Andrew Sullivan makes a case for same-sex marriage using a conservative framework: marriage is good for society in that it stabilizes people, and sort of calms them down. Men who are married commit less crimes and are less given to drinking and partying and mental illness and hooliganism, which is one of the coolest words ever. Since marriage has this great effect on people, social conservatives should want gay people to get married. At least the men, anyway. The conservative response to this can be summed up in the words of Pat Robertson:
Andrew, it’s not marriage that civilizes men, it’s women.Whenever I've heard this argument, I've always wondered why we accept the fact that there's a causal link between marriage and more socially accepted behavior so readily. The statistics certainly show that there's a correlation. But who's to say that marriage is causing the difference in behavior? Couldn't it be the case that most women don't view men who are prone to hooliganism marriage material to begin with? Could it be that the men who are ending up in adult partnerships are the ones who are ready to grow up and leave off, or at least curtail, the partying and hooliganing? Assuming that there is a causal relationship here, why would we have to assume that it goes one way rather than the other?
So how does this relate to the Sodini case? The script being bandied about is that Sodini became bitter and misogynistic and murderous after years of being mistreated and ignored by women. Women created this monster. But it seems just as likely that he was a bitter and misogynistic person to begin with, so women either avoided him, or broke up with him once they learned what he was really like, thus further fueling the bitterness and misogyny. This version of the story is just as plausible as the currently popular one, but I haven't heard it suggested by the MSM. Perhaps this version of events just isn't sensational or victim-blaming enough for them.