In a post last week, Bruce linked a gem of the witty (and often wise)
In his piece, Robbie puts forward a theory one similar to that I had spelled out in many of my posts on gay marriage, but takes this argument in a direction that might upset many advocates of gay marriage. He says that we need to earn marriage:
Gay liberals want gay marriage right now. They don’t particularly care how they get it, just so long as they get it. When they don’t get it, they tend to throw temper tantrums of enormous proportions. Gay conservatives, on the other hand, realize the importance of how we get it. We know we cannot simply demand it and have it granted through the beatific wave of the magical judicial wand. We must argue for it, persuade for it, and convince others of why we must have it. The method is just as important, if not more so, as the final result.
Some will contend, “But straight people didn’t need to make such arguments for marriage!” Straight marriage (one man to one woman) existed as institution long before the United States came into being, indeed, long before the idea of a constitutional republic was even discussed.
The notion of gay marriage, of two individuals living together in a lifelong monogamous relationship, is a relatively novel idea. Sure, some cultures have recognized such institutions. In the United States, however, until recently, even the staunchest gay rights’ advocates didn’t consider it.
As this blog has done, Robbie looks at the backlash against court-sanctioned gay marriage, noting the numbers of states which have passed “protection of marriage” laws and constitutional amendments. At the same time, too many advocates of gay marriage belittle opponents as “bigoted,” “narrow-minded” or “anti-gay” without taking the time to understand their arguments.
It’s important that, as Robbie puts it, through “ardent, but respectful engagement of the issue,” we make our case. And I will also add, as I’ve said before, we need to talk about marriage as a sacred institution and make clear that we do not just see this as a right to which we are entitled, but a privilege for which we are willing to work. That we understand the obligations of matrimony and are committed to living up to them just as heterosexual couples have done for millennia.
And now that I’ve whet your appetite for Robbie’s post, read the whole thing!
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Utterly ridiculous. My parents didn’t need to earn the right to vote, or sit at the lunch counter. They had to fight for it, be terrorized and insulted for it, but they didn’t need to earn it. It was granted to them by their creator, but denied to them by the government.
To say that any human right (and yes, modern American law deems this as a right) needs to be earned is to defend the argument of the British during the War of Independence. I hold this truth to be self evident.
That’s the argument. Marriage isn’t a civil right but a civil privilege granted by the state.
As Dan said, a lot of people won’t like that argument.
Just to add one more thing (haven’t had my coffee).
See, the reason why Rick Santorum and others can say “Gay marriage first, then what? Incest?” is because if you define civil marriage as a constitutional right, you suddenly have to start justifying denying that civil right to various people in various situations. This is also where you see our opponents start bringing things like polygamy to the debate. When you get into the area of civil rights, there is a lot less room for parsing things just the way you want, so you get what you want, while denying others for a variety of nebulous reasons.
This is a major problem in the debate. Not only that, but if marriage is a civil right, aren’t there severe equal protection problems with so many different state laws on the matter? Voting is a civil right, and we all get to do it at 18. Marriage, not so.
It’s more like driving. The state says “You meet these conditions, we give you these benefits and privileges.” When approached from that angle, there’s a far stronger case to be made. We make the case that granting civil marriage in the state’s best interest. We play on that field, and we will sway a lot more people.
But jumpin down the street like this is Selma revisited is not working out well for us. We may have gotten a few blue states to go along with us, but we alienated a huge swath of the country in doing it.
So if you live in Boston, this worked out very well for you. However, you got your civil marriage while sacrificing that of your brethren in many other parts of the country.
That could’ve been avoided.
Nevermind the fact that those in Boston may be joining their brethren quite shortly.
Gay groups figured that when the Massachusetts courts green-lighted gay marriage, other states would follow. Quite the opposite happened.
And this will continue to be the case as long as gay rights groups fight this issue they way they have been.
Unfortunately, the majority of this country isn’t big on gay marriage. It sucks, but it is what it is. No positive substantial and long term changes will take place until we change their minds.
And going through the courts hasn’t really seemed to do that.
It’s clear that SOME things, like voting or freedom from search & seizure, are rights. And OTHER things, like a driver’s license, are State-granted privileges, at least in today’s world.
I think it’s legitimate to ask and answer (one way or the other) which category civil marriage is in.
I’m not going to try to offer the perfect answer here. But there is something I have to point out.
Even if something is a privilege in the end, its application in society can be highly unjust – in effect, violating people’s rights. If the state of California granted the PRIVILEGE of driving only to black people, for example (or only to white people), that would be highly unjust.
In the case of gay marriage: we have tens of thousands of genuinely deserving couple being denied the privilege simply for being same-sex and presumed gay, while tens of thousands of undeserving couples (think Britney Spears, or death row inmates, or sham gay “beard” marriages) are granted the privilege simply because they are opposite-sex and presumed heterosexual.
That’s wrong. Even if we end up agreeing or seeing that marriage is a privilege.
And to carry the analogy further – if a State granted the privilege of a driver’s license unjustly, e.g., only to whites, it might well be legitimate for blacks to seek to redress that injustice in the courts.
Joe, in the marriage debate, your comparisons would apply to miscegenation cases, where marriage was denied by the color of one’s skin. Which I believe the Supreme Court was right to overturn. Skin color is a cosmetic matter, nothing more.
There’s far more at play in questions of gay marriage, mainly the gender roles. Having two same sex partners is a major shift in the concept of the institution. Marriage was not built on skin color. It was built on male-female sexuality. That’s a very, very fundamental foundation for the institution that we’re seeking to change.
Does that sexuality matter in the 21st century? I’d argue no. We live in a world where a lot of things about marriage have changed. Marriages are now vehicles of love and committment. It wasn’t always so for a very long time.
But how we change that foundation has to be gone about the right way. We can’t have judges running around “Oh, I don’t think this works anymore,” and *poof* it is so. It’s a scary precedent. It’s not good for the constitution, it’s not good for society, it’s not good for government.
Robbie, I disagree.
Three-way marriages would be a major shift in the institution. Major re-writings of laws would be involved. But merely changing who can participate in the existing institution of two-way marriage is hardly a shift at all. Opening it to same-sex couples is no more of a shift than, say, adding a “cooling off” requirement (closing it to Britney Spears) or closing it to death row inmates.
As for marriage always having been male-female – That’s a myth. The sticking point would be the word or concept of “always”. If one were to say “mostly”, that would be true – inevitably so, since most people are heterosexual. But there is a lot more gay marriage lurking out there in the history of mankind, in various times and cultures, than you have been taught.
No, I wouldn’t say always. I’m aware of the different relationship constructs throughout history. I just said the foundation is based on the male-female dynamic, which I agree is no longer necessary.
But when legally changing the foundation of such a major institution (and again, I believe it should be changed), it is far better to have it done with even the vague approval of the people. Marriage, in theory, is about property rights and raising children. In theory. In modern American reality, it’s mainly about a committment between two individuals. What gay marriage would do is enshrine this cultural shift in law, once and for all. We’re changing the intentions of marriage law. I don’t believe that’s something that can or should be done by four people on a bench.
#8 P.S. Robbie, I don’t necessarily disagree with your final conclusion. You and Dan may well be right that the courts are the wrong way to go about rectifying this particular injustice. (For me, it’s an open question.)
I’m only saying that denial of marriage licenses to deserving gay couples is an injustice, as a civil marriage license is not that far different from a civil professional, business or driver’s license. Yes it’s a privilege; but the State ought to grant/deny/administer such privileges impartially – without regard to race, ethnic or national origin, religion, gender, veteran status, political ideas/affiliation or sexual orientation.
Yeah, but joe, there’s no legal argument that can be made for same-sex marriage that can not also be made for polygamous or incestuous marriages. Just ask Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
There’s Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and then there’s reality.
If you believe such arguments exist, name one please. (I have yet to come across an example that holds up under basic logic.)
I thought were were discussing the law and courts rather than logic =)
The arguments against miscegenation went far beyond cosmetic objections to mixing skin tones.
Robbie, ND30, GP, and GPW give the appearance of being completely unfamiliar the writings of Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch.
Gay marriage is a conservative thing. The primary political opposition to gay marriage comes from the left and the neo-conservatives.
I’ve read both Sullivan and Rauch. They make good, solid conservative cases for marriage.
My complaint was that going through the courts was a severely bad idea with pretty harsh consequences.
Well, joe, let’s start with the basic argument that a person should be free to marry whoever they choose. (I Choose Todd Harvey ;-)) All right, suppose a person chooses his sister, or his niece, or his first cousin? What if a person says, “My orientation is polyamorous. I want to have multiple wives, and they should all have legal status to inherit property and visit me in the hospital?” How do exclude them out?
One can argue that, “traditional marriage” has excluded such arrangements, but not if one is also saying traditional marriage has to change to accommodate same-sex relationships. And anyway there is a much more widespread cultural tradition of polygamy than of same-sex marriage. You can argue that biologically-related individuals produce defective children, but since you have to sever the connection between procreation and marriage to have same-sex marriage, that’s not going to wash. You can argue that the number of people seeking such arrangements are statistically insignificant, but “statistically insignificant” is a relative term and irrelevent to an equal rights argument.
“Polygamy” always means one of these things:
(1) Male-dominated polygamy – a man having multiple wives. Except in certain extreme cases like France after World War I (where half the marriage-age male population was killed), such an arrangement is objectively destructive to society as it (a) is a form of sexism, and (b) provides for unbridled competition among straight men for mates, and thus huge incentives for them to kill each other. It isn’t an nothing that that the only societies today which continue to practice male-dominated polygamy are the world’s most backward (Middle East and Africa).
(2) Polyamory, that is, group marriages in which all are genuine equals. We, as a society, may want to go that way someday. I would continue to argue against it, however; as a 3-way, 4-way, or whatever “intimate relationship” is inherently unstable (contrary to the claims of its advocates). It defeats the whole purpose of 2-way marriage, which is social stability and creating a vast array of tiny “welfare states”, or long-term mutual-aid societies, in each household.
Do either of those arguments apply to gay marriage? No. Again, gay marriage fundamentally keeps intact the existing structure of marriage, which is to take two adult equals unrelated by blood and (by their choice) have them merge into a new family, as the sexual and social structure most able to minimize violence and enhance personal welfare across the whole of society.
Arguments in favor of incest or bestiality are equally wrong, and destroyable – But I have to run here – the point is, all this crap about “you have to allow polygamy, bestiality and incest” is a bunch of red herrings. Which we should annihilate. (in debate)
Gregg (#1)-
I would have said that fighting for it — and especially the way they fought for it — is exactly what it means to “earn it.”
This may not be what Dan or Robbie meant — but it is what I mean. What the gay civil rights movement desperately needs is someone like Martin Luther King — someone who can speak eloquently, reframing the debate in a way that reveals its true form, and persuade the large silent middle of the American electorate who equally reject the Family Research Council and ActUp — just as most Americans in the ’60s rejected both the Klan and the Nation of Islam. It’s sad that so much of importance can depend on the existence of one principled, eloquent individual to communicate our dilemma to mainstream America. But that’s just how it’s always been.
joe, all of your arguments are based on the proposition that society has a right to exclude from marital status relationships it deems to be detrimental or un-beneficial to society. As I write this, the consensus of society, by super-majorities, is that same-sex marriages are not entitled to marital status. Legalistic arguments based on privacy and individual choice do not rely on societal consent, and in fact, seek to circumvent it.
My POV, for what’s it’s worth, is that Government should just get out of the marriage business, leave marriage to the churches, and let adults form whatever contractual relationships they want with other adults under an expanded civil unions regime.
No, see Joe, you’re making my point. The arguments you present against polygamy are based in social state interest. Conversely, the arguments for gay marriage must also be based on social state interest.
However, when you introduce the “right” to marry, it doesn’t matter what the social interest is. It’s a civil right. No effect on society should be cause to deny a constitutionally guaranteed civil right.
It’d be like saying stupid people shouldn’t have the right to vote because it has a detrimental effect on politics and government. You can’t do that.
When you make marriage a civil right, you open the door to all these arguments. However, by making the argument for it being a civil privilege deserving of benefits because it is in the state’s interest, you close the door on all this incest and polygamy bs. You drain the power of those arguments from gay marriage opponents. It tilts the playing field in our favor and would make people more amenable to our cause.
Robbie (#2,#3)-
Major flaw in your argument.
The Supreme Court has already defined civil marriage as a civil right. The consequences you claim would “suddenly” appear have been rather delayed — they declared this almost forty years ago.
At the time, all of the same arguments about polygamy and incest were made then.
Also… even if your analogy to driving were controlling — how many people don’t think it would be a civil rights issue if the state of Arkansas were to decide that it would no longer issue drivers licenses to black people?
#19 – #20 – Really going out the door right now – In brief: Yes, exactly, the argument for marriage period (never mind gay marriage) is one of social policy and State interest, NOT one of rights; and, the State marriage license is a privilege not a right.
My argument is:
(1) Far from being a “fundamental” change to the existing structure of 2-way marriage, gay marriage is practically no change at all. (Little more than if we were to change the residency requirements or deny it to convicted murderers.)
(2) It is the State’s obligation to be impartial in how it grants/denies/administers its various licenses. No discrimination based on race, ethnic or national origin, religion, gender, veteran status, political ideas/affiliation or sexual orientation.
So, gay marriage is right (that is, in the State’s interest) in itself and, in addition, denying gays marriage licenses is unjust.
Now we can talk about the best way to remedy the injustice (legislative vs. judicial).
Chad (#4)-
Re: “backlash” post-Mass.
You write: “[They figured] other states would follow. Quite the opposite happened.”
On the contrary. A number of states that didn’t recognize our relationships reasserted that fact — changing nothing. A number of other states have moved forward quite rapidly in recognizing our relationships (see California, Connecticut and New Jersey).
There wasn’t a damn thing gay activists could possibly have done two years ago that would have led to the legal recognition of our relationships in Alabama by now — but who was predicting two years ago that we’d have legislated civil unions in Connecticut and domestic partnerships in New Jersey? New York is close to following, and New Jersey is poised to continue expanding DPs for the next few years.
Both laws, in Connecticut and New Jersey, were in part sold as a compromise to forestall court-imposed marriage ala Massachusetts. They are the real consequence of Goodridge.
#20 — Robbie, thanks for getting it.
#21 — Your list is incomplete. It should read “At the time, all of the same arguments about polygamy and incest and same sex marriage were made then.”
#22- No, no, no, you are still not making the correct argument. In fact, the two arguments you do make are deeply flawed.
Changing marriage to something two people of the same sex can enter into is a fundamental change.* In the history of marriage, it has usually meant between one man and one woman and not infrequently meant one man and several women and only rarely meant anything different. My understanding is that, in cases where same sex marriages did happen they fell under one of two variations. In the first, one partner would be the ‘woman’ and one would be the ‘man’ regardless of physical gender…even to the point of dressing as the other sex. In the second variation, it would be a commitment between two individuals that was distictly different from ‘marriage’.
Your second ‘argument’ (it isn’t actually an argument) is a statement of how you think government should act. While I agree with you, it does nothing to prevent the argument that a straight man cannot marry another man and a gay man is free to marry a woman…therefore fulfilling the obligation to be impartial on the basis of sexual orientation.
A better argument is that the state has an interest in promoting stable relationships, if not for the individuals involved, but for the sake of children. Studies have shown (I should know, I did a report in a sociology class in college on this very subject) that children who have a mother in a stable relationship are much more well-adjusted than those who have a single mother or a mother in an unstable relationship(s) regardless of the gender of the mother’s partner.
While children are not a requirement for marriage, nor is marriage a requirement for children, it is in the state’s interest to make it possible for parents to be in a stable relationship (i.e. marriage or civil union) that will benefit their children.
*
Note: 'fundamental' does not imply 'bad'.Robbie (#15)-
And that’s where I do agree with you. In general, the courts are a lousy place to resolve policy questions.
I’m ambivalent about whether Goodridge was good law — the Massachusetts state constitution has much stronger language on letting the state distinguish between male and female citizens than the U.S. Constitution does. And, as I just commented, I suspect it’s political ramifications help us. But I’d rather see us continuing to make progress legislatively, now that the debate has been started.
#21 – Clint, the Supreme Court finds that a lot of things are civil rights, whether or not there is much in the way of constitutional foundation. No one has a right to state benefit. The argument between right or privilege tends to lend itself to the idea that government really has no business in civil marriage, as it creates all kinds of constitutional issues when it comes under challenge. If marriage is a civil right, then the Supreme Court is morally obligated to knock down marriage amendments on equal protection grounds. And then we would end up with a constitutional amendment.
The banning driver’s licenses based on race doesn’t really work, because there is nothing inherent in skin color that affects driving. However, marriage is (again, in theory), designed for child raising. It’s a weak argument in today’s America, as we no longer attach children to marriage with the same emphasis. Nowadays it’s about two people in a loving committment. And that’s totally fine, I’m all for it. But when you enshrine in law these major changes in a foundational institution, it’s far better to have the people go along with it than have courts mandate it. It’s a bit like Roe v Wade. Almost all the current and past justices, pro and con, agree abortion wouldn’t be nearly as divisive and destructive to national politics if people had been left to decide these things amongst themselves at a state level.
#23 – Sure, a handful of blue states went along with it saying “Hey, the court’s going to do it anyway, might as well.” But way, way, way more states were prompted by the court decision to amend their constitutions, making it that much more difficult. Like I said, it’s nice if you live in those states that allow it, but if you don’t, you’re fucked. We’re not going to have a Supreme Court nationalizing gay marriage any time in the foreseeable future. What Goodridge did was make it that much harder for homosexuals living in dozens of states. Hurray for New England! Now, what about the rest of us?
It was a stupid, selfish thing to do.
VtK (#24)-
Yes… and in 38 years, no court has ever found that federal jurisprudence through Loving requires same-sex marriage to be recognized. Not one court. In 38 years. I’d say the slippery slope argument was pretty well wrong, wouldn’t you?
#28
Ah, but if they ever do recognize same sex marriage, then we will, by definition, have started our slide down the slippery slope.
It’s a catch-22.
Yes… and in 38 years, no court has ever found that federal jurisprudence through Loving requires same-sex marriage to be recognized. Not one court. In 38 years. I’d say the slippery slope argument was pretty well wrong, wouldn’t you?
Does that not then make the argument that equal protection is NOT grounds for granting gay marriage — as echoed by Justice O’Connor in her concurring opinion for Lawrence?
NDT-
Certainly there’s no equal protection argument presently upheld by the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, in a generation or two, when this issue is clearer, sexual-orientation-based equal-protection arguments will be the arguments they uphold to support our rights.
We passed an amendment to the Constitution requiring equal protection under the law for all citizens regardless of skin-color, shortly after the conclusion of the Civil War. It took nearly a hundred years before the Supreme Court finally ruled that this meant a black man marrying a white woman was entitled to exactly the same protection under the law as a white man marrying a white woman.
It didn’t take that long because of any flaw in the legal argument.
Robbie (#27)-
I’m not going to try to argue that civil marriage *should* (from a strategic standpoint) be asserted as a constitutional right. My point was, rather, that it already has been held to be one — and the dire consequences you predicted (legalization of incest and polygamy (yes, and same-sex marriage)) haven’t come to pass.
As far as the “selfish” thing… it is always selfish to stand up for your rights. And the dire consequences in “backlash” states are way overrated.
The states that have passed amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex marriage share two properties: (1) same-sex marriage is unpopular; and (2) amending the state constitution is relatively easy. In every one of those states, the obstacle we had to climb to get same-sex marriages recognized five years ago was convinciing the electorate. In every one of those states, the obstacle we have to climb today to get same-sex marriages recognized is convincing the electorate.
Once the electorate is convinced, it will be just as easy for us to get SSM onto the ballot as it was for our foes. Until the electorate is convinced, those amendments won’t be the actual reason our marriages aren’t recognized. And these amendments may even help by forcing the gay-rights movement to focus its efforts on persuading people.
(See how successful they are being in New Jersey as we speak? We got limited Domestic Parters legislation two months ago, and the papers are now running with the story of a woman who is about to lose her home of twenty years because her partner had no written will. Within a year, registered domestic partners will be the default heirs, just as spouses (spice?) are, and the press will be focusing attention on the next most important marital right we lack. This is how we’re going to win this battle.)
I’m not sayng these amendments don’t make anything worse — I’m saying that the negative “backlash” to Goodridge in states like Michigan does far less actual harm than the benefit in Connecticut and New Jersey. And it’s precisely through having states that recognize our relationships in one way or another that we will live the case for our equality, and “earn” the recognition of our equality.
I also wouldn’t underestimate the capability of our foes to shoot themselves in the foot. Jumping immediately from campaining for amendments that “just ban marriage” to demanding that the amendments be interpreted in a sweeping fashion (see Michigan), these guys are practically making our case for us to the electorate. I think it’s completely possible that, by bringing the issue before the electorate, these anti-gay amendments may bring us to domestic partners or civil unions in some of those states much more quickly than if they’d continued with the “let’s not touch this issue” approach favored by the majority of Americans. Of course, I could be overly optimistic here. Time will tell.
The problem with these posts is that you are no better than the gay liberals. This is particularly true of the “Living together in the gay household” post, which is unthinking and irrational. My resonse is #94 in the comments.
Prismwarden’s original post has the same problems, he caricatures Gay democrats saying that ” these liberals swoon and shiver, running to their friends with excited declarations, “He actually touched me” when, in fact that describes gay conservatives more accurately.
Gay friendly republicans are few and far between, and gay conservatives are certainly willing to rush to them as tokens-exemplars.
If Gay conservatives are content to entertain themselves with juvenile attacks that is not going to do any good. You have to be willing to look at the reality of their situation.
The homophobes would be screaming no matter how you get your marriage rights. Don’t believe otherwise. When people Start talking about Man -dog or canary (or narrowly escape mentions of box turtles) sex or memoan the downfall of civilization, or what you will the children do (Romney is full on here) they don’t care how gays get marriage/like rights.
They will be outraged no matter what, and they will bemoan how society is victimizing them just because they can’t live in a society that disapproves of homosexuals.
The current gay marriage fight didn’t start with San Francisco or Boston. It started with Lawrence v Texas and to a lesser extent, Canada. With Lawrence, they just got all worked up about how they couldn’t throw gays in prison and transferred all their anger into marriage.
And it doesn’t do any good to defend McCain just because Democrats support amendments too. Its wrong when either party does it. Stop the juvenile infighting.
BAQ (#33)-
Lest there be any confusion, I have always full-throatedly condemned Republicans like Senator Santorum and Governor Romney, and even less-strongly anti-gay like Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich. And like, I think, most gay Republicans, I have no illusions about how many Republicans consider that to be a contradiction in terms.
Speaking only for myself, I rush to support the few gay-friendly Republicans from attack because they are enormously important to the future of our rights and to gay-straight relations (there has to be a better phrase for that…) in this country. From where we stand today, every Jodi Rell is worth at least half a dozen Barney Franks.
Bravo! This has been a great discussion so far!!! Keep it up!
34-
Thanks for the response. Erlich is similar. That kind of nonsense about the registry is really splitting hairs. Its exactly like complaining about Massachussetts. People will look for any reason to shoot it down.
When Politicians and activists from Bush on down complain about activist judges, that is just a placeholder argument because they are to politically cowardly/don’t want to appear as haters to attack gay marriage specifically.
Politically speaking, I Agree with Rell over Franks. Mass’s Governor before Romney was good too. Although Franks is one of the few actually intelligently humorous members of Congress.
No. 35. My sentiments exactly, and toward both sides, but especially Clint and Born Again Queer, who are both doing yeoman’s work in the middle ground.
We passed an amendment to the Constitution requiring equal protection under the law for all citizens regardless of skin-color, shortly after the conclusion of the Civil War. It took nearly a hundred years before the Supreme Court finally ruled that this meant a black man marrying a white woman was entitled to exactly the same protection under the law as a white man marrying a white woman.
Ah, but you see, Clint, the Supreme Court didn’t take nearly that long to recognize that people of different skin color were equal; the problem was that the way that that was expressed was “separate but equal”. We are seeing a similar movement today with “domestic partnership” or “civil union” as opposed to actual, real, live marriage. You may call it what you wish, but it isn’t equality when separate rules apply to it.
Moreover, there is a significant difference in the comparison of race to sexual orientation. One is indisputably born black, but that can hardly be said to be completely the same of being gay. One need only look at all the gay men who have married women and sired children as an example.
Thirty, you have GOT to be kidding when you write:
“Moreover, there is a significant difference in the comparison of race to sexual orientation. One is indisputably born black, but that can hardly be said to be completely the same of being gay.”
If you’re not kidding, then this means you do not believe gay men and women are born gay. Is that your belief? I’d like to know how many others here believe the same. Could be very telling.
You go on to justify your argument with what has to be the most naive statement I’ve ever seen expressed by an adult gay person…
“One need only look at all the gay men who have married women and sired children as an example.”
This is shocking coming from someone who can write in complete sentences and, if the other Gay Patriots don’t have a problem with your argument (and your use of the term “orientation”, which homophobes often use to imply “choice”) and with your rationale, then the Gay Patriot community as a whole has some very serious identity issues.
Gay Patriots, re-read that last paragraph of Thirty’s statement in No. 38. That statement ought to reverberate here as no other has ever done.
How many of you — the ones who know you’re gay — feel that you made a conscious choice to BE gay? I mean, made the choice, as in “I could be straight or I could be gay — think I’ll choose gay!” For that is what Mr. Thirty is saying you did when he/she/it says “One is indisputably born black, but that can hardly be said to be completely the same of being gay.”
#40
Queer Patriot, the inclination to be attracted to one gender and not the other is probably inborn to a large extent. However, behavior is always voluntary.
What, you think this is the first time in history that there were men who prefered men and women who prefered women? It’s just, in the past, anyone who had such preferences kept it strictly hidden and behaved as if they were straight…getting married, having children and possibly having affairs on the side. They did this because there were serious consequences to letting anyone know.
Changing the status quo was problematic. Ingrained into society was the concept that men having sex with men was ‘bad’. To change the bad treatment of gays required that this concept be challenged. At some point, gay activists realized that it was easier to argue that homosexuals don’t have a choice than it was to argue that gay sex was not a bad behavior.
Reasonable. It is an easier argument, particularly when many people’s upbringings taught them to believe that gay sex was ‘gross’ or ‘unnatural’. Most people are decent enough and, if you convince them that a person has no choice, it is easier to excuse what they previously considered ‘unacceptable’ behavior.
I think it is time to get off of the debate of ‘choice’ or ‘born that way’. If someone is a psycho killer, you lock him away from other people, whether he chose to be a murderer or he was born that way. If someone selflessly saves the lives of others, he should be regarded as a hero, regardless of if he is acting on his inborn inclination or a choice he made.
Being attracted to, falling in love, or having sex with someone of the same gender is not ‘bad’. It does not destroy the fabric of society. It does not hurt anyone. There is no justification for society to punish or prohibit anyone for being gay, whether it is a choice or inborn.
Not going to get into the born that way vs choice argument too deeply. But, think the point NDT was making was that you cannot conflate something like skin color with behavior. They’re not really equivalent.
As far it being inborn. I think there can be a genetic predisposition, but social conditioning has a great deal more to do with it. This isn’t a conservative vs liberal thing, just my own take based on hundreds of discussions with gay friends. I doubt science will ever find a magic gene. Sexuality’s far too complex.
If it were completely inborn, I’d love to see how the black stiletto heel fetish characteristic crept into our gene pool.
Thank you, Dina; my sentiments exactly. Saying that one is “born gay” is of the same sentiment as “The devil made me do it” and carries the same degree of accuracy.
However, it does lead to ironic moments, such as gay activists claiming that John Kerry’s saying that people were “born gay” means he’s pro-gay and gay-supportive, despite the fact that he wants to amend state constitutions to strip gays of rights based on this characteristic with which he says they are born and over which they have no control.
NDT (#38)-
Either you’ve lost track of the topic, or I have. Initially, I was arguing this: Same-sex marriage is a stand-alone question. It’s either right or it’s wrong on its own — irrespective of whether incest, polygamy, marriage to turing-test-passing computer programs in robotic animatronic bodies, bestiality, or drinking coffee with butter melted in it are upheld legally.
The argument was made in a number of ways that there was an inevitable “slippery slope” to thing like those, and I disagreed, pointing out that the same argument (with the slope to the same issues) was made forty years ago when the Court ruled on interracial marriage, and yet hasn’t come to pass.
VtK pointed out (correctly) that at the time same-sex marriage was included in the scary, outrageous postcedents for the slippery slope argument.
I responded that, like polygamy and incest and bestiality and toaster-loving, same-sex marriage was not, in fact, imposed on an unwilling population by a Supreme Court depending on Loving in 38 years — nor even by the 9th circuit. I could have further pointed out that though we are now instituting DPs, CUs, and SSMs in various ways in various states, none of this has been the result of a slippery slope from Loving. VT and MA’s courts ruled on the basis of their state constitutions, and the rest of the states are acting legislatively.
Note that at this point the topic was still slippery slopes, and whether they were a reason not to legally recognize same-sex marriages.
You then asked (#30) if this historical record that I was citing didn’t show that: “equal protection is NOT grounds for granting gay marriage“.
I disagreed: equal protection arguments are sufficient to give us same-sex marriage — though as a practical matter, I do not expect the Supreme Court to rule that way any time soon and as a strategic matter, I think it might hurt our cause if they did.
To make the point that there is a disconnect between “valid constitutional argument” and “rulings of the Supreme Court” — I could have chosen any number of since-reversed decisions — I pointed out Loving v Virginia.
I can’t figure out how to logically connect your most recent comments (#38) to this train of reasoning.
Certainly, I’d agree that domestic partner laws are a separate-but-“equal” accomodation. But it may take quite a while before any federal court will (or should) make such a ruling.
As to your final point: “One is indisputably born black, but that can hardly be said to be completely the same of being gay. One need only look at all the gay men who have married women and sired children as an example.”
You understand, I wasn’t trying to draw an equivalence between racial discrimination law and sexual-orientation-based discrimination law — I was trying to make the simpler point that the fact that Court doesn’t (today) uphold a legal argument doesn’t mean it isn’t valid.
As far as gay guys with kids… From my experience, guys who marry and have kids before coming out as gay weren’t marrying and having kids because they were straight at that point in their lives and later became gay — they were marrying and having kids because they desperately wanted to fit in to that role, to be who they thought they were supposed to be. They were gay all the while. So, again, I have no idea what you were getting at with this.
Something I’d forgotten about, but this conversation made me remember…
My mom has a friend, she’s known him for years. His identical twin brother is gay. He is straight.
He’s not in denial, he’s not homophobic, he’s not pretending to be something he’s not…he’s just not gay.
He is, however, frustrated.
Why? Because many well-meaning people have tried to ‘help’ him because, if being gay is something you are ‘born with’ and his identical twin brother is gay then he, either through identical genetics or womb environment, should be gay too.
When confronted by assumption “you’re gay, you are just in denial” he’s asked people why they don’t assume his brother is actually straight and in denial.
Dina-
Every time I see those studies (that identical twins of gay men are gay 50% of the time — much more than for fraternal twins) I always wonder about that other 50%, like your mother’s friend. Aside from the frustration of dealing with others, it must be truly bizarre to be faced with (and very close to) someone who is just like you in so many ways but has the opposite sexual orientation.
They’ve got a fascinating story to tell.
#45 — It’s amazing how much of gay culture is driven by insecurity. The more secure someone feels in their own skin, the less likely they are to accuse others of being “in denial.” For that matter, the more comfortable someone is in their own identity, the less likely they are to get caught up in “identity politics.”
42- I must have missed out on the stiletto heels, but it probably got into our gene pool the same way fried chicken and rap music “crept into” the black gene pool.
I could care less why I’m gay. Its not going to change my life. ANd while there may be something to social causation, in explaining the periphery of homosexuality, the science behind the social-causation is quackery. They are exhausting their possibilities. If you can’t blame a domineering mother, you blame the passive or non existant father. Or maybe you love your mother too much. Or maybe you are strongly attached to your father. You either hate sports, or… aha! you must like them so much you are fixated on hot guys to the point you “do violence to yourself” or whatever. You can see where it is going. Almost all of it is motivated by people who are convinced that gay people are either too hot or too cold. Because something must be wrong with them.
I must disagree, Clint. Law is not made, practiced, or applied in a vacuum; it is a matter of precedent and basis. You are correct that the question of gay marriage itself is a separate one; but the laws that govern it cannot be separated from that which already exists.
You understand, I wasn’t trying to draw an equivalence between racial discrimination law and sexual-orientation-based discrimination law — I was trying to make the simpler point that the fact that Court doesn’t (today) uphold a legal argument doesn’t mean it isn’t valid.
Validity in that context is a matter of opinion. There are people who think polygamy and child marriage are valid; it doesn’t make their case.
From my experience, guys who marry and have kids before coming out as gay weren’t marrying and having kids because they were straight at that point in their lives and later became gay — they were marrying and having kids because they desperately wanted to fit in to that role, to be who they thought they were supposed to be. They were gay all the while. So, again, I have no idea what you were getting at with this.
Again, the point is this, Clint…..no matter how hard you try, you can’t change your skin color. You can to some degree exercise control over your sexual orientation.
I count three of five comments so far which lean toward “it’s a choice” – those of Dina Felice (who comes right out and says the “born gay” concept was just an easy way for gay people to “argue that gay sex was not a bad behavior”), Robbie (who hoo-hahs Dina and adds a stiletto heel stereotype for flourish), and of course, Thirty (who digs in deeper by calling “born gay” a “devil made me do it” argument and then adding for emphasis that “you can to some degree exercise control of your sexual orientation”. There’s that “orientation” word again — yes he’s really a choicer). You have to wonder why people who take the conservative position on everything, including gay marriage and gay rights, who also believe their being gay is a choice, wouldn’t just flip that internal switch and go the other way from now on. What’s keeping them gay?
Before visiting Gay Patriot, I had never met a gay person who did not believe, to their very core, that they were born gay. The fact that three of five here so far believe it’s a choice (an orientation even) tells me that we’re dealing with more than anomalies here; we’re probably dealing with disguises.
Thank you to the two dissenters – 1) Clint for chiding Thirty on his severe right turn there; and 2) Born Again Queer for pointing out that the argument that being gay is a choice has always been “motivated by people who are convinced that gay people are either too hot or too cold. Because something must be wrong with them.”
Before visiting Gay Patriot, I had never met a gay person who did not believe, to their very core, that they were born gay.
I can introduce you to some…and not conservatives either.
In fact, one of my gay friends (I have quite a few…I’m a theatre person) insists that ‘gay’ and ‘straight’ are ridiculous as a dichotomy…that there is a continuum of sexuality and, while genetics and environment (i.e. in the womb) may have something to do with where on that continuum a person may fall, the idea that your ‘spot’ is set in stone from birth is absurd. “Dina, nothing is that simple-nothing in life, not to mention human behavior, is that simplistic.”
Before visiting Gay Patriot, I had never met a gay person who did not believe, to their very core, that they were born gay. The fact that three of five here so far believe it’s a choice (an orientation even) tells me that we’re dealing with more than anomalies here; we’re probably dealing with disguises.
Ah yes, the old, “Since you don’t agree with me and don’t fit within my stereotypical worldview, you aren’t gay” argument — again, from the same person.
And Dina, your offer, while kind, is a waste of effort. Queer Patriot isn’t interested in meeting your friends unless they reinforce his stereotype, and if they don’t, he’ll simply insist that they “aren’t gay”. I could make love to my husband in his plain sight, and he’d insist we were faking it. You’re dealing with something which is core to his being and thought process; accepting that sexual orientation does not irrevocably bind one to a particular ideology, political affiliation, or opinion would, to use the vernacular, “rock his world” to the point of being irreperable.
I happen to prefer a legislative to court strategy (and felt the same way about sodomy laws). However, I think if one is going to rant on about “activist judges” in Massachusetts, to be consistent one should also rant about the activist decision in Brown v Board of Ed. That’s what I find so appalling about President Bush on this issue – he’s such a hypocrite.
I also am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of restricting gays access to the courts – which is what that Hostetler legislation would do.
Dan – I’d challenge you to look at the signs for the 2004 Bachmann amendment rally in Minnesota. Those signs said “Death Penalty for Homosexuals”, “No Homos as Leaders” and “God (up arrow) Bush (up arrow) Gays (down arrow)”. If this isn’t hate filled, bigoted and anti-gay, what is?
There are many people who are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage – and those people are not bigots – but the folks from the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family ARE anti-gay – and raising they raise money by exploiting anti-gay animus.
Thirty, while I applaud your designation of your partner as your “husband” (it shows a real commitment to this “gay lifestyle” you’ve chosen), I hope you have mentioned to him that this arrangement of yours is a matter of choice from your point of view and that, at a different lifestage, you may choose a different “lifestyle”.
Dina Felice appears to be a straight friend of gays, so we could forgive her lack of understanding of what should be intuitive knowledge of why gay people become gay. Re: her anecdotal understanding of gay sexuality, someone should tell her that gay people often dance along a “continuum” of sexuality until either they figure it out or (just as often) until they feel it is safe to declare themselves gay. Nothing new in that; it used to be much more pronounced — back in the day when safety was not so easily reached.
In a world where being gay is so much more emotionally difficult than being straight, where you have to consider the possibility of immediate rejection from family and eventual rejection from each new person you meet socially or professionally, where you are denied even basic marital rights, why on earth would a person who believes they have a choice of being gay vs. straight actually choose being gay?
Next question for those of you who believe homosexuality is a choice: do you also believe in the benefits of reparative therapy?
Thirty, while I applaud your designation of your partner as your “husband” (it shows a real commitment to this “gay lifestyle” you’ve chosen), I hope you have mentioned to him that this arrangement of yours is a matter of choice from your point of view and that, at a different lifestage, you may choose a different “lifestyle”.
It certainly is possible. However, it’s not highly likely. Having been attracted to both men and women at points in my life (and sometimes simultaneous points), I think I can honestly say that I prefer men, and I really prefer MY man. 🙂
Attraction is far more than gender; it’s a complex combination of physical attributes, emotional compatibility, and the priorities of each partner. Why should we be so restrictive with it?
In a world where being gay is so much more emotionally difficult than being straight, where you have to consider the possibility of immediate rejection from family and eventual rejection from each new person you meet socially or professionally, where you are denied even basic marital rights, why on earth would a person who believes they have a choice of being gay vs. straight actually choose being gay?
I can’t speak for everyone else, but quite honestly, the rewards of being gay are far better for me than are the difficulties. I’ve been hurt physically and emotionally, harassed, been discriminated against personally and professionally — the whole gamut. But every moment I spend with my husband makes me remember…..there are things more important than personal convenience, and the love of two people is one of them.
I choose to be gay for two reasons: I am attracted to men, and I am attracted to one man in particular to the point where he is the most important thing in my life. Everything else is just details with which I can deal.
Next question for those of you who believe homosexuality is a choice: do you also believe in the benefits of reparative therapy?
Yes. If you are genuinely unhappy with your attraction to people of the same gender, why should I begrudge you the opportunity to use therapy to overcome that issue?
If you are being forced to do it by others, I would simply put it this way….learn something from the fact that the only foolproof way to overcome drug and alcohol addiction is when the addict him/herself genuinely wants to beat it themselves. Otherwise, it may decrease the frequency of the behavior, but it will never change the behavior itself.
People on both sides of the debate need to realize that reparative therapy works for some people, not for others, and treat it as such.
So, NDT
In other words: You are a bisexual who CHOOSES to be gay?? But doesn’t HAVE to be gay if he didn’t really want to be gay??
Damn. Too bad I don’t have that little nuance. Now it’s all starting to make a little more sense to me where you’re coming from.
Wow!
Bravi. This has been a great discussion so far. Keep it up. We’re all learning a lot.
I think “Brava” is the feminine. 🙂
Maybe this blog should be called “BIPatriot”? Almost gay but not too gay that we upset the right too much.
56- “I choose to be gay for two reasons: I am attracted to men”
Ah, to some extent the disagreement is because you are using language differently.
For me, and I expect the others that disagreed in this thread, they are gay because they are attracted to the same sex.
I knew I was gay in elementary school, even though I didn’t know the term gay.
The point was, I was gay even though I didn’t have sex, or act on my feelings.
Some say “how do you know you’re gay I’f you haven’t had sex with a woman”. That isn’t necessary. I know, just as I knew then. The only choice was whether to be true to my feelings. I would still be gay even if I hid in a straight marriage.
In other words: You are a bisexual who CHOOSES to be gay?? But doesn’t HAVE to be gay if he didn’t really want to be gay??
Hmmm….well, let’s put it this way.
Is anyone who has ever been attracted to a member of the opposite sex straight?
Is anyone who has ever been attracted to a member of the same sex gay?
I think in most cases you would answer that that’s too simplistic, that it’s the question of on what attractions a person chooses to act that defines what they are.
There you have your answer.
Dan,
I find it very interesting that I can both vehemently disagree with you AND completely agree with your at the same time 😉
I thinks its crazy to insist that Marriage is a privilege. If it were a privilege doled out by the government, then the government should and would have the right to revoke the priviledge or set quality standards around it (think about the priviledge, not the right, to broadcast a radio or tv station). And I surely wouldn’t lump every single heterosexual marriage as proof of “earning” that priviledge. If you follow your logic too far, it is a priviledge to not be discriminated against in housing or employment and we have to “earn” that priviledge as well.
However, I do believe the only effective way to change policy and create marriage is to change public opinon. While we might win in courts, it won’t truly be accepted and people will find ways (change the constitution) to set us back even further. We all just need to work at being visible, having good friendships with straight people and showing that we are just like everyone else. Ultimately, we need a majority in this country to start asking “why are they treated differently” and “why don’t we have equal rights”.
This is an extraordinary reveal, Thirty. In my brief time here with you and the other Gay Patriots, I have noted the vehemence with which you, in particular, attack Democrats for not doing enough for gay rights and gay marriage, while only begrudgingly acknowledging (and only when really pressed) the sins of your own party, the Republicans – a party that at least 8 in every 10 gay people (according to voter estimates) recognize as the primary obstacle to our rights as Americans and humans.
I have also noted the disdain you show toward other gay people generally, as in this comment you made on another thread 3 days ago: “People don’t want to vote for gay rights, and I daresay it has a great deal to do with the fact that the most vocal members of our community run around half-naked, desecrate churches, call people of faith “ignorant, superstitious bigots”, and make disparaging remarks about the vast majority of people in our country.” (Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 21, 2005 @ 1:15 am)
Up until your comment on the 21st, one might have thought that you’re just one of those odd gay partisans who inexplicably find greater comfort with the Republican Party than with the Democrats.
Turns out that there’s so much more to your story as it unfolds here. You say above in this thread that you’re a bi-sexual – and one who is clear in his belief that sexuality is a choice. Furthermore, when I asked you, “do you also believe in the benefits of reparative therapy?”, you actually replied with great confidence, “Yes. If you are genuinely unhappy with your attraction to people of the same gender, why should I begrudge you the opportunity to use therapy to overcome that issue?”
Yet, in this same thread, you also admirably tip your hat to your partner by referring to him as your “husband” – something that is still quite rare among gay people and spoken almost always either by the most radical among us or only in private to indicate to a friend who’s the “top” in the pair.
After a number of decades as a gay man (having seen most of the progress and push-back on our issues that have ever occurred in the public forum, and having observed many examples of very talented political subterfuge), I’ve learned to trust my senses of when something’s askew and, frankly, something seems very out of kilter about you, your story, and your positions, Thirty.
QP,
While I live in the rarefied airs of So. Cal. I am finding most male couples referring to each other as their husband without regard to antiquated stereotypes of top or bottom.
Those dichotomies are another gender bias forced on us by straight people. If I wanted to be limited in my sexual options, God would have made me straight.
It’s like when a straight friend, trying to understand gay sexuality, asked me what happens to gay men with premature ejaculation. I said there is no such thing as premature ejaculation. It’s more like getting the first orgasm out of the way. You take a break and continue.
Straight seems to be horribly prefunctory.
Chandler, is that so? That gay couples in SoCal are referring to EACH OTHER as “husband”? Well, as they say at this age, “what’s this world coming to”? I understand that “Lover” was never enough — it made a relationship seem based on sex only, when the attraction has more than one dimension, as Thirty noted above. So, out with “Lover”. But what’s wrong with “Partner”? Too business-like? Too “Howdy Partner”-like?
The term “husband” has clear connotations to most people as referring to the more male-like of a pair and I wonder how much good this does us among straights, if we’re supposed to be trying to convince them that we’re “just like them”. For example, can you imagine one of our Gay Patriots going to an RNC event with their partner, and introducing him around as their “husband”? You’d have straight Republicans backing themselves and their drinks very close to the wall. I watched a GOP seminar on gay marriage on C-Span last week and most of that audience was still having a difficult time with homosexuality itself, let alone gay relationships involving a “husband”.
So Chandler, what do you think is the story with Thirty? Is he really a gay person (who can’t quite say “really a gay person” yet)? Or is he, with his apparent disdain for most other gay people, just another of the complex disguises we run into here at Gay Patriot? Perhaps one designed to make us all think worse of ourselves?
QP, maybe I wasn’t clear earlier.
I think the whole question of “is being gay a choice?” is completely irrelevent to any question of how gays should be treated by society. Whatever you say about sexual preferences, sexual choices are completely within a person’s control.
Pedophiles are bad. I don’t care whether being sexually attracted to children is a choice or whether they cannot help it. I don’t care. I want them locked up.
Gays are not bad. I don’t care whether being sexually attracted to the same sex is a choice or whether they cannot help it. I don’t care. I have no desire to see them treated badly in any way.
On another note, I simply believe that the notion of sexuality is far too complicated to be limited by the unproven assertions that it is all biological. And, as an overweight female, I have noticed a strong (but not exclusive) cultural component to who is attracted to me. Men from certain cultures and subcultures seem to have a stronger attraction to me than men from others. And culture is not biological.
You, I’m sure, are not attracted to every man you meet just because you are gay. Sexuality is more complicated than that.
After a number of decades as a gay man (having seen most of the progress and push-back on our issues that have ever occurred in the public forum, and having observed many examples of very talented political subterfuge), I’ve learned to trust my senses of when something’s askew and, frankly, something seems very out of kilter about you, your story, and your positions, Thirty.
Then:
So Chandler, what do you think is the story with Thirty? Is he really a gay person (who can’t quite say “really a gay person” yet)? Or is he, with his apparent disdain for most other gay people, just another of the complex disguises we run into here at Gay Patriot? Perhaps one designed to make us all think worse of ourselves?
Queer Patriot, you’re a coward.
If you want to say I’m lying, go right ahead and say it. Don’t beat around the bush with little backhanded darts, or make insinuations. You obviously don’t believe that I’m real or gay, and you’re accusing me of misrepresenting myself as some kind of political plot.
If you want to see what I look like, it’s there. If you want to ask if I’m real or not, or even if my husband is real or not, you can ask GayPatriot, GayPatriotWest, or even noted Democratic bloggers like Dunner.
Like any good bigot, Queer Patriot, you have standards for how people of a certain this or that should behave — and, if someone is outside those standards, they cannot possibly be this or that, no matter how much the evidence shows that they are. I don’t expect that showing you any of what I have will change your mind; however, I do expect that it will make clear to those who don’t share your irrational stereotypes that that’s what they are — irrational.
I don’t know, Thirty. You tell me what one should think of what you’ve written. Let’s say you were a relatively new visitor to this site and you noted that North Dallas Thirty was a hyper-critic of all Democrats, and then you found North Dallas Thirty making the following comments about gay people, what would you think? Here you are in your own words:
From another thread, Sept. 21st, North Dallas Thirty on “vocal” gay people: “People don’t want to vote for gay rights, and I daresay it has a great deal to do with the fact that the most vocal members of our community run around half-naked, desecrate churches, call people of faith “ignorant, superstitious bigots”, and make disparaging remarks about the vast majority of people in our country.”
The next day, in No. 38 of this thread, North Dallas Thirty on gayness as a choice: “Moreover, there is a significant difference in the comparison of race to sexual orientation. One is indisputably born black, but that can hardly be said to be completely the same of being gay. One need only look at all the gay men who have married women and sired children as an example.”
Same thread, No. 43, North Dallas Thirty on gayness as a choice and a cheap choice at that: “Saying that one is “born gay” is of the same sentiment as “The devil made me do it” and carries the same degree of accuracy.”
Same thread, No. 49, North Dallas Thirty on gayness as a choice again, with the old anti-gay epithet, “orientation”, thrown in for good measure: “You can to some degree exercise control over your sexual orientation.”
Same thread, No. 52, North Dallas Thirty – a purported gay person who has so far bashed gays and called their sexuality a “choice”, an “orientation” even, suddenly adds a super-gay reference to having a “husband”.
Same thread, No. 56, North Dallas Thirty issues a resounding “yes” in support of the benefits of reparative therapy – a modern day form of exorcism practiced largely by the Christian Right.
———-
Reading all that, Thirty (from the perspective of someone who doesn’t know you as your friends cited above might), what would you think of the writer of those words? That he’s not really gay, but pretending to be for partisan purposes? That he thinks himself a bi-sexual somehow superior to the inclinations of other practicing gays? That he’s a gay person of strong political opinions who just hasn’t yet matured into a full-blown gay person (npi)? Or that he’s gay person of strong political opinions who hasn’t yet matured into a full-blown gay person and who meanwhile is quite willing to undercut other gay people if doing so will serve those very strong political opinions? I don’t know. You tell me. How could you be a gay person (even one by choice, if that’s what you think you are) and still insult gay people to the extent that you have with those words above?
Note: Jeff Gannon is also bi-sexual.
http://www.washblade.com/2005/9-23/view/editorial/gannon.cfm
O my, No. 69. Honest to goodness, I never made THAT connection in this context. So, what are you thinking? That being gay and Republican is just a phase? Perhaps just a pitstop enroute to that fine place they call Gay & Proud?
Reading all that, Thirty (from the perspective of someone who doesn’t know you as your friends cited above might), what would you think of the writer of those words?
That depends. Is this a normal person who actually reads my comments, or is it a bigot like you whose only interest is in proving their stereotypes?
For instance, your claim here (added emphasis mine):
Same thread, No. 56, North Dallas Thirty issues a resounding “yes” in support of the benefits of reparative therapy – a modern day form of exorcism practiced largely by the Christian Right.
In other words, I said, according to you, that reparative therapy is completely beneficial, works in all situations and, should be practiced for everyone.
What I actually said:
Yes. If you are genuinely unhappy with your attraction to people of the same gender, why should I begrudge you the opportunity to use therapy to overcome that issue?
If you are being forced to do it by others, I would simply put it this way….learn something from the fact that the only foolproof way to overcome drug and alcohol addiction is when the addict him/herself genuinely wants to beat it themselves. Otherwise, it may decrease the frequency of the behavior, but it will never change the behavior itself.
And the kicker:
People on both sides of the debate need to realize that reparative therapy works for some people, not for others, and treat it as such.
Hardly a “resounding yes” to a normal, intelligent, and rational person, but to a bigot like yourself, all the proof you need.
You see, Queer Patriot, I gave up couching my words a long time ago. I say what I think and feel because I know full well that, regardless what I say, bigots will make it whatever they want it to be — both antigay bigots and gay bigots like you.
Furthermore, just because you don’t have enough self-esteem to be able to condemn people who use being gay as an excuse to be publicly indecent or fling hate speech, or to admit that our sexual orientation is the result of our choice to follow our inborn inclinations, don’t hold ME back in the process or abuse me because I do.
So you’re saying that all those comments you made could be construed differently, depending on whether the reader is a “normal person” or a “gay bigot”? I don’t think so. Those comments are clear. Your friends may forgive you those slurs, but not an outside gay person who long ago fought though all of the same issues you’re apparently only beginning to deal with and who quickly recognized that those comments of yours (about gayness being a choice, an orientation, and a cheap one, that reparative therapy can work, and so on) only serve those who despise our nature and who are seeking to keep us in a state of perpetual inequality.
You have a long journey ahead of you with your sexuality. I sincerely wish you well with that, as I remember vividly the pain of each major step in my own journey.
QP.
Two things. First, if you define a husband as a male member of a married couple, the ye, you get two husbands. In the Bear community they call each other husbear. While that may go a little into the sacharine range, I say good for them. Check out the number of men that list their husbear as as their favorite on a site like Big Muscle Bears. All big, all masculine and they husbear eachother.
Secondly, as far as ND30 goes he’s far down on the regulars list of credibility for me. Dan is better than Chad who is better than Bruce who is better than Rob. ND is far down the list but before, drumroll please, glisteny. glisteny lied and is back without changing his punky name. Even Butchie is better than glisteny.
Those comments are clear. Your friends may forgive you those slurs, but not an outside gay person who long ago fought though all of the same issues you’re apparently only beginning to deal with and who quickly recognized that those comments of yours (about gayness being a choice, an orientation, and a cheap one, that reparative therapy can work, and so on) only serve those who despise our nature and who are seeking to keep us in a state of perpetual inequality.
Actually, I don’t believe you’ve made any progress in that regard.
You see, QP, invariably when people work through an issue, they realize that there are viewpoints other than their own. Yours became to simply claim that anyone who disagrees with you isn’t gay. Your worldview became more narrow rather than wider.
Your support of antigay Democrats is an excellent example. You champion John Kerry for claiming that gay people are “born gay”; then you again champion him as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” for advocating that gay people should be stripped of rights based on this inborn characteristic. Your worldview is so narrow — all that Democrats do is pro-gay — that you cannot comprehend anyone who would say otherwise.
Thank you for the hierarchy here, Chandler. Just when I think I’m understanding who’s who, many of them change names and start the dance again, leaving us newbies a bit confused.
But one I am not confused about is Thirty. And to you, Thirty, I would only say that, for an avowed bi-sexual, you’re a little too certain of what lies ahead of you. You’ll only be able to balance this anti-gay criticism of yours and your love for your husband so long, after which you’re going to have a lot on your conscience. You can come back with what seems to you to be one smart remark or another, but someday…
And, Thirty, I saw the photo of you which you directed us to. Have to say, you’re a handsome fella and seeing you hugging those two lady friends, I thought “bet he’s a sweet guy to some”. But not here, you’re not. You’re saying too much that too many of us regret — and which you too will regret someday.
QP
You have an awful lot of nerve.
You enter a new site and, rather than lurking for a while to figure out the “who’s who”, you make unwarrented assumptions about the regulars. If you had bothered reading any past comments, you would probably have a better idea of where NDT was coming from. He has done a great deal for gay rights causes (sorry, NDT, I don’t remember where the link to your list was) and I can’t imagine that he has anything to regret. In fact, if you had just read his comments with an open mind, you would have a better idea of where he was coming from.
You read neither his, nor my comments with anything similar to an open mind. Instead, you just tried to pigeonhole us into the limited categories you already had in your mind.
I’m straight, therefore you dismiss anything I have to say about sexuality and sexual orientation? You seem to be under some weird misapprehension that, because I’m on one side of the spectrum that I 1-have always been in this exact spot and 2-I am unwilling to consider the alternatives. (Not exactly surprising, many men, both straight and gay, have the either/or mentality while women are more willing to treat things as individual situations. I think it has to do with the differing social pressures.)
Being gay puts you in a very small minority. I understand what that means…I’m Jewish (2% of the population and most of in in NY). Whenever I am not in NYC and the surrounding suburbs, I have to be aware that people don’t necessarily understand what it means to be me. I’ve met people who were ignorant, those that were unkind and those that very kindly wanted to convert me to keep me from going to hell. I had to explain my positions without stooping to a level that violates my own standards and, I like to think that everyone who engaged me came a way with at least a little more knowledge of where I am coming from.
President Bush won the presidency with the first majority in over a decade. You cannot simply dismiss half of the people in this country as being bigots. Even if they were (which most are not), that’s no way to change things.
Oh, and don’t think I haven’t noticed that you ignored my ‘clarification post’. Don’t keep posting here if you want to just ignore anything that doesn’t fit in with your pre-concieved notions.
He has done a great deal for gay rights causes (sorry, NDT, I don’t remember where the link to your list was) and I can’t imagine that he has anything to regret.
Quite all right; it’s here.
You’ve got to admit though, Dina….it’s fun to watch Queer Patriot and his ilk scream that I hate gays, that I do everything in my power to stop gay rights, that I wouldn’t raise a finger to help fellow gays, etc.
Dina Felice, I’d say it’s YOU with the abundance of nerve, hopping on here and telling me I should “lurk” and NOT speak out when I read the following comments – all from North Dallas Thirty:
From another thread, Sept. 21st, North Dallas Thirty on “vocal” gay people: “People don’t want to vote for gay rights, and I daresay it has a great deal to do with the fact that the most vocal members of our community run around half-naked, desecrate churches, call people of faith “ignorant, superstitious bigots”, and make disparaging remarks about the vast majority of people in our country.”
The next day, in No. 38 of this thread, North Dallas Thirty on gayness as a choice: “Moreover, there is a significant difference in the comparison of race to sexual orientation. One is indisputably born black, but that can hardly be said to be completely the same of being gay. One need only look at all the gay men who have married women and sired children as an example.”
Same thread, No. 43, North Dallas Thirty on gayness as a choice and a cheap choice at that: “Saying that one is “born gay” is of the same sentiment as “The devil made me do it” and carries the same degree of accuracy.”
Same thread, No. 49, North Dallas Thirty on gayness as a choice again, with the old anti-gay epithet, “orientation”, thrown in for good measure: “You can to some degree exercise control over your sexual orientation.”
Same thread, No. 52, North Dallas Thirty – a purported gay person who has so far bashed gays and called their sexuality a “choice”, an “orientation” even, suddenly adds a super-gay reference to having a “husband”.
Same thread, No. 56, North Dallas Thirty issues a resounding “yes” in support of the benefits of reparative therapy – a modern day form of exorcism practiced largely by the Christian Right.
—
As a person whose people have been subjected to some of the most horrendous bigotry and persecution in the history of man, you’re a little quick to forgive the anti-gay bigotry above. Why is that? Do you share Mr. Thirty’s extreme partisanship? I have a challenge for you, Dina Felice and for your friend Thirty standing by: insert “Jewish” in place of “gay” and “religious” in place of “sexual” in any of his comments and you’ll get a taste of it – go on, try it. It looks like the same crap the Jewish people have been subjected to for eons.
And, no, I don’t go around saying “all” Republicans are bigots (as you claim) – but there are plenty of Republicans who ARE bigots. And there are also plenty of Republican gays, judging from this site, who will say and do things that work against the interest of the larger gay community – who will even make anti-gay comments (as above).
As for your post in which you try to make a case that one is not born gay – you’re just as wrong about that as Thirty. And you want me to sit and debate something with you that I understand far better as a gay man than you ever will as a straight woman? I don’t think so. I have enough on my hands with the so-called “gay men” on this site.
Now to the more important question: do we think Thirty’s really an anti-gay bigot? No. However, we do definitely think he is such an extremely partisan gay man that he’s willing to ladle out bigot-like statements if he thinks they’ll serve his partisan arguments. This, to me, is more despicable than the real thing.
Finally, Dina Felice, you say Thirty’s “done a great deal for gay rights causes” (and I notice he immediately obliged the request for links as support). He may indeed have worked for gay causes. If you knew that for sure, then how would you square that with his attack on “vocal” gay people, his belief that being gay is nothing more than a choice that can be “controlled”, and his support for reparative therapy? The partisan in you might say “oh, everybody’s got a different viewpoint on these things”. I’d say bullshit – just try being as forgiving of those who attack Jewish people, who say Jewish people choose to be Jewish, or who support, say, “religious conversion” therapy.
I’d say bullshit – just try being as forgiving of those who attack Jewish people, who say Jewish people choose to be Jewish, or who support, say, “religious conversion” therapy.
LOL…..go find me some Jews that say that being Jewish means you can run around half-naked, desecrate churches, call people of faith “ignorant, superstitious bigots”, and make disparaging remarks about the vast majority of people in our country first.
You’re a sad little fellow Thirty. Willing to say anything against your gay brethern if you think it may serve a political point. Never met anyone like you before.
Actually, my primary concern is that the gay community is honest with itself. Hiding our faults out of some false sense of “solidarity” is delusional and makes us look like idiots.
North Dallas Thirty,
I would suggest you try replacing the term “gay community” with “righ-wing party” in Post #81.
That would, truly, do more good for the country, don’t you think?……and would be more in keeping with your lofty ideals of putting your party before gay “special interests”? 🙂
QP
The fact that I was born Jewish does not, in any way, mean it is not a choice. I could stop being Jewish. Or, you could start.
The Catholics of the Inquisition considered Judaism a choice and put those to death who did not convert on command. Many of Judaism’s martyrs are from that period, those who refused to convert, even under threat of death.
Hitler considered Judaism not to be a choice and killed even those who had converted. Those who died in the Holocaust are also martyrs.
The Inquisitors and the Nazis were both evil.
But to convince people of that means that you must move beyond ‘choice’ or ‘inborn’ to ‘it is not evil to be Jewish’.
Some bigots used to say that homosexuality was unnatural: no animals did it, therefore, it was obviously evil. Now, recognizing that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, some bigots claim that it is subhuman. Those who thought the discovery of homosexuality in animals would change anything were wrong. Because, in the end, it does not matter why you are gay.
***
Now, to address your specific comments.
The most vocal/visible gay activists do suffer from the problems that NDT mentioned, although much of that is tied to the problems of many far-left liberal groups.
The equivalent in the Jewish community (since we don’t have half-naked people running around who claim to represent our community) are the Chasidim. And some of us are embarassed by the way they deliberately remove themselves from mainstream America; many more of us are embarrassed by the fact that they will move into communities, avoid paying taxes on religious grounds, and force the rest of the residents to pay higher property taxes (the Catskills is a prime example). The mainstream Jewish community feels that this reflects badly on the rest of us.
There is a difference between being black and being Jewish.
Being born Jewish would not excuse my behavior if it was bad, therefore, my focus should be arguing that it is not bad.
I don’t understand why (or when) ‘orientation’ became a bad word…I have always heard it as simply defining the quality of straightness or gayness.
I don’t understand why saying sexuality may be a choice is either pro- or anti-gay. And I certainly don’t understand why ‘husband’ is super-gay. In fact, I think gay marriage would be accepted much faster if, as a community, gays started referring to their significant others as ‘boy/girlfriends’, ‘fiancee’s’, and ‘husbands/wives’ as is appropriate to the relationship.
And NDT was perfectly clear the first time on what he meant, but, when you didn’t get it, he clarified it for you and you still choose to ignore it. And Jews do have an option for reparative thearapy: it’s called conversion. If someone I cared about chose it willingly, I would be unhappy, but accepting. If he or she were tricked, I would be angry.
And why would you dismiss my opinions just because I am straight? Can you say ad hominem? Any ‘insights’ you have about why you are a gay man should be equally relevent to why I am a straight woman.
***
You seem to be interpreting statements through your preconceived notions. Since many people who talk about ‘choice’ (and of course, ‘the gay lifestyle’) are anti-gay, you assume any statement about choice is anti-gay.
It’s not true. Take a minute to read through each statement and try to understand what the author meant. Don’t allow ‘buzz words’ to mislead you.
#77
ND30,
Where is this list of of your gay republican philanthropy?
I couldn’t find it in any of the links.
I’m not being sarcastic.
If there is a legitimate apologia/exegesis I would like to give credit where credit is due.
Dina Felice, the kindness and generous spirit evident in your response (No. 83 above) leaves me wanting to hug you or something — you sound like a loving soul who calms disgreements among those around you. But, I don’t think you understand the offensive nature of that collection of Thirty’s comments. And if you don’t understand the level of offense taken as I’ve presented it so far, then I’m afraid that nothing that I might add could bring that understanding. All that said, you seem like a terrific person and I’m sorry we disagree.
I’m not holding my breath, Chandler.
What strikes me about North Dallas Thirty’s comments is that he doesn’t seem to draw many distinctions between sexual orientation (what I think of as your feelings) and sexual behavior.
Specifically, I’m interested why he says he “chooses to be gay” because he is attracted to members of the same sex. To me, it would simply be more accurate to say that he chooses to act on his attaction (or orientation).
Also, your behavior can be in line with your orientation, or it can be at odds with your orientation.
I also don’t understand why he says the gay community hides its faults when he acknoweldges we run around with our shirts off, etc… It seems like we let our faults hang out. (Although I’m not sure how much church desecration gay people do.) But I also have to say that judging gay people by what some people do is obviously prejudicial. I don’t blame all straight people because some of them act like morons.
Keeping this in mind, I also agree completely with Dina in #83.
I also don’t understand why he says the gay community hides its faults when he acknoweldges we run around with our shirts off, etc…
Because I was berated for saying so.
From another thread, Sept. 21st, North Dallas Thirty on “vocal” gay people: “People don’t want to vote for gay rights, and I daresay it has a great deal to do with the fact that the most vocal members of our community run around half-naked, desecrate churches, call people of faith “ignorant, superstitious bigots”, and make disparaging remarks about the vast majority of people in our country.”
Then next up:
But I also have to say that judging gay people by what some people do is obviously prejudicial. I don’t blame all straight people because some of them act like morons.
That’s because the straight community, by and large, has an easier time of calling out moronic behavior and condemning it among its own. Do that in the gay community, and you get yelled at for insulting people.
Thirty, please expand on the “gay desecration of churches” that you’ve observed. Where? When? How?
This.
Or, the ever-popular this.
NDT,
“I’m not holding my breath, Chandler. ”
Oh, how I wish you would.
You keep posting links to nothing that shows your contributions. However, thanks for reminding me that the ACT UP action in St. Patrick’ was almost TWENTY years ago. For people to be still talkingabout it so long after is quite amazing.
No. 91, I was just going to say the same thing. He’s posts links with all the drama of a Fox reporter, but when you follow his links, nada.
How curious are the age of his links, too. These are things which 1) don’t meet his vaunted claim of “desecration” and 2) which pre-date his flip to the gay side. Jeez, by his own admission, he was “straight” at the time, which is in itself revealing of something…
You keep posting links to nothing that shows your contributions.
Chandler, dear, you’re operating under the false assumption that I naively believe there’s anything I could post that would satisfy you. It simply isn’t in your nature to acknowledge anything outside your stereotypical beliefs.
How curious are the age of his links, too. These are things which 1) don’t meet his vaunted claim of “desecration” and 2) which pre-date his flip to the gay side.
When the first one happened, I was barely a teenager. The second happened just under four months ago.
As for the “not desecration” argument, I think this article puts it nicely in perspective.
Yep. “this article” does, indeed, put it into perspective:
EMPTY. Nothing there. 🙂
Interesting….oh well. I’ll recharge the link.
88- Actually, it is easier to stereotype minority groups rather than the majority. This is why black stereotypes have more social force than white stereotypes.
I also don’t buy it that people hate gays because of isolated –and they are isolated– “church desecration”. If that didn’t happen the usual suspects would still be upset at gays. We “recruit” children remember, etc… They don’t need reasons to hate they hate anyway.
Even when gays want to assimilate (marriage, etc) they fight all the more. Too many special interest groups simply have an incentive to keep gays marginalized.
Chandler, dear, you’re operating under the false assumption that I naively believe there’s anything I could post that would satisfy you. It simply isn’t in your nature to acknowledge anything outside your stereotypical beliefs.
======================
Dear NoDick30,
There are many things that you could post that would satisfy me.
You have chosen to make a statement and then not support it.
What I like are facts and not lame ass diversions and excuses.
(oops, I forgot, you are a Republican.)
If I weren’t able to acknowledge anything outside my stereotypically perceived beliefs, I certainly wouldn’t be here.
Check and mate.
LOL….oh, I supported it. You simply moved the goalposts so you didn’t have to acknowledge it.
Furthermore, I have yet to see you acknowledge that Democrats who support antigay state constitutional amendments are themselves antigay bigots.
You really make this too easy when you call people who want to ban gay marriage based on their religious beliefs and traditional values “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” because of their political party affiliation.
Furthermore, I have yet to see you acknowledge that Democrats who support antigay state constitutional amendments are themselves antigay bigots.
You really make this too easy when you call people who want to ban gay marriage based on their religious beliefs and traditional values “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” because of their political party affiliation.
======================================
NoDick30,
Do you have these two paragraphs permanently on your clipboard? You post them when they aren’t relevent to any point being made. They are tired and sorely wrong. As you must keep pasting/posting this nonsense as your universal, “no, I’m not, so but you” childish reply, I will just sit back and think how vacuous your statments are.
Of course, Chandler, because you can’t answer.
Ok.
nice site