"Bridesmaids," the Judd Apatow-produced box-office hit, was our most recent Netflix rental. We all know that grossout scenes of overfed, overdrunk young men vomiting in slo-mo are hilarious. How about when nubile young women who've had a bad meal are similarly afflicted? Only to a degree. I think the movie overstays its welcome, and the ending, in which the main character gets together with the likable fellow she's been pushing away, screams: Focus-group tested!
Speaking of mediocrity, what about the arguments against gay marriage? Yesterday's Star Tribune treated us to "Why should I accept same-sex couples," by Dan Nye, of Edina. He has six questions he wants people like me to answer, forthrightly and civilly. Here's no. 1:
Were our ancestors all dumb and bigoted because they thought homosexuality was wrong? Some may think that accepting homosexuality is innovative and progressive, but others say abandoning our previous norm may be presumptuous on our part. In other words, our ancestors might have been right, and we might be wrong.
Our ancestors weren't right about everything, Dan. The earth isn't at the center of the universe, chattel slavery is a moral abomination, ditto for laws banning interracial marriage, and the Clinton tax hike was not a jobs killer. Is it too much to ask for a logical argument?
Here's no. 2:
Don't our sexual organs exist for reproduction? How does homosexuality square with that?
And our eyes exist for vision. I'm not sure why it follows that homosexuals must not be permitted to marry. Men who "shoot blanks" are allowed to marry. Couples who meet at Sun City mixers can marry. Still waiting for a coherent argument, Dan.
No. 3 has a lot of words. Here they come:
It is no secret that the human sex drive is a lot stronger than is needed for reproduction. Do we just give in to those desires, or do we try to control them? The ancients told us that controlling our physical desires is one of the things that distinguish us from the beasts. Sexual desires, if not controlled, easily lead us into trouble.
Completely off point. Suppose I were to acknowledge that all this tic-tac-toe stuff is true. Why would it follow that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry? Still waiting for a coherent argument, Dan.
It's soon time for me to start watching televised football, so here's a quick run-down on the second half of Dan's case. No. 4 says that, as pederasty is bad, so is homosexuality. No. 5 introduces the term "prevalent homosexuality," which "will not work in society." No. 6 says that homosexuals will likely all go to hell, so those who would coddle them "may be doing indescribable harm." He concludes with a portentous challenge:
If all you have is name-calling, you have no valid position. If truth is on your side, answer these questions in a civil manner.
Poor Dan. He seems to think that his being a moron and a bigot requires everyone to take him seriously.
