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.

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.)

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.

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Or maybe you’re using an outdated view of the community?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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I believe they will be.

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.

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.

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.