Strange Thought
A strange thought came into my head today when I was out gathering firewood. I've been wondering for awhile why conservatives seem to link multiple partners in with the gay agenda suggesting that it is going to break down the institution of marriage. I mean, even if some gays do have multiple partners (ignoring the fact that some heterosexuals do too which, if anything, would undermine the concern about homosexuals), what connection is there between that and heterosexual marriage? How would that destroy heterosexual marriage? Are conservatives concerned that the legal definition of heterosexual marriage will be expanded to include polygamy?
Well it dawned on me today that fearing polygamy could very well be a Freudian thing. I mean, if polygamy were legalized, it isn't very likely that the majority of polygamous marriages would be one super woman with multiple husbands. Chances are that most polygamous marriages would be one husband and multiple wives. Yes some marriages would involve multiple husbands and multiple wives, but in general, women would tend to group up on one man. At least that's how polygamy has been in the past and it makes sense that it would be that way if polygamy became legal.
However, some men might be afraid of the consequences of such a thing. I mean, some men might have a Freudian fear of inadequacy, a fear that if women were allowed to choose, they might group up on and choose the best endowed men and leave the less adequate men out in the cold, either unable to attract a wife or forced to accept an unattractive woman as their wife, all because some men don't have an adequate male apparatus. I'm not saying that women would use that criteria to choose, but isn't this how Freudian fears work?
Did Freud ever contemplate this? And why is it predominantly the conservative and Christian men who have this concern?
Well it dawned on me today that fearing polygamy could very well be a Freudian thing. I mean, if polygamy were legalized, it isn't very likely that the majority of polygamous marriages would be one super woman with multiple husbands. Chances are that most polygamous marriages would be one husband and multiple wives. Yes some marriages would involve multiple husbands and multiple wives, but in general, women would tend to group up on one man. At least that's how polygamy has been in the past and it makes sense that it would be that way if polygamy became legal.
However, some men might be afraid of the consequences of such a thing. I mean, some men might have a Freudian fear of inadequacy, a fear that if women were allowed to choose, they might group up on and choose the best endowed men and leave the less adequate men out in the cold, either unable to attract a wife or forced to accept an unattractive woman as their wife, all because some men don't have an adequate male apparatus. I'm not saying that women would use that criteria to choose, but isn't this how Freudian fears work?
Did Freud ever contemplate this? And why is it predominantly the conservative and Christian men who have this concern?
posted by Bill | 12:53 AM
3 Comments:
LOL. I figured this would get your goat, big "A"...
But God says a lot of things are wrong. That doesn't stop conservatives from doing them. I mean, there are a bunch of conservative homosexuals, agreed?
But you didn't answer my main concern. Why do conservatives link homosexuality to polygamy? Why does the concept of homosexual marriage threaten the very nature of heterosexual marriage? If it isn't this Freudian thing, then what is it? What's the connection? And if you answer because it's banned in the Bible again, I might just come back and accuse you of wanting to impose a Christian theocracy on America. It's not a good idea to go there. You'll lose a whole bunch of support that way.
Must I remind you that theocracy is the goal of al Qaeda?
Both. One is a religion. One is a political philosophy. You know the difference don't you? Or do I have to explain it to your 5th grade educated mind?
There you go again, big "A", assassinating the character of your opponent. Is there some conservative educational institution somewhere that gives lessons in this technique?
So not only do you deny that conservatives are by definition Christian, you also deny that Christians are by definition conservative. Perhaps surprisingly, so do I. We agree again! In God's eyes, conservatives can be just as despicable as liberals. And yes, I know the difference between a religion and a political philosophy. I just wish there were more Christians who realized that fact. Christianity is not a conservative political philosophy no matter how many Christians there are who think it is.
Now back to your comment that my Freud-like proposal is "dumb and childish." It has always been my reaction that Freudian explanations based on sexual fears seemed dumb and childish. Perhaps that's because phobias like this are themselves dumb and childish. So is living your life controlled or guided by phobias.
Mind you again, I'm not saying this phobia is the reason why the debate against homosexual marriage encompasses the fear of polygamy. I'm just asking what the connection is between the two. Constitutionally defining marriage as the union between "one man and one woman" essentially forever bans both homosexual marriage and polygamy. Why is that necessary? What is the connection between the two? And how is the institution of heterosexual marriage put in danger without this ban? Who is suggesting banning heterosexual marriage and what does polygamy have to do with it? Is polygamy automatically homosexual simply because there are same-gender partners in the marriage? Is the argument against polygamy based on this notion that same-gender marriage is simply "disgusting?" What makes it so disgusting in the mind of conservatives? And while we're at it, do conservative homosexuals agree with you that it is disgusting? Are conservative homosexuals that self-effacing?
Post a Comment
<< Home