I had meant to blog on “Town Hall” on Proposition 8 I attended now nearly two weeks ago in West Hollywood. I had some interesting experiences where I was pegged as “the gay Republican,” yet my remarks were treated with respect and my person with dignity.
I, like everyone else who signed up to speak, was given a chance to address the gathering. I received a few hisses, but no one interrupted my comments (limited to two minutes as were those of all speakers) nor did anyone attempt to shout me down. Kudos to the organizers for leading a civil discussion.
That’s not to say I don’t have some criticisms of the event. While some time has passed since the meeting, some of the issues that came up remain timely. One thing which struck was how many speakers contended the passage of Proposition 8 had at least one positive outcome: it sparked a new spirit of protest in the gay community.
They seemed to think that protest was a good thing and wanted to return to the heyday of the 1960s and 1970s where such angry gatherings were a regular occurrence.
I thought of that enthusiasm for demonstrations when, earlier today, I read Patrick Range McDonald’s LA Weekly post on an upcoming protest against President-elect Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to offer the invocation and his inauguration next month. That Orange County pastor supported the “Yes on 8” campaign.
It seems that some gay activists are just looking for an excuse to take to the streets. Why this need to be perpetually angry and to vent their spleens so publicly?
Maybe they should ponder Camille’s Paglia’s post about how such protests often lead to a backlash. Instead of taking to the streets, they should engage in some introspection, wondering why they’re so ready to rant and rave.
Ah, but Dan, there’s the rub. They rant and rage (not to mention scapegoat, smear and bully) precisely to avoid introspection.
For 98.9% of the those in question, the entire gay marriage issue is not about how society treats them as they profess, its about how they feel about themselves. As such, there are no arguments about the purpose of the institution or the benefits to society, there are only arguments about “love” and “hate” and “equality”.
What they desperately want is for government to formally declare that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality, precisely because, deep down, they know it is not, and have not come to terms with the differences. If they stop raging they might have to face those, and other, uncomfortable facts.
American Elephant has nailed it.
It is easier to rant and rave and then claim victimhood, then to sit down and do the hard work of convincing people. Also, one must accept the fact that there will never be 100% acceptance of homosexuality.
Just like I find that 90% of religious American Christians have no problem with Jews. I won’t focus on the 10% who vocally proclaim that I am damned to hell.
Dang, AE! Perfect! Thanks!
Yes, many GLBT folk project their own internalized homophobia onto others. Every GLBT person has to struggle with their own homophobia, as homophobia is like the air we breathe: it is everywhere. From “is it a boy or a girl” and dressing infants in color coded gender so we know how to treat them, everyone is subjected to powerful messages about who we should be and how based on the appearance of our genitals.
Our struggle is the same as ever: learning to love ourselves in a world that still often shows very little love for GLBT folk. Politically, Milk had it right: to love ourselves and make progress, we must come out and be who we are to everyone we know (excluding situations that would endanger us)- don’t hide your queer self. This has the effect of also given permission for others to be who they truly are. I’ve had straight folk thank me for just this reason. Hearts and minds are changed by personal connections in which a bigot can learn that the negative image they hold of a GLBT person is untrue and that they can actually vote for freedom and love.
#1 – Right on, AE. I tend to think of today’s libtards as the “Perenially Indignant.” Nothing satisfies them at all.
Regards,
Peter H.
Tell you what Elo, as long as there are pride parades and these idiotic protesters, I will have a lot of embarrassment letting people know I’m gay. I’ve very comfortable with myself, and will never claim to be straight, but I get zero pride out of seeing either of the above. In fact I don’t appreciate the GLBT. Why do we all get lumped together even in the gay world!?!?! One does not mean the other.
I am sorry, but I’m angry having just had this put on me rather unfairly by some gay friends (not to mention all the stupid crap I was told (by gay people) when I first came out). Like we are all one club (or “family”). Are we supposed to lump all straight people together too? It is just unnatural and ridiculous to me.
Sorry about the rant. 🙁
yup AE, us F*gs are lower than dirt. still looking forward to your final solution eh? and your fan club will cheer as each one of us lowly qweers get what we “deserve”. your bile makes Fred Phelps look like a champion for gay rights. Perhaps you need to look at the “uncomfortable fact” that your hatred of homosexuality and those “afflicted” with it is tearing you up as you cheer for those who despise us and sneer at anyone who speaks against them.
GPW, the issue with Warren is not so much that he supported Prop 8 but that he continues to speak foul things about LGBT people (things that I realize many on here believe also).
There is a legitimate use of peaceful protest, it has and always will be a way for people to voice their opinions on an issue. There is no place for rage and violence and anyone willing to be honest will admit that those events were isolated and only immediately after the vote. That doesn’t make them correct but the image that many on the right, including some folk on here, is that there has been never ending attacks on the Mormons and others who oppose us, is completely false. Makes for good propaganda for the “religious people are victims” mentality. Right, victims who spent millions in a campaign against fellow citizens. But they’re milking that one good right now with the whole Warren thing.
It’s funny, I read so much on here about how those who want SSM are looking for validation from the gov’t. Then the same folk turn around and worry about what others think of the protesters. Guess they need approval as much as the SSM advocates do.
#4 Elo – spot on comment, very refreshing.
Like we are all one club (or “familyâ€).
The reason is this, Timothy; gays like adDave have nothing of value to offer the world, so they try to hijack the positive contributions that other people make. This is why they’re so desperate to prove that certain celebrities are gay, and why they demand that gays be appointed to positions of power.
Furthermore, they exercise an iron discipline of public shaming and namecalling to anyone who dares disagree with them. Notice how leftist faggot adDave whines and cries that unless you think the way that he does, you want all gays exterminated. Unless you support everything that he and other faggots do, you are in favor of herding gays into gas chambers and executing them. If you dare in any way criticize them and their behavior, you are equivalent to a Nazi.
A Differently-Abled Dave,
I did not, nor have I ever said anything about gays being lower than dirt, I never said anything about it being an affliction or worthy of hate. I wouldn’t because I don’t believe them.
I said homosexuality is different, as anyone who isnt mentally disabled such as yourself clearly recognizes.
IT was YOU who made the leap from being different to being lower than dirt and worthy of hate.
You prove my point. Get help and accept yourself for you and what you are.
“What they desperately want is for government to formally declare that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality, precisely because, deep down, they know it is not”
No matter how you try to paint it you are declaring here (and many other times) that we and our relationships are inferior. And you constantly defend those who believe that while slamming LGBT people ever chance you get.
NDT – you are perhaps the sickest human being I have ever “met” online. F*ck off
The two of you are exactly why conservative gays will never get the respect they deserve. You turn this blog into a cesspool, destroying what otherwise could be a worthwhile source of information and opinion and the silence from your fellow “conservatives” is deafening. Guess that means they accept it. Time to flush your poison out of my system again. I’ll check in awhile and see if you’ve managed to drag yourselves out of the sewer but I won’t hold my breath.
No, I’m not declaring anything of the sort there. I say very clearly that they are not equivalent. Apples are not equivalent to oranges, Dave. Now tell me which one do I hate?
Put “learn to read” on your “to-do” list next to psychotherapy.
And I defend a great many people from morons such as yourself because you do the exact same thing to them that you do to me. You say they hate when they do not, you compare them to Nazis for pointing out that heterosexuality brings life into the world and homosexuality does not.
You may be here, you may be queer, but you are most definitely not used to it or comfortable with it.
And there was hardly “silence” from the other conservatives here, if you scroll up you’ll see they rather pointedly agreed with me.
And by all means, go drink yourself to oblivion, or whatever you mean by flushing your system (I really dont want to know) — whatever makes the lambs stop screaming eh Clarice? And then come back, hurl Nazi epithets at everyone who lays bare the lies of your arguments, as you always do, and then tell them how they are lowering the discourse.
You might make a note to talk to that psychotherapist about “projection”.
By the way Dave, Fred Phelps is an Al-Gore supporting, Clinton-inauguration-attending, Democrat-primary-winning Democrat.
American Elephant’s #1 was spot on. And it really riled up the mouth-breathers, so even better! “homophobia is like the air we breathe” — what kind of Emo drama queen bullcrap is that?
BTW, am I alone in thinking that the fact that the new administration seems hell-bent on implementing economic policies that have failed everywhere else they have been tried is a much greater threat to my well-being than some silly marriage license thingy?
Wow, good post AE.
[adDavetoEnglishfilter] I can’t refute AE’s points, and they hurt my feelings, so I’ll resort to a backhand reducto-ad-naizum to try to belittle the speaker and not refute his arguement.[/adDavetoEnglishfilter]
a good sign of being comfortable with oneself is to live your life as you want, without worrying about others approval.
The two of you are exactly why conservative gays will never get the respect they deserve.
Actually, adDave, the fact that you and your fellow pig leftists are running around shrieking and comparing us to Nazis is, in its own way, a perverse sign of respect; you are so terrified of us that it’s driven you utterly insane.
Furthermore, we’re well aware of the fact that the only gays you “respect” are the ones who support, endorse, and refuse to criticize gays taking children to sex fairs, gays having promiscuous and unprotected sex, and married gays who have promiscuous sex outside their marriage. What we’d have to do to earn your respect is way outside our principles, and unlike gay liberals like you, we are unwilling to set those principles aside for your acceptance.
“You say they hate when they do not,\”
No, I say they hate when their words and actions (like yours) prove that they do. You can deny it, you can justify it, you can attack me for saying it but it’s not going to go away.
“you compare them to Nazis”
I have compared them to Nazis as many times as I have used the word homophobia on here. That is never.
“for pointing out that heterosexuality brings life into the world and homosexuality does not.”
You’ll find no evidence on here that I have ever thought that, never mind said it. I agree that heterosexuality can create new human beings and homosexuality cannot. Using the word life is wrong but because there are many heterosexuals who even if they produce children, the provide no life and there are many homosexuals who have brought much life into the world and will continue to do so despite the inability of folks like you to understand that. Defining a person’s value as whether they will likely procreate is barbaric. Apples and oranges are both fruits, homosexuals and heterosexuals are both human beings. When you and others have a consistent pattern of dividing humans into two sides – breeding stock (good) and non-breeding stock (not so much), you belittle all of us not just homosexuals. When you divide and define people by their political affiliations or beliefs, you belittle all of us no just the liberals. The black/white, yes/no, either/or mentality of so many fake conservatives is 1)ignorant and 2) dangerous because reality doesn’t work that way and your constant attempts to force everyone into your narrow little cliches is harmful . I say you’re waiting for a final solution because it is abundantly clear that you would be much happier if all of us who don’t fit your definition were gone. People like you who have an overwhelming disdain for the “other” will ultimately do to extremes to enforce their beliefs. And those who “rather pointedly agreed” are just as guilty as you. When I refer to silence, I mean that apparently there aren’t any regulars on here who have the moral structure to actually confront you. Sad also that you are truly stupid enough to think that Phelp’s political affiliation in any way changes the fact that he is a sick bigot and so are you. His being a Democrat is no reflection on the party any more than your toxic thinking reflects on the Republicans. So tell me, are you joining the AFA phone attacks on Campbell’s Soups for “aiding the homosexual agenda” by running an ad in the Advocate with a two mom family. How dare they suggest that such a family has any value or any place in civilized society? Artificial, fake, counterfeit relationships must be stopped, remove the child and put it in a normal family! Did you boycott Ford, McDonalds’s, Wal-Mart when the orders came down from hate central to do so? Are these your “family values” because you sound just like them. When your right wing allies do that or when they protest (oh sorry, they call them prayer gatherings or “Marches for Jesus”) do you sneer at them and make broad false statements about them like you do us? When the “chosen” were ready to take up arms to defend Judge Roy Moore and is illegal idol did you have anything to say about it. Or is it ok, because they produce children?
#15 and #19 NDT I like when you show your true vile colors. Rather scary that it is acceptable and even applauded. Is lying one of the core values of “gay conservatives”?
NDT, I just wanted to say that I absolutely LOVED post #19.
I have compared them to Nazis as many times as I have used the word homophobia on here. That is never.
Direct quote:
yup AE, us F*gs are lower than dirt. still looking forward to your final solution eh? and your fan club will cheer as each one of us lowly qweers get what we “deserveâ€.
Referring to the “final solution” has a direct and obvious meaning.
Defining a person’s value as whether they will likely procreate is barbaric.
Yes, well, your fellow gays think that “defining a person’s value” by their age, number of conjugal partners, blood relationship, and so forth is barbaric, too, and demand that value be given to all of these people by granting them marriage.
Society is best served by encouraging a male and female to settle down, be sexually faithful, and produce children. You may not like that, but your inability to successfully resolve your desired outcome with your choices and priorities is not the problem of society’s to resolve; it is yours.
NDT, your insane babbling no longer deserves a response. Perhaps someday when you comment on what I actually said and not some diseased hallucination in your mind it might be worth the time.
Perhaps someday when you comment on what I actually said and not some diseased hallucination in your mind it might be worth the time.
You mean, when I stop quoting you directly and instead follow the meaning that you came up with later when the original one got you in trouble.
Gays like adDave must be a real hoot at work. They tell you something, you later read it back to them, and they flip out and accuse you of being a “homophobe” and say they won’t respond any more to your “insane babbling”. No wonder they need ENDA.
You mean, when I stop quoting you directly and instead follow the meaning that you came up with later when the original one got you in trouble.
LOL. The lefties do like to do that, don’t they?
One of the dudes I’m connected to on Facebook has been ranting about Obama’s “betrayal” vis-s-vis Rick Warren. I feel like saying, “Dude, the Democrat party owns the gay vote, not the other way around.”
A Differently-Abled Dave,
(something I really am beginning to believe, by the way. Just out of curiosity, do you wear a helmet and a bib when you surf the internet?) You have officially secured the lifetime achievement award in the category of projection! Congratulations! Add it to your awards in childishness, histrionics, and sub-moronic thought processes.
You say that I and others I defend have proven that we “hate” and want to exterminate homosexuals, yet you cant provide any evidence other than us saying homosexuals are different than heterosexuals. Indeed the very mention of that distinction sent you into apoplectic histrionics about how we want to exterminate you.
Thats right, we argue that marriage has a function to society that gays cannot by definition perform and your response is, YOU HATE US AND WANT TO SHIP US OFF TO THE OVENS!!!!!
You are a child, a very retarded child, and your posts have proven everything I said in my first.
funny AE how it’s ok to call people retarded and NDT can call us faggots and it too is acceptable. Core principle number 3 of the “gay conservative”: have no respect for anyone except the conservative “chosen”, and any name no matter how juvenile or offensive is ok. One would hope that by third grade a person would have grown past calling others retarded or faggot. Do you use nigger too? wetback, kike, guido,bitch, cunt? or is there actually a line you might not cross? you call people in wheel chairs cripples?
#28: A-freaking-men. How long do gays who actually have a sense of self-worth have to tolerate BS like this, especially from an admitted hetero supremacist like AE?
I am a conservative. I voted for McCain. I opposed Prop H8 as much as I opposed King Barry. So I am going to say it: Shut up NDT and Shut up AE!
And furthermore, all of you who try to make excuses for hetero supremacists are why gay conservatives are compared to Jewish Nazis and black Klansmen. You make me embarrassed to be a conservative. Embarrassed. You are what the gay left use as examples to try and keep gays on the Democrat plantation, submissive to Massa Obama. Take a long hard look at your sorry self-righteous selves before you post here again. If the GOP ever wants my support, the gay bashers, heterosexual supremacists and “marriage-is-only-for-breeding” types need to be totally purged or Democrats will keep winning elections (not because of me, I will never vote for them as long as I live).
Average Gay Joe was right. The Religious Wrong deserves no respect whatsoever. I’m not going to pull punches with them or any of their apologists on this board or anywhere else. The GOP is a mess because of these clowns. They need to be on the same fringes of society where Neo-Nazis and Klansmen reside. If you are gay, no matter what party you belong to, they are the enemy. You could agree with everything else the GOP stands for and they will still see you as their inferior. They will take away your rights whether or not you support the War on Terrorism, oppose throwing good money after bad in the name of “saving the economy,” and are suspicious of increasing government power. They are not good people.
No true conservative tries to undermine the judicial system.
What a freak show this site is. And the freaks it attracts. Boy many of you guys have serious issues.
let me see if I have the typical conservative/liberal discussion down.
Conservative: Argues a point
Liberal: attempts to argue back by insults and reducto-ad-Nazium
Conservative, points out that all the Liberal is doing is attacking him.
Liberal: Says no they aren’t.
Conservative quotes the liberal, causing the liberal to get upset that his own words are being used against him.
Liberal resorts to insults, culminating in ‘nyah nyah I’m not listening’
Do i have it right?
Dave,
Its perfectly acceptable to call adults who cannot think and reason at an adult level retarded. That is the definition of the word.
Nice try trying to insinuate that I also called you a faggot, which I didnt, or that I ever used any of those other epithets.
What was it you were saying about commenting on what people say? You know, the one for which you won the projection award? And here you are doing it again.
But yes, Im more than happy to call you crippled, you are CLEARLY mentally and emotionally crippled.
I will also call you a woman for being so hypersensitive, hysterical and for attempting to play the victim with the whole politically-correct act. But that is unfair, I dont know any women, or indeed, I dont know any little girls who play the victim as much as you. In fact, I dont know any little girls who cant think and reason at a higher level than you.
But thats why i didnt just call you a child, i called you a retarded, hysterical child, and you continue to prove me right.
Attmay,
Gays who have a sense of self worth — a group to which you apparently do not belong — do not need the government to tell them that a homosexual relationship provides all the same functions to society that a heterosexual relationship does. Part of having self worth, Attmay, is accepting yourself for what you are and being fine with it, and not demanding that everyone pretend as though your same sex relationship can do all the same things for society that heterosexual relationships can.
I can have a relationship with another man, commit to each other, legally bind ourselves to eachother and be perfectly happy that I am a good person who is contributing to society and is free and being treated equally.
You cannot, because you dont have self worth. You demand that every one else in society admit you to the institution that society created to encourage the best scenario for procreation and child rearing even though you cant procreate! You demand that they overlook the fact that that is why the institution exists and admit you anyway SO YOUR FEELINGS WONT BE HURT AND SO YOU DONT HAVE TO ACCEPT BEING DIFFERENT!
Just to be clear, as I have said before, I am not criticizing people who argue that it would be beneficial to allow gays into the marriage institution, Thats a perfectly respectable argument.
Having a sense of self-worth, Dave, means accepting ones differences and being fine with it. It means not needing other people to pretend that youre not different.
You are correct that one of us has a sense of self worth Dave, but it isnt you.
Im sorry, those last two paragraphs should be addressed to Attmay, although they apply to Dave as well.
Livewire,
You’ve got it exactly right!
AE, try reading my first sentence again, I clearly said who is using the word faggots. You have fallen into the same hole that NDT lives in, ranting and raving about your personal hallucinations. I guess that’s core principle #4 of a “gay conservative” – pompous, arrogant, impressed with their own “wisdom” and living with their head stuck up their ass.
Principle #2 got lost. And for those who are actually rational on here, I do know that true conservatives gay or not do not fit the mold of those who have demonstrated principles 1 – 4. It’s just the ones who hide behind the conservative label thinking that somehow that allows them to be totally barbaric and exhibit disdain for others. They are an insult to the conservative movement.
Livewire – open your f*cking eyes. If you can accuse me of slinging insults while the pseudo-conservatives are spewing pure bile with not even one fact floating in it then I totally overestimated you. I can’t remember the last time I read anything from these two jokers that wasn’t an insulting, bigoted opinion presented as “fact”. And ANYONE who questions them is subjected to a barrage of false accusations. I am not the only one who has pointed this out – though none of the “conservatives” are the least bit concerned. Hypocrisy will never be without a home here.
I think I’ll go read something from AFTAH or FRC, at least they are honest about their hate.
I will also call you a woman for being so hypersensitive, hysterical and for attempting to play the victim with the whole politically-correct act
So you’re not only a heterosexual supremacist and insulting to disabled but a misogynist as well. Once again: Shut up.
So if I demand the government grant me MY RIGHTS then I have no self worth? Once again: Shut up.
Same sex marriage is a right. Mildred Loving and Coretta Scott King agree with me, as does the California court, 6 out of 7 of those judges being Republicans. There is the same benefit to same sex couples that marriage would bring that heterosexuals have (whether they deserve it or not) with marriage. The same stability, the thousands of legal benefits.
You really are a traitor. Shut up, traitor.
funny AE how it’s ok to call people retarded and NDT can call us faggots and it too is acceptable……One would hope that by third grade a person would have grown past calling others retarded or faggot.
And adDave does it again; he complains about people using what he claims are derogatory terms for gay people in the same thread where he used them himself.
yup AE, us F*gs are lower than dirt. still looking forward to your final solution eh? and your fan club will cheer as each one of us lowly qweers get what we “deserveâ€.
If the GOP ever wants my support, the gay bashers, heterosexual supremacists and “marriage-is-only-for-breeding†types need to be totally purged or Democrats will keep winning elections (not because of me, I will never vote for them as long as I live).
You must have the Republicans confused with the Democrats.
Republicans have a set of core principles which transcend race, religious belief, gender, and sexual orientation, which is why Republicans can be people as diverse as Michael Steele, Eric Cantor, Sarah Palin, and Mary Cheney. Democrats, on the other hand, have no principles other than kowtowing to minority groups.
In short, you’re making an empty threat. No one would seriously believe that you would ever support a Republican in the first place; hence, there’s no reason to kowtow to you.
LOL.
Well, the court that decided Loving v. Virginia disagrees with you, UNANIMOUSLY, and so do at least 70% of blacks in California and the courts in New York, New Jersey, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, and every other court in the nation EXCEPT California and Massachusetts which only made their SPLIT decisions based on STATE constitutions, not the US Constitution. So I not only win on logic and reason, I win that retarded pissing contest too — by a landslide.
No, Attmay,
if you demand everyone else in the country pretend you’re something you’re not so that YOU don’t have to come to terms with being different — then you have no self-worth.
Self worth comes from SELF Attmay, not from government.
I hope you find some.
a different Dave,
It is true that AE and NDT threw some insults your way. But you can’t start a mud throwing contest and then complain about things getting dirty. Your comment #8 was despicable.
At #1 AE is clearly discussing the differences in social functioning between homosexuality and heterosexuality. This is clear because the legal recognition of marriage, which was the subject of the comment, is all about the marital relationship’s societal function. (He made an explicit statement at #35.)
It takes a considerable leap in logic (or rather illogic) to take his statement as saying that the love of a gay couple is inferior to that of a straight couple. To go even further and say AE considers homosexuals to be “lower than dirt” is beyond the pale.
Yet you don’t even stop there! You compare him to Fred Phelps and insinuate he wants to exterminate gay people! What the hell were you thinking, man?
I’ve had an argument with AE myself, over my use of the term “reactionary.” But it never degenerated into vile name-calling. And face it, you started it. You really owe AE an apology.
Attmay,
At #39 you said, “Same sex marriage is a right.”
I’m afraid that is wrong. Marriage is a special institution, its legal recognition confers special privileges and responsibilities on married persons. As GPW has said, marriage is a privilege because the government privileges it.
If the government did away with the legal recognition of marriage, no one’s human rights would be violated.
Given that the California Court had to invent a new right, the right to form a family unit (which wasn’t being infringed anyway), to justify its ruling, it is extremely unlikely the ruling was based on the California Constitution’s original meaning rather than the judges own biases. The political affiliations of the judges is irrelevant; the worst activist decision of the 20th century, Roe v. Wade, was written by a Republican.
In any event, you are arguing from authority, which is a form of argument without merit. That is why when AE answered you in kind he called the back-and-forth a “retarded pissing contest.”
CLDave, I’d not seen your posts before, welcome to the site.
Attmay, I’m sorry you’re too consumed by hate to argue rationally.
CL Dave, thank you for your comments. My reaction is based on a continued pattern of AE to denigrate the role of LGBT folk in society as well as at times saying things I consider blatantly anti-gay. That said, my response was inappropriate to the specific comment on this thread. I’ll take your suggestion of apologizing to him under advisement. 🙂
On the other hand, I can’t remember anything that NDT has ever said to/about me that wasn’t an insult and a lie. Well, I’ll amend that, there have been times when what he says is a misreading of what I said – case in point my use of “final solution”, I truly was not referring to the Nazis but to any group throughout history that has used mass murder as a way of achieving their goals. The term actually is stored in my memory from a Pere Ubu song not a history lesson. So, I understand the conclusion NDT made but a simple explanation should be enough to put that to rest. Historically that is not the case and my explanation is seen as a way of changing/excusing what I said. No matter what though the correct response is to simply ignore him.
Another source of frustration is writing long response to direct questions only to have them disappear into the spam filter swamp. GPW does do a good job of fishing many of them out.
Whatever, when the conversation veers from the topic of the original post to my shortcomings and tendency toward evil I will strive to consider the source and tune it out like one does with any annoying noise. Those who present their opinions as “fact” with no room for disagreement aren’t worth my time.
Is it possible to get really upset and really defensive without resorting to vulgarity? There are times when rectal-cranial inversion is no more than a friendly chiding. But when one seizes on it for the ultimate judgement, it becomes the scream of a defeated child running from the school yard in uncontrolled frustration.
The clash of gay personas here has been classic. I am biased, of course, because in #2 I said that American Elephant “nailed it” and I have not changed my mind. If a different Dave and Attmay are representative of the gays who want recognition and “gay equality” I am afraid that all gays will be made to suffer.
It is a valuable exercise to take these comments and look to see if there is any opening for some level of compromise. It there is not, then you do not have an argument, you just have a verbal fight.
This all started over “introspection.” It was answered in terms of “I don’t need no stinking introspection, go introspect yourself.” And the piling on increased from there.
The idea that same sex marriage is good for society or has anything whatsoever to do with being respected in general is still a mystery to me. I do not have a closed mind on this, but I have not seen the force of reason released on the subject. It all boils down to the same kind of “logic” involved in arguments for legalizing pot or public nudity.
And this “inferior/superior” theme is the lamest claim to victimization I have seen in many moons. If a 3%-4% minority of people say I need therapy and reeducation because of my views on same sex marriage, I can only ask what size army they are going to raise to make it happen? Granted, nothing is so strong as an idea whose time has come, but same sex marriage has trouble getting traction, let alone becoming a bull dozer riding down the freeway.
Which countries have same sex marriages? I misplaced my list.
Um, not exactly.
Conventional marriage has 2 components:
1) the commitment that the 2 people make to each other
2) the State license that incorporates the commitment a new legal entity (“the marriage”) with associated *privileges*.
The first part is a right. It resides in the freedom of action of the 2 individuals. They could make it totally private, and it would still exist; it’s their business.
The second part is not a right. Its purpose is to impose new obligations on OTHER people. Nobody, and no couple, has the “right” to arbitrarily impose new obligations on others. The license is a privilege, that the State carefully limits in scope and defines qualifications for.
In other words: While committing to (or with) somebody is a right, getting a State license for it is a privilege. You have to qualify. What Loving v. Virginia said, in the end and despite its ringing language, was merely that RACE cannot be one of the qualifications (or rather, racial difference cannot be used as a disqualification). Loving v. Virginia still recognized the State’s right to impose other qualifications – like age (not too young), being unrelated, and having a gender difference.
I support gay marriage (and voted No on 8 in CA), because society would benefit from the implicit statement that marriage is so important, even gay couples should settle down and do it. Not because gay marriage is some fictitious “right”. If the people vote against me, so be it. Unlike rights, which should never be voted on, privileges should *always* be voted on. I must accept the people’s verdict, and I do. And I look forward to the day when the People will reverse their verdict… probably within 10 years.
Pathetic. What a copout.
ADD, first of all, I don’t believe you for a second, that you didn’t know that “final solution” is always a reference to Nazism. Or, let’s put it this way: if you really didn’t know it, then some of AE’s remarks about you were perhaps not far off.
Second, you exploit your the occasion of your so-called “explanation” to repeat your slander that some significant group in America wants to do mass murder on gays. Try moving to Iran sometime, ADD. Then you’ll learn what group in this world wants to murder gays.
I don’t endorse everything that NDT or AE have said about you, ADD, but clearly, based on your actions in this thread and no one else’s, you are a disgrace and a coward to boot.
#48: If the people vote against me, so be it. Unlike rights, which should never be voted on, privileges should *always* be voted on. I must accept the people’s verdict, and I do.
Then you are a fatalist. If a majority of voters in the city of West Hollywood were to, theoretically, revoke heterosexual marriage rights, and you were a heterosexual, would you sit down and take it because it’s the will of the people?
I haven’t been to alot of weddings, gay or straight, but I have heard most of the wedding vows and never remember anything about the promise to procreate, number of children expected or even anything about parenting.
from wikipedia “To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.”
I thought this is what marriage is about
If a majority of voters in the city of West Hollywood were to, theoretically, revoke heterosexual marriage rights, and you were a heterosexual, would you sit down and take it because it’s the will of the people?
Yup.
In fact, I challenge you, Attmay. Why don’t you and your fellow anti-heterosexuals raise a constitutional amendment to ban heterosexual marriage, and see how that goes?
ae-#1 “If they stop raging they might have to face those, and other, uncomfortable facts.”
have been chewing on that one over the weekend. and with the winter wonderland here in Seattle, things are moving slowly so, even more time to ponder. off work this monday morning, so ended up at the ‘tea dance’ of 70’s and 80’s disco last night. was interesting to see the young folk dancing to the disco of ‘days gone by’ and realizing that those boys were born after most of the songs were played in the discos of SF,LA,NY. I also saw the men on the ‘cocktail’, drinking bottled water and some had the very evident crixi cheeks. And then there were the ever excited ‘Star Studded Dancers’ who were out on the floor. Most of them were my age or older, 45 plus, and possibly like me, escaped the dreaded infection, but were cursed to watch friends and loved ones pass on.
Yes there is alot of anger out there, on both sides. Like my sister says,
YOU CAN PICK YOUR FRIENDS, BUT YOU CAN’T PICK YOUR FAMILY.
And with the creation of the LGBTI- XYZ family (of sexual minorities) it sure would be nice if everyone could play nice, but it is a very diverse group.
although I have a family that loves me, (and my partner) and would do anything for us, there are GLBT folk not so fortunate.
I heard Bronski Beat’s SMALL TOWN BOY and thought alot about those faced with uncomfortable facts:
You leave in the morning
With everything you own
In a little black case
Alone on a platform
The wind and the rain
On a sad and lonely face
Mother will never understand
Why you had to leave
But the answers you seek
Will never be found at home
The love that you need
Will never be found at home
Pushed around and kicked around
Always a lonely boy
You were the one
That theyd talk about around town
As they put you down
And as hard as they would try
Theyd hurt to make you cry
But you never cried to them
Just to your soul
No you never cried to them
Just to your soul
Happy HOLIDAYS. Hope you all get a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Past. Tis the season to give, to be nice and to, well. . . .
Nope. You trimmed my quote to make it look like I might be, Attmay, but that’s a poor tactic. This is what I actually said:
What’s that Terminator saying, echoed by McCain in 2008? There is no fate, only what we make. Again, I look forward to reversing the People’s vote over time.
So what am I really, then? I am an American democrat (small ‘d’). I believe in the **moral necessity** of having the People voting on privileges. We had this little thing called, you know, the American Revolution, to establish that principle: that privileges must always be legislated; they can’t be dictated, nor hereditary for that matter.
Rights, again, are a different matter. A right, *by definition* is something that should not be voted on, because if the People do ever vote on it and it loses, you still retain it morally… no one can morally take it from you. While a priviliege *by definition* is something that no one has, until and unless it is legislated; hence it should be voted on. I have explained what part of modern American marriage is the one, and what part is the other.
Yes… and I’ll also tell the truth about how stupid it is, and (over time) work to reverse it. Same as I’m doing with CA’s gay marriage ban.
Then, ADD, you aren’t worth your own time, are you? LOL
“first of all, I don’t believe you for a second, that you didn’t know that “final solution†is always a reference to Nazism.”
Of course I know that is can be used as a reference to Nazism – but NOT always.
“Second, you exploit your the occasion of your so-called “explanation†to repeat your slander that some significant group in America wants to do mass murder on gays.”
Can you tell me where I said significant? And in more than one comment (not sure one made it out of the filter) I said that anti(fill in the blank) attitudes CAN end up in extreme/deadly actions by the fanatic.
“Then, ADD, you aren’t worth your own time, are you? LOL”
That would be true if/when I present what I say as anything that my opinion based on what I read and observe.
“you are a disgrace and a coward to boot.”
Thanks, and happy holidays to you too.
#57 I should have added – if I say I didn’t use it as a reference specifically to Nazism then you have no basis to say I did. Any more that the false statements that I accept Folsom Street, promiscuity and blah blah blah, everything else that has been claimed. You’re free to assume these things but you can’t wish them into reality no matter how hard you try.
#57 I should have added – if I say I didn’t use it as a reference specifically to Nazism then you have no basis to say I did.
And yet, adDave screams that, in post #1, American Elephant expressed his support for mass murder and execution of gays, and that adDave has a basis to say so.
yup AE, us F*gs are lower than dirt. still looking forward to your final solution eh? and your fan club will cheer as each one of us lowly qweers get what we “deserveâ€.
And we see it again; adDave screams that “fag” is an insult after HE uses it, adDave screams about “stereotyping” after HE does it, and now adDave screams about “no basis” after HE practiced it. To heliotrope’s point, we see the underlying principle of the gay community right there: it’s not what is being done, it’s who’s doing it.
#59 hahahaha, as if it’s not a principle well used on here by the pseudo-conservatives
Rusty,
That is precisely why marriage licenses are marriage ceremonies are two separate things. You are confusing the reasons individuals get married, which are most often love, but many times not, with the state’s interest in marriage. They are not the same thing. For confirmation of this, you might try reading some of the legislation and court decisions and what they have said about marriage. They all say (with the exception of CA and MA) that the states interest is procreation and the raising of the next generation. Also, it seems ridiculous to me that anyone could honestly believe taxpayers are coughing over there hard earned money to subsidize marriage because they feel so warm and fuzzy about love.
Also, if marriage isnt about procreation, why do all 50 states prohibit blood relatives from marrying?
I wont respond to your other comment because frankly I have no clue what you were talking about, other than to say your quotation of a song about familial acceptance of homosexuality really only goes to prove my point that for most gays this is about being accepted and approved of does it not?
The Livewire,
Actually, you probably have seen my posts before. I’m just plain Dave. I added the “Classical Liberal” to distinguish myself more clearly from the other Daves on this site.
More lies. What I have said in this thread is entirely consistent with what Ive always said, and your reaction has always been the same, “GAYS ARE DIFFERENT???? MARRIAGE HAS A PURPOSE???? YOURE A NAZI WHO WANTS TO KILL ALL THE HOMOS!”
Your eyes really ought to be brown you’re so full of it.
Haven’t been to any Catholic weddings, have you, Rusty? 😉
At my brother’s wedding, he and his bride were specifically questioned about such matters by the priest.
For Dave and Attmay and the others who believe marriage is a civil right….
Please list all the marches and demonstrations you participated in prior to proposition 8 protesting the denial of this fundamental human right. For that matter, where WERE all the protests and demonstrations???
If I felt I was being denied a basic civil right I certainly wouldnt be quiet about it, and yet the gay community was for all intents and purposes silent on the marriage issue until prop 8 came along.
Theres a lot of brown eyes going around.
ADD #57 – *PATHETIC*.
(as in, pathetically dishonest)
#63 AE, not in fact it hasn’t. But that would ruin your whine wouldn’t it?
#65 you must be referring a Dave other than me because I have never said SSM was a civil right nor have I marched in a before OR after the vote.
#66 and 67 Thanks ILC, I do so covet your approval.
stick in the word protest and my comment on #65 would make more sense.
#65 sorry, missed this the first time:
“yet the gay community was for all intents and purposes silent on the marriage issue until prop 8 came along.”
In what world? If what you say is true then there would no legal civil unions OR SSM in this country. Perhaps in years past before the “conservative” faction promoted it as an idea to make us seem more “normal”. Asking for rights we were truly denied was just too “in your face” for them. The idea was met originally by yawns for the most part. But it’s amazing what the right propaganda repeated often enough can do and in time it became a major issue – I also attribute that to changes in the goals of many in the gay communities anyway. But there hasn’t been “silence” on it for a decade at least. The issue would never have made it to the legislators, never mind the courts, if there was “silence”. A majority of states wouldn’t have warped their constitutions if there had been “silence”. Prop 8 never would have been necessary if there was “silence”. Absolutely Prop 8 raised a lot more noise than ever before, pre and post vote and I personally hope that transfers to other issues that are far more important than what to call our relationships.
Also, if marriage isnt about procreation, why do all 50 states prohibit blood relatives from marrying?
AE, it depends on your definition of “blood relative.”
25 states prohibit 1st cousin marriages, the other 25 do, although six (AZ, IL, IN, ME, UT and WI) put limits on it. Of the six, all but ME allow it in situations where procreation is unlikely (due to age or infertility). ME just requires certification of genetic counseling. (link is here: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousins.htm) And yes, it is illegal in KY and WV, jokes aside.
All 50 states allow 2nd cousin or more distant marriages.
Ultimately, the question is this: will yelling, screaming, and calling people names under the slick veneer of “protesting” convince people to see things our way, or will the protests be sufficiently annoying to convince people to side with our opponents?
I say it doesn’t, which is why I don’t. Gay rights is like seduction – the people susceptible to “nice shoes, wanna have sex?” are already on the gay rights bandwagon. Now it’s time to schmooze, buy a few drinks, and dance a bit just to get a phone number. Then go on a date, or two, or three. Then they’ll be willing to go with the whole gay rights thing, cause we took it slow and gave people reasons they thought persuasive.
Go to fast, and we’re just gonna get slapped.
You kind of just proved my point, Rob. The only relations who are allowed to marry are ones that are deemed distant enough relatives not to produce birth defects. No states allow brother and sister to marry, parents and child, aunts uncles neices nephews, etc, all prohibited because marriage is about procreation.
Take that away, and make marriage about something else other than procreation, and there is no longer any valid reason to prohibit blood relatives from marrying.
Different but cant come to terms with it Dave,
Brown and getting browner.
LOL 🙂 ADD, I wasn’t addressing you. Or expecting you back. But thanks for the unintended confession.
And no dave, the gay marriage that exists in America now was brought about quietly by a handful of activists suing. There were zero protests and zero demonstrations, something that belies the “marriage is a right’ argument. If you dont subscribe to that then just consider my post for Attmay.
“If I felt I was being denied a basic civil right I certainly wouldnt be quiet about it, and yet the gay community was for all intents and purposes silent on the marriage issue until prop 8 came along.”
AE, I don’t see how this refers only to “the gay marriage that exists today” but if you say so. Still, the issue didn’t appear out of nowhere all of a sudden did it? I can’t speak much about MA but here in CT it was far from quiet. There were rallies/protests even before the issue was first raised in the legislature. I remember reading about some stuff happening during the time I was hangin’ with the Full Gospel crowd back in the late 80s and of course I was properly offended by it. Instead of PC churches have RC or CC. Every time it was brought up in the legislature there were protests/rallies from both sides, especially as the civil union battle heated up and then when the court case was started. In fact they only only stopped when the courts handed down their decision – actually the day after. And they will start up again because the “family values” folks are already starting to plan what they will do next and of course the “love makes a family” folks will have to respond.
Actually I wonder if the legislature hadn’t been forced to add “marriage = one man/one woman” to the civil union bill to get it through would the issue have hit the court here so soon. Eventually it would have I suppose. I thought our civil union law was just fine, maybe I’d feel different if I was looking to get hitched but I doubt it. To me the state has nothing to do with marriage, they can put the word on the license but it is the two people (yes I do discriminate) and God that makes it a marriage.
which post to Attmay, you two have conversed a few times 🙂
#65: That’s just a variation of the “chickenhawk” attack used to silence supporters of wars.
I don’t work for a car company but I opposed bailing them out. Does my opinion not count because I didn’t work for a car company?
I think my reply to AE got trapped in the filter.
No, its not a variation of the chickenhawk argument at all, there are all sorts of valid reasons for not going to war and still supporting it,
what are the valid reasons for not standing up for your own personal God given rights when someone is denying them to you?
You had an education deferment?
Differently Abled Dave,
The gay marriage that exists in America today, in MA, and until recently in CA, was brought about by split court decisions in response to lawsuits by a handful of activists. There were no protests in the streets until prop 8 passed, there was no march on washington, no bus boycott, no selma, no boston tea party, etc, etc, etc….
The point being, people who are actually being denied a civil right DO something about it.
“The gay marriage that exists in America today, in MA, and until recently in CA, was brought about by split court decisions in response to lawsuits by a handful of activists.”
I don’t deny that, it’s the same in CT. I understand your point and if you mean spontaneous blocking of traffic or raucous demonstrations outside of churches then yeah, I agree. No point in repeating what I said last night because apparently I, the press, the family organizations on both sides and the people who actually participated in the rallies/protests all hallucinated it and as you say, no one felt their “rights” were being denied or chose to do anything about it. That’s a pretty amazing hallucination – lasting a decade or so involving thousands of people, not to mention the money that people gave to support something that never happened.
How many “rights” have been lost in Massachusetts by opponents of gay marriage?
The “right” to have their way all the time.
#84: And we all know that that right is inalienable, even in the face of logic and reason.
The right to self-governance.
Dave,
Please name these rallies and protests, giving dates and locations, particularly any you attended, Id like to look them up.
Well AE, I personally didn’t attend any mostly because for the last decade walking very far is difficult and standing any length of time virtually impossible. If anyone wants to finance my knee replacements I’ll be happy to attend any rally suggested to me. As far as where, Bushnell Park and the state capital in Hartford CT. Perhaps in New Haven also don’t remember. I seem to have lost the notebook where I recorded all the dates and time and who attended going back the last decade, so sorry. I’ll surely tear my house apart looking for it just for you. If I were to be looking it up I would check the Hartford Courant, hurry they’re a Tribune paper, Metroline and CT Family Institute (ctfamily.org). Now I’m certainly willing to do it for you but I just got home from an 11 hour day and I have a couple more to put in from home and I’d like to eat dinner and I’d like to get some sleep tonight, but hold on I’ll get back to you.
You do realize what a ridiculous request this is right?
“The right to self-governance.”
To a certain extent I actually do agree with you but = the people vote for the governor, who appoints the judges. And they vote for the legislatures who approve the judges (or deny). So in effect, the people are governing themselves. Correct me if I’m wrong but in MA, just like NJ, the courts made their ruling and bounced it back to the legislature to do something about it. NJ chose domestic partnerships (or some pale imitation thereof) and MA chose marriage. So again, it was the legislature put in by the people that made the final decision. Plus in MA an attempt to push through man/woman only thing and it failed twice at least in the legislature (the one put in by the people), Oh, and there were actually protests by both side at this time. Sorry can’t remember the date. So, yeah, there is merit to the argument that it shouldn’t be in the courts, but the claim that the people’s voice has been taken away is stretching it. Oh and that’s a big one here in CT but when we did vote on the ConCon and voted it down the family crowd said special interests bought the vote. If we vote we’re damned, and if we don’t we’re double damned) Some people are never happy unless they totally dominate right?
A Different Dave, NJ already had domestic partnerships before the NJ Supreme Court ruling. The legislature decided on civil unions, which has the same state rights and responsibilities as marriage. There’s talk that the legislature will vote on same sex marriage, and Gov. Corzine would probably sign the bill if it comes to his desk.
No, its not a ridiculous request at all; its making a very clear point that all these proponents of gay marriage who claim its a right are full of shit. If it were this wouldnt be the first time we were seeing large protests. Thanks to a handful of activists, the issue has been in front of the American people for close to a decade, and yet I can find more people in the worst gay bar in town on a weeknight than have actually done anything about having their so called human rights violated.
And taking the peoples voice, and right to govern themselves away is EXACTLY what courts do when they take it upon themselves to dictate social policy. Its not stretching it by any means. Your argument that the courts cant overstep their bounds because after all the people elected the people who appointed them is risible. By that “logic”, and I use the word loosely, the President and congress can’t overstep their respective authority because the people elect them directly!
Call me when you get a good argument. 90 posts and I have yet to see one.
#91 AE, denying that there were more than just a “few activists” involved is insulting to everyone who participated, even in the smallest way. I’ve already conceded that there were no major, national level actions dedicated to the marriage issue. Whether you call it a right (which you say is wrong) or a privilege it took something that so many felt was a slap in the face to motivate more to speak out. Even when there weren’t specific marriage protests it was part of any march, celebration or whatever. In any “movement” isn’t it always a dedicated few who work for years until it catches on. How long did it take for a few social conservative to push and push until groups like the Moral Majority got the attention of greater amounts of people and enough conservatives were voted in to make a difference? How long did it take for the civil rights movement to reach a level that everyday people were willing to step out into what was clearly dangerous. The “masses” need to be pushed pretty hard to get up of there comfortable couches and do something. I’m not at all saying these 3 different causes are equal except in importance to those involved.
I didn’t say the courts can’t overstep their bounds, I said the people were part of the process.
Whether or not my arguments meet your criteria for “good” is more of your problem than mine. I don’t set out to change your mind, just to speak my opinion. If you need to ridicule that opinion then enjoy yourself.
Thanks for the clarification Pat.