Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal GMontag's Journal: Hitchens Comments on Gay Marriage 11

Journal by GMontag

The Married State
One good thing about gay nuptials: It'd drive the mullahs mad.
BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
Wednesday, March 3, 2004 12:01 a.m.

When I become bored or irritated by the gay marriage battle--and I do, I sometimes do--I like to picture the writhing faces and hoarse yells of the mullahs and the fanatics. Godless hedonistic America, not content with allowing divorce and pornography, has taken from us our holy Taliban and our upright Saddam. It sends Jews and unveiled female soldiers to our lands, and soon unnatural brotherhood will be in the armed forces of the infidels. And now the godless have an election where all they discuss is the weddings of men to men and women to women! And then I relax, and smile, and ask my neighbors over, to repay the many drinks and kind gestures that I owe them.

This discussion was created by GMontag (42283) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hitchens Comments on Gay Marriage More

Hitchens Comments on Gay Marriage

Comments Filter:
  • I don't noramlly read the WSJ, but if this is the quality of writing, then I have to start. Thanks for the post.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • And, just at this moment, you want to increase the stakes and demand not just equal rights but identical rights

    That is fallacious thinking. They already have identical rights. Every man and woman, regardless of color, ethnicity, nationality, creed, politics, etc. currently and always have had the right to get married.

    What homosexual activists are asking for is something different altogether. They want the same legal benefits to promote sodomy shack-ups of same-sex people as those offered to promote marr

    • There should never have been any governmental-bestowed benefir to being married. It should have always been nothing but a social status.

      Perhaps now we can get rid of these silly rules adding preferances and penalties to being married and make it nothing more than a social choice.
      • I would like to agree with you, but the government hasn't bestowed these benefits for no good reason. Marriage is the best kind of relationship for raising children in wholesome families, which, in the long run, is beneficial to the stability of a lawful and prosperous society. It is in the state's interest to nurture this healthy, human institution.

        The price to pay would be much greater down the road if marriage were weakened. Actually, we don't have to wonder if that's true. This has already been bearin

        • You don't need an amendment when we have Article III Section 2 laying right in front of us.

          And, no I do not agree with using it for your purposes, I would use it along the lines of removing any special governmental status of marriage.
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Actually, I would argue we have a high divorce rate because we let the government get involved in marriage. What we needed in the 60s was for the institution defining marriage to stand firm and say ``this is what marriage is, and it's permanent''. Unfortunately, governments---even democratic ones---aren't good at standing firm in the face of special-interest pressure, so the government instead said ``fine; if the feminists want to make `marriage' something else, we'll go along''. Hence easy divorces and
  • how liberals are so determined to require discrimination on the basis of marriage/civil union, which they claim is a state invention, but so determined to forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, which they claim is a fact of human nature? In other words, these people have no problem with the law taking countenance of a figment of the legislature's immagination, but do have a problem with the law taking countenance of a fact of nature?
    • Well, part of their argument is that homosexuality is natural. I would go along with that, but I do not agree that everybody who engages in homosexual acts is following any "natural" need any more than people who engage in various heterosexual acts are either. Many times it is for pure entertainment, no different than watching a movie.

      What I do not agree with is that marriage should be a ritual that opens the gates of special government status for anybody.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are not a loved organization, but we are a respected one. -- John Fisher

Close