The Weekly Standard makes the case "for" heterosexual marriage:This
from an essay defending traditional marriage:
"Every day thousands of ordinary heterosexual men surrender the dream of gratifying our immediate erotic desires. Instead, heroically, resignedly, we march up the aisle with our new brides, starting out upon ... the longest journey, attired in the chains of the kinship system ..."
Wow! How can you resist when it's portrayed that way?
UPDATE: HEAD FAKE QUOTE REMOVED FROM ORIGINAL POST.
UPDATE 2: The author of the Weelky Standard essay, Sam Schulman, also wrote this
It is a truism that many married people feel little sexual or romantic attraction to each other--perhaps because they have been married too long, or perhaps, as some men have always claimed, because the death of sexual desire is coincident with the wedding ceremony. ("All comedies are ended by a marriage," Byron wittily and sadly remarked.) Many people--in ages past, certainly most people--have married for reasons other than sexual or romantic attraction. So what? I could marry a woman I did not love, a woman I did not feel sexually attracted to or want to sleep with, and our marriage would still be a marriage, not just legally but in its essence.
Sounds like he really doesn't like women very much. If he is married, I feel sorry for his wife.
Sam Schulman may have been influenced by the early 1920s song "Loveless Love" (same tune as "Careless Love" with different lyrics). (Of course Louis Armstrong has the best version.)
so why would he want to deprive gays from being as unhappy as he is?