Do gays "hate" marriage? Columnist says so.

Writing for Townhall.com, one Kevin McCullough says that gays "hate marriage," and sets out to tell everyone why.

But the more he writes, the deeper the hole he digs himself. Not to mention the 300-some comments the article has provoked.

Here are a few tidbits:

Despite of all that their angry-mob front groups argue for in front of television cameras to the contrary, radical homosexual activists despise the institution and more importantly the sanctity of marriage. That is also the fundamental reason why they are seeking to destroy the institution.

***

no longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. Bit of exaggeration, is it not?

***

There are attributes of marriage that same-sex couples will never achieve. But in the minds of radical activists - getting the label and a piece of paper saying so will be close enough.

For instance a woman who engages in lesbianism will never know the joy of love-making that creates within her the product of that union - an actual human life. [I won't even touch the silly statements beyond this; about a true man protecting her from the dragons of the world because McCullough already has much to answer for.]

As one reader succinctly observes, "For my part, I will not be one whit less or more married in my heterosexual marriage than I was before."

People who are worried about the "sanctity" of marriage ought to make sure things are right in their own marriages first.

How McC can claim to divine the true motives of a large groups of people who are pretty diverse within themselves is beyond me.

Among my friends are a handful of gay couples who say that their relationship is not terribly sexual. As for disgusting sexual practices, try Googling "bukkake" to see what heterosexuals are capable of doing. As one of my stuffier gay friends says, "not everybody does everything," meaning that the weirder stuff reported in the press and depicted in gay-pride parades is fringe behavior.

And as far as the contention that you don't fully experience the "sanctity" of marriage unless you have children, that's downright insulting to the people who for one reason or another have not procreated.

As the younger member of a May-December marriage for 33 years, I can tell you that my marriage is no less sanctified because the window of biological opportunity was not open to us. And I know a couple, incredibly devoted to each other, in which the husband is fully 40 years older than his wife: she is 51, he is 92. They have been inseparable for 20 years. Would you call that a non-sanctified marriage?

Let's examine a bit further McCullough's know the joy of love-making that creates within her the product of that union - an actual human life.

Are we to assume, on this basis, that a marriage is not "sanctified" if it does not produce children? If so, is there an exemption for heterosexual couples unable to produce offspring, by virtue of:

• Hysterectomy performed to cure cancer or endometrioma?
• Orchiectomy performed to cure cancer, or as a result of trauma?
• Erectile dysfunction?
• Immotile sperm?
• Menopause?

In short, is marriage immoral if the couple are physically incapable of reproduction, perhaps simply because they married late in life? Suppose there is little sexual activity, because one or both partners have a low level of sexual desire?

Furthermore, how "sanctified" are heterosexual marriages in which there is infidelity, brutality, and sexual perversion? Recall now, there are forms of, ahem, unnatural sexual contact, engaged in by heterosexual couples, including some of the same acts attributed to homosexuals.

tags: gay marriage  hypocrisy  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit