Andrew Sullivan, in 2006, failing to give credit where credit is due:
First, they came for the homos, then the near-dead, then the pregnant women. But you know who their ultimate target will be:
I am a breeder. Not just a breeder, but a breeder who has bred. I treasure my children, and regard them as the greatest among many gifts my union with my wife has brought me. I know as well as anyone else that conceiving children can be one of the great joys of having sex.
But I deeply resent the suggestion, the assertion that by taking steps to avoid an unplanned pregnancy, or engaging in intimate acts that could never result in pregnancy that we have somehow degraded our love for one another, or debased the intimate time we spend together. I resent it when someone says that about my wearing a condom or my wife using contraceptives, and I resent it when someone says that about two men loving one another or two women loving one another. However it’s said, it’s an outright assault on the most precious, personal aspect of the relationship between me and my wife.
I didn’t demand my wife prove her fertility before we were wed, nor did she ask the same of me. We became lovers, and then became husband and wife in large measure because of the sexual desire we felt for one another. And I deeply resent the assertion that the way I feel about my wife can only be justified by the possibility of conception.
Well, that’s what the Pope believes; and it’s therefore what Kathryn-Jean Lopez believes should be reflected in American social policy. I’m glad more and more heterosexuals are waking up to the theocon agenda.
It’s not a small thing to invoke the phrase “First they came for…” It’s provocative, and Sullivan is smart enough to know that. After all, provocation is Sullivan’s business, and he’s good at it.
But the provocation business model has externalities. That’s not news, and I make no claims to wisdom or insight by noting it here.
I am thinking about it more — because I am older, because my children are older and I’m thinking about the sort of world I want them to live in, because Spring has come early and mowing my lawn makes me ruminous.
It is not a war, and I am not a warrior.
Above: January 1942, Kerch, USSR — Families identify dead in Kerch, Crimea.
Below: A father salutes the casket of his son on March 23, 2012. Buckley Air Force Base honored Lance Cpl. Christopher Mies when he arrived home.
Well, I’m sure no one is desperate to have you fight for their rights, Mr Ryan, just protect you and yours. Nothing wrong with that, most people, including me, live like that. But then again, most people don’t feel the need to ALSO be condescending to people who make a different type of choice.Report
I … don’t think I get the gist of this at all?Report
The point, I think, is that it wasn’t appropriate for Sullivan to reference Niemöller’s famous poem when linking to David’s older post because being insulted by certain Catholics for practicing contraception is not comparable to being rounded up by the Nazis and killed. Sullivan’s reference is provocative and David doesn’t care for that sort of provocation.Report
Ah okay thanks Rufus!Report
I’m sure you have a point in there somewhere, David?Report
I am glad to see you say this, North and Simon K. I don’t get it either.Report
I think it’s a criticism of Sully using the “first they came for me” line with regards to the subject of gay marriage. Considering that the Sullivan post in question was penend in 2006 I’m confused why it’d be brought up now?Report
When you figure it out, let me know.Report
That’s funny, I understand it just fine. I disagree w/Comstock’s premise though, which is more simple assertion than argument, decoupling sex from procreation.
“It’s not about procreation. It’ll never be about procreation. Neither one of us is getting pregnant anytime soon. So we have to be a little more honest. This is about pleasure, this about getting off, and doing it together.” — Damon Demarco, from Damon and Hunter: Doing it Together
Now, why Comstock is justified in “resenting” the Pope’s Theology of the Body, I do not see, since outsiders are free to ignore it. [So are insiders, and they do.] Me, I do resent—if I may—this complete misrepresentation of the Theology of the Body, which whether one accepts it or not, is quite coherent and beautiful in its way.Report
Why resent this misrepresentation (for the sake of argument)? After all, you’re free to ignore it.Report
Well outsiders aren’t free to ignore it if it’s used as a basis on which to set secular government policy Tom.Report
Not since Griswold v. Connecticut [1964], Mr. North.
And Dan, that’s facile, but it’s the misrepresentation that troubles me, not the disagreement. I loved Hitchens, agree or not. His last published piece was a takedown of GK Chesterton, whom I adore.
But it was an honest takedown, and so I enjoyed it.Report
They’re not free to ignore it when that view sneaks into policy.Report
Just so I got this right, this post was 1) written today, 2) about two posts almost 6 years ago and 3) David Ryan:Tony Comstock::Ed Norton:Brad Pitt?Report
It’s called a “slow burn.” At least David finally got it off his chest.Report
He must have had quite a full inbox to only get to this now after 6 years.Report