Joshua Berman believes that if homosexuality gains widespread accepted in society, men will no longer have sex with women and WE'RE ALL DOOMED! DOOMED, I TELL YOU!!1!!!eleventy!!!
Just a clue, Mr. Berman, if you prefer to have sex with men, and don't really find women sexually exciting at all, you're homosexual. That's it. I could have sex with women. I don't, because women don't do it for me. No matter how acceptable homosexuality becomes, women aren't going to be any more sexually attractive to me.
In other words, Mr. Berman, it's not society, it's you.
Men, we learn from ancient Rome, will enjoy sex with other men, if there is no social censure. Now, all of this should be fine for us as well -- after all, we should let free choice and tolerance reign.
The real problems begin, however, when we read what these writers had to say about marriage. Consider this piece from the first century BCE poet Catullus (Carmen 61:134-141), in which the poet addresses himself to a bridegroom on the eve of his nuptials:
"You are said to find it hard, Perfumed bridegroom, to give up Smooth-skinned boys, but give them up... We realize you've only known Permitted pleasures: husbands, though, Have no right to the same pleasures."
The social history behind this piece is clear: once they've experienced sex with other men, Catullus tells us, men are unsatisfied with what their new wives provide them. Notice that the poet is unconcerned about the husband's dallying with other women -- it's the other men around that threaten the marital union.
. . .
The losers from all this will be the vast majority of women. With full social sanction given to homoerotic activity, the historical precedent suggests that tomorrow's women will have a harder time finding and holding on to suitable men. As women will suffer, so will the vitality and stability of the nuclear family.
Is there anything to say about the above other than, "That closet has a door, Mr. Berman, open it."?
