Prager's new Townhall column
is a Conservative's wet dream -- he's got a young girl gone off to that evil liberal university with her "rigid heterosexuality intact" (hey, these are his words, not mine!) and once there she is corrupted by her evil professors (they make her read that tricky Foucault and that feminist Judith Butler) into becoming a lesbian slut who is planning to "maybe" someday marry -- but not for Jesus! Oh no!
For the insurance benefits!
And for the tax break!
The little hussy!
Dennis means us to be shocked, I tell you, shocked.
I kind of like the kid, especially when she won't take any shit off of Dennis.
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?
3 hours ago