Welcome New Readers
We have noticed an influx of new moonbats to GayPatriot via this website source, apparently.
Welcome, welcome. No, this website isn’t a joke. We truly do love this nation and support its principles. We truly do support our men and women in uniform and their worldwide mission in the Global War on Terror. And yes, there are policies supported by conservatives and Republicans we support that have more to do with our nation’s survival than the short-term, nearly-always selfish gay Leftist agenda.
I can only speak for me: I am an American first, a conservative Republican second, and a gay man third. Always have, always will.
We are so glad to have you here.  Just please empty the bile from your stomachs and wipe the mud off your feet before you comment.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
51 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
How do I tell if I’m a wingnut or a moonbat? Do I have to stand under an ultraviolet light and see which color I glow?
I’m a recent reader who found this site thanks to John/AverageGayJoe.
Comment by NaturallyGay — April 18, 2008 @ 4:10 pm - April 18, 2008
Looking over the site, not immediately encouraged…
Comment by Crow — April 18, 2008 @ 5:14 pm - April 18, 2008
I am a sentient being first, a citizen of the world second, and a queer man third.
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
Comment by queerunity — April 18, 2008 @ 5:26 pm - April 18, 2008
That’s not mud, Bruce.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 18, 2008 @ 6:18 pm - April 18, 2008
Seriously, you need to change your “policies”. You continue to make it very clear that you’re not interested in political discourse. Clearly name-calling is fair game for those who don’t agree with you
Comment by Kevin — April 18, 2008 @ 6:49 pm - April 18, 2008
A most accurate description.
Comment by David — April 18, 2008 @ 7:43 pm - April 18, 2008
queerunity,
When did the world start confering citizenship?
Comment by David — April 18, 2008 @ 7:44 pm - April 18, 2008
Good one, David.
For me, it’s
1) Sentient being who loves freedom and wants everyone to have it,
2) American,
3) gay.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 18, 2008 @ 8:00 pm - April 18, 2008
Fine, I’ll get in on the action
1) semi-sentient being
2) American and Israeli
3) straight
Comment by numeral — April 18, 2008 @ 9:46 pm - April 18, 2008
Israel is awesome.
i went there in 1998.
Comment by Vince P — April 18, 2008 @ 10:10 pm - April 18, 2008
i dont really understand patriotism, i love the world, why would i love one country or people more than another?
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
Comment by queerunity — April 18, 2008 @ 11:17 pm - April 18, 2008
i dont really understand patriotism, i love the world, why would i love one country or people more than another?
Justice demands that you make judgements and dicern the good from evil.
Comment by Vince P — April 18, 2008 @ 11:19 pm - April 18, 2008
#11-You do not understand patriotism? So, let me get this straight, if you love the world so much, how about the radical Islamists who, if they had their way would lop off your head just for being gay? Or how about such enlightened leaders as Fidel Castro, Kim jong-Il, or any of the Red Chinese leadership? All of them, and communism, have no love lost for gays. How about President Mbeki of South Africa who all but has ignored the African-wide AIDS crisis? No, for while we are not a perfect nation, we have come to realize that treating gay and lesbian people like something from another planet is not right. We all have an obligation to make this the greatest nation in the world. We are the bulwark against the fanatics that want nothing more than to destroy our way of life. To subjugate us in an intollerable form of Islam. No, everyone in this great land, even those here illegally, should get down on our hands and knees and thank Allmighty God that we live here and should do everything to keep this nation the beacon of light, not the land of darkness.
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — April 19, 2008 @ 12:25 am - April 19, 2008
And threatening people is fair game for you, apparently.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 19, 2008 @ 2:18 am - April 19, 2008
BTW, I love England and Scotland, but I love America more. Besides, try watching a football match sometime and tell me there’s no patriotism in the stands.
Oh and who will you be hoping wins the most medals in the games this summer?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 19, 2008 @ 2:21 am - April 19, 2008
Here’s a few suggestions:
1. The Constitution
2. The Bill of Rights
3. The Declaration of Independence (that is, our founding principles)
4. The freedom, opportunity and prosperity that we enjoy, that are unmatched anywhere in human history
5. The overwhelming force for good we are.
I don’t know if you’ve traveled the world at all, but we truly are blessed to live here, like no other peoples on Earth. I think that’s a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives recognize that fact and are extremely grateful for it — which is where patriotism comes from. Liberals either don’t even recognize it to begin with, or feel guilty for and ashamed of it — and as a result, instead of patriotism, they develop anti-American and multiculturalist feelings and sentiments.
It has long struck me that there is nothing uglier than ingratitude — feeling no sense of gratitude for the blessings you are given. Its why our parents always told us at the dinner table about starving children in Africa. You have something that billions of other people would give their left nut for, and you dont even recognize how fortunate you are.
Is there anything more selfish or self-centered?
Comment by American Elephant — April 19, 2008 @ 8:08 am - April 19, 2008
How Buddhist that one would see himself as a “being” without specifying the “human” aspect. The “sentient” qualifier causes me to wonder if there are those who “know” and those who drool.
Perhaps Captain Green Planet is selling world citizenship credits and I deleted the e-mail. But I am curious. If a US citizen who is a “world citizen” is asked to serve his country, does he have to obey a higher authority? Would that be his inner “sentient” “being”?
Assuming that being a queer man is not a choice, isn’t the point really about how a “sentient being” chooses to project his queerness?
As a straight male, I often wonder whether some gays who are in constant overdrive with their “identity” are not more at war with themselves than with society.
Perhaps there should be a theme park ride where sentient beings of world citizenship can ride in swan boats while little people sing “It’s a Queer World” over and over and over.
Comment by heliotrope — April 19, 2008 @ 8:38 am - April 19, 2008
Love visiting your site! Conservative American who happens to be gay, here. Living in tolerant Boston, Massachusetts.
I have to keep my conservative principles under wraps here, or else witness the Stalinist-like reaction from the lefty nuttos.
Keep up the good work!
Comment by Andy P. — April 19, 2008 @ 9:45 am - April 19, 2008
Yes, love of the world is one thing, but to undertand it we have to understnd ourselves within it. From this we might commence our patriotism. We often do this by societal, geographical and philosophical standards, With a further healthier grip on those we develop an undertanding for what’s beyond.
Hence, as Robert Frost wrote, “Good fences make good neighbors.”
Looking over the fence with a developed appreciation for our point of we look at others. Shallow, indeed, would be the person, who seeing greener grass over the fence would not work to cultivate the same for himself. And if he found that in the past, what he had was less green than his neighbor’s, he knows that with industrial, technical and intellectual application he can surpass it. That is his pride. Within the community of a nation, that is patriotism.
Comment by Shawmut — April 19, 2008 @ 10:40 am - April 19, 2008
Patriotism is loving the place you came from. You’re saying you don’t understand loving the place you came from. Let me take a wild guess: You also don’t get along with your parents?
And in America’s case, there is a LOT to love, as others have pointed out. It’s not perfect but it’s still a vast advance in the world’s history, and better (i.e., closer to being a free country) than the others.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2008 @ 11:32 am - April 19, 2008
heliotripe, it’s a trickier question than you make it sound. Does human automatically imply sentient? Does sentient automatically imply human? I don’t think it’s impossible that there could be other sentient life in the universe, that we might someday contact. It’s a big universe. Anyway, I took “sentient being” as more Star Trek than Buddhist.
But all the “world citizen” crap… yes, barf-time. Perhaps queerunity would like to try life as an average person in Iran or North Korea or Cuba sometime, or even Egypt or Russia, if he/she is such an enlightened “world citizen”.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2008 @ 11:40 am - April 19, 2008
I find it absolutely ludicrous that people have the need to (or just see fit to) rank their personal characteristics in order of importance. If one were to eliminate any one part of me, I would cease to be me. I would be some other entity. I don’t see how one element of who I am is more important.
This whole idea of saying, “Oh, I’m gay, but that’s not what defines me,” is naught more than silly word games and semantics. I mean, really, what does, “I’m American first, Republican second, gay third,” even mean???? Does it mean that if the RNC continues to have anti-gay language in their platform, then you support it? If not, I’d say the “gay” is more important than the “Republican”. Or if America decided to crassly discriminate against you and every other gay citizen (or, you know, just keeps current policy), that you’d just sit back and take it, because being “loyal” to America is more important than being gay???
Seriously, what in the world is this ranking supposed to mean or achieve?
I’m sorry, but I call B.S. on the whole thing. As Judge Brown said, it smells funny and I’m not eating it.
Comment by PSUdain — April 19, 2008 @ 4:47 pm - April 19, 2008
Translation: You’re gay first. Nothing is more important to you, than your gaiety. The very idea of any other consideration or aspect coming first is utterly incomprehensible to you. OK, duly noted.
Since Bruce said it, he can answer best. Off the top of my head, though, it might mean that in his politics, he gives some thought to what is best for America, rather than being focused relentlessly on which politician will be best at validating his personal homosexuality for him. You should try it sometime, PSUdain: I mean putting America (or some other ideal) first, of course.
Isn’t it ironic? I call B.S. on you.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2008 @ 7:07 pm - April 19, 2008
Of course you do, because that would involve making value judgements — a prospect that is a complete anathema to morally-relativist liberals.
Comment by American Elephant — April 19, 2008 @ 8:03 pm - April 19, 2008
This whole idea of saying, “Oh, I’m gay, but that’s not what defines me,†is naught more than silly word games and semantics. I mean, really, what does, “I’m American first, Republican second, gay third,†even mean???? Does it mean that if the RNC continues to have anti-gay language in their platform, then you support it?
Oh.. so in other words, the fact that I suck cock should mean that I should be totally oblivious about the Jihad war around the world? The obliteration of our Constituation by politicians who feel themselves under no restraint about anything when it comes to making Federal law. That America remain a credible and reliable power in the world?
I should give up all those things so I can be just be part of nancy pelosi’s god damn idiot voting bloc?
Wow.. who knew that sucking dick can be a source of inspiration for one’s political beliefs.
Comment by Vince P — April 19, 2008 @ 9:12 pm - April 19, 2008
ILC, I have no quibble with your Star Trek envelope for the “sentient being” thing. As you know, I was directing my remarks at queerunity who was spewing pure psychobabble in the probable belief that each here would fall into his own drool out of sheer awe.
Comment by heliotrope — April 19, 2008 @ 9:47 pm - April 19, 2008
Guess it depends on who’s you’re sucking.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 20, 2008 @ 12:43 am - April 20, 2008
That’s a comment I’d expect from someone of the Christianist point of view. Seriously, complete reducto ad connubialis factum, the reduction of a complex relationship and mindset to just a sexual act.
And of course being gay would tend to influence your politics. For example, you should probably be striving for equal rights under the law. That would be a political agenda. I don’t see how it demands that I adhere to some set ideology, but clearly it does impact in major ways the way I see the world.
How dare you? Who are you to tell me who I am?
You don’t know me at all. For example, I’m Lutheran, and my faith is very important to me. I’m conservative, albeit in a form more like that of Barry Goldwater and not the buffoons running around calling themselves the conservative movement these days. (Though I’d say that the “conservative” label is more of a product or descriptor of my mindset than a basis for the mindset.) [By the bye, see that, AE? Conservative, not liberal.]
But you know what else? I’m gay, and being the foundation and core of any romantic relationship I might have (and that being a major life goal/plan), that’s pretty damn important in defining who I am. And because as a gay individual, I don’t have full and equal rights under the law, that’s pretty important in many political decisions I make.
As I said I don’t go in for this “ranking” business. I can’t say that I’m something more than I am another thing. It’s got nothing to do with a “value judgment”, either–all elements of my mindset and person make up who I am, make up my own personal identity. As I said, cut one out completely, and I cease to be me.
As far as “I’m Republican before I’m gay” thing, first of all, I’d tend to say that taking that as an objectively literal statement it’s not true, as being gay is a innate characteristic, and “Republican” is a human-defined, localized political construct. But from a less literalist point of view, well, as I asked above
I asked this philosophical question (which, especially with my bracketed clarifiers, should give some insight into my semantics when I’m expressing myself), and all you could do (I refer to ILoveCapitalism & americanelephant) was tell me what I think. See, that’s not how this works. I tell you what I think, and you tell me what you think. There are few things as off-putting (and outrightly irritating, bordering on infuriating) than someone saying, “NO, NO, you think THIS, regardless of what you’ve described to me.”
Comment by PSUdain — April 20, 2008 @ 5:26 pm - April 20, 2008
Wow PSUdain , for someone who is so freakin indignant that someone dared to tell you who you are, you seem to have no problem whatsoever putting everyone in a little category and dictating what their outlook on life should be.
I noticed you refused to address the actual substance of my other comment and instead just responded to my little joke. I can tell how serious I should take your whining.. not at all.
Comment by Vince P — April 20, 2008 @ 6:13 pm - April 20, 2008
But I didn’t do that. I merely pointed out the inevitable meaning or consequence of words that *YOU* chose to employ.
Once more, PSUdain, I hereby “call bullshit” on your outraged, yet disjointed rantings.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 20, 2008 @ 9:17 pm - April 20, 2008
Bzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong again. I can see you have trouble with plain English, PSUdain, as well as logic.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 20, 2008 @ 9:20 pm - April 20, 2008
So, in conclusion… enjoy your self-inflicted outrage!
(I heard from watching a South Park episode, PSUdain, that if you capture the fart in a glass, then bring it immediately to your nose, you can sniff it down real good. LOL)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 20, 2008 @ 9:21 pm - April 20, 2008
I put you in no box whatsoever, Vince. I did not attempt do define you. I stated why I think that this whole, “I’m X before I’m gay,” business is a complete load of hooey. You have yet to make any substantive answer to this besides pointing out that being gay has little impact on your views of certain other political issues. THIS IS SOMETHING WHICH I HAVE ALREADY STATED THAT I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT (I mean about the lack of direct, straight-line causal impact, not the views, necessarily).
Nowhere did I suggest, or even imply that you should, “be part of nancy pelosi’s god damn idiot voting bloc.” I am not part of such, and that’s not just because I don’t live in California.
All that I have said is that because being gay is an integral part of your person and mine, it informs all of our other views. So does being raised Lutheran for me. So do my early experiences with my grandpa, and watching WWII documentaries with him during the 50th anniversary of D-Day. So do all the influences of my parents and what they have taught me. I have tried consistently to make the point that all of these things, being integral, foundational components of your person, are not rankable. Let me utilize this metaphor:
Let’s say someone makes a big arch (no straight portions, just for clarity) out of individual blocks of stone (maybe of various sizes, maybe not). Each stone would support all the others, and if you were to remove one, no matter how small, the whole thing would tumble down. Even if some blocks are smaller and two rest on the ground, how can you assign importance, if when ANY block is removed, the whole ceases to be?
That, I argue, would be an accurate model for a person and their characteristics. I am not me unless I am me in full. Remove but one portion of my person and I become something that is other than me. And every decision I make and every position I take is a product of the sum total of me.
That’s all I’ve been saying, but because I take a slightly contrary position, you seem to just be looking to make me out to be some whacko.
And frankly, the other reason I don’t much care for this “ranking” thing is that it seems to me, in some ways, to be just a way to say, “Yeah, I’m gay, but not like those f*gs over there…”
Honestly, I don’t personally know any gay people who think that being gay makes you an automatic on political positions. And, frankly,there are those out there do think that all gay people, period, should share their views, but their mere existence is not proof that they are the rule. There are plenty of straight liberals who act the same way, too, so I fail to see how this is anything more than a “people who I disagree and who think that everyone should think just like them” issue. Why drag “gayness” into it?
————
It’s not like there’s a “vast gay conspiracy” that you can pledge loyalty to, like you can to the U.S. or the Republican party, so in essence, you’re saying that you’re less loyal to an intrinsic characteristic of yourself than you are to external entities? It just doesn’t make sense to me.
————
Merely claiming that I’ve not answered your points is not proof that I didn’t. Just give what I’ve said a fair reading, instead of looking for ways to demonize me and write me off automatically because I take a contrary position on one issue (here, at least). If you didn’t do that, well, you’d be as bad as the people you decry, saying that because I think one way here should automatically make me think another way on something else.
————
Also, “BZZZZZT” doesn’t count as logic. That would be more like a schoolyard taunt. And you’d be slightly jumpy in your writing, too, if you were trying to respond to several people. Frankly, given a second read, it seems to flow to me, but, that’s just me. (Just in case, I threw in little separators between points, so you don’t get confused.) I may use complex constructions, but they’re all grammatically correct, if occasionally contorted.
————
I fail to see how your claims as to what I think are any sort of logical continuance of what I think. Especially because that’s not the end conclusion that I have reached. Now, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you misunderstood what I’ve said, or maybe I wasn’t clear from your point of view, but seriously your “logical conclusion” has no relation or semblance to mine.
Comment by PSUdain — April 20, 2008 @ 10:01 pm - April 20, 2008
You claim:
I dont know what the hell you’re trying to say. First you make a huge deal out of the fact that you’re gay, and somehow this attribute (being gay) has some sort of significance.
Then you go onto say that the influence of this attribute is not the same for those who have it, or that it’s influence is unique to each person, but yet you dont indicate what this influence is, and why it varies.
But then earlier you said that to support the Republican Party or to be Loyal to America is in-effect a denial of self.
What the hell is that if not an attempt to define me.
That is why I said
Those are all things that conservatives stand for, and Republicans give lip service to advancing.
But you’re telling me that
To which I say, you sure have a lot of arrogant presumption as well as a huge sense of entitlement.
I cherish the Constitution. The Constitution is the reason I have the excellent life of wealth and comfort that I have. So you’re damn right I’m loyal to America.
I don’t want to live in your world, where everybody is fragile and made of glass.. where people break down and go into mental illness at the very thought that someone might disagree with them or the way they live their life.
If you want to live in a society where you can do whatever the hell you want, because you’re so special and wonderfull, and be shielded from all criticism, because you’re self-esteem is so fragile as to collapse with the slightest breeze, then move to Canada.
Go to Canada where they have no Constitution. Where they have no First Amendment.
Where they have Human Rights Commissions that can censor anyone who offends the precious.
For me, I will stay in America.. the only nation that can stop the anti-gay Islamic movement. Somehow you can advocate for the Democrats, who want to surrender the world to Islam and you think that’s not anti-gay.
You’re a fool.
Comment by Vince P — April 21, 2008 @ 5:35 am - April 21, 2008
Or a classic self-fart-sniffer
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2008 @ 11:04 am - April 21, 2008
Translation (to English, from the original B.S.): You’re gay first. Nothing is more important to you, than your gaiety. The very idea of any other consideration or aspect coming first is utterly incomprehensible to you. That means, you literally do not understand it – as you yourself have now stated several times. OK, duly noted.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2008 @ 11:24 am - April 21, 2008
In conclusion: Enjoy, PSUdain, your self-inflicted sense of outrage. Savor it deep.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2008 @ 11:26 am - April 21, 2008
I never expressed disagreement with you. In fact, on most of those points I agree with you in spirit if not always on what resultant actions we should take. I agree that the constitution has been whizzed on by politicians for expediency (and votes) and that this is detrimental to government.
No, if you actually take my words as I mean them, I’m asking you to say that because you’re more loyal to the U.S. than to your intrinsic characteristic (how does that work, exactly?), you should support everything the U.S. even when it goes against things you might want in relation to that characteristic, like full rights (Or maybe you don’t want those? I’m just asking. I am not trying to be trite or put words in your mouth.)
What I’m saying is that I AM A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND I LOVE MY COUNTRY, but I am not going to let that get in the way of criticism when needed. I love this country, and there are SO many things that are good and right about it, but it is dead wrong in the way it treats gay citizens. Clearly it is not as wrong as some other countries (Iran, et. al.), but that doesn’t make it right in that conduct automatically. However, I would argue that if I’m somehow more loyal to the country than my intrinsic characteristic, I should just sit back and take it. But I stand up and say, “Hey, you’re wrong about this, U.S. government.” I don’t say, “I hate the U.S. because it’s wrong here.” All I’ve been pointing out is that there is no such thing as absolute loyalty, and that being gay does tend to exert some influence over at least some of your decisions. (Because it is a part of who you are. I suppose you’ll agree with at least that??)
Damn right I feel entitled as a citizen of the United States to equal treatment under the law and the Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I thought that all citizens–all human beings, in the case of the latter three–were entitled to those things. And I’m not going to to sit down and be quiet until I have equal rights. If that’s arrogant, then I’ll continue in arrogance right along with our founders and the civil rights movement and the women’s suffrage movement.
I don’t live in such a world, and I don’t see why ONE criticism over ONE thing drives you so crazy. Can’t you take being challenged? I do wish you’d stop using phrases like “you say [x]“; I don’t think you’ve been correct in ascertaining what I meant even once with any of those. A better way would be “DO you mean [x]?” I say what I say, and I mean what I mean. I do not say what you claim I say, nor do I mean what you claim I mean. (That is an intentionally convoluted statement.) But it seems that you will not accept that I could possibly have any meaning or views other than those you have painted me with as the result of one point of disagreement that I expressed.
And do you really think you’ve hurt my feelings? If you do, then you give yourself far too much credit. I disagree with you and I will vigorously debate you, but I will neither be hurt by what you say, nor will I attempt to deny your right to say or believe anything. You of all people should realize argument is not an attempt to silence but an invitation to dialogue.
Again, ILC, STOP TELLING ME WHAT I MEAN, DAMNIT. Actually what I meant by that statement was exactly what I wrote. When I said “one portion of my person” I meant that. I meant ANY portion of my person, my faith, my views, my love of musical theatre, my enjoyment of Garrison Keillor novels and stories, WHATEVER that I would not be the same person. I was making a general observation that a person is the sum of ALL their characteristics, and thus none are unessential. And if none are unessential, how can you rank them?
Maybe if you’d ask what I mean instead of telling me what I mean, we could avoid these confusions in the future. Doubtful, I know, but perhaps possible.
I would also note that U.S. law is not supposedly anti-gay. We can’t marry, and on top of existing law people are constantly pushing “marriage protection amendments”. There are 1,200 federal benefits (and countless more state ones) we are denied. We can’t file taxes jointly with partners. We can’t serve openly in the military. Until 2003 it was illegal for us to consummate a relationship in no few states, and some of those laws, though null, are still on the books. Tell me how any one of these is not anti-gay, let alone the whole crop together?
Comment by PSUdain — April 21, 2008 @ 6:20 pm - April 21, 2008
Followed by:
I can solve your problem very simply, PSUdain; there are hundreds of thousands, if not MILLIONS, of people in this country who are denied what you consider a fundamental right to marry whomever or whatever they love and with whom they want to have sex.
After all, since you claim that marriage is an absolute right and can never be denied for any reason without violating “equal treatment under the law and the Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, then you must oppose bans on polygamy, child marriage, incestuous marriages, and so forth.
And if you don’t, then you must admit that marriage is NOT a guaranteed right and most certainly does not have to be extended to everyone.
In the same vein, military service is not a guaranteed right, and is in fact denied to numerous people for reasons that are quite beyond their control. Sexual consummation is not a guaranteed right, and is in fact denied to numerous people who choose to have it with individuals or creatures that society has deemed unhealthy.
Meanwhile, you are NOT denied the rights that are written into the Constitution itself, i.e. voting, gun ownership, speech, and so forth. In every sense, you have the same full and equal rights guaranteed to everyone by our Constitution, regardless of your sexual orientation.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 21, 2008 @ 7:32 pm - April 21, 2008
Are you saying that society has a right to determine what is healthy for me? Sounds pretty statist to me. And I assume you claim to be a conservative? Whatever happened to liberty, and the idea that if it doesn’t infringe on someone else’s liberties, it’s game? Ready some Barry Goldwater, or better yet John Stuart Mill, and get back to me.
As for your (Santorum-esque, I might say) screed about marriage, it’s a contract between two people. Everyone has been in love with (or at least had feelings for) more than one person over his/her lifetime. Not everyone has feelings for or can fall in love with the opposite sex. I’d say that’s a pretty objective distinction.
The child marriage thing is a red herring; children are not majors and are therefore incapable of entering into any kind of legal contract.
Incest, at least between cousins, well that’s trickier, but as best I can tell, the biggest argument involved with incest is the potential for birth defects. Also, one could raise the argument that this person is already family. As far as parents and children, I’d say that’s pretty cut and dry and easy to distinguish, and not just because of the argument about minor children, but again because there is a preexisting legal/familial relation.
Read Virtually Normal sometime; it’s an excellent presentation of four basic points of view on gay marriage and one synthesized position. It does a better and more complete job than I can.
But even with all that aside, even if we throw all of that out the window, you’ve been slipshod in your Constitutional scholarship. You’re forgetting that, while some or all these things may not be “natural rights”, per se, they are rights and/or privileges granted by the law. And in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, we have this thing called the Equal Protection Clause that states, “no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And applied per Lawrence v. Texas, it would seem to side with my position.
Comment by PSUdain — April 22, 2008 @ 1:15 pm - April 22, 2008
But, according to your logic, it is illegal to deny ANYONE the right to have sex with or marry whomever, whatever, or however many they choose, since that would be a violation of “equal protection of the laws”.
Your argument is that, since you allow one group to marry, you must allow all groups to marry. Building on that, since the Fourteenth Amendment says “all PERSONS”, without ANY qualification for age, existing marriage, existing familial relationship, or whatnot, under your own logic, none of your reasons for denying marriage or sexual consummation to any of those mentioned is valid.
Society has the right to deny marriage or sexual consummation. You have not built a persuasive case, so you foolishly and selfishly try to undermine that through the judiciary — and the resulting amendment backlash should be sufficient reminder to you of where the power resides in our system.
Are you saying that society has a right to determine what is healthy for me? Sounds pretty statist to me. And I assume you claim to be a conservative? Whatever happened to liberty, and the idea that if it doesn’t infringe on someone else’s liberties, it’s game?
Yes, when society is paying for it.
For example, in the United States, the general legality around employment involves the common-law concept of “employment at will”; you have the right to work for whomever you want, and you may quit at any time.
However, if you choose to quit your job, you are not eligible for unemployment benefits, which are reserved for people who lose their job for reasons other than their own choice or misconduct. Nobody would argue that your choice to quit your job and not work should entitle you to government benefits at the expense of others.
Since marriage represents tax breaks, entitlement to public funds, and other things that do have an impact on society, like automatic immunity against testifying on your spouse’s criminal behavior in court, it does have a societal impact, and society should be allowed to decide to whom it is extended.
By your logic, again, the government had no business intervening in the case of the FLDS church and the polygamist families, since it interfered with their choice to carry out behavior that they considered healthy, and you insist that it is “statist” for the government to dictate what is and isn’t healthy.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 22, 2008 @ 3:21 pm - April 22, 2008
Wow, again, I love it when people tell me what I think and what my logic says. It’s great, because they’re seldom right. For what I’m certain will not be the last time, I ask, plead, demand, “Stop telling me what I think. You do not get it right.”
Geez, I get sick of putting out the absolutist fires you people keep setting on my words. I agree that a person may have sex with whomever they desire and however, with the exception of children. And as for marrying whatever they want, they can marry any one thing that has the legal right to enter into a legal contract, i.e. other human adults.
For you to continue to insist that my logic dictates that age doesn’t matter is simply dishonest and disingenuous. I already pointed out that minor children are on a different level legally than adults, so don’t claim that your interpretation of my logic states otherwise. I have alreay stated that we clearly have a system set up in this country where children are minors and have different legal rights. That’s well established under both law and associated jurisprudence. Since my logic builds upon the law and jurisprudence (as well as other things) as premises, then those arguments are built in.
As for FLDS, again, as I said above,
As you’d see if you actually read what I wrote, I argued that the government has no rights to intervene if there is no harm or infringement on another persons liberties. With the FLDS we have a clear instance of child abuse and harm. And again, I would reiterate (since it apparently made no impact the first time) that MINOR CHILDREN are in a well-established legal class different from major adults. Because this involves children, it’s another red herring. If it was just a colony of of-age de facto polygamists, there would no cause for government intervention, unless something else illegal was happening.
As for the rights of society to dictate what constitutes marriage, would it be legal for society to disallow interracial marriages? (I think that question has already been answered.) Would it be permissible for society to say that you can’t marry someone if there is a 20+ year age difference (assuming, as always that both persons are legal adults). Could society say that infertile couples can’t marry? Could they say that people with different hair colors could not marry? If these are all impermissible, then why is it permissible for them to do it to gays and lesbians? What’s the difference? You’ve still failed to present a good case for that, as far as I see.
I don’t care, right here for purposes of a legal debate, about the ramifications of “court imposed” marriage. I didn’t even mention that. But since you brought it up, I think that it would be fine for courts to do that, and they have a legally sound position to do so from, based on Equal Protection and Lawrence v. Texas and various other precedents. I think it would have less of a backlash if it came from the bottom up, but then again, there wasn’t a huge backlash over Loving v. Virginia when it legalized interracial marriage. However, a position on legality does not advocacy of a certain course dictate. At any rate, simple popular opinion does not make something right. Examples: interracial marriage (again), slavery, lack of suffrage for women.
Lastly, where exactly does at-will employment enter into this?? That was perhaps the most puzzling thing about your reply. I could see as an example perhaps? But even in that capacity it’s superfluous at best, unrelated at worst. And don’t patronize me. Good heavens, I know what at-will employment is!
Now, this time, why don’t you spend time refuting what I say instead of telling me what I think. The FLDS was refutation, but I’ve answered that sufficiently I feel. Telling me what happens “according to my logic” is not refutation, nor is it your role to tell me what I think.
Comment by PSUdain — April 22, 2008 @ 7:11 pm - April 22, 2008
I agree that a person may have sex with whomever they desire and however, with the exception of children. And as for marrying whatever they want, they can marry any one thing that has the legal right to enter into a legal contract, i.e. other human adults.
No. You have clearly stated that the Fourteenth Amendment demands “equal protection” for all “persons” – which, as I pointed out previously, does not state that it is limited by age, familial relationships, existing marriages, or anything else. Therefore, to deny marriage for any of those reasons under the Constitution is a violation by your own statement, including age, since the Constitution does not automatically allow age discrimination except in specific cases (i.e., the right to vote).
Or you could admit that it is NOT considered a violation of equal protection to set up legal structures that treat people “unequally”, i.e. children versus adults.
Furthermore, since you have stated that any human adults should have the right to marry whomever or whatever they want without any additional considerations and that bans on doing so violate equal protection, please state for the record that it is a violation of equal protection, and thus illegal, for the government to deny marriage to mothers who wish to marry their sons or fathers their daughters, as well as people who want to marry multiple partners like the FLDS church.
As for the rights of society to dictate what constitutes marriage, would it be legal for society to disallow interracial marriages? (I think that question has already been answered.) Would it be permissible for society to say that you can’t marry someone if there is a 20+ year age difference (assuming, as always that both persons are legal adults). Could society say that infertile couples can’t marry? Could they say that people with different hair colors could not marry?
Absolutely. And it could even change the Constitution to do so.
But, as you notice, society hasn’t done so — and even in the case of interracial marriages, most states that had bans had repealed them already, and many never had any such bans at all. Furthermore, there are multiple amendments in the Constitution itself that make it clear that race is not automatic grounds for legal discrimination.
Meanwhile, states regularly dictate that you may not marry people who are not of age, who are too closely related to you, who are also married to other people, and so forth. Marriage restriction is completely and eminently Constitutional at its core.
The reason I cited at-will employment is simple; it represents well that, while you are free to make your choices, society is under no obligation to reward them. If you choose to make yourself unemployed, just as if you choose to partner with someone of the same gender, related to you, not of age, or already married, society is under no obligation to pay for it or to extend you any sort of benefit or recognition. Society has stated that marriage benefits and unemployment benefits should be reserved for a specific group of people, and both are perfectly Constitutional.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 22, 2008 @ 7:57 pm - April 22, 2008
No, dumbf###, I didn’t say that; he Constitution which I was quoting does. Actually, it doesn’t say that, either; it says “equal protection under the law“, not just “equal protection”. That’s an important distinction.
I give up. You take my words give them a little twist, and then WHAMO in the next sentence you tell me, “Oh, but you don’t really mean that.”
Do not presume to tell me what I think. I don’t put words in your mouth, don’t put them in mine.
You take one single portion of my argument out of context, “disprove” it fallaciously and out of context, and do a little victory dance.
You don’t take one part of the constitution in isolation, just like you don’t take one line out of a person’s mouth in isolation. You take the Equal Protection clause, add to it mound of jurisprudence holding up a minor child–adult division, add in Lawrence v. Texas and Loving v. Virginia, AND THEN YOU HAVE MY FULL ARGUMENT.
What you are doing by taking one line from an amendment, applying it in an absurdist/literalist vacuum and claiming that the absurdism acts as proof by contradiction is dishonest and a refusal to address my actual point in full. I made an argument based on multiple premises together. You need to attack the full argument, not a lone premise.
Actually, you’re wrong. See again Loving v. Virginia. You are objectively wrong according precedent set by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Of course you can’t marry someone who’s married to someone else. Marriage is an exclusive contract between two people. But if you’re going to offer an exclusive contract to male-female couples, then legally, you’d better offer the exclusive contract to male-male couples and female-female couples.
You need to start by explaining why Loving v. Virginia is wrong if you’re going to say that the government can restrict marriage, especially based on race.
But until such time as you do, I’ll steal this from Scott Adams:
“I agree with your analysis of your hallucination.â€
Comment by PSUdain — April 23, 2008 @ 12:07 am - April 23, 2008
Obviously you didn’t read the following paragraph.
But, as you notice, society hasn’t done so — and even in the case of interracial marriages, most states that had bans had repealed them already, and many never had any such bans at all. Furthermore, there are multiple amendments in the Constitution itself that make it clear that race is not automatic grounds for legal discrimination.
Loving is poorly written, but it’s not wrong, inasmuch as existing Constitutional amendments already made provision towards the effect that discrimination on the basis of race did not carry any particular legal weight or implied validity. However, had voters wished at the time, they simply could have gone back and amended the Constitution to clarify that that did not apply to interracial marriages, and that would have been correct; it would be upholding the principle that the voters have the ultimate and final right to amend the Constitution as they see fit, and it would have removed the contradiction in the law.
You don’t take one part of the constitution in isolation, just like you don’t take one line out of a person’s mouth in isolation. You take the Equal Protection clause, add to it mound of jurisprudence holding up a minor child–adult division, add in Lawrence v. Texas and Loving v. Virginia, AND THEN YOU HAVE MY FULL ARGUMENT.
Your argument is that the state has no right whatsoever to restrict marriage to any “person” because of the Constitution.
If that were the case, then, the jurisprudence you cite regarding children would be unconstitutional. The fact that it is not is a clear sign that “equal protection” is not an absolute guarantee of marriage; that is reinforced by the fact that states are allowed to deny marriage to people based on other things that are involuntary, such as blood relationships.
Loving, as I pointed out, is an invalid comparison because the Constitution already has amendments outlining that race is not necessarily a valid reason for different treatments under law. Lawrence is irrelevant, unless your argument is going to be that the government should automatically grant marriage rights for whomever or whatever with which you want to have sex.
Finally, given that adultery is no longer illegal thanks to “no-fault” divorce laws, marriage contracts cannot be said to be “exclusive”, inasmuch as there is no penalty under law for violating them. Furthermore, since you insist that NOTHING should prevent adults from getting married, a pre-existing contract should not do so either. That would be an invasion of privacy, according to your logic, and would be “statist” for the government to deny them the benefits and protection of marriage with as many people as they want simultaneously.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 23, 2008 @ 2:34 pm - April 23, 2008
That’s better. On some points. At least you made an argument instead of telling me what I’m saying the whole time. Now, in similar fashion I will answer the argument you made.
Frankly your “debunking” of Lawrence’s relevance is lackluster. It’s not about the sex; how many times must that be said?? You should know that! Lawrence is not about sex. Look at Sandra Day O’Connor’s concurrence, where she points to the fact that the law was against only homosexual sodomy, not hetero. So because this law treated different groups differently in the commission of the same act (whatever that act may be, sex in this case), it violated Equal Protection. As for marriage, different groups of people are treated differently under the same law. Even Scalia has expressed the opinion that this jurisprudence could act as a viable legal argument for gay marriage.
And when you look at the ruling in Lawrence (instead of just the effects), it swings the other two elements around, in my opinion, as Loving was also an Equal Protection case. Lawrence is almost like the fulcrum in my argument. (Interesting side note, Loving also defines marriage as, “one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’”.)
And now I read on and–Oh no! What’s this, here? Still you insist on telling me what I think?
So again:
“I agree with your analysis of your hallucination.â€
That would be true, if I insisted on any such thing. Too bad I didn’t and don’t.
Comment by PSUdain — April 24, 2008 @ 1:07 am - April 24, 2008
Look at Sandra Day O’Connor’s concurrence, where she points to the fact that the law was against only homosexual sodomy, not hetero. So because this law treated different groups differently in the commission of the same act (whatever that act may be, sex in this case), it violated Equal Protection.
A concurrence is not the same as the central decision. The central decision in Lawrence was based on due process, not on equal protection.
Furthermore, the Lawrence decision itself states, and I quote, “[The decision] does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Plus, and ironically, you must have missed the part in Justice O’Connor’s concurrence where she flatly states that “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is indeed a “legitimate state interest” and that “other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.” In addition, O’Connor’s argument made it clear that it was perfectly possible to have a sodomy law that was constitutional as long as it was neutral in effect and application — which means the original sodomy law, which applied to both same- and opposite-sex conduct, would have been perfectly legitimate and constitutional.
Furthermore, the language you quoted from Loving is a fine example of how poorly-written the decision is — since arguing that marriage is a “basic civil right” means that there is no legal ground whatsoever for restricting it for any reason.
So in short, of the two court cases you cite for “proof” of gay marriage constitutionality, one makes a misleading statement that marriage can never be restricted when in fact it can, and the second states specifically and emphatically that it has nothing to do with gay marriage and should not be used as grounds for gay marriage.
Again, your use of Lawrence demonstrates the basic argument of gay liberals that the Constitution demands you be allowed to marry whomever with you wish to have sex — which contradicts the very CLEAR and constitutional restrictions on marriage that already exist.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 24, 2008 @ 1:43 pm - April 24, 2008
I’m aware of what a concurrence is and what a ruling is. However a concurrence provides a legal basis and some form of precedent.
I’m also well aware of the fact that she said it would be constitutional if it didn’t discriminate against gay people (that being the key element). However if you read Scalia’s dissent, he expresses the opinion that O’Connor’s concurrence could be used as precedent for a gay marriage case.
Also, O’Connor notes that “preserving traditional marriage” would meet rational basis scrutiny in her view, but laws based solely on moral disapproval of homosexual persons would not. I’d say most of the laws are based solely on moral disapproval, if you were to ask the general populace.
I didn’t miss those parts. I’m just not going to make your argument for you.
And if I didn’t think the decision offered me some support, I would disagree with it. I think that to discriminate against a group of people based on an inherent and unchosen characteristic is absolutely vile, and our country should not do it.
What about all the basic civil rights that are denied to minors? I’d say that age has been established as a very basic qualifier for basic civil rights.
And as far as “polygamic” marriages, as I’ve said marriage is an exclusive legal contract. If you sign an exclusive legal contract, you can’t enter into another one, unless the first has been nullified. As for your prior arguments about extramarital sex and exclusivity, that has no bearing on a legal contract, as exclusivity in intercourse is not an element of the legal contract.
And who the hell here is a “gay liberal” again?? Not I.
Comment by PSUdain — April 24, 2008 @ 10:41 pm - April 24, 2008
Out of curiosity, I would like to ask:
I don’t mean do you think we should be required to Constitutionally, or anything else. I mean, do you in your own personal opinion think that people should allow gay marriage?
Comment by PSUdain — April 24, 2008 @ 10:44 pm - April 24, 2008
I think that to discriminate against a group of people based on an inherent and unchosen characteristic is absolutely vile, and our country should not do it.
Good. Then you oppose bans on incestuous marriage, child marriage, and animal marriage, since blood relationship, age, and species are inherent and unchosen.
As for your prior arguments about extramarital sex and exclusivity, that has no bearing on a legal contract, as exclusivity in intercourse is not an element of the legal contract.
Then there should be no reason to ban polygamy, since the “contract” is not exclusive.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 24, 2008 @ 10:50 pm - April 24, 2008
“I agree with your analysis of your hallucination.â€
Comment by PSUdain — April 28, 2008 @ 3:05 am - April 28, 2008