Posted on 12/29/2008 2:44:50 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Perhaps the most important argument against same-sex marriage is that once society honors same-sex sex as it does man-woman sex, there will inevitably be a major increase in same-sex sex. People do sexually (as in other areas) what society allows and especially what it honors.
One excellent example illustrating this is an article recently written in the McGill University newspaper by McGill student Anna Montrose. In it, she wrote:
"It's hard to go through four years of a Humanities B.A. reading Foucault and Butler and watching 'The L Word' and keep your rigid heterosexuality intact. I don't know when it happened exactly, but it seems I no longer have the easy certainty of pinning my sexual desire to one gender and never the other."
(Michel Foucault is a major French "postmodern" philosopher; Judith Butler is a prominent "gender theorist" at UC Berkeley; and "The L-Word" is a popular TV drama about glamorous lesbians.)
I interviewed Anna Montrose, a bright and articulate 22-year-old woman, on my syndicated radio show. She is a fine example of the type of thinking and behavior a homosexuality-celebrating culture -- such as that at our universities -- produces.
The following are selected excerpts, edited for reasons of space, from that interview. The full transcript, the audio and her original article are all available on my website, www.dennisprager.com.
DP: Prior to attending university you had your 'rigid heterosexuality' intact. Is that correct?
AM: I think that that's pretty fair to say.
DP: So you and I both believe that how people behave sexually, including which sex they will engage with sexually, is largely determined by society and not by nature.
AM: Yeah, I completely agree.
DP: Gay rights activists say the opposite. They say that whether you act homosexually or not is fixed; and I don't believe it's fixed necessarily at all and neither do you.
AM: But I think that [the activists'] argument has a political purpose, which is to counter the argument that heterosexuality is fixed.
DP: I agree with you. But we both think that they're not telling the truth for the sake of making a political argument.
Since we both agree that largely whom we have sex with and sexual behavior generally are culturally determined, the only question is: Would we like culture to determine [these things] one way or the other? I think 'yes' and you think 'not'. I have a heterosexual preference because my values tell me that male/female love is the ideal. You don't think it's the ideal. Is that fair?
AM: I think that it's one of many options.
DP: It's not necessarily a good thing to teach heterosexual behavior as the ideal?
AM: Yeah.
DP: You didn't know you were sexually attracted to women until you went to university? You had lived 18 years and thought you were only sexually attracted to males.
AM: That's true, but I also had never had a boyfriend either. I didn't date --
DP: Whether one has a boyfriend or girlfriend is very different from what one wants to have and where one's sexual fantasies lie.
AM: Yeah, that's completely true.
DP: All I'm saying about sexual choices is that society has a deep impact on sexual choices including whether it's same sex or opposite sex. So my whole position is: Thousands of years of Western civilization preferring male-female bonding leading to marriage and family is a good thing, and Anna feels that it's a bad thing. Is that totally fair? Or am I putting words in your mouth?
AM: I don't think it's necessarily preferable. I think that people should be able to make their own choices.
DP: So one is as good as the other.
AM: Yeah.
DP: So you're saying that for thousands of years, Western society has been wrong for preferring male-female marital bonding.
AM: I only think it's wrong in that it limits other possibilities, which are equally good.
DP: So it is wrong to tell people, wrong to tell little girls, to suggest in any way, subtly or non-subtly, that they should grow up and marry a boy?
AM: Yeah, I don't think that you should force anyone into --
DP: You said 'forced,' I just said 'suggest.'
AM: How would you just gently tell someone?
DP: By saying, for example, "Well, are you going to marry Jerry or Tony?" instead of, "Are you going to marry Jerry or Barbara?"
AM: I think that the coercion is on a sort of deeper level.
DP: So you feel it's [coercion] to suggest to a girl only male options for marriage?
AM: Right.
DP: Have you acted upon your new revelation of not being a rigid heterosexual?
AM: What do you mean 'acted on'?
DP: Well, had sexual contact with females.
AM: I guess I have, yeah.
DP: Have you had with a male?
AM: I had. I had a boyfriend for a year.
DP: Is there any difference or are they both equally meaningful to you?
AM: Well, there is definitely a difference, but they are also both meaningful.
DP: At this point, do you hope to marry one day?
AM: I haven't really decided on that.
DP: You don't even have that hope? You haven't decided on the hope? I asked if you hoped, not if you decided.
AM: Do I hope to marry? I don't know if I'm going to marry or not.
DP: I didn't ask if you knew; I was asking if you're hoping.
AM: I'm not sure what the difference is.
DP: I hope to win the lottery, but I don't expect to. There is a very big difference. So I'm asking if you hoped to.
AM: Well, hope would imply that that would be ideal. But I'm not going to say that getting married would be ideal. But I'm also not against marriage; I mean you get insurance benefits by getting married so I can definitely see a case where I would get married.
DP: For insurance benefits?
AM: Yeah.
DP: That's why you would marry?
AM: And tax benefits as well. It's very convenient.
Oh, puhl-ease.
Anyone who hasn’t had their sexuality set in concrete before college hasn’t been paying attention. If this woman was in college when she suddenly has questions about her sexual identity, she should check with a medical doctor to find out if her blood hormone levels are appropriate.
Insurance and tax benefits.
It’s all about money when she gets right down to it.
Unbelievable.
who forced her to take course of study?
to that THAT course of study.
Any numbskull with half a brain would realize homosexual marriage is clearly not equally good as heterosexual marriage if one places any value on children or family whatsoever. Those arguing otherwise have the myopic lens of 2-year old who can see little beyond the present moment.
After reading the transcript, she comes across as such a wet-brained window-licking idiot that I’m surprised they didn’t open her mind to bestiality too.
Nah, I knew plenty of LUG (lesbians until graduation).
They did it for attention.
Its not the College Universities themselves doing this work. These children grow up without believing in anything. Thats why they are so easily preyed upon by Communist indoctrination in College campuses. They weren’t taught by their society, and even more important, their parents real values to live by.
Thats why this girl sees marriage as good only for the insurance benefits. She wasn’t taught to believe in anything meaningful, so all she can see in life is what benefits herself.
I’m so heterosexual that I can say with out equivocation...”If I were a woman, I’d be a lesbian!”
Nonsense. Anyone that gullible needs to learn a few hard lessons before they grow a spine.
Actually, if a human has no moral compass whatsoever, they can aquire a taste for pretty much anything - Even Single Malt and cigars, which are repugnant on first exposure.;)
I like ‘em both now.
But seriously, as someone who believes homosexuality is an acquired taste, I find this article interesting. She has simply become bisexual, and amoral.
The “natural man” personified.
AM: Right.
Conservatives still send their kids to gov't schools and colleges, don't they? I wonder what for.
“DP: So you and I both believe that how people behave sexually, including which sex they will engage with sexually, is largely determined by society and not by nature.”
Sorry. With this I disagree, Mr. Prager.
I like women. That’s not something that was determined by society. It is definitely my nature.
That girl is really F’ed up! Gullible wench!
I think the answer is right in the article:
“but I also had never had a boyfriend either. I didn’t date”
so what are the statistics on girls going to college, who never had a boyfriend up to that point (i.e. no boys ever showed interest), “finding out” that they might be L or at least LUG?
I've got to show my wife this quote: The Meaning of Love.
There is a difference between homosexuality and kinky. This chick is kinky.
“After reading the transcript, she comes across as such a wet-brained window-licking idiot that I’m surprised they didn’t open her mind to bestiality too.”
The silver lining....smart conservative women will continue to bear children, while this chicky obviously will not.
B-CHAN: Thousands of years of Western civilization preferring male-female bonding leading to marriage and family is a good thing, and Anna feels that it’s a bad thing. Is that totally fair? Or am I putting words in your mouth?
AM: I don’t think it’s necessarily preferable. I think that people should be able to make their own choices.
B-CHAN: Why?
AM: Because it’s wrong to coerce anyone into behaving a certain way.
B-CHAN: Wrong? As in morally wrong?
AM: Yes.
B-CHAN: Sez who?
AM: Excuse me?
B-CHAN: You said that it’s wrong to coerce someone into behaving a certain way. Sez who? Who says it’s wrong to coerce people?
AM: Well, it’s against freedom.
B-CHAN: So what?
AM: Well, freedom is good, so anything that restricts it is evil.
B-CHAN: Who says freedom is good?
AM: Human nature. People naturally want to be free.
B-CHAN: But I thought that human nature didn’t exist. Didn’t you just say that human nature was, in effect, socially determined?
AM: Well, the desire for freedom isn’t. It’s natural.
B-CHAN: Again, says who?
AM: Says reality, I suppose.
B-CHAN: So freedom is the ultimate value? The standard of goodness?
AM: Yes.
B-CHAN: Sez who?
AM: Look, this is —
B-CHAN: Skip it. Are you saying that people should be totally free to do whatever they want?
AM: As long as they’re not hurting anyone else, or the Earth, yes.
B-CHAN: So it’s wrong to hurt other people? Or the Earth?
AM: Yes.
B-CHAN: Sez who?
AM: This interview is over.
“It’s hard to go through four years of a Humanities B.A. reading Foucault and Butler and watching ‘The L Word’ and keep your rigid heterosexuality intact. I don’t know when it happened exactly, but it seems I no longer have the easy certainty of pinning my sexual desire to one gender and never the other.”
Impressionable children without a well-formed moral being shouldn’t be in such company. Neither should anyone else.
There is nothing wrong with not dating or not having a boyfriend in high school. It does NOT mean a girl is a lesbian.
i never implied 100%, just that it may be statistically significant (e.g. 1% vs 1.5% is a 50% difference, i.e. statistically significant).
in our morally-free society girls that have not been shown any interested from the opposite sex are probably more easily influenced by a constant bombardment of lesbianistic teaching/acceptance.
Not dating does not equal lack of interest from the opposite sex.
“I gather that you're for legalizing gay marriage as well ?”
That's sort of a non sequitur. Why would I be in favor of homosexual “marriage” just because I don't believe the nonsense that “gender” or sexual orientation is societally determined?
sitetest
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
That made me think of a variation of the old joke about cigars and pickled pigs feet.
“I smoke cigars to get out the taste of the pickled pigs feet, and I eat the pickled pigs feet to get out the taste of the cigars. And I like to watch lesbians in action while I do it, because it reminds me how much easier it is to smoke cigars and eat pickled pigs feet.”
No matter how “normal” we pretend homosexuality is, homosexuals will still be reminded, consciously or subconsciously, every single time they see another living thing, that their desires run counter to the very essence of what has brought all life to this planet.
I just quoted you on another thread and pinged you there.
Not only that, Spodefly, but if homosexuality is encoded in the genes of those afflicted, it seems to me they would have long ago ‘bred’ themselves out of existance.
I listened to this today (though I think it was a “Best Of...” show.)
I hope he may have her on again when she’s thirty.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
>>>I’m so heterosexual that I can say with out equivocation...”If I were a woman, I’d be a lesbian!”
Ditto.
College “taught” her nothing about being a homosexual.
In my academic experience, “educators” quit “teaching” after about the tenth grade, and, before that, all they teach is discipline. After that, if you are disciplined, you learn.
There is no genetic test or procedure (experimental or otherwise) that can determine one's sexual orientation. When people claim to be gay and we believe them, what we're really doing is taking them at their word. We believe their claim, we believe their testimony and we believe their declaration that they are gay.
But there are some people who are suddenly skeptical when one claims to be ex-gay. They don't believe the ex-gay claim, they don't believe the ex-gay testimony nor their declaration that they are ex-gay.
When somebody uses a certain standard to measure the credibility of what one group says, but then refuses to use the same standard to measure the credibility of what another group says--thereby ignoring the claims of the second group (ex-gays)--he should ask himself why he believes one group and not the other... This is a double standard.
Her poor parents; they sure p***ed away a bunch of money for nothing. Best bet for little AM? Graduate school, of course!
My daughter, (2nd year), just finished a required course in "Gender Studies."
She laughs at the outspoken sexual candor and lesbian raucus, but understood what was needed to pass the course.
Her head's on straight and actually wondered at the 3.5 grade she received. God bless her; there are a whole lot of minds "made out of mush" out there.
Bookmark for later reading.
Not necessarily. Possibly females rarely had any say in the matter of begetting, and they passed on the trait. In fact, in many cultures the young men don't have much say in it either, they marry whom they're told and they are expected to produce children.
Also, last I heard, identical twinning is a random phenomenon, not hereditary. (I've reason to doubt that, but that's what they say.) So perhaps what causes homosexuality is a randomly occurring phenomenon too.
Or perhaps not!
I am mighty skeptical that it is so easy to “change sides”.
Godspeed, FRiend.
Thanks.
Seriously, that post was art and just what I needed for the other thread.
Thanks!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.