(no subject)
CNN.com has a column from Conservative David Frum about Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston. And same-sex marriage. It's intriguing from a rhetorical perspective. The point he's trying to make is that the latest Palin/Johnston break-up (they're not-not-not getting married) is more relevant than the same-sex debate when trying to evaluate the status of marriage as an institution. As he says at the end (spoiler alert, I guess):
"The harm feared from same-sex marriage has already arrived: Whether same-sex marriage is accepted or not, opposite-sex marriage as a norm and expectation has already collapsed."
One note, the sentence "The harm feared from same-sex marriage has already arrived" is not saying that SSM (same-sex marriage is just getting too repetitive to type out) has already destroyed marriage, just that OSM has been damaged in the way SSM is "supposed" to have done but from another, unexpected source.
His article is slightly histrionic but also a fascinatingly sideways path to "same-sex marraige won't destroy the institution of marriage." I can't even tell if this guy would feel that SSM would be a threat if he didn't think OSM had already "collapsed."
OK, no, it's clear he would see it as a threat in that circumstance. But in the face of his current argument he's thrown up his hands in despair and said "FINE! Whatever! Marriage is dead anyway so go ahead, do whatever you want."
He's not advocating for SSM, just giving up on OSM. So... hooray for our side? Win by default?
And then, beyond that odd bump for SSM, there's a hidden (unconcious, most likely) pro-birth-control argument. His contention is that unwed child-bearing is the destruction of marriage. And the word "contraception" never enters into the text. Ah well, not that I expected it. He simply wants child-havers to be married, not protected. But it seems to me that his point easily becomes a backdoor advocacy for more birth-control. Mr. Frum may need to turn in his RNC membership.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/09/frum.marriage/index.html?hpt=C2
"The harm feared from same-sex marriage has already arrived: Whether same-sex marriage is accepted or not, opposite-sex marriage as a norm and expectation has already collapsed."
One note, the sentence "The harm feared from same-sex marriage has already arrived" is not saying that SSM (same-sex marriage is just getting too repetitive to type out) has already destroyed marriage, just that OSM has been damaged in the way SSM is "supposed" to have done but from another, unexpected source.
His article is slightly histrionic but also a fascinatingly sideways path to "same-sex marraige won't destroy the institution of marriage." I can't even tell if this guy would feel that SSM would be a threat if he didn't think OSM had already "collapsed."
OK, no, it's clear he would see it as a threat in that circumstance. But in the face of his current argument he's thrown up his hands in despair and said "FINE! Whatever! Marriage is dead anyway so go ahead, do whatever you want."
He's not advocating for SSM, just giving up on OSM. So... hooray for our side? Win by default?
And then, beyond that odd bump for SSM, there's a hidden (unconcious, most likely) pro-birth-control argument. His contention is that unwed child-bearing is the destruction of marriage. And the word "contraception" never enters into the text. Ah well, not that I expected it. He simply wants child-havers to be married, not protected. But it seems to me that his point easily becomes a backdoor advocacy for more birth-control. Mr. Frum may need to turn in his RNC membership.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/09/frum.marriage/index.html?hpt=C2