Gay Patriot Header Image

Gay Groups Ignore Monogamy when Promoting Marriage

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:20 pm - June 20, 2008.
Filed under: Gay Marriage,Gay PC Silliness,Gay Politics

Shortly after posting my piece, Will Gay Marriage Help Tame Men’s “Piggishness”?, I considered contacting the leading national gay organizations, California groups and other individuals at the forefront of the gay marriage debate to ask them how they felt Eric Erbelding’s comments in the New York Times might impact the movement for gay marriage, particularly the campaign to defeat the proposition on the Golden State ballot this fall.

Instead, I decided to check the websites of the various organizations and bloggers to see if in favoring extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, they recognized that marriage is based on the premise of monogamy. I also wonder if they sought to promote that notion in public statements on marriage.

To that end, I did a number of searches on the websites of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Freedom to Marry, Equality California (EQ CA), the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center and Andrew Sullivan’s blog. (I could not find a search feature on Log Cabin’s website nor on those of the pro-gay marriage Equality for All and LetCaliforniaRing sites.)

I did word searches (without quotation marks) for the following: “marriage monogamy,” “marriage monogamous,” “marriage fidelity” and “marriage adultery.” Researching this post took a lot longer than I had anticipated.

And while I found more references than I had anticipated when I did the “marriage monogamous” search, most other searches came up short. On the site of Freedom to Marry, the one national group devoted primarily to promoting gay marriage, my searches yielded almost nothing, with no hits on marriage monogamy and only six for marriage monogamous.

None of those six hits indicated the ostensibly pro-marriage group supported monogamous gay unions. The closest they got was a footnote in the linked report, Black Same-Sex Households in the United States, observing that “Many gay, bisexual and straight people are monogamous.

Most of the references I found were to other faiths’ definition of marriage and the experiences of individual couples. Nowhere did I find an organization’s representative or blogger saying that he or she believed monogamy to be an essential feature of marriage.

Yet I did find this hopeful note in a transcript of HRC’s morning news webcast “Equally Speaking:”

A new study on the hopes and aspirations of GLBT young people has found that most want to spend their adult life in a long-term relationship raising children. More than 90 percent of young lesbians and more than 80 percent of gay males report that they expect to be partnered in a monogamous relationship after age 30. The study, conducted by the Rockway Institute, is believed to be the first major study of its kind.

An overwhelming majority of young gay men and lesbians expect to be in monogamous unions? This is big news. Advocates of gay marriage should make much of it if they are serious about promoting gay marriage.

If these advocates wish to deprive opponents of gay marriage of the gift the New York Times gave them when they featured a man in an open relationship in its recent article on gay marriage, they need to stand up and say that those who reject monogamy do not speak up for the vast majority of gay men and lesbians who want the state to recognize their monogamous unions.

So far they haven’t done that.

Share

144 Comments

  1. NDT: The basis of marriage is the biological, sexual bond.

    Indeed it is.

    However, the societal consequences of that biological, sexual bond are vastly different between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Hence, given that vast difference, society is perfectly justified in treating them differently.

    Furthermore, the consequences of promiscuity by both are radically different. In the case of homosexual couples, promiscuity is self-correcting; those who are promiscuous victimize only themselves and anyone else who chooses to share their promiscuity. Heterosexual promiscuity, on the other hand, produces a massive societal impact in the form of a baby — a third life that is utterly dependent on the other two and the relationship of the other two for its survival.

    THAT is the reason at its core that the state encourages marriage. Since this is not a consequence, nor can it ever under any circumstances be a consequence, of homosexual promiscuity, the state is under no obligation to intervene, nor is there any social benefit whatsoever to doing so. Gay promiscuity is a choice of both parties. It is the height of inanity to complain that you want the government out of your personal lives, then argue that the government should ratify your personal choices when it has no good reason to do so.

    Wrong answer. First of all, show me any woman over 80 and I will show you a woman who is infertile.

    Again, ILC, you are attempting to use an exception to disprove a rule.

    Instead of stacking the deck, take one heterosexual couple at random and one homosexual couple at random. Regardless of age, health, or desire, the heterosexual couple MAY be fertile — but the homosexual couple will NEVER be fertile.

    That also invalidates the argument that gay and lesbian people need marriage to protect their children. There are no such things as children born of gay and lesbian couples. There is literally no behavior in which a gay or lesbian couple could engage by themselves that would produce a child. In every case, it is a conscious choice involving parties OUTSIDE the relationship in order to get a child which the gay couple will then raise as its own.

    Furthermore, this argument is blackmail that could only come from the most foolish of narcissists. It involves a gay couple demanding that the government “fix” an environment that they claim is dangerous and hurtful for a child — after they, with full knowledge that the environment was dangerous and hurtful, put a child into it in the first place.

    My response is simple: if the environment was so dangerous and hurtful for the child, what kind of a parent are you to have brought the child into it in the first place? It’s like an unwed mother having a baby, then demanding that the government give her all the benefits that married people will receive because to do otherwise will hurt the child.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2008 @ 6:47 pm - June 23, 2008

  2. However, I draw the line at using the government to advocate my point of view.

    Then, in that case, you should be agitating to have the ban raised on polygamy, child marriage, incestuous marriages, and bestiality, because every single one of those is also “using the government to advocate your point of view”.

    Even your attempt of simplifying marriage by advocating that the spouse cheated on receive carte blanche rights (which I haven’t seen advocated by anyone else here) is not so simple. What if the spouse wants to remain married?

    They can remarry.

    What if the spouse knew and accepted what was going on, then out of manipulation, blackmail, or lies, decides to play the carte blanche card.

    We allow that already for spouses that turn in their criminal spouses.

    What if it’s happening, and everybody “knows” it but it still can’t be proved.

    Then it isn’t happening in the eyes of the law, just like any other crime.

    What if both cheat?

    Then, since there is no wronged spouse, the assets are dissolved and neither owes the other anything.

    What if both cheats, but only one can prove it?

    Then, just as in criminal law, the one who can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt loses, and the one who can’t wins.

    What if someone was able to “prove” the spouse cheated, and the spouse did not cheat?

    Again, criminal law; that’s why we have appeals.

    You know, Pat, these are all basic things that we’ve dealt with before in other forms of criminal law. Why are you suddenly acting as if they’re so insurmountable? You might as well argue that, because complicated robbery cases exist, we ignore all laws concerning robbery.

    The state should regulate marriage so that it benefits children and families. But until the fact of gays and lesbians forming families and having children is proven to be harmful to society and children, there is no logical reason to prohibit same-sex marriage (and its advantages for children and families) other than bias against gays and lesbians who would benefit from the existence of same-sex marriage.

    That’s easy, Brian.

    You have stated that it is harmful for children when their parents are not married; therefore, in order to prevent such harm, the government should allow gays to marry. However, you brought children into an environment where their parents are not married, and you did so deliberately.

    Therefore, Brian, what is obvious here is that you deliberately put children into an environment that you yourself have claimed is harmful to them. You knew you weren’t married and that such an environment was harmful to children; yet you brought children into that environment anyway.

    My biggest “thing” with civil unions is the idea of “separate but equal”, though I know that most people here disagree with the “rights” view. Even if one views marriage as a privilege (which there are significant arguments in favor of), then a mustn’t a state extend such to all couples, barring “significant state interest” against doing so?

    That ignores the fact that there are vast biological, psychological, and sociological differences between heterosexual and homosexual couples.

    Acknowledge those differences, and it makes perfect sense to have separate systems. Gays and lesbians can have a system that does not require monogamy, that treats promiscuity as normal, and that merely provides the convenience of tax breaks while allowing people to continue to engage in promiscuous behaviors. Meanwhile, heterosexuals have a system that encourages monogamy and greater responsibility, due to the fact that the consequences of heterosexual promiscuity carry far greater implications for society as a whole.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2008 @ 7:09 pm - June 23, 2008

  3. But there is no evidence that a same-sex couple causes harm to the children they raise.

    Brian, the “guidelines” used in authorizing adoption are a mish-mash at the very least. You can not support your statement, but neither would I ask you to do so.

    Adoption is not limited by willing adopters as it is by red tape. It is not necessary to add homosexual couples to the mix to increase the numbers. Therefore, I see this line of reasoning as basically moot.

    “In your face sexuality” is not a stumbling block for me. I am only pointing out that when some part of 3% of the population wants to strut their stuff in front of some large part of 97% of the population they are probably doing something counterproductive, if not stupid.

    “Heather Has Two Mommies” is a really stupid book. Heather had one mommy and her mommy’s love partner. But this book was a political treatise aimed at forcing parents, via their children, to face the “realities” of the new age.

    I mention this because the “radical” wing of the gay cause certainly has a propensity for sticking it to the establishment. Time and again the heterosexual majority is challenged with chewing more than it would ever elect to bite off.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 23, 2008 @ 7:35 pm - June 23, 2008

  4. It seems that the majority of this site’s readership is very sure of their own correctness in living. So much so, in fact, that they will state unequivically that their views are correct and should be the norm for everyone. It might be worth taking a moment to reflect, though, that we all have our own different choices to make. Some of us are Protestant, others Catholic, or Jewish. Some of us prefer to live in the Northeast, others the Southwest. I prefer monogamy. But if another couple finds that, within their unique relationship, extramarital intercourse is acceptable by both parties, far be it from me to tell them that they are wrong.

    I also would like to remark on our national heritage of the freedom of choice. I would expect that all patriots, even Gay Patriots, would be interested in our national heritage. We all have the right to dislike the choices of others. But we also have the responsibility to protect their right to make those choices.

    Comment by Dave — June 24, 2008 @ 8:13 am - June 24, 2008

  5. You know, Pat, these are all basic things that we’ve dealt with before in other forms of criminal law. Why are you suddenly acting as if they’re so insurmountable? You might as well argue that, because complicated robbery cases exist, we ignore all laws concerning robbery.

    Despite the fact that you found “solutions” to the situations I posed, still does not mean that marriage, even under your construct is not too complex. There are many other scenarios that I didn’t even mention. And also, the fact that marriage is much more than sex and monogamy. No, I never said that any of these things are insurmountable, but that still doesn’t change the fact that marriage, under any construct is indeed quite complex. I don’t know about you, but all the married couples I know are all quite different.

    Instead of stacking the deck, take one heterosexual couple at random and one homosexual couple at random. Regardless of age, health, or desire, the heterosexual couple MAY be fertile — but the homosexual couple will NEVER be fertile.

    So after telling ILC that he’s stacking the deck, you instead stack the deck your way. The simple fact is that any heterosexual couple in which at least one is sterile will NEVER be fertile. So it comes down to this. You don’t draw the line from fertile heterosexual couples to infertile heterosexual couples, but do draw the line between infertile heterosexual couples and all homosexual couples. Some of us don’t see the need to draw the line there, and have made compelling arguments to not draw the line there. Your arguments just seem like something you’re holding on to, and don’t want to give up.

    And before you or anyone says that I’m simply doing this out of selfishness. I don’t think any gay couple who wants to marry is any more selfish than any straight couple that wants to marry. Anyway, I’ve said time and again I’ll be okay whether or not I get the right (or privilege) to marry. And, whether you agree or disagree, I believe that same sex marriage will ultimately help the gay community as well as society in general.

    Heliotrope, I’m not disputing Aristotle’s fallacies. But simply citing them doesn’t make your argument correct, and mine and others incorrect. I disagree with the application of your argument. I teach mathematical logic. I can cite all the types of logical statements I want. But if I misapply them, my argument is worthless. No, I’m not saying your argument is worthless, because you are making excellent points. Perhaps it’s more of the premises that I disagree with.

    Comment by Pat — June 24, 2008 @ 9:17 am - June 24, 2008

  6. NDT:

    You have my argument backwards. What I am saying is that if gay and lesbians are allowed to adopt children, and society believes that it is best for children to be raised by parents who are married, then it is illogical for society to permit gay and lesbian couples to adopt children but not marry if that society is dedicated to the well being of children.

    If a person objects to both adoption and marriage for gay and lesbians couples, I will disagree with them, but they are being consistent in their worldview.

    Heliotrope:

    In New York City, there are hundreds of children in foster care and group homes who will never be adopted because there is a dearth of applicants. These children will just age out of the system. Red tape (at least in New York City) is part of the process, but manageable and couples are given a good deal of help (private agencies may be different — our experience is with city agencies).

    I agree that “in your face” sexual behavior is not a winning strategy. But extremes exist in all groups, and one of the prices of a free society is having to deal with the free expression of the fringes. It makes life difficult sometimes, but censorship and authoritarian measures are for me an unpalatable response.

    Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — June 24, 2008 @ 9:18 am - June 24, 2008

  7. Pat says:

    Perhaps it’s more of the premises that I disagree with.

    Aristotle’s 13 fallacies all deal with a faulty premise. You can not have a valid argument with a faulty premise.

    My reference to “accident” is based on the faulty premise that an infertile heterosexual couple somehow violates the marriage contract and therefore infertile homosexual couples should be allowed to marry on the basis that …………..? Frankly, I don’t know how to finish the argument because it is so faulty.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 24, 2008 @ 11:13 am - June 24, 2008

  8. Brian, I wish my comments were not evocative of “censorship” or being “authoritarian.” That is not my nature. I am attempting to make it clear that gays must “sell” same sex marriage to an overwhelming majority who mostly oppose the idea. I believe that gays who are sedate and keep their private lives to themselves will get a lot further in their quest for same sex marriage than if they rile up the hen house with their demands and shouting. I suppose I am promoting self censorship.

    I strongly favor civil unions. It is a way to make an exception to the marriage contract and would be hard to revoke, once instituted. Some states would never adopt civil unions, so it is not a sweeping national change. My state of Virginia seems to be opposed to them. However, I still believe they would be easier to achieve than gay marriage.

    This thread was about gay monogamy. It is dead on in its intent. If gays tried to get civil unions without the monogamy provision, they would be defeated before they began.

    I am just talking politics here and politics is all about the forces you want to overcome.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 24, 2008 @ 11:38 am - June 24, 2008

  9. You have my argument backwards.

    No, I have it exactly right. You are merely trying to spin away from the fact that your blackmail unravels when it is pointed out that you CHOSE to put children into an environment that you are now claiming is harmful and hurtful for them — because you have the choice of admitting that you did so, which calls into stark question your judgment, or admitting that the children that gay and lesbian people procure from others to raise as their own are not harmed by being put in that situation, which obliterates your “rationale” for marriage and makes your attempt to lie and blackmail straight people obvious.

    Which shall it be, Brian?

    I don’t know about you, but all the married couples I know are all quite different.

    Which means what — that the rules and definitions of marriage should be changed ad nauseum based on what the participants want, versus any sort of stable societal expectation?

    Again, Pat, you want the benefits, but you don’t want to follow the rules. You insist that sexual partners should be able to redefine marriage to be whatever they want and that society should just follow along because every relationship is “different”.

    Here we have exactly the expression of that mentality.

    But if another couple finds that, within their unique relationship, extramarital intercourse is acceptable by both parties, far be it from me to tell them that they are wrong.

    I think it should be publicized that gay and lesbian people, just as that example shows, view promiscuity and extramarital affairs as being just another “choice” in marriage and no different or worse than monogamy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2008 @ 12:14 pm - June 24, 2008

  10. Bit of a contradiction here. So many are joining the “it’s not the government’s business to force people to practice monogamy” chorus that it’s useful to contemplate whether these same people feel it’s “not the government’s business” to force people to practice racial tolerance.

    If it’s not the government’s business if an individual person is a swinger, is it any more the government’s business if an individual person is a racist? Do we not have vast bureaucracies devoted to enforcing a particular vision of racial tolerance? Do we do not allow our government to do this because “it’s for the good of society?” Is committed, monogamous marriage not also good for society?

    I suspect that with most, it’s not a matter of government intrusion into matters of individual conscience as much as it is government intrusion into matters of conscious one happens to agree or disagree with.

    Comment by V the K — June 24, 2008 @ 12:22 pm - June 24, 2008

  11. Has the United States found itself with such high numbers of “infertile” married couples (for whatever reason) that they compromise the validity of the compelling state interest in promoting marriage between one man and one woman as the progenitors of the family?

    I don’t really think this is a numbers game or statistics exercise.

    What are actually important are the all the implicit exceptions in the law to the assumed purpose of producing and raising biological children. If you keep tacking on “excepts”, especially for what you claim is a very small percentage of the population, it starts to get a bit ridiculous. As I already expressed these exceptions to the biological child purpose:

    One or two may be an accident, but the state ignores [various kinds of infertile couples], couples who are not infertile but who choose not to reproduce, couples who use contraceptive devices to not reproduce, couples who choose not to biologically reproduce but do adopt children, and couples who choose to neither reproduce nor adopt, but who instead provide foster homes.

    And while adoptive and foster parents are exceptions to your bio-child rule, I really don’t think they’re exceptions to the real societal good of providing a child with a stable, loving home.

    And we’re not only talking just the exception of infertile childless couples, either, but couples who choose not to reproduce, as well. We grant them marriage benefits, which you say are created because of the state interest in child-rearing.

    So we protect the heterosexual couple that chooses not to raise children, but not the gay one that chooses to raise children. Because the civil purpose of marriage benefits is raising children and providing them with a stable home? That’s somehow logical, in your eyes??

    Comment by PSUdain — June 24, 2008 @ 12:22 pm - June 24, 2008

  12. If you want to make it a straight-up numbers game, here they are:

    Of men 65-74, 80.9% were married, of women 55.1%. In the 75 and above category men were at 70.8% and women at 27.0%. (1995 data.)

    As a percent of the population, we have the following:
    Men 65-74 &nbsp&nbsp 23.9% &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Women 65-74 &nbsp&nbsp 28.4%
    Men 75-84 &nbsp&nbsp 14.0% &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Women 75-84 &nbsp&nbsp 21.2%
    Men 85+ &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp 3.5% &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Women 85+ &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp 9.0%

    (No 1995 data available, 1990 & 2000 data exhibit <1% difference in each, used 2000 data.)

    So by taking that data (you can check my calculations if you like), we get the following: 31.7% of men are 65+ AND married, and 23.8% of women.

    Using 2000 population data for the total number of women we get a minimum number of 33 million couples where at least one member is 65+. Now, we can agree that women over 65 are nearly all infertile due to the aging process, so we have at least 33 million infertile couples right there.

    Pretty high number considering that the absolute maximum number of possible couples is 134 million (the total number of males, which is < the number of females), meaning the actual number is lower.

    You wanted numbers, so I gave you numbers. (I know there might be some couples over 65 who still have at least one dependent child, or are raising a grandchild, but really, these numbers are so small, clearly it’s just an accident. Plus, in the grandkids case, as you’ve argued, we shouldn’t incentivize people raising children not their own.)

    Comment by PSUdain — June 24, 2008 @ 12:24 pm - June 24, 2008

  13. Bit of a contradiction here. So many are joining the “it’s not the government’s business to force people to practice monogamy” chorus that it’s useful to contemplate whether these same people feel it’s “not the government’s business” to force people to practice racial tolerance.

    Yup. A contradiction, indeed. Except… I don’t think it’s the government’s job to “force racial tolerance” anywhere but in the government itself (and by any person or organization accepting government contracts or grant money). And even there they can only enforce racially tolerant/egalitarian practices, not personal beliefs.

    Comment by PSUdain — June 24, 2008 @ 12:29 pm - June 24, 2008

  14. My reference to “accident” is based on the faulty premise that an infertile heterosexual couple somehow violates the marriage contract and therefore infertile homosexual couples should be allowed to marry on the basis that …………..? Frankly, I don’t know how to finish the argument because it is so faulty.

    Heliotrope, I agree that is a bad argument, and not one I was making.

    Again, Pat, you want the benefits, but you don’t want to follow the rules. You insist that sexual partners should be able to redefine marriage to be whatever they want and that society should just follow along because every relationship is “different”.

    Um, I never said such thing, and never meant such things. When I said that all couples are different, why did you assume I was simply talking about sex and monogamy, especially in the context of the comment I was saying that marriage isn’t only about sex and monogamy. And then you further stated I don’t want to follow the rules when, on several occasions, I’ve stated that I am monogamous, and believe that married couples should be monogamous. So I don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

    Here’s part of the problem here. You are trying to read between the lines of what I (and others who disagree with you) are saying. Newsflash, humans suck big time when it comes to reading between the lines. Newsflash 2, the worst offenders are those who claim they are experts at reading between the lines. You’re no exception here. I’m starting to think that people argue more over what’s not said than what is said.

    I think it should be publicized that gay and lesbian people, just as that example shows, view promiscuity and extramarital affairs as being just another “choice” in marriage and no different or worse than monogamy.

    Because of one’s persons view? Or your exaggerated perception of what the gay community believes? Your arguments are getting more and more desperate.

    Not only am I more than willing to follow the rules, I WANT to follow the rules. However, my willingness and want to do so, unfortunately, does not mean others will. And because others don’t, should not stop others who do want to and willing to follow the rules. Despite the fact that many heterosexual couples don’t want to follow the rules, heterosexual marriage has not been banned. And interestingly enough, there hasn’t been a push by straight or gay persons to follow your rules of marriage. Why is that?

    Comment by Pat — June 24, 2008 @ 1:00 pm - June 24, 2008

  15. ND40:

    You are still not getting my argument. When the claim is made that children are best raised by biological parents in order to oppose same-sex marriage, the person making that claim brings into play the fact that many children are not raised by their biological parents and the State does nothing to prevent this from occurring. If the State needs to prevent same-sex marriage in order to serve the best interests of children, why does this argument not hold for adoptive or step families as well?

    As far as my family is concerned, our children have gone from group homes to a stable, loving home, so the only thing I admit to is that my husband and I have improved their lives to a great extent (unless you think that a group home is a better existence for a child than living with a loving, committed couple). But like any parent I want what is best for my children, and the best is available by allowing my husband and I to have our marriage recognized by the State. To not recognize it is to punish our children who have done nothing wrong and whom the State gave to us in the first place in order to improve their lives. So unless the State argues that children placed with same-sex couples are deserving of less benefits than those with biological and/or opposite-sex couples, there is no rational reason to oppose same-sex marriage.

    But if the State believes that the best situation for children is with a married, committed couple, then they logically should allow same-sex marriage since they already allow same-sex couples to adopt children. Conversely, if the State believes that same-sex couples are unfit to be parents, they should not allow them to adopt children. But once the State allows such adoptions, it is illogical and punitive to shut those children off from any benefits that come from having married parents (that is if the State believes in doing the best for all its children). By allowing same-sex couples to adopt children, the State weakened its case against same-sex marriage if it also believes in protecting the welfare of all children and that such welfare is best served by having children raised by married couples.

    Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — June 24, 2008 @ 1:36 pm - June 24, 2008

  16. Despite the fact that many heterosexual couples don’t want to follow the rules, heterosexual marriage has not been banned.

    As I pointed out above, Pat, heterosexual marriage has value above and beyond preventing promiscuity; it also provides stability for society and a mechanism by which society can perpetuate itself. Indeed, without heterosexuality to perpetuate its practitioners, there would be no homosexuality.

    In contrast, homosexuality cannot perpetuate itself; furthermore, as we’ve seen here, homosexual marriage does nothing to prevent promiscuity like it’s claimed to do, and homosexuals themselves state that monogamy and promiscuity are completely equivalent, with the latter being just as valuable as the former.

    Because of one’s persons view?

    So let’s see; you’ve now had to use this “it’s just one person’s view” excuse for six different people — Kevin, Kene, PSUdain, Brian, Dave, and Eric Erbelding. Furthermore, as GPW pointed out in his post, he found hardly anything on a wide assortment of gay sites that would either a) promote monogamy or b) discourage promiscuity, despite all of these sites screaming about “marriage”.

    Despite what promiscuous gays tell you, Pat, there is a right and a wrong – and simply put, if you normalize promiscuity and disregard of the rules within marriage as no less than six — nearly a majority of the gays on this thread, on a conservative gay site — have done, then you are destroying the usefulness of marriage as a social institution and stable building block.

    And interestingly enough, there hasn’t been a push by straight or gay persons to follow your rules of marriage. Why is that?

    Gay people as a whole, no. But there is a TREMENDOUS upswelling in support of demanding monogamy in marriage among heterosexuals and gay people here and there who respect what marriage stands for and what sexual responsibility means.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2008 @ 1:37 pm - June 24, 2008

  17. Brian, again, you are so incalculated with liberal gay ideology that you don’t even realize the inanity of what you are saying.

    To not recognize it is to punish our children who have done nothing wrong

    The state didn’t order you to take those children, nor were you in any way compelled to do so. You petitioned the state to allow you to raise them by your choice, and the state agreed after thoroughly evaluating the situation, including (no doubt) the fact that you are unmarried.

    Now you are coming back and insisting that the state made a mistake because putting children in an environment like you provide is “punishing” them — and you are essentially trying to blackmail the state into giving you marriage to fix this “mistake”.

    Not so. If you were so concerned that those children were being “punished”, the responsible thing to do would be to not bring them into that environment in the first place. However, you made the choice to do so, and that makes your argument nothing more than the worst example of child exploitation and opportunism. YOU are the one who “punished” your children by deliberately bringing them into the environment that you did.

    It is of course most desirable that children be raised by their married, biological parents. But since the state can’t compel people who have children, i.e. single unwed mothers, to get married, it has already established that, if necessary, it will allow other situations that are less desirable to have children in them, including adoptions by gay people.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2008 @ 1:54 pm - June 24, 2008

  18. ND40:

    I am not saying that the State made a mistake at all. In fact, I think it made a wise choice. My husband and I have created a wonderful home for children who had none. I do not see how it was “punishment” to provide a loving home for our children. That is your characterization, not mine.

    All I am saying is that a fine situation can be made even better by recognizing our marriage. What rational objection can a person have to improving the lot of children?

    The State can add stability to our family by granting governmental recognition of our marriage. Why should the State be reluctant to take this additional step when it has already allowed us to adopt these children in order to improve their lot in life? What purpose is served if the State withholds additional stability from our family?

    As you note, the State cannot compel biological parents to raise the children they conceive and bear. So if the State permits gay couples to adopt these abandoned children, why wouldn’t it want to optimize the circumstances under which these children are raised (if the State considers the well-being of all children vital to society)?

    Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — June 24, 2008 @ 2:19 pm - June 24, 2008

  19. What rational objection can a person have to improving the lot of children?

    And here we see the flip.

    First Brian attempted to argue that his children were being “punished” by the state.

    Then, when it was pointed out that, if that was true, he deliberately endangered children by putting them into a situation in which they would be “punished”, he flip-flopped, trying to argue that it was NOT punishment, but that the state owed it to them to “optimize” their situation.

    Being a leftist, he doesn’t realize that he has just admitted that his children are perfectly fine without marriage.

    Hence, the state doesn’t need to “optimize” anything. If that had been the point, the state never would have allowed the adoption in the first place; it would have held off until a suitable married heterosexual couple came along.

    Furthermore, if the state is compelled to “optimize” these things through marriage, the state then should demand that all people with children be married because that would “improve the lot of children”.

    After all, what “rational objection” can people have to that?

    Bet Brian has one, though; I’m sure he’ll be happy to explain to us the position he takes in which the state should grant marriage because not doing is harmful to the children gay couples are raising, but that gay couples with children should not be forced to get married because the state has no business claiming their lack of marriage is harmful to the children they’re raising.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2008 @ 2:58 pm - June 24, 2008

  20. ND40:

    Again, you used the term punishment. I did not.

    My children and I were actually harmed when my husband had to declilne a job offering since the company would not not recognize our marriage, and therefore, would deny me inclusion in his benefits. The amount it would have cost to insure me would have negated the increase in salary my husband would have received. What could have been an economic boon for our family was thwarted.

    I have no problem with the State demanding that all couples who are raising children be married. I think it is the optimal situation and would benefit society. I do not believe in domestic partnerships. I think that they weaken society as does no-fault divorce which should also be abolished (though that will never happen since no-fault divorce is too much of a benefit for heterosexuals. You could never even get enough signatures to put it on the ballot in California, never mind hope to pass it).

    Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — June 24, 2008 @ 3:35 pm - June 24, 2008

  21. Again, you used the term punishment. I did not.

    I quote from you directly:

    To not recognize it is to punish our children who have done nothing wrong

    Next:

    My children and I were actually harmed when my husband had to declilne a job offering since the company would not not recognize our marriage, and therefore, would deny me inclusion in his benefits. The amount it would have cost to insure me would have negated the increase in salary my husband would have received. What could have been an economic boon for our family was thwarted.

    I have news for you, Brian; that is a choice that married heterosexuals face every day when they have to decide whether or not to accept new jobs that have employee-only health insurance, or when they have to decide what the most inexpensive way to cover their spouse and children is.

    Furthermore, you revert to your blackmail — “give me a raise and benefits or you’ll hurt the children that I chose to have and that I chose to put into a situation that I am now claiming is harmful because we don’t make enough money.”

    I have no problem with the State demanding that all couples who are raising children be married.

    Oh, now that is hilarious. You oppose requiring monogamy in marriage, but you support forcing all people who are raising children to be married.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2008 @ 3:55 pm - June 24, 2008

  22. Well, my partner and I are gay and we don’t want marriage or think it is appropriate to be married by the state. We are different than heterosexual couples. It is as simple as that. It’s becoming tiring to read all the proponents of gay marriage attempt to explain away such a well established tradition. I don’t feel trampled on, I’m not self-loathing, and I don’t have some psychological need to be treated ‘the same’ as everyone else. I don’t need to go to court and complain discrimination. The only discrimination is that gays and straights are different. Wake up. Take a look at who is lying in bed next to you. Roll over on them….go ahead….I bet you can’t make a child no matter how hard you try.
    Quit all your bellyaching. I am so tired of screaming complaining gays. All of you ‘out there’ gays do not speak for a large number of other gays who think you are a bunch of wackos. I don’t need to thank drag queens for where I am anymore, I don’t want ridiculous parades that make us look like a bunch of fools and perverts, and I don’t want to hang out with you ‘mainstream’ gays that are so intolerant of others’ beliefs. You couldn’t pay me to go to a gathering of gays I don’t know and live through an evening of sexual innuendos, flaming queens, and conversation that borders on sixth grade material. You are only deluding yourself if you think you are the mainstream. Didn’t you learn anything growing up? Better yet, grow up.

    Comment by Scott L. — June 24, 2008 @ 3:59 pm - June 24, 2008

  23. ND40:

    Our situation was different. The job offered more than employee-only health coverage. I was not covered because I was a same-sex spouse. Opposite-sex spouses were covered.

    I am all for monogamy so long as it is required of all people who want to be married. If heterosexuals can be non-monogamous and maintain their marriages, then same-sex couples should have the same freedom. From my experience, monogamy is better both for the couple and for the children, but the State disagrees since it allows non-monogamous marriages to continue to be recognized as marriages.

    Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — June 24, 2008 @ 4:14 pm - June 24, 2008

  24. I rest my case. However, one loose end needs to be addressed. PSUdain asks:

    So we protect the heterosexual couple that chooses not to raise children, but not the gay one that chooses to raise children. Because the civil purpose of marriage benefits is raising children and providing them with a stable home? That’s somehow logical, in your eyes??

    Again we have a premise problem. “The civil purpose of marriage benefits is raising children and providing them with a stable home.” The argument depends on the validity of that premise. The premise is not true. The marriage right is not predicated upon the successful production or adoption of children. Nor is the marriage contract in jeopardy if the married couple fail to provide a stable home. Therefore, everything that follows this false premise can not lead to a logical conclusion.

    The state recognizes marriage for very fundamental reasons. Among these are shared property and inheritance rights and rights and responsibilities concerning children.

    The culture determines whether marriage will include many mates or just one, whether same sex couples can marry, or how closely related married partners may be. The age of a partner at the time of marriage is also culturally bound.

    To change the marriage definition, you must change the culture. To change the culture, you must convince the majority that the change makes sense. Changing the culture is part politics, part finesse, part salesmanship, and huge doses of common sense.

    Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, England and Canada are under tremendous pressure to work Sharia into their legal systems. Polygamy is just around the bend for these countries if they adopt aspects of Sharia. Allowing polygamy to accommodate Sharia would be the camel’s nose under the tent of traditional marriage.

    Does anyone here believe that once Sharia and polygamy have been recognized that gay marriage is the next step? (Check the web for Sharia/gay relationships in the Netherlands.)

    On the other hand, if the state redefines marriage to include same sex couples, why would the Islamic Sharia polygamists not have an equal or perhaps better claim?

    This is about much more than just a small group of gays who want to be married.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 24, 2008 @ 5:55 pm - June 24, 2008

  25. #124: Sharia will lead to acceptance of gay marriages. Right. These “people” oppose gay breathing.

    Comment by Attmay — June 24, 2008 @ 6:23 pm - June 24, 2008

  26. Our situation was different.

    Of course, dear; we know that you believe that heterosexual couples have never had to make a decision about what job to take based on benefits coverage. But that’s neither a realistic or intelligent view.

    If heterosexuals can be non-monogamous and maintain their marriages, then same-sex couples should have the same freedom.

    As Scott so elegantly and pointedly put it, gay couples are different than straight couples. Again, your denying it does not negate the fact.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2008 @ 7:24 pm - June 24, 2008

  27. As I pointed out above, Pat, heterosexual marriage has value above and beyond preventing promiscuity; it also provides stability for society and a mechanism by which society can perpetuate itself. Indeed, without heterosexuality to perpetuate its practitioners, there would be no homosexuality.

    Thanks, NDT. Sounds like an excellent argument for same sex marriage.

    So let’s see; you’ve now had to use this “it’s just one person’s view” excuse for six different people — Kevin, Kene, PSUdain, Brian, Dave, and Eric Erbelding.

    First of all, I didn’t have to use this excuse for PSUdain or Brian, both who support monogamy in marriage. I don’t recall what Kene or Dave said about this. When I have time, I may look back and see what they said.

    By the way, have you apologized to PSUdain for your egregious slander against him yet?

    Further, I can use this “excuse” many more times. Unless six represents a majority of all gay couples.

    As Scott so elegantly and pointedly put it, gay couples are different than straight couples. Again, your denying it does not negate the fact.

    And repeating this “elegant” mantra doesn’t prove that gay couples are so different that they should be denied marriage. Again, NDT, if you and Scott feel you are so different and should be denied marriage, please, don’t get married. The rest of us will get married when we find the right person and the right time. And you can keep spouting about how different you are.

    no less than six — nearly a majority of the gays on this thread, on a conservative gay site

    Did Eric Erbelding comment on this site? And again, PSUdain and Brian support monogamy. And I haven’t checked yet to see if you mischaracterized the others yet. So much for your majority.

    Gay people as a whole, no. But there is a TREMENDOUS upswelling in support of demanding monogamy in marriage among heterosexuals and gay people here and there who respect what marriage stands for and what sexual responsibility means.

    Wow. It’s taken gay couples for heterosexuals to look at monogamy in their marriages. Interesting. We’ll see if you’re right, and with this tremendous upswelling, your solution becomes a law. In the meantime, I still haven’t seen anyone else in this thread, even those who oppose gay marriage, advocate for your solution.

    Well, my partner and I are gay and we don’t want marriage or think it is appropriate to be married by the state. We are different than heterosexual couples. It is as simple as that.

    Scott, I tell you what. If and when same sex marriage becomes legal, and if you still feel that you and your partner (if he agrees with you) are so different that you don’t deserve the privilege of getting married, then don’t get married. That should solve your problem.

    Of course, dear; we know that you believe that heterosexual couples have never had to make a decision about what job to take based on benefits coverage.

    Heterosexual married couples never had the problem of being denied the same benefits that other married couples received. All persons, gay or straight, had to make decisions on benefits. But for now, homosexual couples have a burden that married couples don’t.

    Comment by Pat — June 25, 2008 @ 10:32 am - June 25, 2008

  28. Thanks, NDT. Sounds like an excellent argument for same sex marriage.

    No, it sounds like an excellent argument for heterosexual marriage. You are making an argument akin to that, because cat food is good for cats, it must be good for dogs as well and that feeding it to dogs is good for cats. Heterosexual relationships are different than homosexual ones, and most certainly can be treated differently.

    First of all, I didn’t have to use this excuse for PSUdain or Brian, both who support monogamy in marriage.

    Correction. Neither PSUdain or Brian support monogamy in marriage. They support the definition of marriage being based solely on the sexual desires of the multiple individuals involved, with promiscuity having equal acceptance and tolerance as monogamy.

    By the way, have you apologized to PSUdain for your egregious slander against him yet?

    Let us see, Pat; both you and he insist that there is nothing wrong with promiscuity, that promiscuity should be just as acceptable as monogamy or abstinence – but you insist that a mention of promiscuity in regards to someone else is “slander”.

    Wow. It’s taken gay couples for heterosexuals to look at monogamy in their marriages. Interesting.

    Actually, Pat, the churches and religious organizations that you denounce and detest have been pushing and demanding monogamy and faithfulness in marriage for centuries. They, indeed, are the ones who came up with the concept in the first place, millenia before gay marriage was even thought about — and they have been the ones speaking out the most loudly against the sexual libertinism out of which the gay movement grew.

    The problem here, as usual, is that you are trying to tear down straight people rather than to acknowledge severe problems with gay culture that make it obvious that marriage is not an effective structure for it.

    Heterosexual married couples never had the problem of being denied the same benefits that other married couples received.

    Sure they did — when they changed companies, or when they had to make a decision over to what employer to go, just as in the case mentioned.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2008 @ 5:59 pm - June 25, 2008

  29. Once the Demographic collapse of Europe causes a profound milestone to become apparent, I believe it will quickly become a pressing Govt issue whether or not things like abortion or birth control can be restricted.

    I believe they will be.

    Comment by Vince P — June 25, 2008 @ 8:44 pm - June 25, 2008

  30. NTD says:

    Because of one’s persons view?

    So let’s see; you’ve now had to use this “it’s just one person’s view” excuse for six different people — Kevin, Kene, PSUdain, Brian, Dave, and Eric Erbelding.

    Except I have not ever supported and will not support such a position. I have explicitly said as much right here. Stop telling me what I think, stop misrepresenting me, and stop lying, you royal jackass.

    Comment by PSUdain — June 26, 2008 @ 2:31 am - June 26, 2008

  31. And as I read on, I found these gems. NDT says

    Correction. Neither PSUdain or Brian support monogamy in marriage. They support the definition of marriage being based solely on the sexual desires of the multiple individuals involved, with promiscuity having equal acceptance and tolerance as monogamy.

    […]

    Let us see, Pat; both you and he insist that there is nothing wrong with promiscuity, that promiscuity should be just as acceptable as monogamy or abstinence – but you insist that a mention of promiscuity in regards to someone else is “slander”.

    However, in my own words:

    #37

    Actually, I may never have said so explicitly here, but I have in the past. And while I don’t like to cede ground to an online bully (more on that later), I will make it clear: I do not agree with Kevin. I think Kevin’s ideas are flawed. I think ideal marriage is monogamous, but there is room for forgiveness if cheating occurs, even repeatedly. I do not think swinging is a lifestyle I would enjoy or could ever live, nor do I think it’s a good one in general. I have certainly never called monogamy “authoritarian”.

    Clear enough?

    #38

    That might be true if I exhibited a lack of control. Or if I was promiscuous. Not that it’s any of your business. I’ve just had it with your arrogant demeanor and general inability to be civil, and I’m calling you out.
    […]
    I am abstinent. And I will remain so until I am in a committed relationship. (Can’t say I’m waiting for marriage, as I can’t get one of those yet. At least not the kind that is most important to me—religious marriage. I’m glad the ELCA is (cautiously–we are Lutherans, after all) moving closer to having a service for same-sex couples.) And that committed relationship will be monogamous.

    The only time my name has been connected to support for non-monogamy has been in your posts.

    That leaves two basic possibilities. Either you are deliberately lying, or you have abominable reading comprehension. (Well there is a third, but that involves the statement in bold not being clear. In the future should I merely grunt and point for you?)

    Just because you say something over and over doesn’t make it true. In this case it makes you delusional.

    Lastly allow me fill you in on a general rule: If you ever find yourself saying to someone else, “You think [X],”—DON’T. You will almost certainly be wrong. Instead use, “Are you saying [X]?” That works better for creating a fruitful discussion.

    Comment by PSUdain — June 26, 2008 @ 2:58 am - June 26, 2008

  32. NDT,
    Not that I think he needs someone else to stand up and speak for him, but I am personally curious where and when Pat has denounced and expressed how he detests religious organizations:

    Actually, Pat, the churches and religious organizations that you denounce and detest […]

    That wasn’t in this post, unless I missed it. Was it in another?

    Or are you just makin’ stuff up again, you kidder, you?

    Comment by PSUdain — June 26, 2008 @ 3:02 am - June 26, 2008

  33. […] only to see his blog in those moments of excess. On Friday, when searching his blog for my post on gay marriage advocates and monogamy, I chanced upon two posts which showed he had retained some sense. In one, he acknowledged he was […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Return of the Sensible Sullivan? — June 26, 2008 @ 4:37 am - June 26, 2008

  34. PSUdian, I have carefully reread your comments in #15 concerning marriage and I come away feeling that you have not settled in your own mind what constitutes marriage. In fact, it would appear that you see it as unique to each set or group of partners.

    I also notice that you seem to be looking for a set of “rules” to defend or oppose.

    In short, it appears that for you, marriage would best be a ceremony in which the participants agree to their own style of commitments, followed by a period of learning to live together as well as possible.

    The fundamental Islamists can marry a partner for an afternoon of trysting and then divorce her after the orgasm by telling her so three times. I do not relish that type of marriage relativism. From reading your comments in #15, I can not see how your many thoughts on the topic would not eventually wind down a similar path.

    Either the state has a compelling interest in regulating marriage or it does not. Perhaps you might spend some time thinking through what you would permit and what you prohibit in marriage if you were justifying the compelling state interest in plain, concise terms.

    I appreciate that you do not like to have inferences ascribed to you that are not correct. Ambiguity and “musing aloud” in writing sometimes makes one to appear to be saying things he does not intend to say.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 26, 2008 @ 9:39 am - June 26, 2008

  35. Let us see, Pat; both you and he insist that there is nothing wrong with promiscuity, that promiscuity should be just as acceptable as monogamy or abstinence – but you insist that a mention of promiscuity in regards to someone else is “slander”.

    I’ve been very careful about using the term “lying” to describe your gross mischaracterization of my posts, but you continue to cross the line. Now, I can safely say you are outright lying, and I’m getting tired of your disgusting act. Please cut it out, NDT. Why can’t we disagree without the lies, namecalling, and slander?

    I have stated on several occasions that I strongly discourage promiscuity and believe married couples should be monogamous. But yet, you continue to lie about my position. I ask you again, to cut this crap out. You know I am very patient, but after all these lies, it gets quite sickening after a while.

    Oh, the slander I refer to was not that PSUdain supports promiscuity in marriage (which he also said wasn’t true), but that you stated that he was promiscuous. A lie that you repeated even after he told you that it wasn’t true. Yet, you were able to “prove” it with the logic of a cockroach.

    Correction. Neither PSUdain or Brian support monogamy in marriage. They support the definition of marriage being based solely on the sexual desires of the multiple individuals involved, with promiscuity having equal acceptance and tolerance as monogamy.

    Another lie. Keep going, you’re on a roll.

    The problem here, as usual, is that you are trying to tear down straight people rather than to acknowledge severe problems with gay culture that make it obvious that marriage is not an effective structure for it.

    No. I criticize both. You, on the other hand give churches who support anti-gay policies a free pass, and excuse their behavior by blaming the gay community. Or excuse parents who can’t accept their gay children. I have criticized the gay community on several occasions on promiscuity. I don’t mention this all the time when we discuss, because we agree on this point.

    Not that I think he needs someone else to stand up and speak for him, but I am personally curious where and when Pat has denounced and expressed how he detests religious organizations:

    Thanks, PSUdain. Actually, I’ll regard it as a half-truth, which is a step up for NDT these days.

    On other discussions we’ve had, I have criticized religious organizations for their anti-gay stances. I have also mentioned my utter dislike for persons like Robertson, Dobson, and LaBarbera, who are despicable creatures, who use their religion as an excuse for their bigotry and hate.

    The funny thing is if he has translated these criticisms to “detest.” Yet NDT’s criticisms and denunciations for the gay community far outweigh the criticisms that I have leveled on the religious community. Makes you wonder how much NDT detests the gay community.

    If NDT said I detest Dobson, et al, he would be correct, as I do. I don’t detest most religious organizations. In fact, I have colleagues who are nuns that I have the highest respect for. Most of them know I’m gay, no biggee. And some of them have criticisms about religious organizations too, without detesting them. Funny that.

    Sure they did — when they changed companies, or when they had to make a decision over to what employer to go, just as in the case mentioned.

    Any time a married couple worked for a company that offered benefits for a spouse, no married couple was ever denied these spousal benefits from THAT company. Many times a gay couple (who would have been legally married otherwise) have been denied benefits for his spouse even though the company offered benefits to workers who was married.

    I am fully aware that not all companies offer benefits for a company’s spouse. That’s not what I was talking about, no matter how many times you wish to misconstrue what I write.

    Lastly allow me fill you in on a general rule: If you ever find yourself saying to someone else, “You think [X],”—DON’T. You will almost certainly be wrong. Instead use, “Are you saying [X]?” That works better for creating a fruitful discussion.

    Good advice for you to follow, NDT. I don’t know whether or not you think you are clever in reading between the lines, but you absolutely suck at it. I mean, it’s really BAD. I’ve always said that humans are generally bad, but you are, by far, the worst at it. In fact, we see that it leads to your gross mischaracterizations, lies, and slander.

    Comment by Pat — June 26, 2008 @ 10:56 am - June 26, 2008

  36. I have stated on several occasions that I strongly discourage promiscuity and believe married couples should be monogamous. But yet, you continue to lie about my position.

    I simply point out that, while you claim to oppose promiscuity and believe in monogamy, you call criticism of those who practice the former and ditch the latter “self-righteous”.

    The problem is that I’m simply not an adherent of the belief that one’s minority status allows one to make contradictory statements without being inconsistent.

    You, on the other hand give churches who support anti-gay policies a free pass, and excuse their behavior by blaming the gay community.

    Mhm, mhm.

    Seems I charge for those free passes, and I blame them when they do stupid things.

    Problem is, in the gay community, it’s all or nothing; if you don’t blame religious people for everything, you aren’t blaming them for anything, and if you blame gay people for anything, you’re blaming them for everything.

    Makes you wonder how much NDT detests the gay community.

    Given the behaviors it supports and endorses, why shouldn’t I?

    I happen to think the unnecessary death of over 250,000 people because the gay community decided to put promiscuity ahead of responsibility is something worthy of detesting.

    I happen to think the savaging of any gay person who disagrees with the chosen gay ideology, including publishing the names and addresses of their parents and encouraging people to “make them bleed” is something worthy of detesting.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 26, 2008 @ 1:15 pm - June 26, 2008

  37. I simply point out that, while you claim to oppose promiscuity and believe in monogamy, you call criticism of those who practice the former and ditch the latter “self-righteous”.

    NDT, I do recall using the term self-righteous in this discussion. My recollection was that I used the term “self-righteous” in the sense that I don’t have to proclaim that I’m not promiscuous and criticize promiscuity every time we have a discussion of monogamy and promiscuity, and the implications of what happens when others are not monogamous.

    But whatever you interpreted, I state again that I oppose promiscuity and believe in monogamy.

    Try this in the future. If you think I’ve stated something that contradicts the above, then please feel free to ask then how that (future) statement is consistent with the above. Believe me, I’ll be happy to explain how. It’s much better to having you simply state, because you read something between the lines or misinterpreted, or whatever, that I support promiscuity and oppose monogamy.

    Seems I charge for those free passes, and I blame them when they do stupid things.

    Okay, NDT, let’s put it this way. Yes, you have on these two occasions in the past three or so years criticized two detestable individuals. Congratulations. I have laid criticism many more times against many in the gay community than you have criticized these persons or anti-gay religious organizations. Yet, that isn’t good enough. I’ll take back “free pass” and say “almost a free pass.”

    Problem is, in the gay community, it’s all or nothing; if you don’t blame religious people for everything, you aren’t blaming them for anything, and if you blame gay people for anything, you’re blaming them for everything.

    Maybe it’s the crowd you hang out with. I’ve never experienced such a thing with the gay people I know, many of which are to the left of me.

    Could it be that you simply are misinterpreting these persons? I only ask, because you’ve said the same about me in the past. Because I certainly agree with you now that it doesn’t have to be all or nothing.

    I happen to think the unnecessary death of over 250,000 people because the gay community decided to put promiscuity ahead of responsibility is something worthy of detesting.

    That’s fine, although I don’t believe it’s all of the gay community. Not sure what you mean when you just say “the gay community”?

    But I also happen to believe the fact that there are leaders such as Dobson, et al who spew hate and demonize homosexuals is something worthy of detesting. I believe that government leaders, who actually know better, who pander to the anti-gay hate are worthy of detesting, and parents, who should know better, who shun their child because they can’t accept their sexuality are worthy of sharp criticism.

    happen to think the savaging of any gay person who disagrees with the chosen gay ideology, including publishing the names and addresses of their parents and encouraging people to “make them bleed” is something worthy of detesting.

    So do I, and I stated so on several occasions.

    Comment by Pat — June 26, 2008 @ 3:04 pm - June 26, 2008

  38. Problem is, in the gay community, it’s all or nothing; if you don’t blame religious people for everything, you aren’t blaming them for anything, and if you blame gay people for anything, you’re blaming them for everything.

    I don’t know what “gay community” you’re talking about, but in addition to my involvement in the Church on campus (where I am openly gay, and accepted without reserve), I am also actively involved in several LGBT organizations on campus (where I am openly Lutheran and accepted without reserve).

    I’ve never seen a conflict between the two, nor do my friends in either set. In fact, it is often viewed as an asset by both.

    Perhaps your problem with the “gay community” is you’re doing the same thing to them/us as some “gay leftists” do to gay conservatives. Perhaps you take a few outrageous statements by a few fringes and/or deliberately misinterpret statements by non-fringe and use that brush to paint the whole thing?

    Or maybe you’re using an outdated view of the community? It would seem to be especially true with regard to the whole issue of this post, in light of that 80% figure (and other things I’ve read or seen).

    Comment by PSUdain — June 26, 2008 @ 5:32 pm - June 26, 2008

  39. How many “gay communities” are there: right, left, hidden, outed, indifferent, flaming, educated, stupid, talented, pathetic, charming, pigs, friendly, obtuse, wimpy, egotistical, got rhythm, don’t got no clue, humorous, drama bent, thoughtful, crude, lazy, honest, and a few more?

    Comment by heliotrope — June 26, 2008 @ 6:30 pm - June 26, 2008

  40. So if there’s so much diversity, and I agree there is (which is great), why does it constantly get reduced by commenters here, like NDT, to one big homogenous lump when they talk about it?

    I think your statement makes the point quite well, actually. Saying, “The ‘Gay Community’ does/thinks/says [X],” is clearly ridiculous.

    Sure one can make general statements like, “Younger gay people seem to be trending monogamous.” But to ascribe very specific beliefs and behaviours as NDT and others have done is neither accurate nor fair.

    Comment by PSUdain — June 27, 2008 @ 3:23 am - June 27, 2008

  41. (Whoops, pardon my usage of the Queen’s English for “behaviors”. I’ve moved from Douglas Adams to C.S. Lewis to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to Eric Idle recently, with only a brief break in my British authors for a collection of David Sedaris essays. So I appear to have contracted a minor case of “the brits”.)

    Comment by PSUdain — June 27, 2008 @ 3:27 am - June 27, 2008

  42. PSUdain: I have fought the chat about “the black community” and “the poor” and “orphans” my entire life. Of those three, I most cringe when the word “community” is used. Community implies a known and tacitly agreed upon social order. We should all make better use of our language. Pointing out words that are land mines is a good place to start.

    NDT’s reasoning coincides closely with my own in most cases. I will not fault him or you for scraping over the occasional word that is packed with a thousand variations of meaning. The job of rhetoric is to learn these stinker words and avoid them in civil debate. Meanwhile, I have a “community” of deer in my yard that I would like to kill. (Including Bambi.)

    Comment by heliotrope — June 27, 2008 @ 1:04 pm - June 27, 2008

  43. I can’t stand the gay pop culture…and I myself am gay! I can’t stand the whole queer eye, project runway, walking with a swish, talking effeminate. Another thing I can’t stand is gays who feel it’s their duty to be a slutty as humanly possible and sleep with as many people as they can. Marriage is NOT ONLY between a man and a woman. Marriage is a union between two couples. TWO (2) persons in an emotionally binding relationship documented on paper, that is what a marriage is.

    I applaud this article! So many Homosexual Rights Groups do not like to hear about monogamy because most of their chairperson’s (at least to my experience) feel they do not need to be monogamous. Want equal marriage rights? Then stop being slutty hoes and give our demographic the equal respect it deserves.

    Comment by Andt — January 26, 2009 @ 3:33 pm - January 26, 2009

  44. […] Gay Groups Ignore Monogamy when Promoting Marriage […]

    Pingback by Government Promoted Marriage Has Nothing to do With Sex or “Love” « AmeriCAN-DO Attitude — April 9, 2009 @ 5:31 pm - April 9, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.