My dad sent me this link without comment. He didn't say whether he wanted me to comment on it or just that I should be aware of the other viewpoints out there. The article is an opinion piece by Sam Schulman of the Christian Science Monitor. I don't know Schulman and I don't know the viewpoint of gays put forth either by the Monitor or Christian Science, so I don't know if this is representative.
Schulman says the ruling by Judge Walker that overturned the Calif. gay marriage ban is right in some respects. What the ruling says about gays and their relationships is correct, says Schulman. But when it comes to marriage he thinks Walker missed it.
Why? Schulman thinks confining marriage to opposite-sex couples is necessary for "sustaining the existence of the human species." Surprisingly, Schulman doesn't go on to assert that tired claim that marriage is for procreation. He does something worse.
His claim is that marriage is to defend women, to "protect female sexuality in order to assure ourselves of a future." And, "Marriage is a necessary defense of a woman’s sexuality and her human liberty from determined assault by men who would turn her into a slave, a concubine – something less than fully human."
I'm not going to bother with the rest of what he says, or even try to rebut this much. It's not worth the rant. I'll only describe it: pig slop. Though, perhaps, I'm referring to the wrong end of the pig.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow! That is particularly horrifying! (And I frequently like the csmonitor).
ReplyDelete