and practiced homesexuality, and to parallel this to the struggle today to gain equality for persons with homosexual identities is absurd and immoral. But then such a simplistic view is based on an attempt to turn myth (Canaanites replaced by Israelites) into history. These were all semitic cousins, constantly struggling for strips of land but sharing many common links and constantly intermingling through marriage. The Exodus story is paradigm rather than history – so it is more important to look at the meaning of the story rather than to simply come to strange conclusions about why God would smite the Canaanites. This was such a strange article – but one clue is when someone claims to be “a scholar of ancient civilizations” – so many scholars get their Ph.D.’s working on some obscure text and then claim to have authority over all things. For the record I am not homosexual, I am a happily married man living with my wife – but trained in theology but alas not a scholar of ancient traditions.



report abuse
 

Rose

posted June 27, 2009 at 5:41 am


David klinghoffer David klinghoffer David klinghoffer David David klinghoffer
David klinghoffer David David klinghoffer bigot David klinghoffer David David klinghoffer David klinghoffer David David klinghoffer David klinghoffer David David klinghoffer
sad or a human. Wisher of superiority. Nazi. Crawling among forsaken David klinghoffer David David klinghoffer
clinger of hatred. Hoffer of stories untrue. Sad excuse.
Forgive him? David klinghoffer David David klinghoffer?



report abuse
 

Dexter

posted June 28, 2009 at 7:24 am


So essentially you are suggesting that families of monogamous, loving, gay couples and their children should not receive social acknowledgement (both symbolic and tangible) because (in your eyes) women make lousy lovers.
If we have learnt anything from the last 100 years it’s that men will enjoy sex with other men regardless of social censure. If heterosexuality was really that fragile it would have died out well before the advent of christianity.
I welcome the 51% of homo sapiens who actually have a vagina to comment about this misogynistic rant.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 28, 2009 at 6:20 pm


There are so many things wrong with this article, but I’ll just state the most obvious issues in my mind:
1) Assuming your premise is true, that increased tolerance of homosexuality will increase homosexual activity, wouldn’t that also mean that women will get to have sex with other women. You just seemed to brush aside this possibility by arguing that heterosexual ancient Roman women didn’t like sex with other women without providing much of a reason, and ignoring that modern women do have access to sex toys to make such an encounter more enjoyable.
2) Just because some guy wrote a story about an issue several thousand years ago, doesn’t mean that his views are necessarily correct.



report abuse
 

Zetal

posted June 28, 2009 at 8:30 pm


Let’s look at other things attributed to Roman women:
Women were not considered citizens but had to be sponsored and guarded by men – father, brother, husband, son.
Women could not vote or participate in government.
For much of the time, women could not own property or receive an inheritance.
Now, these men are off sleeping with their army buddies or whoever. Do you really think they gave their wives permission to go out and find some girl and have sex?
Apples to oranges, here. Both groups are women, but they have NOTHING else in common.



report abuse
 

Throbert McGee

posted June 28, 2009 at 9:57 pm


“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.”
Sheesh. Mr. Klinghoffer badly needs to acquaint himself with the terms “frot” and “scissoring” — both slang for NON-PENETRATIVE homosexual genital-to-genital rubbing, with frot being male/male and scissoring being female/female:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribadism
(There’s oral-genital sex, too, of course, but my point is that sexual satisfaction doesn’t have to involve “insert Tab A into Slot B” — going Tab-to-Tab or Slot-to-Slot work splendidly, because pleasure is ultimately generated by FRICTION, and not by penetration.)



report abuse
 

Throbert McGee

posted June 28, 2009 at 10:33 pm


“So essentially you are suggesting that families of monogamous, loving, gay couples and their children should not receive social acknowledgement (both symbolic and tangible) because (in your eyes) women make lousy lovers.”
Well, I think he’s actually saying that homosexual coupling, whether man/man or woman/woman, shouldn’t be encouraged by society because bisexual men would walk away in droves from heterosexual marriage, and instead choose to marry other guys.
Thus, his claim is not that women are “lousy lovers,” but just that men who are able to be aroused by either men or women (i.e., bi dudes), if they had to pick just one partner to settle down with, would overwhelmingly tend to pick another man. I’m not sure he’s right about that; my suspicion is that the urge to produce heirs is strong enough that most bi guys, given their druthers, would prefer to marry a woman but have her permission to fool around a little with other guys once a month or so. (“Honey, since you’re PMSing and not in the mood for sex, I’m gonna go over to Steve’s house so he and I can masturbate each other while we watch some bukkake videos, okay?”)
And I’m not just indulging in armchair speculation, here; I’m speaking as a homosexual dude who’s had several long-term “just j/o buddies” arrangements with bisexual married guys who were looking for low-risk M2M contact.



report abuse
 

Throbert McGee

posted June 29, 2009 at 4:14 pm


homais June 25, 2009 11:01 PM:
Or if you’re from the interpretive school that believes the Torah’s ban on sodomy was really a reaction to Canaanite religious practices, it’s possible that the Torah only mentioned male homosexuality at all in order to make it clear that slipping into Canaanite ‘folkways’ wasn’t acceptable.
I’m not Jewish, but my understanding is that the written Torah quite narrowly and specifically prohibits male/male anal intercourse as the abomination punishable by death. (That’s what the “as with a woman” qualifier means; it refers to penetration down there.)
Other male homosexual practices such as fellatio and mutual masturbation, along with lesbian practices, were certainly discouraged and even condemned in the oral tradition lest Jews start acting “too Canaanite,” but not because they fell in the “abomination worthy of capital punishment” category — that extreme level of prohibition was reserved for anal buggery, along with bestiality and various permutations on incest.



report abuse
 

Delmoar

posted June 29, 2009 at 4:43 pm


Um, wow. I can’t believe you were “proud” to present these ideas.
Let me put this simply. The problem with those earlier patriarchal civilizations is not that they sanctioned homosexuality, but that they popularized the notion that WOMEN WERE SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS, to be treated as lower than men. Take the ancient Greeks, who idealized love between men (fraught with guidelines, of course)… because they thought love in its purest sense was impossible with a woman, who was by nature lacking compared to a man. “Oh, those women, the poor dears can’t possibly be our intellectual equals. Can’t make very good partners at all.” Argh! How can women get love if they couldn’t even get any damn respect??? Fortunately, our modern attitudes have changed (mostly). Therefore, all this clap-trap you talked about has nothing to do with the gay marriage issue at all.
In fact, I’ll go further to say that I am insulted by your implication that giving rights to homosexuals will hurt women’s interests, when in fact their struggle often coincides with feminist interests, particularly in raging against misogynistic drivel such as this.
Unbelievable.



report abuse
 

Alex Cheney

posted June 29, 2009 at 7:44 pm


What crap is this? Is this really all you can think of now to defend being a bigot? Just admit it, your scared of gay people. What are you worried that your a little bit to interested in the boy down the street that if gay marriage because legal you couldn’t resist yourself? Lol.
P.S. Dan (The Stranger) sent me! :)



report abuse
 

Alex Cheney

posted June 29, 2009 at 7:46 pm


Is gay sex really that good?



report abuse
 

Nick

posted June 29, 2009 at 7:48 pm


Is this a god damn joke? Get away from the internet; you shouldn’t be allowed to communicate with other human beings.



report abuse
 

Brite

posted June 29, 2009 at 7:57 pm


You are this century’s new racists. Religion sanctified hatred. Your children are going to look back at you and be ashamed just as I cringed whenever my grandfather uttered the “n” word. Lead by example – quit judging and condemning.



report abuse
 

kurisu

posted June 29, 2009 at 8:10 pm


Is the legalization of gay marriage the only thing stopping to from seeking sex with male partners, David? I suspect it’s not, and you’re insulting a lot of straight males (including me) in healthy monogamous relationships.



report abuse
 

edsbowlingshoe

posted June 29, 2009 at 8:30 pm


Good lord – is this article serious? All that’s keeping your average dude from going after smooth skinned boys is the Bible and the law? You’ve got to be kidding me. Sounds like a personal issue..



report abuse
 

Laur

posted June 29, 2009 at 9:01 pm


I find your words reprehensible, and the historical analogy incredibly suspect. Since other posters have done a bang-up job with the former, I’ll address the gaping holes in your historical analogy. First of all, the Greeks and Romans had no concept of homosexuality as a permanent orientation: a man may have had sexual relations with other men (usually younger), but he was expected to take a wife usually between twenty and thirty years of age. All but a very select few did this – so your quip about destroying the ‘nuclear family’ is unsubstantiated, because it never actually happened in Ancient Greece or Rome. Bottom line: marriages were common then, just as they’re common now.
Furthermore, homosexual eros – love – was socially sanctioned among men at a time when there were no paternity tests or reliable contraception, so the chastity of women was legally and socially enforced. Women and men were generally segregated and relegated to different tasks, so it’s understandable that a culture developed among men that held male relationships (both emotional and sexual, usually a combination of both) in a positive light.
As becomes quite obvious when reviewing the facts, there is no clear analogy that can be drawn between Ancient Greco-Roman times and our present culture. In our present culture, homosexual relationships pose no threat to either the institution of marriage nor to heterosexual relationships, as legitimization won’t make men suddenly abandon women. You’re gravely, gravely wrong, and I sincerely pity anyone who puts any stock at all in your argument. I implore you to seriously consider the facts of the situation and see the error of your ways.



report abuse
 

Ruby

posted June 29, 2009 at 9:05 pm


This trash is based on the fundamental sexist assumption that men are not interested in long term monogamous relationship, but women insist upon them. These are inequitable social constructs that we *should* kick to the curb. Getting rid of the “nuclear family” as a standard is not a bad idea either. But gay marriage is not going to be the moving force, sexual liberation will be.



report abuse
 

big 'ol homo

posted June 29, 2009 at 9:37 pm


It seems the Cpl Klinger gets upset when the comment section ceases to be an echo chamber. PLease Kling, give over your soul to Jesus Christ. Billy Graham, Rick Warren, and the whole holy host of right wing conservitives would be elated. Then you could finally say, Sally Fields style: “You like me, you really like me!”
bty, are there any Christians posting here who believe that Cpl Klinger will not fry in hell if he does not accept Christ?



report abuse
 

Lesley

posted June 29, 2009 at 9:45 pm


The most incredible part of this argument is the idea that a woman can be sexually satisfied only by a man or, more exactly, by a penis. Anyone who knows anything about female sexual anatomy knows that women are brought to orgasm by clitoral stimulation, which can be performed by a man, a woman, a hand, etc., etc. The idea that, should gay marriage become legal, straight women will no longer find satisfying sexual partners, is beyond ignorant. This article is pure sophistry.



report abuse
 

Unpleasant Person

posted June 29, 2009 at 10:32 pm


Mr. Klinghoffer: I’m gay. And yet I was raised by straight parents. I have a straight sister and brother. I have two nieces (too early, I guess, to know if they are straight or gay, but most likely, they’re straight). There are no gay people in my extended Texas family that I know of. All of this straightness around me as I grew up really made me hate myself. I tried so hard to achieve great things in school to prove that I had value. The hate for gay people that was so palpable around me as I grew up frightened me, made me hate myself and made me try extremely hard not to be gay. It also made me a person who was not honest. I dated women in college. I tried so hard to be what I wasn’t. And now, here I am, 34, honest, accepting of who I am, in a good relationship with a wonderful man, and I do not want another gay child to grow up going through what I experienced. This hatred and bigotry against people who are attracted to adults of their same gender has got to stop. I don’t discriminate against heteros. Please don’t discriminate against me.



report abuse
 

Unpleasant Person

posted June 29, 2009 at 10:40 pm


By the way, if evangelicals are so worried about gays indoctrinating the straights into becoming gay, how the heck, despite all of my wishes and efforts, did my STRAIGHT family not succeed in making my wish of being straight come true? It didn’t work for me in Texas. With a Southern Baptist family. And that for me is very big proof that being gay is not a choice. It is not chosen. It is who I am. I do not hate myself any longer for being gay. But I do hate the society that forced me to feel so negatively about myself for a very long part of my life.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 29, 2009 at 11:44 pm


Person, I’m sure you’re not unpleasant at all. Thank you for the civilized tone, which is refreshing in this thread. I think you misread me. First, I’m not an evangelical or a Christian at all. More to the point of the discussion, I hear and accept what you are saying that you didn’t choose to be gay and I’m truly sorry for the suffering you’ve experienced. However, from sexual orientation’s being beyond choice it doesn’t follow that sexual behavior is too. It’s not only gays who are given tough moral challenges, though I can see that their challenge could hardly be any tougher than it is.



report abuse
 

Unpleasant Person

posted June 29, 2009 at 11:54 pm


David: Very much appreciate your response. And thanks for acknowledging that I’m keeping the conversation civil. However, your point about sexual orientation being beyond choice, but then saying sexual behavior isn’t is a bit disconcerting. Why are they not one in the same?



report abuse
 

Jerry Becker

posted June 30, 2009 at 12:09 am


Also, I’ve just corrected my display name to “Jerry Becker.” I adopted the moniker “Unpleasant Person” per David’s earlier comments about unsavory folks making comments. I’m a junior, by the way, so my straight dad must be so proud of his gay junior namesake.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 30, 2009 at 12:14 am


Hello again, Person — or rather, Jerry. Thank you for your comment. You see I find it very characteristic of our time, place, and culture — very illuminating — that an intelligent guy like you doesn’t immediately see the difference between what a person wants to do (his orientation) and what he actually goes ahead and does (action). We have free choice. We are spiritual beings.
Everyone has an orientation to something or other, or many somethings, where he can choose to follow the tug or not. There’s a range of tugs and they range in strength. It doesn’t seem that God set challenges for everyone in equal measure. Why not? I don’t know.
I can fully hear the argument that the gay “tug” is among the strongest and that defying it leaves a gay person in a heck of a position. Somewhat different, in that respect, from a heterosexual married man drawn to an adulterous affair with another woman. If he succeeds in resisting his tug, he’s still married, still in a relationship he can work on. That’s an *easier* burden, though not *easy* either.
There are several reasons that I don’t judge gays personally, and this is one: I don’t walk in your shoes. If I were in your shoes, what would I do, in fact not in theory? I can’t claim to know. In my own challenges, I let myself down all the time, believe me. But that’s a different question from trying to clarify principles, and that’s what I try my best to do in this blog, however inadequately.



report abuse
 

Jerry Becker

posted June 30, 2009 at 12:41 am


Clinton. Sanford. Ensign. Vitter. Craig. They followed the tug, eh? I do not think they are all bad men. But they were ALL in committed relationships when it happened. Their wives deserved better. But if men who are in complete agreement with your view and completely buy into it, why am I worse? My “tug” is for other men, and I’m not in committed relationships with women. Also, I’m not cheating. Now that I’m beyond college and no longer lie about my inclinations, aren’t I more honest and open and respectful than Clinton, Sanford, Ensign, Vitter, Craig and the rest? I don’t pretend anymore to be straight. To mislead women who are with me. Nor, do I cheat on anyone with whom I’m in a relationship with.
I appreciate your comments that you don’t walk in gays’ shoes. I can only imagine how a straight guy tries to love his gay brothers. Thanks for the dialog, and I hope that some day you and everyone in my family who is like you, will think it’s silly to have issues over sexual orientation.



report abuse
 

Original Monique

posted June 30, 2009 at 1:45 am


Your bizarre leaps of logic are astounding. By forcing gay people to stay in the closet, you are hurting more women than the other way around.
Forcing gay men to marry women is wrong and destructive. You aren’t going to “fix” them, instead you will have 2 unhappy people ultimately unsatisfied. It has nothing to do with monogamy. Being in a loving, sexually fulfilling relationship is important to men and women. You can’t have that if your husband is not attracted to you and NEVER WILL BE. How is that good for the woman?
And what about gay women marrying men? How does this help to have sturdy relationships? A woman who is not attracted to you, never will be, and you keep trying to show love that will not be returned? Do you want to marry that, David? Why or why not? How long do you think that can last?
And being gay is not some sort of moral test for someone. It is just how they are, and what sex they are attracted to. And since it is estimated that less than 3% of people are gay, it’s not like it’s that many people who are out of the pool of potential partners for straight couples. Here is a great article for you to read. I hope that it helps you understand your gay brothers and sisters better. I have also included a wikipedia entry that may help you as well.
Best of luck in finding what you are looking for. If you are gay David, it really is ok.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/080516-gay-animals.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior



report abuse
 

Lee Gibson

posted June 30, 2009 at 2:00 am


This discussion simply boggles my mind.
I’m a straight male. I have zero interest in being with another man. If I were a cynic, I’d think that perhaps the author doth protest too much…but that’s bootless speculation.
The problem here is that a religious person wishes to enforce their religious predilections as law. I don’t care how you slice it, that’s wrong. Nobody wants to force churches to marry anybody that any given church doesn’t deem fit. The argument is simply to recognize that all persons in America are entitled to equal treatment under the law.
If you can’t get your head around that, I don’t have much help to offer you.
I’m much more in favor of a Solomonic solution: No more state-sanctioned marriage for anyone. Civil unions for all. Want to get “married”? Terrific. Find a church/holy man/person with a certificate from the Internets who will design you a pretty certificate, and you’re married. Hurray! Want to have a civil union with another consenting adult? You’re welcome to all the tax and property implications, with no prejudice whatsoever with respect to what you may or may not do with your naughty bits. The State has NO INTEREST in what goes on between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. None. Not any. Zero.
Nothing disgraces my own marriage more than the United States Congress, or any other political body, thinking that they get a vote in what disgraces my marriage. I know that my marriage is holy before God, and the rest of you moneychangers are welcome to take up your objections with Him.



report abuse
 

Jerry Becker

posted June 30, 2009 at 2:27 am


Lee Gibson. You are my new straight hero.



report abuse
 

Luchog Llewynyth

posted June 30, 2009 at 2:43 am


This article demonstrated both a profound ignorance of history, along with it’s bizarre leaps of logic.
First, female homosexuality was not nearly as uncommon as you are attempting to claim. Look up a historical personage known as Sappho of Lesbos. You know, where we get the term “lesbian” from (although technically she was bisexual). There is also a great deal of other literature referring to it indirectly; but more on that later.
Second, much of the art and literature of the period is rife with female homosexuality. The frescos, sculptures, mosaics, and other artwords from Pompeii demonstrate this quite clearly. Which is why homophobes have so consistently sought to suppress them. A substantial amout of the recovered art is still kept under lock and key, and has never been published. You’re also ignoring the fact that for most of Greco-Roman history, both male and female homosexual activity was far more status-conscious. It was considered disgraceful for any full adult free citizen to take a submissive role. That is why homosexual activity was typically engaged in with slaves, or those not considered full adult citizens (teens, not children, to forestall the obvious poor assumption).
Third, the real reason that female homosexual activity was less common in Greco-Roman culture had nothing to do with any inherent issues. It was due to the fact that females were not considered full citizens, with full rights. Hellenic Greeks kept their women in seraglios nearly as restrictive as those of fundamentalist Muslims. Romans were more liberal; but Roman culture and jurisprudence kept them at or near the status of children for most of the Empire’s history. There were exceptions in both time and location; but they were just that, exception. At best, women were treated in very much the same manner as fundamentalist Christians attempt to treat women today; and did treat women prior to the Suffrage movement. It was suppression that kept expression and knowledge of female homosexuality as infrequent as it was. Not because female homosexuality was considered “wrong”, but because females themselves were considered inferior; just like Christian and Muslim fundamentalists do. In fact, a huge amount of “Christian” culture was adopted wholesale from Roman and Greek culture at the time of Constantine, despite being counter to scripture; and formed a substantial part of Roman Catholic and Orthodox tradition and dogma.



report abuse
 

Lauren

posted June 30, 2009 at 9:20 am


That’s hilarious. There’s a huge difference between a culture that actively encourages homoerotic bonds and a culture that allows gay relationships to exist. Moreover, consider the levels of education that your average Roman woman had at that time compared to today. We women of the 21st century are much better qualified to be everything to our husbands that their friends were–plus girl bits.
As a woman, I am in no way threatened by gay marriage. I don’t think that my husband is going to start going for twinks if more of them can get married. Studies have actually shown that only a tiny percentage of men are bisexual, most are gay or straight. There are far more female bisexuals, whatever you say about women not being able to give each other pleasure (I don’t know if you’re aware that most heterosexual women do not receive pleasure from the penetration part of sex…might want to look into what DOES give women pleasure).
In fact, I think that women will be safer. My reasoning:
a) As long as people like you continue to influence them, some gay men will feel that they MUST change.
b) These men try to change by marrying heterosexual women.
c) Then there is the inevitable divorce–possibly accompanied by cheating which puts the woman’s health at risk.
The woman is broken-hearted to discover that her whole marriage was a sham designed to “cure” her husband instead of based on mutual love, respect, etc. The children are confused and think they come from a lie, not love.
This isn’t just speculation, I’ve seen it happen and it breaks my heart for both people involved and often their children too. People like you CREATE broken homes!
Also, I think you protest too much. If you’re not married, I suggest you just go after those hot hot twenty-somethings and stop pretending to be something you’re not. If you are married, I suggest counseling (I would be taking my husband there if he published an article like this).



report abuse
 

douchebag

posted June 30, 2009 at 11:24 am


If it’s the other men around that threaten the marital union (presumably by tempting the married man), why not just let the two men marry in the first place and save the woman from an unhappy marriage to a closeted homosexual? Sounds like a win-win situation to me!
Nice try, but your logic is pretty flawed.



report abuse
 

Keen Observer

posted June 30, 2009 at 11:29 am


Dear writer, it sounds like you are a male and much too worried about the function and the effectiveness of your phallus to keep the women of the world happy. Marriage, love, and life has very little to do with the market value of your private member. Of course, pornography, the religious institutions, and any other insecure institution rely on the market value of the “phallus”. And you being the proud owner of one, no doubt, have your own concerns. Gay or straight, if we take our mind out of our underwear, we can discover that marriage, partnership, and a compassionate civil life is about what goes on in our hearts and minds, and not so much in our organs whose primary function is discretion of waste. What you like to do with your organs was institutionalized in order to control and manage population numbers and influences. Still what remains is what you like to do with your organs, and today as in ancient Rome we know we can not control or ensure you will recreate with them. Our numbers are too many already, so what I say is – let’s worry less about recreation and marriage and more about not killing. If you wanted to know the truth about the root of Christianity, which has falsely become the number one promoter of straight marriage, is this: The teaching of Christ rejects the concept of valuing the atomic family over the greater family of man, the community of believers and yes, “the Community of Lovers”. Not lovers of the body, but of humanity and life which is the whole, “Body, Mind, Spirit” in each person, (having a Phallus or not). Only then we can be civil and in harmony. I hope you get to love your phallus as a great instrument that allows you to release yourself and urinate. God knows, men that have urinating problems know the true value and function on their beloved member.



report abuse
 

Gracchus

posted June 30, 2009 at 11:41 am


David,
It’s clear that you don’t have a clue about Catullus. He and Martial were humourists, the former poking fun at specific individuals, the latter poking fun at specific social types. While homosexuality was indeed more “Permitted” in Roman society than in ours, neither poet was implying (as you are) that all men would naturally be sexually attracted to other men. Really, if you’re going to cite a piece of writing to support a dubious claim, at least go to the trouble of understanding the author and the historical context in which he wrote.
Nice title for your blog, by the way — if I saw it alone, I would have thought you were writing about Iran.



report abuse
 

HPS

posted June 30, 2009 at 11:48 am


Oh dear. Did you really mean to out yourself this week? Truly straight men are likely confused by your line of reasoning.



report abuse
 

Anthony

posted June 30, 2009 at 12:28 pm


Mr.Klinghoffer your scholarly friend’s assumption that a woman cannot please another woman due to anatomical issues is absurd. I have not read many of the comments and I do not have the time at the moment but I hope that someone (particularly a lesbian) has pointed out the difficulty of a woman reaching climax by vaginal intercourse alone. Since I am a gay man and have never been with a woman I do not have firsthand knowledge but I have read (Cosmopolitan and the interwebs are wonderful) about the sometimes called fable of climaxing from vaginal intercourse. According to what I’ve read only a small percentage of women are capable of such an orgasm because for many women the vaginal canal is either devoid of nerve endings or deadened I can’t recall which it is specifically since months have passed between when I first read the article and now. Also, to point out the obvious (again) if women weren’t able to pleasure each other would there be lesbians now and during the ancient times? I suppose it wasn’t often written about but we would all be fools to assume that there were no women in the ancient times as fond of other women’s lady lumps as men were of smooth twink bottoms.



report abuse
 

Neil K

posted June 30, 2009 at 12:31 pm


You quoted Berman as saying:
“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.”
I barely know where to begin… someone needs to inform Berman about the existence of the clitoris. Unless that would be too explicit. If anyone is threatened by same-sex relationships, it’s straight guys who don’t learn the very basics about women.
Also, there is a terrible double irony in quoting Catullus on the inevitable superiority of boy-love. Catullus sampled pleasures of all kinds but wrote of consuming passion for a woman he gave the name Lesbia in his poems. (The name was in honor of Sappho of Lesbos, whom he admired as a poet.)
Your theory is fundamentally confused between gay marriage and gay sex. You seem to be saying that when gay sex is allowed, it is so pleasureful and easy to obtain that it predominates. News flash! Gay sex is already legal in the USA, and there’s very little stigma left against being single. To take the most extreme example, San Francisco is a mecca for queer people from across the country, making up about 15% of the population. And yet the other 85% aren’t converting over in droves. Explain this, please?



report abuse
 

Michael

posted June 30, 2009 at 12:32 pm


David – you are very wrong.



report abuse
 

bird

posted June 30, 2009 at 12:57 pm


Wow I have read a lot of homophobic arguments as to why gay marriage would be a “detriment” to society, but never, NEVER have I read something as sexist and disgusting as this article.



report abuse
 

John Kelly

posted June 30, 2009 at 1:00 pm


So ancient history proves that if we men are not trained from birth to despise homosexuality and homosexuals, we will all turn gay, because no woman can please us better than another man?
What absolute rubbish.
Where I live (the San Francisco Bay area) homosexuality is pretty widely accepted. But the kids who grow up here come out straight, gay, and bisexual in pretty much the same numbers as kids do everywhere. Even those who are raised by same-sex couples, in homes where homosexuality is unquestionably accepted, usually come out straight.
Evidently, environment is not the only determinant of sexual orientation. We do not need to keep on persecuting a minority to preserve our kind. Mr. Berman’s argument is akin to those that used bits of Genesis to justify slavery.



report abuse
 

Seamus

posted June 30, 2009 at 1:03 pm


…um… I really doubt that people being “allowed” to have gay sex means that everybody will. Wouldn’t it be a non-issue entirely if you yourself have no interest in same-sex sex?



report abuse
 

Baron Dave

posted June 30, 2009 at 1:12 pm


Speaking as a heterosexual man, I’m in favor of _other_ men being gay on the “More For Me” Theory of Meeting Women. But that’s a personal observation.
Let’s take a Talmudic/Socratic approach:
“Keep in mind that if you want to disagree with this analysis, you’ll have to explain why the historical parallel doesn’t apply”
No, I don’t. All I have to do is briefly point out internal inconsistencies and logical flaws.
“[W]e need to first take a step back and consider the end-game of the gay and lesbian movement”
No, we don’t. Berman (and you) are assuming that there is some sort of “end game” that involves “homoeroticism” without other considerations, such as “love”. Indeed, you (and Hustler) are assuming that the desire for sex _always_ outweighs other powerful desires, such as that for children.
“once they’ve experienced sex with other men, Catullus tells us, men are unsatisfied with what their new wives provide them.”
Oh, poor Catullus. Oh, G_d made Eve from the wrong rib. What was our Creator thinking?
And on a final note: Both Berman and you haven’t considered bi-sexuality in your equation.



report abuse
 

Matt

posted June 30, 2009 at 1:24 pm


Boy, the right wing are really grasping at straws these days. If gay sex is so wonderful and straight sex so unneeded, why do most men still end up straight? It cannot be society only since even in the gay mecca San Francisco, most men end up straight.
This article is the most bigoted rubbish I have read in a long time.
IF this is the best argument you have against gay marriage, I guess we gays have NOTHING to worry about!!



report abuse
 

Bi woman

posted June 30, 2009 at 1:44 pm


This article is hilariously, overwhelmingly stupid and ignorant. It made my day.
Props to Brite (“Your children are going to look back at you and be ashamed just as I cringed whenever my grandfather uttered the ‘n’ word. Lead by example – quit judging and condemning.”). Spot on.



report abuse
 

ummm

posted June 30, 2009 at 1:48 pm


not to burst this guy’s “historical” bubble, but, as a woman, i’m legally and culturally permitted and encouraged to have sex with bigoted and naive men. that doesn’t mean i’m gonna do it. opportunity alone does not create action. and besides, if gay marriage suddenly loses all opposition, and this guy’s hair-brained theory actually happens, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the same phenomenon would happen with WOMEN as well?
logic, dude. logic.



report abuse
 

Pat

posted June 30, 2009 at 1:59 pm


The thesis that, given social sanction, men just won’t be able to resist having sex with other men seems rather . . . gay.



report abuse
 

David Cummer

posted June 30, 2009 at 3:31 pm


Sooooo… We’ve got two men, both sure they’re able to speak for all women.
Oh how I love the classics.



report abuse
 

Andrea

posted June 30, 2009 at 4:21 pm


Those two quotations only tell me one thing: There were forced marriages in ancient Rome. So some gay men were married to women, because their families said so. Can’t blame them for not likeing that.
But those quotations don’t tell me anything about the number of gay men in ancient Rome. To make a scientific statement there you would have to look at all the things, that were written about love, sex an marriage at the time, and you would have to count. How often is a relationship between man and woman mentioned? How often one between man and man?



report abuse
 

imaglide

posted June 30, 2009 at 5:06 pm


This fails because it assumes that sexual orientation is a choice and not something wired in. Personally even if there was no social stigma or prejudice against being gay I as a male would still only be interested in women.
Even if everything in this article was sound (which it is not) that would mean that it benefits women straight women to keep society bigoted against gays.
We as a society should fight for no one to be a second class citizen.



report abuse
 

Eli

posted June 30, 2009 at 5:07 pm


Your religion is hurtful to mankind.



report abuse
 

Eli

posted June 30, 2009 at 5:21 pm


Wait, did anyone get what David the Jewish Nazi is saying? That men like “smooth-skinned boys”? That men share a homoerotic bond? That men will enjoy male-on-male sex unless there is censure and unless marriage is exclusive to male/female relationships?
David. None of those things are true unless you’re GAY. Many guys are gay. Some guys are bi. Most guys are STRAIGHT. Straight guys don’t trade in smooth-skinned boys for a woman on their wedding day, David. They don’t trade in fun sex with other men to give in to marry a woman out of societal pressure. They don’t share homoerotic bonds with other men; they simply have platonic friendships.
Straight guys trade in having sex with multiple women to settle on one woman they love and want to spend their lives with.
If you don’t get that, well–maybe that explains your fascination with this subject.



report abuse
 

Sarah

posted June 30, 2009 at 8:33 pm


Catullus? *Catullus* is your example of how men permitted to have sex with men will lose interest in women, because women just can’t compete? Catullus, famous through the centuries as the provider of dirty heterosexual poetry to schoolboys? Catullus, who once wrote:
“I need, my sweet girl Ipsithilla,
your pleasures passing through my hands,
like honey dripping from the sun,
so call me to you for the long afternoon.
And if you do, you’ve got to help me out,
check that no one bolts the door and also
watch yourself, don’t leave the house,
I need you at home, ready for me,
ready for us to f*ck, to f*ck each other
inside and out nine times straight.
Then call me now if you’re ready,
I’m drowsy after lunch, stuffed, lying
on the couch, daydreaming, my c*ck
hunting for you out through my tunic.”
Are you serious? This is a parody, right?



report abuse
 

Julia Sullivan

posted June 30, 2009 at 10:57 pm


Those two quotations only tell me one thing: There were forced marriages in ancient Rome. So some gay men were married to women, because their families said so.
They don’t even tell you that, Andrea (though it is the case). Both of those quotations are cherry-picked from longer poems depicting specific individuals (a real person in the case of the Catullus poem; a possibly real, possibly fictional person in the case of the Martial satire).
Seriously, this would be like looking at episodes of THE SOPRANOS and THE GODFATHER and concluding that all Italian-Americans are involved in organized crime.
Or like looking at the Oscar Wilde trial proceedings and assuming therefore that every man in 19th-century England was gay or bisexual.



report abuse
 

Gina

posted July 1, 2009 at 12:05 am


All males who have hurt me the most have been straight, heterosexual men by being arrogant, judgemental, dismissive and downright cruel. Like this article, they assume that only they know what’s best for me and my womb. Excuse me. I beg to differ.
And by the way, the notion of the nuclear family is somewhat blind. Your vision of ‘Father’ is hunter-gatherer meaning he doesn’t have to do anything but buy stuff. ‘Mother’ is some woman in pearls, who struggles to remain within a certain weight category, so as to look good on Father’s arm and children are to be seen and not heard.
It’s a nice notion, but to claim it’s the ONLY way to be is to fly in the face of the millions of families that aren’t ‘nuclear’. Turn your energies to helping them and then I’ll be impressed.



report abuse
 

Yeek

posted July 1, 2009 at 6:02 am


I find it fascinating that so many people think that Justice for a class of people can be written off as ‘not worth it’ because it might be bad for another class of people.
Leaving aside this man’s rather bizarre argument [legal recognition of gay partnerships will lead large numbers of other men to gay relationships instead of straight ones], let’s assume he’s correct. Does this potential harm to women outweigh the fact that homosexual couples justly deserve to have legally acknowledged significance to their relationships?
The people who insisted that integration would lead to riots in the South were right. Those who insisted that giving women the vote would encourage some women to abandon their husbands were right. Those things did happen, though not to the degree feared. And yet, in spite of these bad consequences, justice was the right thing to do even though dire outcomes were foreseen.
Those statues of Justice you see outside courtrooms? They are always blindfolded, because in the ideal Justice DOES NOT CARE about the rest of society, about the power or class of those who oppose her, about tradition or politics or religion. Justice is about giving people the rights they deserve. It is immaterial if granting justice to one group leads OTHERS to have a tantrum or behave badly or become violent. It’s unfortunate, it’s awful, it may create real suffering and death, and a society may even destroy itself out of resentment. But at the end of the day justice is an end in itself, and it outweighs all other values and comforts.
So, Mr. Klinghoffer, even if you are totally correct, gay people should still have the right to get married.



report abuse
 

Shakah

posted July 1, 2009 at 7:04 am


“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.”
Are you arguing that there are NO heterosexual men? That ALL men, if given the chance would marry another man because they find a woman’s body lacking?
You seem to also forget that the “record” that women didn’t find homosexual sex fulfilling was written by men not lesbians. Why would you give ANY credibility to that “record?”



report abuse
 

Constantinople

posted July 1, 2009 at 12:21 pm


By the same reasoning Priests should be similarly castigated because they remove themselves from pool of prospective partners.
Hah this article is a joke right?



report abuse
 

john

posted July 1, 2009 at 12:51 pm


HA ha! Epic troll is epic



report abuse
 

PStryder

posted July 1, 2009 at 2:20 pm


“Men, we learn from ancient Rome, will enjoy sex with other men, if there is no social censure.”
I see now! It’s just as we suspected! The Right is afraid of gay marriage because then they will no longer have social pressure to prevent them from giving into their latent homosexual lust! They ARE all closeted gay men! It all makes sense now!
This article offers an argument against gay marriage exactly as vacuous as every other argument against it! Of course, it does let the closeted gay Religious Right/Moral Majority/Family Focused cat out of the bag!



report abuse
 

Rachel Green

posted July 1, 2009 at 3:43 pm


Oh, yes! Stop Gay marriage, because every woman ought to be married to a gay man.



report abuse
 

Beowulf Sugrue

posted July 1, 2009 at 4:27 pm


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



report abuse
 

Free Radical

posted July 1, 2009 at 4:39 pm


There are actually a few problems with this historical parallel, as you requested. The first is that it’s a historical parallel – any modern history program will teach you that these are generally problematic and that the course of every society is based on so many factors that isolating one for comparison is foolhardy. We are a completely different civilization from the Romans, and to assume that tolerance of same-sex unions would affect us the same way as them is problematic.
In fact, this historical parallel has almost entirely omitted comparison (and contrast) of the two cultures’ values. It’s clear from even a cursory examination of your examples (to say nothing of the classical literature itself) that Greco-Roman culture was quite misogynistic; it would be entirely mistaken to ATTRIBUTE that to their tolerance of homosexuality. In fact, it was in part the Roman deification of masculine values that made male-male intercourse acceptable – Romans were more interested in dominance behavior than in notions of “sexuality,” and considered intercourse to be excellent so long as someone was being penetrated. Penetration, sexual dominance of others, was considered to be the kind of masculine virtue that could be celebrated – female-female sexuality was often considered beneath notice because both parties were inherently “submissive.” It might have been frowned upon or merely dismissed, but its (relative; not complete) absence from the record should not come as a surprise.
Our culture, historically male-dominated though it may be, possesses nothing like the misogyny of the Romans, who were not afraid to state outright that every woman was the property of some man or another. Did the real significance of the anecdote you related escape your notice? This Roman wife fears COMPETITION from her husband’s other lovers because no real cultural value demands he be faithful to her. What is important is that his society permits him to have sex anywhere he likes, not the gender of his partners. Our society permits everyone, male or female, the agency to demand fidelity from their life partners, and allows them the recourse to live individually if they should find their partner unsatisfactory. Roman women had very limited means for independent living – although I should note with some amusement that Rome, which shared conservative America’s obsession with creating a stable society, apparently did not think it catastrophic that women should be allowed the freedom to divorce their husbands.
To say nothing of how little we have to fear from a decline in reproduction. Low population growth was indeed a problem for the Romans, living as they did in the age where only an enormous supply of able-bodied young soldiers would keep a nation from being swallowed by its neighbors as a matter of course. The United States are now more populous than the Empire ever was; our mid-sized cities are more densely populated than the city of Rome at its peak; our world is suffering increasingly from problems of scarcity and overpopulation which worsen with each passing generation. The human race would benefit immensely if everyone started using birth control, and same-sex intercourse is the most reliable form I can think of.
Shakespeare was a playwright, not a historian. The past is prologue, not prediction, and if the historical precedent indicates that we should avoid the mistakes of the Romans, it is a mistake to place gay marriage anywhere near the top of that list.



report abuse
 

Angie

posted July 1, 2009 at 4:41 pm


This is crazed. What woman would ever want to marry a man who’s actually gay and only comes to her bed at social gunpoint? Wow, what a fulfilling relationship. [eyeroll]
Also, there’s a huge difference between what the upper one percent do because it’s cool or fashionable or whatever, and what the population as a whole does.
[That even assumes I believe your historical data is legitimate; Classical Rome isn't my primary area of interest, but I did major in history and didn't hear anything of the sort when I was in school. But just for the sake of argument, let's assume there's at least some shred of validity in your uncited, unsupported assertions. Oh, and the only passage you actually quoted and sort-of cited is satire -- I suggest you look that word up before you base any kind of serious argument on it.]
Even assuming your assertions are valid, however, so far as they go, I don’t really care what some senator thought of Emperor Claudius’s habits; find some data which even suggests that the common Roman men-in-the-streets (and the fields and the workshops) were leaving women in droves to marry other men and maybe I’ll think about being concerned in the next decade or two. But the fact is that this wasn’t happening, it’s a non-problem, and only a hysterical bigot could possibly buy into any of this. Correction: a hysterical bigot who’s also a closeted homosexual, because no one else could possibly believe that “all” men are eager to get it on with other men, if only their buddies wouldn’t laugh at them.



report abuse
 

John Winthrop

posted July 1, 2009 at 6:16 pm


As a scholar of Rome, the writer would also know that the appropriateness of Roman sexual relations was based off of social standing – that is, the penetrator must be higher ranked than the penetratee. This definition, of course, neglects lesbian relations. The writer would also know that Roman society was extremely patriarchal, and nearly all perspectives of Roman women we have are taken through the perspectives of men.
He seems to be writing from a rather patriarchal view himself, which may be the cause of his not seeming to believe Roman patriarchism affects Roman sexuality.
His own patriarchism is most evident in the statement that anatomy makes it such that heterosexual men can better enjoy other man than can heterosexual women, as if women were incapable of getting off without a phallus involved. If I may be permitted to psycholanalyze, I would say his near-worship of the phallus makes this article far too biased (ignoring that this is a man writing as if he understands what it’s like to be a fully sexually realized female) to be considered a sound argument.



report abuse
 

Tanger

posted July 1, 2009 at 6:29 pm


I don’t see how you can oppose gay marriage based on biblical scripture, just because the women will suffer for it when christianity is the root of the vast majority of discrimination against women due to that “original sin” fable.



report abuse
 

Religion is a joke

posted July 1, 2009 at 7:26 pm


I totally agree with Free Radical, very well thought out post unlike the asinine comments labeled under historic parallels like the poster of this page.
Keep on trucking Free radical!!!!



report abuse
 

Lee Rowan

posted July 1, 2009 at 7:41 pm


ROTFLMAO.



report abuse
 

Chris

posted July 1, 2009 at 8:55 pm


Wow, I really don’t know what to say about this post. Is the author actually offering up the thesis that straight men won’t get married to women anymore because they will decide that sex with men is better? I know a few guys who might beg to differ.



report abuse
 

Ally

posted July 1, 2009 at 9:35 pm


Um. Okay.
Now more than ever, I am convinced that religion — christianity in particular — is the root of at least 90% of the bad things in the world.



report abuse
 

anon

posted July 1, 2009 at 10:09 pm


hilarious.
oops, did I forget to explain why the historical parallel doesn’t apply! guess i am not allowed to laugh.



report abuse
 

Taz

posted July 1, 2009 at 10:14 pm


>
They didn’t have fingers?



report abuse
 

Erin

posted July 1, 2009 at 10:16 pm


As a married, heterosexual woman, I’d like to point out that by no means does sex between two women preclude sexual satisfaction. Apparently the author has never heard of anything besides penis meets vagina.
Also, please, PLEASE keep your patriarchal garbage away from the rest of us. Women don’t need to be protected from not being able to find a man who wouldn’t prefer another man. Ridiculous!
It strikes me that despite what you hypothesize about Rome, the human species managed to survive somehow. Maybe the future of humanity would be more assured if there weren’t so many of us using up the resources and polluting our planet. If fewer people were procreating because it wasn’t dangerous physically and socially to be gay, we’d be in a lot better shape.



report abuse
 

Taz

posted July 1, 2009 at 10:21 pm


Pardon me, I meant to be commenting on this: Maybe back then women couldn’t please each other because of the human anatomy, but now we have plenty of new tools. So I dont really think this post has any relevance to today’s society. When I asked, “Didn’t they have fingers?”
And you’ll pardon me further and speaking as a straight woman, I don’t need you looking out for my ‘needs.’



report abuse
 

Lloyd S,

posted July 1, 2009 at 10:22 pm


I must say, I like this argument much better than the usual “Don’t let the gays marry because that would demean the institution of marriage” (because fags are so degenerate that if they can get married, then clearly the institution of marriage itself is no longer worthy of respect). This one goes “sex with gay men is so alluring that once the taboo is broken, otherwise straight men will indulge so much that women and procreation and family will lose their appeal.” Wow! Is that why sexual decadence cause the decline and fall of Rome (after 1100 years or so of surviving and prospering and building one of the greatest empires history has ever known)? What a wonderful new take on Gibbons.
To my mind, if all these allegedly straight men are only being held back by societal disapproval, then they are being forced to deny what you and our modern day Gibbons seem to feel is an inherent part of their natures. Doesn’t that mean they are living a lie? And if women can only keep their hold on the male libido by enforcing the taboo on homosexuality, what does that say about their intrinsic value as people?
Moreover, assuming G_d created us, doesn’t this thesis posit that G_d created the potential to enjoy gay coupling in a large percentage of men? Did He really do that just to pose a temptation that all good and moral men must resist? Is G_d really that cruel?
Of course, if you believed in evolution, you could be comforted by the fact that gay sex is not a very effective strategy for passing on one’s genes, while mongamous heterosexual marriage generally is. And if you believed in both G_d and evolution, you’d believe he created the world that way for a reason, just as you’d have faith that He created gay men and lesbians for some better reason than using them as a pitfall for the otherwise “virtuous.”



report abuse
 

Prayin' Momma

posted July 1, 2009 at 10:29 pm


I am absolutely disgusted and outraged by this! I am a Christian woman that raised three lovely, wonderful children. Two are happily married, one is just finishing college. One of the married children is my GAY SON. He has adopted two adorable children with his HUSBAND.
All of my children have loving, Christian families just like the one they were raised in. I am proud of all of them.



report abuse
 

K

posted July 1, 2009 at 10:38 pm


This is one of the funniest things I’ve ever read. And I’m glad the other commenters agree.
The idea that it’s hard for a woman to find sexual pleasure with other women is especially ridiculous. Studies, as well as common sense, show that lesbians usually have better sex, given that most men are not encouraged to know or care about female sexual pleasure.
Also funny is the idea that “straight” men will prefer sex with men to sex with women. I’ve heard this by many conservative commenters. Somehow they never seem to get that they are basically admitting to being homosexual themselves with this logic.



report abuse
 

DRST

posted July 1, 2009 at 10:43 pm


“were I a woman”
Next time you find yourself writing a sentence that includes those words, stop and don’t write any more. It’s pretty much where all arguments go wrong, and where this argument lost any credibility it might have had, had the premise not been so laughable.
You are not women. Do not speak for me or any other woman. Next time you want to know what a woman thinks, ASK HER.



report abuse
 

Jess

posted July 1, 2009 at 11:07 pm


Are you married Mr. Klingoffer? If you are I feel so sorry for your wife, how unsatisfied she must be. Penetration is only a fraction of the whole sexual experience. Some women don’t even need to be touched below the hips to climax.



report abuse
 

Tisienne

posted July 2, 2009 at 12:43 am


As I have just read all (and I do mean ALL) of the comments here, I’m not going to address the historical aspects as requested initially. I believe that has been done quite adequately by others who are far better versed in the particulars that I will ever be.
Instead, I am going to respond to a couple things from the comments that stood out for me.
First… to the person (I can’t recall your name, and I do apologize for that) who referred to the assertion the “gay marriage is dangerous”, I have to say that YES. Gay marriage IS dangerous. It is incredibly threatening to portions of society that ultimately fear being shown up by an entire group of people they choose to think of as inferior, perverted and misguided, at best.
After all, what if “the gays” are allowed to marry and DON’T muck it up as often or as badly as the straight folk? What would that do to the insistence that gays are somehow less moral and more repulsive by their very natures than their straight counterparts?
Second… to David Klinghoffer. I’m actually rather fascinated that in your response to Jerry, you stated (paraphrasing, here) that there’s nothing wrong with having “gay” urges. Only in acting on them. The fascination comes, for me, with the fact that you didn’t suggest that heterosexual people refrain and resist in acting on THEIR urges for hetero sex. Interesting double standard.
Third (and this is my final bit of commentary)… Gay people of whichever gender cross every line we have. They exist within every ethnic group, every religious system, every political group. To claim that gays are a minority is ridiculous to me. It’s like taking all the blue eyed people and saying “See? These people have blue eyes and we don’t, so they’re DIFFERENT and don’t deserve the same rights as the rest of us.”
Marriage, in and of itself, should not be dictated by whether someone LIKES the people who want to engage in it. There was a time when people of different ethnic groups couldn’t marry, too. That time passed. Why?
Because it is morally and politically reprehensible to say that one group of citizens is somehow less deserving of the rights enjoyed by the rest.
Gay people work, pay taxes, own property, serve on juries. These things are rights and responsibilities. I don’t even begin to comprehend the concept that “some people are more equal than others.”
Oh, and one last thing. As so many other heterosexual women have said here (because yes, I am a non-homosexual female)… the LAST thing that will ever hurt me is gay men and women being able to legally marry. Buying wedding gifts and such might hurt my wallet, but not my lifestyle or my ability to feel joy for their happiness.



report abuse
 

Whitecat

posted July 2, 2009 at 12:44 am


Sweetie, if you think sex with men is better than sex with women, you go for it. We women won’t miss you. You don’t have to worry about us.



report abuse
 

Rai

posted July 2, 2009 at 12:53 am


Hey David, did you know that sometimes women are gay too? Did you know that women don’t actually need your penis (or any other penis) to get off if they don’t want it?
And here’s a thought. The next time you decide to speak for or generalise on any group to which you do not belong (e.g., women)… don’t.



report abuse
 

name

posted July 2, 2009 at 1:06 am


Christian idiocy is largely a socially-constructed phenomenon. My favorite part of this is that you’ve effectively imagined a morally acceptable future, named your bigotry for what it is, imagined that in the future, Christian homophobia, like open racism, may become a thing of the past. You’ve imagined all of this. Like MArtin Luther King Jr, you’ve presented us with a vision of a socially permissive future where people don’t get beaten and oppressed because of who they are.
And then, you go and cry about it. Oh, that dream of a future where Jesus has stopped narcing on consenting adults is a BAD thing. Man, you are so totally confused. Did you go to one of those “jesus made me straight” brainwash camps? Does Elvis talk to you? Does he tell you to do things?
My most fervent hope is that since the Christian establishment has hitched its wagon so obstinately to the anti-gay hate movement that when the sex-nazis finally go belly-up they’ll take Jesus himself along with them into the obscurity of history.
Oh, and by the way, I’m straight. I just hate stupid people, obvious oppression, and social injustice. Christians like you are why I’m an atheist. If your philosophy encourages such hideous, mind-boggling doublethink and bigotry, religion must necessarily be a sucker’s bet.
And to Prayin’ Momma — Christians like you are giving the rest of them legitimacy. If you’re a good person, stay AWAY from the hate-spewing churches. Lie down with dogs, you’ll rise with fleas. You appear to be a decent person who’s put love and family before someone else’s political power play. Either don’t call yourself a Christian, or tell everyone that BIGOTS don’t deserve the title. Why are all the supposedly liberal and permissive churches sitting on the fence? Once, Christians were the primary actors in American civil rights. Now, churches are the primary actors against social justice. Jesus doesn’t seem to be paying any attention to us anymore, hm?
I’m tired of fence-sitters; the Southern Baptist Panzer Division has taken over the name “Christian.” People like you have two options: take your name back, or STOP using it.



report abuse
 

Victoria Blisse

posted July 2, 2009 at 1:27 am


The mind boggles. Why love has to be put into boxes and divided up so I don’t know. How can love of any kind be bad?
As a Christian myself I’d like to assert I have no problem with homosexuality at all, not at all and this particular argument just seems weak and smacks of desperation to come up with an excuse any kind of reason to actually back up bigoted beliefs that already exists.
Love one another, I urge you all to do just that. God Judges, not us. We should love each and every person as Jesus taught us to do.



report abuse
 

Scooby Doo

posted July 2, 2009 at 1:39 am


You are overlooking something important. If men leave women because of the way they all love penis too, women can turn to their pets. They are loyal, house-trained, they don’t steal their money, don’t beat or rape their kids, can be disposed off legally in old age, and have the bigger family jewels, although I’ll leave speculation about circumference to your imagination. About the size of a decent-sized woman’s wrist. Who needs men at all?



report abuse
 

GodlessGreg

posted July 2, 2009 at 2:29 am


Christians caring about women? There’s a first considering how all the Abrahamic religious doctrines despise and dehumanize females.
I don’t know about you but if same sex taboo was removed from our countries mindset I wouldn’t go “try” men. It’s not who I am. To think that everyone will instantly have sex with everyone regardless of gender is just ridiculous. Heterosexual woman won’t have any harder of time find suitable men. The gay men were born the way they were, so the women never had a chance with them regardless.
And if he’s worried about our society not being able to keep up it’s population I just have to laugh. We need to reduce our impact on the planet, not increase it. Perhaps homosexuality is natures version of population control? Interesting thought, but I have no facts or data to back it up.



report abuse
 

ramona

posted July 2, 2009 at 2:34 am


1. I’m still not seeing anything other than good consequences from being tolerant and good to people. So Johnny would be able to explore if he was gay without fear of being hurt or abused or taunted, and either way his choice would be considered normal… that sounds perfect.
2. maybe some more people (men AND WOMEN) would experiment if there wasn’t so much hate from the opposition surrounding homosexuality, but I’m fairly confident straight men will still prefer women (wouldn’t you?) and lesbians would still prefer women and so on. Sexuality one way or another isn’t a choice.
3. Neither of you are women, so stop acting like you know what we would think if this happened. You don’t know what it’s like because you haven’t lived as one. I actually find it quite offensive that you think you can.



report abuse
 

Heidi

posted July 2, 2009 at 2:43 am


LOL. That was pretty funny. Except for the part where you really believe it.
I live in Massachusetts. We’ve had legal gay marriage here for several years now. The sky has yet to fall. Straight people have not begun gnashing our teeth and wailing (except that one bigot guy, Mineau). In fact, nothing has changed, other than the fact that gay families’ rights are now protected. So much for your theory.



report abuse
 

csb

posted July 2, 2009 at 2:44 am


If you’re a scholar of ancient civilizations, you’re not a very good one. If you were, you’d understand that the sources you quote are describing something completely different than gay marriage – in fact, there was no gay marriage, because at the time there was not a conception of homosexuality (or heterosexuality). Sex was largely about power roles (older men had sex with younger boys and women, not peers, and so on and so forth). The idea of “x”-sexuality – as in, static sexual categories – is one that has been absent in many cultures and emerged in the west a millenia after these sources were published.
I’m not taking the time to explain why the culture you’re describing might be good or bad, or explain to you why gay marriage might really be good or bad (though for the record, I support marriage rights between any consenting adults).
I am simply saying that this particular argument is shoddily constructed and relies largely on equivocation. You are taking a situation that lacks an understanding of gay, let alone institutionalized gay marriage, and claiming it illustrates what our society would become if we legalized gay marriage. Do you see the major logic fail here?



report abuse
 

yezbok

posted July 2, 2009 at 4:41 am


How can my existence cause a great war in the media heavens, just because I wish to measure your temples? (Sans variously translated over-interpreted suppressor-approved explanations.) Do I not bear the testimony of Jesus Christ? Am I not blessed for blessing others? Do I not live by the golden commandments he uttered? Can we not say “it is written” love yourself and love your neighbor?
If the murderers Moses, Paul, and Muhammad were on death row, wouldn’t Christ mediate to save them. When it comes to the death penalty, where are the priest of the kingdom of pro-life?
For Heaven’s Sake, Live and Let Live…



report abuse
 

Oh for goodness's sake

posted July 2, 2009 at 8:19 am


Quote:
“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. ”
Have none of you self-righteous, self-interested, preserve-the-sanctity-of-marriage apologists ever heard of cunnilingus? Women can indeed find sexual satisfaction in other women (or men, another thing that was resoundingly missing from many Roman marriages, and something that had little to do with the presence of pederasty – not the same thing as homosexuality, btw – and everything to do with the fact that Romans were socialized to demean and ignore their wives… oh wait, that sounds familiar…) and have been doing so for years, with or without your sanction.



report abuse
 

Davida

posted July 2, 2009 at 9:11 am


HOLY BINARIES BATMAN!
Dear David,
I would like to make two points.
1. First, and I don’t mean to be crude or even pornographic, have you ever heard of a clitoris? Do you know what it is? Where it is located? How tiny it is? And that it hardly needs a penis to be stimulated. Women have satisfying sex without men all the time, but I don’t suppose they tell you this to your face, wanting to spare your feelings.
2. Sex is not just an ‘insert tab A into slot B’ affair, not even all gay men have anal sex, some, believe it or not, have a greater dislike of it, – or a smaller obsession? This all depends on perspective of course – than you do. For more information on this, look up how heroes have sex, none of them take the subordinate position: http://www.man2manalliance.org/
This brings me to my conclusion: your ignorance of the female body, your extreme lack of interest in it, combined with your obsession with gay anal sex, lead me to believe that, David, God made you out of gay.



report abuse
 

Emmy

posted July 2, 2009 at 10:59 am


Whitecat -
“Sweetie, if you think sex with men is better than sex with women, you go for it. We women won’t miss you. You don’t have to worry about us.”
LOL. I LOVE you so much and want to have your babies. This just sums up the entire article perfectly ;)



report abuse
 

Amy

posted July 2, 2009 at 1:20 pm


I have to disagree. And I will be explaining why the historical parallel doesn’t apply…not that you have any right to demand it.
First of all, in ancient Rome, promiscuity in men was deemed as “manliness”. And we’ve taught in our times now that promiscuity shows no amount of manliness but of cowardliness. Please, take a look at President Clinton–although I am a Democrat. He had to hide his affair because of what people would think, say and do when and if they found out. And find out, they did. Our society looks down heavily on promiscuity. So that parallel to ancient Rome is just out the window.
And, as csb said, sex was a power play in Ancient Rome as it was in much of history. Sex had little to do with love, marriage and “carrying on the family name or heritage.”
Despite your words, I think we all, yourself included, know that homosexuals are just as likely to be faithful husbands and wives as heterosexuals. In fact, in every study I’ve ever read, homosexuals tend to be less promiscuous than heterosexuals. So while you’re out there cheating on your wife with another woman and saying “that’s okay because it’s just another woman and it poses no threat to marriage or women if I cheat with another woman” a gay man is lying in the arms of his faithful partner or husband every night and never dreams of cheating.
And frankly, I personally don’t see the necessity of marriage anyway. I am happily living with my boyfriend (I am a woman) and we are happily unmarried. And it’s our prerogative to remain so for the duration of our lives together. And despite your opinion or your thoughts, we actually are committed to spending our lives together and will be together until we die. That’s MUCH LONGER than the average HETEROSEXUAL couple today. In fact, on that note, homosexual partners actually tend to last longer than heterosexual marriages because they are there because they love each other and not because they are bound by a law to be. They get married because they love each other, not because they can only have sex if they get married–trust me, I live in Utah and 90% of people under 25 here get married because they want to have sex–not because they are ready to get married, not because they are financially stable enough to get married and certainly not because they’ve been with their partner long enough to even know that they really love them and truly want to spend the rest of their lives together…they do it to have sex.
So when you are sitting there putting down on homosexuals and saying that the fall of society is upon us because homosexuals will make everyone engage in homoerotic activity remember that even if there is homoerotic activity in the future of all in the human race, most of those men will still want to have babies and to raise a child.
And besides, by the time this vision comes to fruition women will probably have evolved in asexual creatures, much like an aphid, who can self-impregnate or clone themselves anyway.
Just remember to get real.
Are you the sort of person who balks at the fact that Deaf people can marry Hearing people (REMEMBER: THIS WAS ONCE AGAINST THE LAW!) and that Black people can marry Caucasians (OMG, WHATEVER WILL WE DO??? *note my sarcasm).
When the Deaf couldn’t marry the Hearing it was because the thought was that they would produce only Deaf children. And Deafness was just “soooooo terrible, omg”. And Black people weren’t allowed to marry Caucasians because…Black people were just “not appropriate”.
This is EXACTLY the same thing.
Legalizing gay marriage won’t turn everyone gay or send the whole world into a homoerotic frenzy. It will just mean that two people who really love each other will be able to enjoy married life.
If you really want to stop the “nonsense” about gay marriage let’s try this crazy idea:
Let’s end ALL MARRIAGE.



report abuse
 

Kent

posted July 2, 2009 at 2:36 pm


Just as a man can please a woman very fully without penetration, so a woman can please another woman. For your wife’s sake I hope you become aware of the fact that there are countless ways of achieving sexual satisfaction besides the missionary position.



report abuse
 

Amy

posted July 2, 2009 at 4:46 pm


So this learned friend .. to whom you attribute much intelligence uses Catullus and Martial as *reliable* primary insights to Roman culture and custom?
Catullus the young, disipate, disapointed lover well known for being somewhat free with his affections and Martial the SATRIRICAL writer known for taking a casual observation of one small group and extrapolating it for all society … These are the people he uses to explain how women will lose out because they did in Ancient Rome?
Did he learn his historical methodolgy on the Play Bus?
I have but a meagre undergraduate degree in Classical History … With 5 minutes browsing through my bookshelves I could find you over 30 individual texts that would refute every word of what you chap says .. however this should suffice.
The Romans valued many qualitities in their women … being frugal, hardworking, chaste the things they honoured most were the behaviours which were rare (for example a noble woman who breast fed her own children or made her own cloth – very highly respected) One of the highest words of praise a woman could hear about herself was that she was an UNIVIRAE … a one man woman. That she had only ever had one man, married him and either stayed married to him or not remarried after he did.
If it was so difficult for these poor Roman women to find husbands (with all the men engaging in homoerotic nastiness) why was it such a highly valued quality – and rarity – that a woman remain faithful to one man her whole married life.
If you choose to be against Gay Marriage … that is your choice and I respect everyone’s free choices. Putting up pathetic patronising and above all childish arguments and then challenging people “to explain why the historical parallel doesn’t apply:” dememans your already rather frgaile position.
In short, the historical parellel doesn’t apply in the same way Borat or Shaun of the Dead wont in 2000 years.



report abuse
 

Devon

posted July 2, 2009 at 5:04 pm


I find it wholly disgusting that the same people who would dare tell women what they can and can’t do with their bodies – who would tell a teenage girl that it’s better to figure out how to raise a baby on minimum wage without a high school diploma than to consider terminating her pregnancy – would have the gall to throw women up as a “human shield” in the holy war on gay rights. Then, to tell them that doing so is in the interest of protecting feminism from homosexuals?
At the risk of sounding trite, the only axiom that fits here is “Holy Shit!”



report abuse
 

Frank

posted July 2, 2009 at 7:17 pm


It took me a while, but I finally figured it out. Klinghoffer is actually a gay man engaging in a false flag operation: By writing this obvious garbage, he gives the defenders of “traditional” marriage a bad name, thereby diminishing their effectiveness and further opening the door to public acceptance of gay marriage. Pretty crafty.



report abuse
 

Kathleen

posted July 3, 2009 at 2:16 am


Amy, Thank you. As the mother of a gay son, I’m offended by this article on multiple levels.
Is there anyone who thinks about gay sex as much as those who are allegedly horrified by it? I truly wonder.
For myself, I am looking forward to dancing at my son’s legal wedding someday. I only wish the author’s mother had raised him as I raised my son regarding others sexuality; it’s none of your business.



report abuse
 

Azalais

posted July 3, 2009 at 3:18 am


As a woman who was married to a gay man, I say please for the sake of all women legalise gay marriage. You have no idea how painful it is to wonder what’s wrong with you and what a relief it is to find out it’s not you and let go.



report abuse
 

Ingrid

posted July 3, 2009 at 11:04 am


I am so glad I finally have gay men to blame for all my problems.



report abuse
 

Andrea

posted July 3, 2009 at 11:51 am


This post assumes that homosexuality = promiscuity and infidelity. Many of my friends and neighbors are in committed, long-term same-sex partnerships. They give marriage a good name.



report abuse
 

Rilla

posted July 3, 2009 at 11:51 am


As a straight woman, my fear that I would not be able to find men willing to sleep with me in a world that was more accepting of homosexuality is pretty much…zero.



report abuse
 

Paul

posted July 3, 2009 at 1:53 pm


The problem is not gay marriage, or gay sex. The problem is closeted gay preachers like the self-loathing David Klinghofers of the world, who are obsessed with gay sex because they wish they were having more of it.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted July 3, 2009 at 2:13 pm


You know, Paul, I do find it fascinating how many comments from Dan Savage’s readers (I assume) and from Dan himself want to portray me as you do. You want to imagine that other people are gay who in fact aren’t. I’m trying to figure out the reason why this response from gay men is so common. My guess? To think that heterosexuals are secretly pining to follow your example must be comforting because if it were true, it would tend to normalize homosexuality and assuage guilt — which after all is the whole purpose of the drive for gay marriage.



report abuse
 

Claire

posted July 3, 2009 at 3:12 pm


Yes, my sexual needs are SO a reason to deny other people love and happiness.



report abuse
 

Bridget

posted July 3, 2009 at 3:16 pm


Hm, it looks like the writer’s never heard of a clitoris before. I feel terribly sorry for your wife sweetie.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 3, 2009 at 3:26 pm


While I suspect that you will continue to garner more criticism than supporters, the real objection of the homosexual community isn’t a moral one, but rather “this is the way some people are disposed.” In a world in which restraint in almost anything is considered inauthentic, this suggests only one single issue: God is less important in many lives than he ought to be. Secondarily,and following from the above, I believe that it is considered unfair of the Deity to condemn one to same sex attraction without legitimizing it. Whie both of these considerations are fundamentally untrue, they remain, I believe, common thought processes.
Thus it is that although I enjoy most of your commentary here and agree with it, I fail to see that it makes the conclusion true. I would maintain that homoeroticism, whether engendered or socially created, remains most importantly illegitimate in God’s eyes because, as Wesley suggested, it denied His creation of two separate genders.



report abuse
 

R-Unit

posted July 3, 2009 at 5:15 pm


How ironic is it that a website condemning the gay “lifestyle” has an ad for Connexion, “the gay-friendly place to socialize”? It tickled me, at least…
The logic in this article is flawed, as many others have pointed out and clearly explained. I don’t have much to add that hasn’t already been said.



report abuse
 

Debbie

posted July 3, 2009 at 7:03 pm


http://jezebel.com/5306546/author-asks-if-every-man-could-have-gay-sex-why-would-he-need-women
I would at least read this rebuttal.
I am a heterosexual woman. It’s been my experience that bi-curious otherwise straight men are the most threatened by gay men. They tend to do a lot of projecting – they would secretly love to explore that side of their sexuality, and are extremely jealous that there are men out there who are living the life.
As for straight women not getting off with other women (as opposed to full-on lesbians), then what do you make of the “lesbian-until-graduation” phenomenon? I know many women who dated women – and loved it – almost exclusively until they hit their mid-twenties. After that point, they almost exclusively identified as straight (and loved that, too). Were they lying (to themselves, to society) when they were queer or when they were straight?
If you personally don’t want to support gay marriage, that’s within your rights. But there’s no argument in this argument – it lacks logic, critical thinking, and historical knowledge.



report abuse
 

Jim

posted July 3, 2009 at 8:08 pm


Gay,straight,bi,or nonsexual.That is between GOD and each and every individual.Lev:18-3 is referring to Lev:17-14,15,16.(Eat not the blood of any creatures)
GOD bless us all



report abuse
 

Not all men are closeted gays

posted July 4, 2009 at 5:10 pm


I find this article really disturbing. Are you implying that all men are secretly gay? Though I applaud and find it refreshing for you to be so concerned by women as sexual beings, who have the right to find total satisfaction to their needs (more so in today’s climate, where many good Christians still believe for some odd reason that sexuality, particularly female sexuality, should be kept under a tight grip), I am not convinced by the whole argument. Do you really mean that laws forbidding gay marriage are necessary to keep men like you and me from having homosexual relations? Do you really believe that most men would naturally find gay sex more pleasing than straight sex? I, for one, don’t fantasize with gay sex. Does that make me abnormal?



report abuse
 

Aliyah Hewenn

posted July 4, 2009 at 9:26 pm


I agree with this article a woman. I have a dozen or so single friends/colleagues who are single and searching for a partner to settle with. They frequent bars and social events and regularly notice a decreasing number of heterosexual men. I believe there will come a time when we women will be forced to live sexually dysfunctional lives. Lets face it- the ultimate fulfillment reliever of our sexual needs lies in a reliable partner and much of the satisfaction from his companionship lies in the assurance that we are desired.
As for the reason why gay sex is contagious for men, I believe its do with a kinky perversion that is hard to get rid of, just like peodophiles prefer children over mature women.
I also think trumatic scenes like childbirth shown to young boys implant a psychological aversion to women in them.
We need to snap out of ‘political correctness’ and takcle the gay disease fast.



report abuse
 

Aliya.Hewitt

posted July 4, 2009 at 9:28 pm


I agree with this article a woman. I have a dozen or so single friends/colleagues who are single and searching for a partner to settle with. They frequent bars and social events and regularly notice a decreasing number of heterosexual men. I believe there will come a time when we women will be forced to live sexually dysfunctional lives. Lets face it- the ultimate fulfillment reliever of our sexual needs lies in a reliable partner and much of the satisfaction from his companionship lies in the assurance that we are desired.
As for the reason why gay sex is contagious for men, I believe its do with a kinky perversion that is hard to get rid of, just like peodophiles prefer children over mature women.
I also think trumatic scenes like childbirth shown to young boys implant a psychological aversion to women in them.
We need to snap out of ‘political correctness’ and takcle the gay disease fast.



report abuse
 

Bogroll

posted July 5, 2009 at 10:55 am


You are really worrying about the wrong thing here… Prepare yourselves, the rapture is coming soon, that will solve the gay issue, most won’t last to the armageddon, they will be enslaved or feed apon by satan’s minions. Now is the time to mend your own fences, remove the plank from your own eye. Time is short, the Lord cometh soon!!!!



report abuse
 

thecomedychick

posted July 5, 2009 at 12:13 pm


I’m a successful, single, straight female and I frequently say that all the “good” ones are either married or gay. This phenomenon has nothing to do with today’s permissive society towards homosexuality, rather that most men still date “down”. The more education and money a woman has, generally the smaller her pool of suitors are. The real threat to marriage is not homosexuals, it is women having a brain!! My mother used to always say that Helen Gurley Brown is the DEVIL! Maybe momma was right, if I would have forgone a liberal arts education, I may be barefoot and pregnant!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 5, 2009 at 1:33 pm


God talks to me all the time – He directed me to your website to pass on this message. “You’re wrong sweetcakes. I like gays. That’s why I made them. Straights are OK for procreating, but they’re so dreary. I get so bored while watching them. Anyway, anyone who hates gays is going to the Hot Place… So now you know. Repent your hating ways or it’ll be Hell for you matey.”



report abuse
 

kate

posted July 6, 2009 at 6:36 am


My god this is hilariously stupid.



report abuse
 

Jonathan

posted July 6, 2009 at 10:52 pm


If you say that one support is from the utilitarian argument, I wouldn’t think so. Based on the argument, there should be no one that suffers from gay marriage. Just don’t get into others’ businesses.



report abuse
 

Finch

posted July 7, 2009 at 10:00 am


This is absolutely disgusting to read. Ancient Rome held a civillization that has been and gone. I live in Scotland where gay people can marry and i can guarantee you that the country hasnt developed into a mass orgy where men just fling with men for the hell of it, let alone preferring them to their wives.
Most people are attracted to one sex, or the other. Legalizing gay marriage is not going to change this. Nor is it going to threaten women. What a ridiculous and quite frankly homophobic piece of writing.



report abuse
 

Experience is a great teacher

posted July 7, 2009 at 4:56 pm


All I can speak of is my own experience, being 50 yrs old and continuing to enjoy a wonderful sexual relationship with my wife of 28 years. This experience has taught me (and continues to reinforce) that sex is a mental experience that is fulfilled wonderfully and cooperatively with our bodies and emotions. This experience changes over time as we mature and as our relationship matures. But it is never without the consent and cooperation of our minds. I believe that homosexuality is first and foremost a matter of our minds and what we entertain and expose our minds with in/to during our sexually formative years. It is not something we are born with, but something that is learned and reinforced through exposure with it. That is why I oppose same-sex marriage and any indoctrination of same-sex activities to children/teens in their formative years.



report abuse
 

Mike Haubrich, FCD

posted July 11, 2009 at 4:30 pm


Is this The Onion? This argument is incredibly close to satire. Discust wrote a piece recently in which Jenny Sanford actually used this sort of argument that Mark Sanford had a heterosexual affair because of gay marriage.
It was satire, but if you are serious in this post, then the satire was far too close to the truth for anyone to be able to discern and I don’t feel so foolish for not recognizing it.



report abuse
 

liv

posted July 12, 2009 at 12:46 pm


I’m dumber for reading this… no really….



report abuse
 

Stacy

posted July 13, 2009 at 1:17 am


Your argument is based on two fallacies: One – most men would prefer to be with other men, if only it were socially acceptable. Two – most women would prefer to have a closeted, man-loving husband than no husband at all.
I am a woman, so I can address Issue Number Two: no thanks. I’d rather be alone than married to an unhappy, closeted homosexual man. Frankly, I think we SHOULD let gay men marry each other, not pretend to be straight and make their wives wonder what’s wrong.
As a man, David, I’ll ask YOU to address Issue Number One: is the only reason you’re not with a male partner today simply because of social pressure? If you could have legally married a man, would you have chosen a woman as your partner?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 18, 2009 at 10:26 am


from the Washington POST:
“I sat next to a Republican senator once at dinner and he had his hand on my inner thigh the whole time. I was like, ‘Ewww, get me out of here.’ ”
– New York Times columnist David Brooks on Washington’s “loss of dignity” Friday on MSNBC.
Your Name CORRECTION: Brooks misspoke. It was not a “Republican senator” who was responsible for his ‘thigh anxiety’- it was none other than the one and only David (“I like dancing with guys”) Klinghoffer!



report abuse
 

Jennifer Roback Morse

posted July 21, 2009 at 12:48 pm


David,
Does Berman’s book talk about gay marriage? I followed the Amazon link, and did not see any reference to that aspect of his work. If this book has his sources to back up the arguments of this post, I would certainly purchase the book.
Dr Morse



report abuse
 

Dn. Thomas E. Brandlin, MNA

posted July 21, 2009 at 12:48 pm


Dear Mr. Klinghoffer,
A moment ago I finished reading the comments posted above. Some of them are just plain silly and nonsensical. I hope they are not representative of the discussion abilities of the average proponent of gay marriage.
I think your blog posting is very well thought out and written. It is concise and quite articulate.
Keep-up the good work!
Dn. Tom



report abuse
 

mercurium captans

posted July 22, 2009 at 9:58 pm


By this logic, banning gay marriage is hurting men.



report abuse
 

noah

posted August 11, 2009 at 1:42 pm


wow. just wow. not a joke, apparently?



report abuse
 

Steve Silberman

posted September 5, 2009 at 6:56 pm


Oh yes, the good ol’ “Gay sex is so pleasurable, most men would go gay if it wasn’t forbidden” argument. It says much more about the barely suppressed desires of the author than it does about morality. Very few straight men I know would suddenly stop being attracted to women if it was also OK to be attracted to men. This is the sort of argument against basic human rights that doesn’t withstand a minute of honest examination, but dress it up with a few quotes cherry-picked from the Greek Anthology, and suddenly it’s supposed to resemble logic.



report abuse
 

Jen Dante

posted September 17, 2009 at 6:03 pm


Hi David,
There’s a very easy way to test your hypothesis. Prisons are notorious for homo-eroticism, since inmates have no sexual access to members of the opposite sex for long periods of time. If exposure to sex with other men ruins otherwise “straight” men for women, we would expect a high percentage of ex-convicts to turn gay. I have never seen any evidence of that.
Also, shame on you for suggesting that Roman women couldn’t take pleasure in each other because they lacked penises. By that logic, no straight couple would ever engage in oral sex and women would be unable to climax when masturbating.



report abuse
 

Christina

posted November 6, 2009 at 2:00 pm


You’re quoting *Catullus* as an expert on sexual preference? A guy from a society that died over 1600 years ago because they didn’t stop drinking lead-infused water? A society that barely considered women human, never mind possessed of souls? You know what, as a woman, I think I’m capable of understanding that if a guy doesn’t want me, he doesn’t want me. It’s got nothing to do with whether that’s socially acceptable or not. Your argument is incredibly flawed and supported by 2000 year old expired data. And if I am not going to demand that a guy do me the great favor of denying his sexuality in order to form a family with someone he doesn’t want and love.



report abuse
 

Deb

posted November 7, 2009 at 9:15 am


This historical analogy only works if we drop out all the context of the two societies we’re discussing here, Rome and modern US.
In ancient Rome, women were considered inferior. They were thought to be soul-less, and incapable of being an equal partner in a loving relationship. Men turned to other men for a real, loving relationship because they thought women incapable of such a bond.
This is clearly not the case in most of the United States, where women are treated as intellectual equals and equal partners in a relationship built on love and mutual respect.
Marriage to a woman in ancient Rome was an obligation for the purposes of procreating. That, today, is clearly not the case.



report abuse
 

SW

posted January 2, 2010 at 1:43 am


I want to agree with this because I am against gays but this article was trash.I think the women who disagreed though only did so because they are deep down lesbian trash themselves.



report abuse
 

Rakaziel

posted August 23, 2010 at 10:05 pm


I agree with Jen Dante, Christina and Deb.
It is an interesting theory but evidence suggests otherwise.
And then there are also bisexuals and the area between bi and straight that is open to homoericism but has more interest in women.
With the current technology mankind would even survive if one gender died out completely, no matter which one.
We could even survive complete infertility of both genders. We would need to completely replace the DNA in animal egg cells with human DNA and use animals as incubators. But I digress.
What I want to say is if that even if you are right there is no need to worry.



report abuse
 

Martha Gomez

posted November 2, 2010 at 10:23 am


I am pro and and I am not against any of this relationship that will be bonded together with that form of marriage.. I am straight but I just don’t see any problems with it for as long nothing or no one will be affected or harmed by this then let it be.. For we all deserves to be happy.. Just let them take those consequences and let them have their life.. This post is worth the read.. indeed..



report abuse
 

Lorena

posted May 30, 2011 at 1:44 pm


I agree with your post. But don’t forget that women are the only ones who can give birth so their role will always be irreplaceable in society. Plus the majority of men will always be attracted to women, nothing can beat natures call for reproduction, not even the social changes. I agree though that will be harder for women to find a man, but they will also get closer to women and start to appreciate women more than they did in roman era. Still this won’t be a healthy thing for society so the rules will change again, like they did before.



report abuse
 

David

posted March 4, 2012 at 12:54 am


What I do not understand is why there is such a big deal concerning only men marrying other men when the real problem is spouses being unfaithful period. If you are married and your partner does not want you having sex with anyone else but themselves then you do not do so that is the commitment made when you tie the knot. If your spouse is cheating it should not matter who he is cheating on you with you should get a divorce and move on. A person who does not respect their partners reasonable and rightful wishes does not deserve that person and therefore does not deserve to be married. Endorsing gay marriage in no way demeans the sanctity of marriage, but cheating, lying, and hurting do. Now if my rights are repealed because people are too cowardly to get over their own insecurities God have mercy on their souls because my Yahweh, my Jesus, my karma stem from an undying and unconditional love for all life no matter what. No matter what. Missing the mark, the definition of sinning, or not, this world and universe are meant to foster love not hate nor judgement. Please know that I love you all whether you like it or not and I pray for a world where regardless of any distinguishing trait we can all respect each other, love each other, and keep each other safe. I would never allow another Hitler to come and proclaim that Jews are the bane of the worlds existence, allow another sniper to snuff out the next Martin Luther King before his time, nor allow another legislation bar any woman from voting or wearing pants figuratively or literally. So please show me the same compassion, if not, if your convictions are so strong that you need to strip me bare, I hope for your eternities sake that you were right, because I wouldn’t want to spend the afterlife bearing the judgement otherwise.



report abuse
 

Bubble

posted April 6, 2012 at 6:11 am


Hm, evidently someone forgot to inform the feminists that gay rights harm women since most feminists (and most women) believe that feminism and gay rights go hand in hand. When the status of women improves in society, so does the status of homosexuals – since both groups are supposedly downtrodden by “the patriarchy” for being too “feminine”.



report abuse
 

soverytrue

posted July 6, 2012 at 12:44 am


i am a STRAIGHT MAN that is really looking to meet a GOOD STRAIGHT WOMAN TODAY. but the problem is that there are so MUCH MORE LESBIANS than we ever had now, which are certainly making it harder for us men that are looking. yes i will certainly blame the women, since so many of them are just into other women these days. i could never blame myself, since i did not do anything wrong on my part. i just want to meet a good woman for me, and that is all that i am asking. even the STRAIGHT WOMEN TODAY, are so very nasty to talk too. either way, i can’t seem to win, go figure.



report abuse
 

PAUL SAYS

posted July 6, 2012 at 1:49 pm


women going with women today, is VERY DISGUSTING. that was the worse thing that has ever happened today, SAME SEX COUPLES. the world has enough problems as it is, without these LOW LIFE, PIECE OF GARBAGE PEOPLE adding to it.



report abuse
 

Leta

posted August 7, 2012 at 12:48 am


Hello, i believe that i noticed you visited my site thus i came to return the want?
.I’m attempting to find things to improve my site!I assume its ok to make use of a few of your ideas!!



report abuse
 

Pingback: "How Women Will Be Hurt by Gay Marriage" - Empty Closets - A safe online community for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people coming out

Pingback: What's the dumbest anti-gay or anti-gay marriage argument you've ever heard? - Page 3 - Empty Closets - A safe online community for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people coming out

Pingback: What is the most amusing LGBT myth spun by bigots? - Page 2 - Empty Closets - A safe online community for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people coming out

michael kors outlet online

posted May 24, 2013 at 6:44 am


Nice weblog here! Also your web site a lot up fast! What host are you the usage of? Can I get your associate hyperlink in your host? I desire my website loaded up as fast as yours lol



report abuse
 

Pingback: What weird odd beliefs have you heard? - Empty Closets - A safe online community for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people coming out

Jake

posted June 15, 2014 at 10:03 pm


Wow. Lots of foaming at the mouth gay propagandists getting all twisted up about this article. The author must’ve hit a nerve with this cogent and eye-opening piece.



report abuse
 

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.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.