NO PRESSURE?: Marty McKeever replies to Eve

[my post here--Eve]

Your last bit about "yes" and "no" does as good a job of illustrating the absurdity of SSM as anything I could say.

If yes, then we've redefined family in a way that has nothing to do with marriage. If no, then we've redefined marriage in a way that has nothing do with
family. Two sides of the same bent coin.

Bernstein misses the forest for the trees with this gem: "[gay] people get into it because they have nurturing instincts that are so pressing they feel they must."

You mean men and women have "nurturing intincts" that rise head and shoulders above their "sexual orientation"? Gee! Who'd have thought such a thing! Ayers and Brown would certainly disagree, based on this one: "Many heterosexual couples would resist the notion that there is a clearly defined role for one partner based on the fact that she's a woman, and a distinct role for the other partner based upon the fact that he's a man."

There are no clearly defined roles for men and women anymore. Being male/father and female/mother are not "roles". And they are not "nurturing instincts" either. They are biological imperatives with zero regard for anyone's "orientation". Are there really heterosexuals who would resist this notion?
posted by Eve at 4:54 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home