Comments on: Blogging, Gay Marriage & that necessary conversation

By: heliotrope

heliotrope — Sat, 17 May 2008 02:13:18 +0000

Those opposed should have to explain to them why they are lesser in the eyes of the law.

Okey-dokey. Your gay friends have every civil right I have. They are not lesser in the eyes of the law. They define themselves by the methods they employ for sexual gratification. They want marriage redefined to accommodate their sexual practices. The compelling case for redefining marriage on that basis simply has not been made.

By: Peter Hughes

Peter Hughes — Fri, 16 May 2008 21:55:00 +0000

# 5 - “So you stop reading someone because you disagree with them?”

No, Rover, that’s not what I said. I stated that I stopped reading Sully because he had abandoned the principles that made him, in my opinion, worthwhile reading for gay conservative issues.

I constantly read screeds by people with whom I have no agreement. Your posts come frequently to mind.

Regards,
Peter H.

By: Trace Phelps

Trace Phelps — Fri, 16 May 2008 21:30:34 +0000

Dan GPW, because of personal family experiences you and I will always have to agree to disagree, and always do it in a civil manner.

I do want to say that, despite our disagreements, I think you contribute a great deal to the discussion of the issue with opinions and observations that are very articulate and obviously well thought-out.

By: Houndentenor

Houndentenor — Fri, 16 May 2008 21:29:03 +0000

So you stop reading someone because you disagree with them? I usually find it more interesting to read the people I disagree with. It makes me think. Why do I disagree? What is wrong with this argument? Don’t get me wrong, Andrew Sullivan strikes me as whacky sometimes too. NOW he’s against the war but had harsh words for those of us who were back in 2002.

But on the gay marriage issue: he’s been on this topic a long time and has probably read more about it than anyone writing today. At the very least he is able to point you in the direction of various people who have already made certain arguments. Besides, he did everyone the service of presenting various points of view, not just his own which is rare these days and very useful if we are to discuss a topic intelligently.

I am on my way to have dinner and see “Curtains” with my friends Erik and Jason. They had a ceremony two years ago. I sang. They are married in Canada but not in the US. They don’t have the legal benefits of being married. To me that makes them lesser citizens in the eyes of the law. Not fully American in spite of working and contributing and paying their taxes. Those opposed should have to explain to them why they are lesser in the eyes of the law. Why do they shoulder the same responsibilities while being entitled to only some of the benefits and priveleges?

By: Peter Hughes

Peter Hughes — Fri, 16 May 2008 20:29:01 +0000

#2 - Houndie, it’s not that we dislike Andrew Sullivan. He was one of the first gay bloggers I ever read (back when he was conservative or at least libertarian), and I am glad for that opportunity.

However, following the 2004 election, he slowly but surely started abandoning his conservative principles and became a gay Brit version of Arianna Huffington. Ever since then I’ve quit reading him.

WE didn’t abandon Sully. HE abandoned US.

Regards,
Peter H.

By: GayPatriotWest

GayPatriotWest — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:35:28 +0000

Hold the presses! Houndentenor & I agree on something. In my post “Gay Books for Grownups,” I wrote, “I have not read all the essays in Andrew Sullivan’s Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con, but those I have read suggest this is a solid collection.“

By: Houndentenor

Houndentenor — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:16:09 +0000

I will be interested in reading them. I know you guys don’t like him, but Andrew Sullivan’s book pulling together a lot of writings on this topic was very good.

By: Pepe

Pepe — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:05:09 +0000

Marriage is a difficult subject - it crosses religious, legal, philosophical lines. In the US, matters are complicated because the majority of “family law” is a a state matter and we have fifty different states to deal with plus some territories.

And we need more intelligent, respectful discussion on many issues and especially this one. Here’s to your sentiments!