Results 1 to 4 of 4
#1 McGill University taught her not to be a heterosexual Dennis Prager
12-29-2008, 07:47 PM
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
Her College taught her not to be a heterosexual Dennis Prager
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?
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.
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?
DP: Have you acted upon your new revelation of not being a rigid heterosexual?
12-30-2008, 10:51 AM
- Join Date
- May 2008
Yep. No liberal indoctination going on in our schools and universities. Nope. Not one bit.OPEACHMENT NOW!!!
"I was... ordered to drop my pants, bend over and spread my cheeks."
--RagingInMiami achieving the DUmp's highest level of nirvana
12-30-2008, 08:11 PM
If you hang around academics (and sadly, I do) you will find that they don't really believe that homosexuality in a heterosexual format like monogamy is really preferable in any way. What they believe is that the nuclear family is a toxic and oppressive wasteland that churns out damaged goods.
Promoting homosexuality is a way of destabilizing the traditional family structure. When enough people come out of alternative family structures (which are just as screwed up as traditional family structures) then it will be easier to wean people off the idea of family entirely. Ultimately, they want women to be freed from any family responsibility at all and for children to be raised in a sane environment by detached, but undamaged, professionals.
That's the real agenda. Buy a Woman's Studies prof a fair trade skinny Grande Americano and she'll tell you all about the nasty outcomes of love, bonding, and interdependence and how we can put all that perversity behind us when both child-rearing and romantic love are eliminated from the equation. ;)
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|