The Gay Divorcées & the Meaning of Marriage
I have long believed (and social statistics bear me out) that no-fault divorce is a greater threat to social cohesion than gay marriage. In most cases, when parents with children divorce, there are real victims of their choice. Not so when two people of the same gender marry.
Now, it turns out that Hillary and Julie Goodridge, the named plaintiffs in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling 2004 mandating that the Bay State recognize same-sex marriages, are suing for divorce. If they really value marriage, they should reconsider their choice, bearing in mind the welfare of their daughter.
As should any heterosexual parents with children who seek divorce as a means to deal with the difficulties of their relationship. If heterosexual parents weren’t seeking divorce, this might be a commentary on the fragility of same-sex relationships.
That’s why James Richardson is right that social conservatives shouldn’t crow as has Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute. Instead of showing that the Goodridges’ divorce is a setback for gay marriage, Richardson contends it helps make the case for expanding the defintion of that ancient institution:
Given the staggering heterosexual divorce rate and contemporary American’s pathetic social construct of life partnerships, gay divorce, if anything, legitimizes gay marriage as normal. Like it or not, divorce is as American as apple pie and baseball. Why? Americans cherish their freedoms, including the freedom to marry and the freedom to divorce without intrusive speculation.
We need repair that “pathetic social social construct of life partnerships.” If we were to enter into a serious debate on gay marriage, as some have, we could do just that.  Such a debate would allow us to better understand why marriage is a good thing, an institution to be embraced, and divorce not so good, something to be avoided.
NOTE: Bumped this post.
44 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I have always said that the only thing gay marriage will do is increase the incidence of divorce….and so it begins.
Comment by Jeb — February 5, 2009 @ 5:36 pm - February 5, 2009
(Stands on chair) WOOP!!!!! YEAH!!!!
As a “breeder” married for 20+ years with 3 GREAT kids, I applaud you!
I have been making this same point for many years, to anyone who will listen. Thanks for saying it so well.
Keep up the great work, as I am a big fan.
Comment by Patvann — February 5, 2009 @ 5:36 pm - February 5, 2009
A lifelong relationship is unlikely to be stable unless it is created by God. If we keep treating marriage as a social construct without reference to moral absolutes, we won’t have stable relationships, straight or gay. The traditional marriage ceremony affirms God’s blessing as well as the support of the believing congregation. Attempting a relationship outside of that context isn’t going to work.
Gays, like the above mentioned, who believe that marriage is simply a secular arrangement which confers rights have no solid basis for relationships. Gays need to see the movie Fireproof and pretend the main characters are in a same-sex partnership–that would help them understand what marriage is.
I don’t believe in gay marriage–I believe in homosexual blessings legally backed by civil unions. I think heterosexual relationships have a different dynamic than homosexual relationships, which doesn’t make them separate or better. I support Prop. 8. However, I think both straights and gays need to be in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships which have been blessed by God. If God isn’t part of the relationship, then it doesn’t matter if the state is part of the relationship or not.
Comment by Ashpenaz — February 5, 2009 @ 5:40 pm - February 5, 2009
My Grandparents celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary this past Monday. They went through LOTS of bad times, lots of good times too. Many times because of circumstances they couldn’t even be together physically but AFAIK they remained loyal…devoted to the cause of marriage. Society just doesn’t push that anymore. Divorce is the easy out. It’s okay to “trade up” or just “walk out”. There’s no more stigma to walking away and giving up anymore. We live in a throw away culture and unfortunately that includes throwing away commitment too…gay or straight. We teach our children in our wake that divorce is a viable solution to normal (and not so normal) problems that arise in a real partnership. It’s a sad reflection of life, it’s easier to destroy or replace a thing than to work on really fixing it. Gay culture is even worse. Too many people out there pushing open relationships, parties and jumping from partner to partner. If divorce is “normal” as a part of hetro relationships, it’s something we should try to not adopt…we should be better than this if for no other reason than because our fight has been harder and should be more valued. We’ve fought too hard just to toss it away so nonchalantly like everyone else seems to do.
Comment by David — February 5, 2009 @ 5:50 pm - February 5, 2009
For some reason, my eyes keep reading “Bumped this post” as “Burped this post”. I’ll get them checked
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 5, 2009 @ 6:36 pm - February 5, 2009
I’ve been saying this exact same thing for years.
It’s nice to hear it from someone else. Now to just actually find someone..
Thanks,
Tim
Comment by Timothy — February 5, 2009 @ 8:43 pm - February 5, 2009
As a gay man who was married to a woman because that is what I was “supposed” to do, I’m get angered when I hear of a gay couple divorcing. I can’t fully identify why. I am now divorced and I hate saying I’m divorced. There is a belief by some that divorce means that you didn’t even really try to work it out. Can we be certain that in 4 years, this couple fully exhausted every option to salvage their marriage? Most divorced people will report that it was years of deterioration before the divorce was settled – this couple hasn’t been married for any significant amount of years yet. It is just unfortunate that the couple that laid the groundwork for gay marriage in this country can’t make it work.
Of course, I don’t know anything about what was going on inside their relationship and there had to be a lot of pressure in 2004 to go through the court battle. I guess my point is that I really hope they are not just giving up. As a therapist, I tell clients that as long as there is one glimmer of love left in the relationship, we can work on it. As a divorced father, I hate when others give up on marriage. As a gay, wanting to be married man, I wish I had what some in MA and CA have.
Comment by BC — February 5, 2009 @ 8:45 pm - February 5, 2009
i can’t believe i just read a whole post in which you refrained from attacking liberals and democrats! a refreshing change…
and i think we can all agree that divorce is (generally speaking) not a good thing. but do you think the government (or the church?) should forbid people from ending a marriage if it’s not working?
Comment by bob — February 5, 2009 @ 9:09 pm - February 5, 2009
Would a gay couple be able to say, “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder”? I suspect that most gay couples don’t include God in the equation. There’s also the “forsaking all others, ’til death do us part.” However poorly demonstrated, straights take these vows. Most men don’t respect other men who break these vows. Without these vows, there’s no basis for a stable relationship.
Comment by Ashpenaz — February 5, 2009 @ 9:42 pm - February 5, 2009
“I suspect that most gay couples don’t include God in the equation. ”
I don’t think that is a fair statement. Certainly you can say that many don’t but you can say the same about hetero marriage. Those married by JPs don’t necessarily include statements about God and how many couples set foot in a church only at Easter, Christmas and to get married. Giving God lip service does not mean that God has joined them together. That’s not something that one has the right to assume (either way) about any couple gay or str8.
Jeb, when the percentage of gay marriages/civil unions breaking apart legally reaches that of the hetero communities then you can throw stones. Until then…
It’s sad that some rush into legal commitments without the understanding of til death do us part and divorce should never be taken lightly though at times it certainly is the correct course of action.
Good post GPW.
Comment by a different Dave — February 5, 2009 @ 10:14 pm - February 5, 2009
OK, what percentage of gays do you think wait to have sex until they meet the person God intended them to marry? What percentage of gays have submitted their sex lives to God and wait to discern His will? What percentage of gays support abstinence only programs for gay youth so they grow up respecting their bodies and making mature choices? Here’s your first answer–”Straights don’t either, yada, yada, yada.” I’m not asking about straights. I’m asking about gays. I look forward to your answer.
Comment by Ashpenaz — February 5, 2009 @ 11:08 pm - February 5, 2009
That’s alright. I read eBay State when he wrote “Bay State”.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 6, 2009 @ 1:20 am - February 6, 2009
OK, what percentage of gays do you think wait to have sex until they meet the person God intended them to marry?
About the same percentage of the general population.
What percentage of gays have submitted their sex lives to God and wait to discern His will?
About the same percentage as the general population.
What percentage of gays support abstinence only programs for gay youth so they grow up respecting their bodies and making mature choices?
About the same percentage as the general population. One thing though. A lot of the abstincence only programs say that one should wait until marriage to have sex, precluding all gay persons from having sex (except maybe in MA and CT). So most gay persons who support the concept of abstinence only education may not favor an anti-gay program.
Ashpenaz, I get your point that you don’t want us to say, “Straights don’t do it either,” or whatever. But why do gays have to do the God thing as you see fit, when, frankly, the general population doesn’t?
Further, keep in mind that people view God in their own way, and don’t necessarily ascribe to your view of God.
It’s great that (your view of) God has enabled you to have that special relationship with someone, and that it has worked well for you. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that your formula works for everyone else.
Comment by Pat — February 6, 2009 @ 7:16 am - February 6, 2009
BC, then stop saying you’re divorced.
Divorce is a legal action. It is not a permanent condition.
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — February 6, 2009 @ 7:51 am - February 6, 2009
What bothers me about this story is that it is probably the last we will hear anything about these two women now that their relationship (which was previously cause for such controversy, celebration and fanfare) is over. This should be an opportunity for the media to address the story that has been consistently ignored since the gay marriage debate began–GAY DIVORCE–but as we all know, the only stories worth reporting are about RIGHTS, not RESPONSIBILITIES. When the law passed in California several years ago that gave registered domestic partners full spousal rights under state law, the first article I read in the gay press (The Advocate) didn’t focus on what a landmark advancement it was, but rather what a tragedy it was that many gay male couples were going to “opt-out” of the scheme because it would result in both partners’ incomes being assessed for the purposes of getting discounts on drugs to treat HIV and AIDS.
The real story here is not that a high-profile gay relationship that was used to change the law failed. The real story is what happens now and how the gays respond to the realities of divorce. Only then will we really see if the gays “want to be treated like everyone else” or if the responsibilities that come with marriage will just be treated like another form of hateful, anti-gay discrimination. Just as racial “equality” evolved into affirmative action, quotas and diversity for diversity’s sake, this too will evolve into preferences and “special rights” for a group based solely upon historical grievances and mistreatment.
Comment by Sean A — February 6, 2009 @ 8:52 am - February 6, 2009
Gays get divorced, so that’s a reason to let them marry? I’m sorry, I know I can be a little obtuse, but can someone walk me through that logical train wreck?
The couple separated after just 2 years and divorced two years later. Thats not normal, its abnormal.
First and foremost, lets do away with the lie that “the divorce rate hovers near 50%”
That’s nowhere near true. I know its a popular myth, but it is a total myth nonetheless. In truth, only about 33% of first marriages end in divorce, which means that around 67% of couples who marry stay married. Of the few who get divorced their first time, many then go on to get married again, and remain married to their second spouse for the rest of their lives, so that statistic is entirely bogus. And the divorce rate has been declining every year since 1979, and looks to continue that trend.
You are right of course, Dan, that marriage is very important to society and we should work to strengthen it, which is why I am surprised you link to that piece by Richardson who seems to be saying that marriage exists to validate adult relationships, and its a right, and so is divorce, so, gimmie gimmie gimmie.
The questions we need to be asking is “does redefining marriage to allow same sex marriage help or hurt the purpose of the institution”
And what the divorce of this couple inconveniently dredges up is the vast differences in attitudes towards fidelity and commitment between the gay community and the rest of society.
Yes, the opponents of gay marriage have great reason to crow. They have been pointing out all along that gays dont stay together anywhere near as often or as long, that gays are far less monogomous, and this divorce only proves their point.
One would think that the gay couples most likely to be serious about marriage are those agitating for it… and yet their marriage was shorter than most Hollywood bimbettes. Indeed, it just goes to validate the idea that gay marriage is far more about validation and emotional issues for most gays than it is about love and commitment.
Comment by American Elephant — February 6, 2009 @ 10:18 am - February 6, 2009
Scratch that last sentence, it should read “Indeed, it just goes to validate the idea that gay marriage is far more about validation and emotional issues for most gays than it is about responsibility and commitment.
Comment by American Elephant — February 6, 2009 @ 10:22 am - February 6, 2009
” I’m not asking about straights. I’m asking about gays. I look forward to your answer.”
What you are doing is asking gays to live up to a standard that cannot be measured. Unless you can read the minds over every couple who gets married then you simply have no clue how much or little God is involved. You and others here, just use this as one more opportunity to trash gay relationships. Fact is, gays don’t have to prove anything to you or any of the others who feel they have some right to judge. If your concern is the value of marriage then focus on those who practice it most.
#17 Indeed, the ONLY thing it validates is that this couple has problems and has decided (right or wrong) that divorce is the answer. If one couple validates people’s personal issues with a whole group of people, then the problem is not that group of people but the person who believes in their own superiority. If you and the other bashers hold up ONE couple, or one negative incident or one indecent act as proof that ALL homosexuals do the same then it is perfectly valid to state that all heterosexuals produce children with their daughters, all heterosexual teachers have sex with their underage children, all heterosexuals kidnap their children when a marriage goes wrong and all heterosexuals kill their whole families in times of financial difficulty.
Comment by a different Dave — February 6, 2009 @ 10:56 am - February 6, 2009
Yes, the opponents of gay marriage have great reason to crow. They have been pointing out all along that gays dont stay together anywhere near as often or as long, that gays are far less monogomous, and this divorce only proves their point.
American Elephant, how does the divorce of one gay couple prove that point? Kind of like saying that Britney Spears’ short and very short two marriages “proves” that straights are not worthy of marriage.
In truth, only about 33% of first marriages end in divorce, which means that around 67% of couples who marry stay married. Of the few who get divorced their first time, many then go on to get married again, and remain married to their second spouse for the rest of their lives, so that statistic is entirely bogus.
It looks like you’re trying to have it both ways with the statistics. If I grant you that 67% of first marriages stay intact, which is plausible, it means that plenty of second marriages also end up in divorce, to get to the 50% figure.
In any case, 33% is a pretty big chunk. I would say that’s more than a “few.”
Indeed, it just goes to validate the idea that gay marriage is far more about validation and emotional issues for most gays than it is about responsibility and commitment.
It’s funny. I used to think that. That’s why my partner and I didn’t rush into a civil union when it became law in NJ. But we decided to enter a civil union last Friday. What I found was how others felt. Apparently many of the people we told now believe that we are a committed couple, even though we felt that way for five years. Further, some of his family when I spoke after the ceremony have welcomed me into the family. So it’s not just about the couples feelings and emotions. Like straight marriage, it’s a hell of a lot more than that.
Getting back to divorce, in order for marriage to be authentic, divorce must be available. But I agree that once entered, everything plausible should be done by the couple to avoid the divorce. As for the Goodridges, that’s a shame. But we don’t know the circumstances. Perhaps one of them was really serious about the marriage, and the other no longer. Perhaps one of them became so toxic and nothing could be done to salvage it. Or perhaps they were both cavalier about the commitment. In either case, it’s unfortunate, especially since a child is involved.
Comment by Pat — February 6, 2009 @ 11:22 am - February 6, 2009
I don’t think that the same percentage of gays and straights value the traditional understanding of marriage. I’d like to see actual data. Based on a life of observation, I would say exactly 0% of the gays I’ve met think in terms of marriage as a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship created by God, where at least 80% of straights I’ve met would define it that way, however poorly they live up to that standard.
However, I don’t want to discuss straights. Gays assume they are superior to straights in many ways–more tolerant, more diverse, wiser, wittier, etc. If gays can be superior in those areas, why can we be superior in terms of fidelity and chastity and stability? So, instead of limiting ourselves to only that which straights can achieve, why not learn from their failures, and set our ideals on the highest standards of morality and faithful love?
We don’t need to call our faithful relationships marriage. Let’s use civil unions to create a new standard for lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships which are the envy of couples of everywhere. Let’s make penguins jealous of our fidelity. Let’s be “separate but better.”
Comment by Ashpenaz — February 6, 2009 @ 1:22 pm - February 6, 2009
I would say exactly 0% of the gays I’ve met think in terms of marriage as a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship created by God, where at least 80% of straights I’ve met would define it that way, however poorly they live up to that standard.
Ashpenaz, as you say, I’d like to see actual data. If you say in your neck of the woods that 0% of the gays you meet are interested in your view of what marriage is and should be and created by your view of God and all that, there are two possibilities that I see. 1) You live in a place where gay people don’t share the values that you do, and should consider moving. 2) Your set standards so high that it is impossible for anyone (gay or straight) to meet. If it’s 2), consider the possibility that you are setting things up so that they deliberately fail. Even God wouldn’t be able to help you there, until you change. God can only help those who help themselves, right?
However, I don’t want to discuss straights. Gays assume they are superior to straights in many ways–more tolerant, more diverse, wiser, wittier, etc.
Why so selective in who you wish to discuss about, especially on this site? Most of the posters here don’t have the profile that you espouse of gay persons.
We don’t need to call our faithful relationships marriage.
For the moment, I agree with you. However, I don’t want to preclude others, like those in CT and MA, who wish otherwise.
Let’s be “separate but better.â€
Fine. Lead the way. Don’t wait for others to see things you’re way.
Comment by Pat — February 6, 2009 @ 4:43 pm - February 6, 2009
OK, what percentage of gays that you have observed believe marriage is a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship created by God? You don’t need to use any data other than your own observation–I’ll accept anecdotal evidence.
Please see the movie Fireproof to better understand what most (not all) straights think about marriage. At least, read a review. Or read Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Marriage. The popularity of Fireproof and Rick Warren’s book suggest that most American heterosexuals share that understanding of marriage.
Gays are seen as “playing at marriage.” Gays are not seen as understanding the fundamental values of marriage. Most people hear gays saying “Marriage is an outdated, oppressive, patriarchal social construct which needs to start including multiple partners, open relationships, and serial mongamy.” This position is unlikely to gain support from most Americans, as their and my support of Prop 8 shows.
Comment by Ashpenaz — February 6, 2009 @ 5:30 pm - February 6, 2009
Ashpenaz, those who I know who have entered a civil union intend on being monogamous, as far as I know. Same as the straight persons, as far as I know, that are married (well, maybe one exception there).
I guess the part I’m not quite getting, is the God part. I guess God created marriage, but most people do the work in marriage like they do most things, and not wait for God to do it for them. So I’m not sure what your point is there. Gay and straight people believe and worship God in different ways. I don’t think the way that gay persons view God is generally different than the way straight persons do.
Maybe I’ll get to see fireproof some day. But unless the movie interviewed 1000 married couples that were selected in a completely random fashion, I doubt that I will be able to conclude anything about how most straight couples view marriage.
This position is unlikely to gain support from most Americans, as their and my support of Prop 8 shows.
I’m sure that would be your reason for voting for Prop. 8 if you live in CA. I think most people voted against it because most people simply not ready for two same sex persons to be married, even if they felt gay persons viewed marriage exactly as you did.
Comment by Pat — February 6, 2009 @ 5:50 pm - February 6, 2009
Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…
…
Trackback by Anonymous — February 6, 2009 @ 6:52 pm - February 6, 2009
“The popularity of Fireproof and Rick Warren’s book suggest that most American heterosexuals share that understanding of marriage”
Then what does the popularity of the Saw series, or the Batman movies, or Harry Potter show about “most” of their intended audience. Fireproof is a feel good movie and it was heavily marketed to a specific segment of the population. It may be a wonderful movie with an excellent message but it’s popularity doesn’t prove anything about what heterosexuals think about marriage. It’s quite safe to say that most heterosexuals have not read Warren’s book, and again, it was marketed to specific audience. I am not condemning heterosexual marriage and I’m not saying that most don’t view it as a lifelong commitment.
“Most people hear gays saying “Marriage is an outdated….”
No, most people hear the voices of the anti-gay marriage folks saying this. Most people don’t read publications from the gay communities, most people don’t even know anyone with that opinion of marriage. I think it’s a stretch to claim that even most gay people have this opinion of marriage. At one time that was true but not now. Of course that’s just my opinion.
I understand the many of the concerns about SSM marriage and agree with some but I will not accept that the blank condemnation that flows from some here is appropriate. Despite a person’s concerns about the validity of our relationships I find the idea that a gay person would actually vote for Prop 8 appalling. Would you also approve the return of sodomy laws?
Comment by a different Dave — February 6, 2009 @ 8:05 pm - February 6, 2009
I don’t think that gay culture and straight culture are equivalent on every issue. The idea that gays and straights are pretty much the same outside of orientation is yet another gay myth. Any reasonable person who has interacted with both subcultures would admit that gays and straights view sex and marriage differently.
Comment by Ashpenaz — February 6, 2009 @ 8:07 pm - February 6, 2009
#25: “I understand the many of the concerns about SSM marriage and agree with some……..I find the idea that a gay person would actually vote for Prop 8 appalling. Would you also approve the return of sodomy laws?”
So ADD, you “understand” the concerns about SSM and “agree” with some of those concerns, but a gay person supporting Prop. 8 is equivalent to him championing the return of unconstitutional, unenforceable laws against ass-fu*king.
Highly astute, ADD. I can’t imagine why I ever doubted you.
Comment by Sean A — February 6, 2009 @ 10:19 pm - February 6, 2009
Sean, the suggestion of equivalence is not present at all in my wording. I just wonder how anti-gay a gay person can be. Legitimate question. There are those with same sex attractions who consider a male being penetrated an offense against their manhood and could conceivably advocate a return of sodomy laws. I’m not talking about those who call themselves ex-gay either. It’s always amusing to see how difficult it is for some of you to read what is actually written.
“I don’t think that gay culture and straight culture are equivalent on every issue.”
Is there just one gay culture? or one straight culture?
Comment by a different Dave — February 6, 2009 @ 11:22 pm - February 6, 2009
You’re right, it doesnt prove it, I should have said it supports their argument.
no, if 67% of people who get married stay married their first time, then the divorce rate is 67%. If the people who get divorced go on to get divorced again, it doesnt change the fact that 67% of couples stay married.
Comment by American Elephant — February 6, 2009 @ 11:56 pm - February 6, 2009
#28: You’re right ADD, not a trace of equivalence at all. I don’t know where I got the idea that you were comparing the “appalling” notion of a gay person voting for Prop. 8 with a self-despising homo that could “conceivably” advocate a return of anti-sodomy laws because the act itself offends him so. I’m sure you had no intention of grouping both scenarios under the heading of “things that make ADD wonder about how anti-gay a gay person can be.” My point is that if you’re going to presumptively label the support of Prop. 8 as “anti-gay,” don’t try to pretend that you “understand” or “agree” with the concerns about SSM (concerns which obviously played a role in the passage of Prop. 8). Nobody believes you.
Comment by Sean A — February 7, 2009 @ 12:36 am - February 7, 2009
no, if 67% of people who get married stay married their first time, then the divorce rate is 67%. If the people who get divorced go on to get divorced again, it doesnt change the fact that 67% of couples stay married.
AE, I agree with you that if 67% of persons who get married for the first time stay married, that fact doesn’t change if a divorced person gets divorced a second, third, fourth, etc., time. But if the divorce rate is 50% of marriages , then in order to get to that figure, assuming your 33% rate for first married persons, plenty of those who get divorced from a first marriage, get divorced again.
You’re right, it doesnt prove it, I should have said it supports their argument.
That’s better. But still, I don’t think either of us would agree that Britney Spears’ marriages would support the argument that marriage among opposite sex couples should end.
Comment by Pat — February 7, 2009 @ 9:57 am - February 7, 2009
#30 Sean, a person can have many concerns about gay marriage and our relationships in general without voting for something is about far more than that. Does a person who has concerns about alcohol abuse then have to support making all drinking illegal? I’m concerned that much of what passes for “conservative” thinking is ignorant and dangerous, but I would never advocate making it illegal to think that way. You are just one more person trapped in the either/or mentality that has nothing to do with real life. The fact that you don’t believe me is meaningless.
So, it’s self-despising to be offended by certain sexual acts but it’s not to be against gay marriage? Does that mean the getting buggered is a requirement to loving yourself as a gay person. In that case a man on a sling servicing any and all must really love himself eh? Questioning the ability of gay folk to form meaningful and monogamous relationships can (but doesn’t have to be) be a form of self-hate, though for many on here it’s simply that those writing are just so much superior to the rest of us.
Comment by a different Dave — February 7, 2009 @ 2:26 pm - February 7, 2009
That’s the problem, Pat. If you talk about the divorce rate as the number of total marriages that end up in divorce it is deceptive. It makes it seem as though far more people are getting divorced than really are. Which is exactly why some people, with a political agenda, use the deceptive figures.
And the problem with your second argument is that Britney Spears marriages do not emphasize the norm, they emphasize the freakish and rare exception to the norm. But unlike heterosexual marriage, the norm among gay couples is not fidelity and life long partnerships, the norm is lots of shorter term relationships. And this divorce emphasizes that norm.
Comment by American Elephant — February 7, 2009 @ 5:01 pm - February 7, 2009
If you and the other bashers hold up ONE couple, or one negative incident or one indecent act as proof that ALL homosexuals do the same then it is perfectly valid to state that all heterosexuals produce children with their daughters, all heterosexual teachers have sex with their underage children, all heterosexuals kidnap their children when a marriage goes wrong and all heterosexuals kill their whole families in times of financial difficulty.
Problem is, adDave, when heterosexuals do that, the result is immediate and loud condemnation by the rest of the heterosexual community.
When gays do it, you and yours start screaming about how wrong it is to “judge”, how “intolerant” people are for doing so, and how anyone who criticizes such behavior by gays is “homophobic”.
These actions get ascribed to the gay community because gays like yourself equivocate and make excuses for them. That makes it more than obvious that you don’t see anything wrong with what they are doing.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 7, 2009 @ 7:07 pm - February 7, 2009
Questioning the ability of gay folk to form meaningful and monogamous relationships can (but doesn’t have to be) be a form of self-hate
Of course we question it, adDave. Gays like yourself insist that you are incapable of forming meaningful and monogamous relationships without marriage — a limitation which doesn’t apply to straight people. Straight people aren’t bothered by telling teenagers not to have sex, but liberal gays treat it as an attack on their very existence — not surprising, when you see the example of liberal gays like Sam Adams and who they choose for sex.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 7, 2009 @ 7:11 pm - February 7, 2009
#32: “You are just one more person trapped in the either/or mentality that has nothing to do with real life.”
Wrong again, ADD. I am well aware that in real life there are homosexuals and heterosexuals who respect monogamous, stable relationships and other homosexuals and heterosexuals who behave in despicable ways and demand that the world not judge them for it. The anecdotal stories of gay and straight behavior have nothing to do with why I oppose same-sex marriage. I oppose it because the rationale for state-supported marriage is the reasonable expectation that the two parties will reproduce and in most cases have the biological capability to do so. The refusal of supporters of SSM to acknowledge this fact is the very definition of ignoring “real life.”
And by the way, the “either/or mentality” you refer to is best represented by the gay left’s (and your) refusal to even consider the possibility of a world in which gays are afforded a state system recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships with all of the same rights conferred on heterosexual spouses, but without the label “marriage.” It’s EITHER the state’s stamp of approval on your relationships (and the validation you are really seeking), OR scorch the Earth, rioting in the streets against religious people for not giving you exactly what you want, when you want it. In your world, EITHER one pledges unequivocal support for gay marriage, OR you’re an anti-gay, self-hating homophobe.
Comment by Sean A — February 7, 2009 @ 8:56 pm - February 7, 2009
Oh Sean, now you’re using the NDT method of stating things I believe that I really don’t and lumping me in with others who I have little in common with. In other words, lying. I think that civil unions or domestic partnerships are just fine. That is all the state can ever offer, marriage is not a legal issue it is spiritual, a covenant before God. The state’s approval means nothing to me, legal protections do not indicate approval. And the tired old worn out marriage is simply about breeding is totally degrading to any married couple in the world.
To you and NDT, you know NOTHING about my world, your claims are pure hallucination. I call someone intolerant etc. when they (like NDT) condemn a whole group of people based on the actions of a tiny segment. And not that the truth matters to you NDT but I don’t use the word homophobic except in very rare and specific circumstances.
“Gays like yourself insist that you are incapable of forming meaningful and monogamous relationships without marriage”
A total, absolute, asinine and ignorant lie. I have NEVER said such a thing. You need to take that “gays like yourself” phrase and shove it in the sphincter that most of your lies flow from. You know nothing about “gays like me” all you know are the perverse thoughts that flow from the cesspool of your mind. Are you even able to put a sentence together that doesn’t have lie in it?
Comment by a different Dave — February 8, 2009 @ 2:02 am - February 8, 2009
Ah, there’s the enchanting ADD that I recognize–erratic, incoherent, and contradictory of positions he took only hours before. As usual, it only takes a couple of swipes of the stick along the bars of your cage to coax out the usual string of outraged recriminations and vehement denials. I’ll respond to just a couple of points from your gay-rave and then summon the zoo-keeper with the tranq-gun (the big one).
“The state’s approval means nothing to me, legal protections do not indicate approval.”
If the state’s approval means “nothing” to you, ADD, then why do you find it “appalling” that a gay person would vote for Prop. 8? Why does the discussion of it inevitably lead to you bringing up something as irrelevant and hyperbolically stupid as anti-sodomy laws?
“And the tired old worn out marriage is simply about breeding is totally degrading to any married couple in the world.”
Yes, ADD, we know you consider that “breeding” argument to be “worn out,” precisely because considering it demands the acknowledgment of certain “real life” facts that you simply won’t deal with. And for the record, you still don’t get it–I don’t think marriage is ONLY about reproduction. I think it is the ONLY aspect of marriage that is relevant to the state’s approval of it. You are still clinging to the TIRED argument that the state’s interest in handing out the benefits should be satisfied by the fact that 2 men REALLY, REALLY, REALLY love each other. ADD, this is a gay political blog–no one here disputes that.
“I don’t use the word homophobic except in very rare and specific circumstances.”
Yes, we know. When you’re awake.
“…shove it in the sphincter that most of your lies flow from.”
You sweet-talker, you.
“You know nothing about “gays like me…—
You sure about that, ADD? Maybe I know just enough to get you to fly into one of your sputtering convulsions a la # 37?
Comment by Sean A — February 8, 2009 @ 3:13 am - February 8, 2009
Meanwhile, let’s show what adDave and his “No on 8″ executive committee want to teach children.
“Here’s the message I wanted to see. … ‘You’re right honey, you can marry a princess, and isn’t that wonderful? You can also marry someone of [a different] race. And you know what, you don’t have to get married; in fact I think you should consider whether you want to participate in that patriarchal institution.’”
In short, adDave and the gay community are insulting and demeaning marriage — and saying that children should be taught that marriage is a bad thing — even as they’re out in public whining about how their lives are meaningless without marriage.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 8, 2009 @ 4:30 pm - February 8, 2009
I have NEVER said such a thing.
Of course you have. You have stated that gay marriage should be legalized because its absence prevents gay men from having meaningful and monogamous relationships.
If the absence of something prevents you from having it, then it is obvious that you are dependent on that something. Gay liberals like yourself are incapable of forming meaningful or monogamous relationships by yourself and need the state mandate in order to keep yourself sexually faithful and interested in a single partner.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 8, 2009 @ 4:34 pm - February 8, 2009
#40 Sadly many who read this believe your lies about me and any other liberal who dares to speak against your hate. The simple fact remains I have never, ever in my life said anything even remotely like your BS. It takes a pretty morally deficient person to lie like you do about people so often.
And Sean, you just jumped in the same toilet as NDT, you can’t respond with outright lies about what I say and believe. To bad because you did have some coherent thoughts.
You both show me yet again, that the “conservatism” you stand for is foul, immoral and dangerous. Luckily, you represent a disgusting minority in conservative circles and hopefully will spend eternity with those who think like you from the left, from fanatic Islam and all the other hate mongers who threaten life on this earth.
FLUSH, bye bye, joint the rest of the excrement.
Comment by a different Dave — February 8, 2009 @ 9:35 pm - February 8, 2009
Sadly many who read this believe your lies about me and any other liberal who dares to speak against your hate.
Isn’t that amazing? Must be because they consider the source, as well as the fact that you consider any criticism of gay peoples’ behavior whatsoever to be “hate”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 9, 2009 @ 12:18 am - February 9, 2009
NDT for the 10,000 time I do NOT consider any criticism to be hate, there is much to be validly criticized. What I DESPISE is 1) your blanket condemnation of the gay communities for the behavior of some and 2) your disturbed habit of attributing words and attitudes to me that are completely untrue. You point to articles I have never even read and tell me that I agree with them. You have done the same with others. Your assumption of what others think based simply on the fact that they disagree with you NOT based on what they actually said , is ignorant. Your repetition of your assumptions despite clarification and/or confrontation by the person you are lying about is arrogant. And when you sound JUST LIKE Peter Labarbera or Matt Barber then YES you are spewing hate. There is much that you say that is valid and worth discussing but you are apparently unable to do so without exaggeration and fabrication. If someone considers you a source of truth despite these obvious actions they are sadly mistaken.
Comment by a different Dave — February 9, 2009 @ 2:47 pm - February 9, 2009
[...] To be sure, some of our critics do make valid points, a number of which echo things I have said on this blog, notably about “no-fault divorce [being] a greater threat to social cohesion than gay marriage.“ [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » So, Leftist Outrage Confirms Conservative Hate Speech? — February 17, 2009 @ 5:10 pm - February 17, 2009