So much for the “conservative” argument for homosexual marriage. I’ll be interested in seeing how Andrew Sullivan, David Brooks, et al spin their way out of this inconvenient situation.

I’m waiting to hear the “conservative” argument for bestiality.

The Melbourne Herald Sun ran a column on Friday supporting homosexual marriage. The columnist spoke of attending a “commitment ceremony” between two male friends. She wrote:

“It was just like any other wedding, involving a touching declaration of love and the exchange of rings. (Oh, except the groom was wearing red Speedo bathers for the ring-exchanging ceremony which was held in a pool lined by guests waving sparklers.)”

I don’t know if you have speedos in America, but they’re a kind of diminutive, tight fitting swimming costume which most of my female acquaintances criticize for leaving too little to the imagination.

Those who believe that homosexual marriage won’t influence our understanding of the institution might like to reconsider.

A very good article. Still, I found this one paragraph extremely annoying.

“Nor are we faced with an all-or-nothing choice between the marital system of, say, the 1950s and marriage’s disappearance. Kiernan’s model posits stopping points. So repealing no-fault divorce, or even eliminating premarital cohabitation, are not what’s at issue. With no-fault divorce, Americans traded away some of the marital stability that protects children to gain more freedom for adults. Yet we can accept that trade-off, while still drawing a line against descent into a Nordic-style system. And cohabitation as a premarital testing phase is not the same as unmarried parenting. Potentially, a line between the two can hold.”

In 1913 Mary Sheepshanks, a leading British feminist, went on a lecture tour of Europe. Whilst staying in Kiel, in northern Germany, she wrote that “my hostess a cultivated cosmopolitan Dame, very liberal views about marriage but thinks the Scandinavians take it too lightly”.

So as far back as 1913 the Scandinavians were taking things further than even the most liberal continentals could accept. The especially rapid decline of the family in Scandinavia seems to have its roots in factors that long precede the radicalism of the 1960s and 70s.

“I’m waiting to hear the “conservative” argument for bestiality.”

(Chuckle)

The idea that legalisation of Bestiality ought to be a Conservative position is likely to come from the same group of infantile Libertarians that also dream of borderless utopias.

Very soon a group of “Conservatives” whos learning goes only so far as fifth rate stuff like Ayn Rand are likely to nod in agreement and very soon Weekly Standard will carry an article…..you get the picture.

Lawrence what really will come to a head before long is the issue of polygamy considering our massive rates of immigration from parts of the world where that flies, i.e., Asia and the Muslim world. What will the “consenting adults” people have to say about that.

They will make impotent little noises of protest against it, and then they will, one way or another, surrender or accommodate themselves to it.

Remember, it doesn’t matter what people THINK they’re supporting when they support mass diverse immigration. Mass diverse immigration has its own logos, its intelligible structure, and its own telos, the end toward which it ineluctably moves, and the people who supported it for some supposedly benign reason will, as its evil true results begin to manifest, inevitably go along with those results, unless they repent completely from the beliefs that led them to support mass diverse immigration in the first place.

What Mr. Auster says about those who support mass immigration is true. The same is true, and for the same reasons, of those who support the homosexualists’ agenda. Often, of course, they are the same people. HRS

By basically demonizing contraception and anything women’s lib, Kurtz has succeeded in fooling people into believing his ridiculous correlation of gay marriage and declining mariage overall. Look, Scandinavia was already progressive- the numbers show first, that their point increase in out of wedlock births is not out of step with that of much of the world in the past ten years (even if the percent is higher), and second, that the aforementioned number had increased most prior to gay union legalization.
Is Scandinavia right? You decide. But criticizing contraception? Why don’t women just admit their only purpose is to be subservient to their husbands and rear children? (Their own happiness *not* an issue.) That seems to be what he’s really saying.