Gay Patriot Header Image

(Some of) Our Critics & Their Imaginary Conservatives

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 8:18 pm - February 19, 2009.
Filed under: Academia,Blogging,Civil Discourse

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

Sixteen years ago, when a second-year at the University of Virginia School of Law, I was the leading candidate to become the next president of the school’s chapter of the Federalist Society, an organization of “conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order.“  While “out” to my closest friends and a member of the Gay and Lesbian Law Students Association, most members of the Society didn’t know I was gay.

I feared that if I had ome out, I might not have won election to the post to which I aspired.  I  bought the notion, peddled then as it it today, that a group of conservative students would not choose a gay man as their leader.

Well, I became president and learned during my third year and after my graduation that it wouldn’t have mattered.  Only one member of the Society, on learning I was gay, had any problem with my sexuality.  And even after finding out, he continued to praise my leadership of and devotion to the organization.

As I recall that story, I need single out those liberal students, including the then-president of the Law Democrats, who knew I was gay, yet prevented a more radical student from “outing” me.  I try always to remember their example when unhappy left-wingers comment to this blog, trotting out their standard prejudiced clichés about conservatives in general and their dishonest refrain about gay conservatives in particular, “self-loathing.”

This experience reminds me how broad-minded are so many of our ideological adversaries.  And sensitive to the privacy concerns of their conservative friends.

What is it, I wonder today, as I’ve wondered longer than I’ve been blogging why some of their ideological allies, particularly their gay peers, must needs always define gay conservatives as “self-hating,” calling us the equivalent of Jewish Nazis or black Klansmen?

The comments to my post, Defining Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage as Hate Speech, offered quite a window into this particular left-wing worldview.  Amusing how, when accusing us of self-hatred, they use such vilifying language.  Maybe they assume we hate ourselves because they’re just so determined to hate us.  And since they only see the world from their point of view, they’ve rationalized that since they hate us, everyone must hate us, including ourselves.

Or, maybe it’s because to them, they define “hate speech” as speech they don’t like.

Since they are so full of hatred themselves, they’re convinced that we, in the words of one man who has chimed in quite a bit to at least two threads on this blog, espouse “an ideology espoused by people who mostly hate you.”

They assume we’re closeted, yet dismiss (or outright ignore) our experiences of being openly gay in conservative circles.  I have been out as a gay man at numerous gatherings and aside from a few raised eyebrows (actually two, both belonging to the same woman), have suffered no discrimination for such self-identifying.

As I often noted on this blog and elsewhere, “It’s easier to be gay among conservatives than it is to be conservative among gays.”  Conservatives don’t vilify me when I come out as gay, but when certain gay liberals learn of this blog, they’re convinced I support a political party (and/or philosophy) made up mostly of people who hate me because of the nature of my romantic and sexual affections.

Simply put, our actual experiences don’t register to these people.

These guys seem to be living in a world which hasn’t changed since Harvey Milk rose to prominence, a time when there were almost no openly gay elected officials and when coming out as gay could compromise your career.  No wonder they’re all so enamored with the film.  And they accuse us of living in the past and having retrograde ideas.

Fifteen years ago, I learned that most conservatives had no problem with an openly gay fellow.  Granted, things were not as rosy in the 1990s as they are today (a point which I hope to address in a subsequent post).

Yet, it seems that all too many of our critics (and denizens of the “netroots”) don’t write about real conservatives, but imaginary troglodytic ones.  And once they’ve defined us as self-hating troglodytes, they rationalize they can dismiss our arguments, even as their own words reveal how false are the assumptions they make about us.

Well, at least, it provides us fodder for good sport and speculation, leaving us to wonder why they must define as hateful anyone who expresses an opinion at odds with their own.

Share

116 Comments

  1. Yet, it seems that all too many of our critics (and denizens of the “netroots”) don’t write about real conservatives, but imaginary troglodytic ones. And once they’ve defined us as self-hating troglodytes, they rationalize they can dismiss our arguments, even as their own words reveal how false are the assumptions they make about us.

    Personally, I attribute their “self-hating” accusation to projection. I think that, deep-down, leftie-fags hate themselves.

    I’m sure you notice, GPW, how often they are prickly; the size of the chips on their shoulders. That’s generally a sign of deep insecurity. Also, as we’ve noticed the last 5 years with their stances on Bush, on the U.S. military, on Islamism or the War on Terror, etc., they are determined to bite the hand (or the country) that gives them shelter and makes their lives possible. That lesbian who seriously blogged about her “crush” on Ahmadinnerjacket comes to mind.

    So I interpret those things as a sign of, again, deep self-hatred. Of course they don’t want to admit it, so they tell themselves and each other that we conservatives – or (in my case) classical liberals / conservative-leaning libertarians – are self-hating. They repeat it as a mantra, or an article of religious faith; evidence and understanding are not needed.

    There are, of course, exceptions. We meet the occasional gay leftie on this blog who doesn’t have a giant chip on his or her shoulder – and who, strangely enough, also seems to have (1) less need to put down the people and country that shelter her life, (2) less need to accuse all of us of self-hatred.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 8:36 pm - February 19, 2009

  2. I might be wrong about this, but I think those on the left who are so ready to vilify conservative gays have a very different life view. To them, life is about being gay, it defines who they are and what they do and think. All their friends tend to be gay, and all of the same opinion. They live in gay neighborhoods and socialize almost exclusivly with other gay people.

    I have found that gay conservatives, and I look at myself as a prime example, view their gayness as one facet of a complex life. Yes, I’m gay but that does not define who I am; it is simply one aspect of me. My social circle is predominately straight; I live in a suburban area that is largely straight. While everyone knows I’m gay, my neighbors are my friends, they could care less. My life is defined by my work, my values, my concerns. Being gay is something I seldom comtemplate; it is simply a part of me.

    All to often I’ve encountered people, especially in San Francisco who I call “professional” gays. They live in a ghetto like enviroment, are offended to have to deal with straight people, are very defensive and focus all their waking hours on being gay. And they make the best “victims”. I’m tired of them claiming to represent me, they do not. They have “pride” parades; what’s to be proud of? Sexual orientation is no different than brown eyes. Should I have a parade to be proud about the color of my eyes?

    I think the reason the gay left is so hostile to gay conservatives is that they realize we don’t need them. We are accomplished in our own right; we are not victims; we do not need their help to be successful or happy. We don’t need their help to live openly among truely diverse people.

    Comment by John in Dublin Ca — February 19, 2009 @ 8:45 pm - February 19, 2009

  3. John – agree!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 8:52 pm - February 19, 2009

  4. John, one of my associates in the BDSM community summed it up similarly.

    “We are not ‘Kinky People’. We are people, who happen to be kinky.”

    Comment by The Livewire — February 19, 2009 @ 9:41 pm - February 19, 2009

  5. rather than spending so much energy on criticizing your political opponents, perhaps you should begin developing more nuanced and thoughtful ideas on how to solve the nation’s problems. in case you haven’t noticed, we’re in quite the predicament these days.

    if you want conservatives to remain relevant in our country’s discussion (i, as a liberal, want conservatives to remain relevant to our country’s discussion), you would be well advised to think about how to make things better instead of about how to find a way to put liberals down. i’m not saying you shouldn’t criticize the opposition; it’s just that the criticism should not overwhelm the discussion of ideas and your ideals.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 19, 2009 @ 9:44 pm - February 19, 2009

  6. Wow. And bob comes along and projects his imaginary do nothing conservatives into this conversation.

    Maybe it’s because if the real conservatives roll over and die like he’d like he’d finally be able to debate his fictional conservatives and maybe outsmart them.

    Gods know he’s outclassed with the real article.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 19, 2009 @ 10:01 pm - February 19, 2009

  7. bob would be one of the prickly, chip-on-shoulder, projecting, self-hating “leftie fags” I had in mind.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 10:10 pm - February 19, 2009

  8. I mean, granted that his comment at #5 maintained a semi-civil tone – despite its irrelevancy, and (on various grounds) its inaccuracy or stupidity – but he has had vast numbers of other comments, that haven’t.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 10:12 pm - February 19, 2009

  9. thanks for proving my point.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 19, 2009 @ 10:17 pm - February 19, 2009

  10. bob, for once, you make a most excellent point. You’re right. For conservatives to be relevant, they must make a good case on how to improve things. Very well said. And I mean that. Really solid comment down to the last line.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 19, 2009 @ 10:18 pm - February 19, 2009

  11. Dan, for whatever it’s worth this liberal doesn’t think you or Bruce are self-loathing. I seriously question Bruce’s sanity on occasion when I read his posts, but that has nothing to do with his sexuality. 🙂 The only possible cases of self-loathing I think possibly exist here are some of your “straight” visitors who spend so much time on a gay blog, perhaps seeking to find some solace or balance between what it means to be gay (not that they are) and still conservative. To the extent that may be true, I think your blog actually serves a positive as it may help people work through whatever those issues are. I also think you’re right that sometimes the lefties get very hypocritical over what constitutes hate speech (and what doesn’t), but I think there’s also plenty of hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle on a variety of issues. Anyway… Peace.

    Comment by CR — February 19, 2009 @ 10:23 pm - February 19, 2009

  12. bob, for once, you make a most excellent point

    GPW, I disagree with you there. The implication of bob’s comment is that conservatives – and classical liberals – and you/us on the GP blog – somehow haven’t been making a good case on how to improve things. We/they have. It’s just that bob, and Democrats generally, choose to stay in ignorance of it.

    Plus. to coin a question: What has bob’s topic to do with the topic of your post?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2009 @ 10:25 pm - February 19, 2009

  13. in case you haven’t noticed, we’re in quite the predicament these days.

    We HAVE noticed. What’s more, we’ve also noticed that the lib’s “answer” is more of the SAME SHIT that got us in said “predicament” in the first place.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 19, 2009 @ 10:49 pm - February 19, 2009

  14. We HAVE noticed. What’s more, we’ve also noticed that the lib’s “answer” is more of the SAME SHIT that got us in said “predicament” in the first place.

    Oh, come on. The reason the economy is f_ed is because people spent recklessly and racked up insurmountable debt. Surely, you aren’t suggesting that the Obama regime is using these same techniques?

    Comment by V the K — February 19, 2009 @ 11:04 pm - February 19, 2009

  15. Yesterday I wrote about how Laura Ingraham has l-e-s-b-i-a-n Tammy Bruce as her most frequent guest host. Not 2 minutes ago, just before I read this, Mark Levin had a caller who identified herself as a gay conservative and he referred to her as “my friend” and meant it. Just food for thought…

    But as to hateful liberal gays…

    Liberal gays think Conservatives hate, because they are themselves filled with hate. Mostly because they have been unable to come to terms with being gay in a world where every major religion says being gay is sinful.

    And because they are unable to work those issues out in a healthy manner, they hate religion instead, because its easier. Yet they dont want to feel separated from faith, deep down most people are drawn to faith naturally. So on top of that they feel robbed of something they want. Yet they blame religion for it, instead of their own rejection of religion. And so they hate religion even more.

    And conservatives represent religion to them, so they hate Conservatives in turn. And because they harbor so much self-created hate towards religion and conservatives, they project their hate onto them. Liberals must rationalize their hate, and so they blame the objects of their hate, convincing themselves that their hate is reasonable because conservatives hate them.

    Problem is, conservatives don’t hate them. Its a fantasy, a lie they have constructed to rationalize their own ugly and painful emotions.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 19, 2009 @ 11:29 pm - February 19, 2009

  16. You make some good points, American Elephant. As far as Laura Ingraham, she has a gay brother, and she made some veiled references to him and the fact this his partner had passed away in the acknowledgements of her first edition of her book about Hillary Clinton. I’ve read that they were estranged for many years as a result of an incident that occurred when she was editor of the Dartmouth Review where the newspaper published a transcript of a meeting of the Gay Students Association, included the names of all the students, and then sent the paper to all of the students’ parents (thereby outing some of them). From things I’ve read, she seems to get along with him well now and I gather she has a number of gay friends. It’s a good thing that she has matured since her college days with respect to gay people, or else I might not find as much humor in hearing her skewer Pelosi, Reid, and Obama in the morning as I drive to work.

    Comment by Kurt — February 20, 2009 @ 12:27 am - February 20, 2009

  17. Here is a page originally posted by GLAAD that further details some of the the things I referred to about Laura Ingraham in my comment above.

    Comment by Kurt — February 20, 2009 @ 12:38 am - February 20, 2009

  18. Kurt, I’ve long thought Ingraham was cool. Now I remember why 🙂 I think I might have read that actual GLAAD alert, when it came out.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 20, 2009 @ 1:43 am - February 20, 2009

  19. Why do you guys care so much if us Liberals think you are full of “self-hate?” That sounds like your problem, not ours. While I think both sides can be full of hot air at times you people say being Gay is not how you identify? Seems to me you people do not think yourself gay first, but do think yourself a conservative and a Republican to the detriment of everything else. What is the difference? If the religious right would stop picking fights with us, we would not be so loudly Gay. Seems you guys are ashamed of yourselves. Whether you are or are not is your problem to deal with.

    Comment by DaveA — February 20, 2009 @ 3:11 am - February 20, 2009

  20. Seems to me you people do not think yourself gay first, but do think yourself a conservative and a Republican to the detriment of everything else.

    Certainly not to the detriment of everything else, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense to look at the world, events, politics and society through a set of values than through a sexuality.

    If the religious right would stop picking fights with us

    HA!

    no, really, hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    Like the way they are always going to court trying to force their agenda on the country through judicial fiat? Oooops. thats you guys. My bad.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 20, 2009 @ 4:46 am - February 20, 2009

  21. Liberals, for the most part, feel everyone who disagrees with them is evil. They vilify everything they do or say, twist and distort to attempt to make points, etc. Everyone who disagrees with them is not simply mistaken, but up to no good on a grand scheme.

    Conservatives on the other hand, tend to view most of their opponents as sadly mistaken, wrong, misinformed, sometimes dangerously naive, and many times rather incoherent.
    Only in rather special cases do conservatives toss out the “Evil” label on an opponent.

    Comment by JP — February 20, 2009 @ 5:08 am - February 20, 2009

  22. really, jp? do you remember the ‘axis of evil’?

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 20, 2009 @ 6:46 am - February 20, 2009

  23. That’s another difference between liberals and conservatives Bob!

    We can distinguish between enemies and opponents.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 20, 2009 @ 6:51 am - February 20, 2009

  24. #22 That would be one of those special cases, bob.

    Or don’t you consider plannign genocide, wiping nations off the map, keeping their people in abject poverty or raping and feeding them to wood chippers evil?

    Comment by The Livewire — February 20, 2009 @ 6:54 am - February 20, 2009

  25. We on the right have a few stereotypes about the left, too.

    – Mindlessly loyal to Obama and the Democrats. Incapable of criticizing even the most gross and outrageous examples of corruption, incompetence, and bad policy.

    – Incapable of real argument, they just spout bumper-sticker slogans and talking points. Rapidly revert to insults and name-calling when slogans and talking points are refuted.

    – Their inability to reason is matched by their inability to spell, capitalize, and punctuate.

    – Narcissistic and self-centered. (It’s all about me-me-me.) They exhibit smugness and condescension that is in no way justified by the poor quality of their argument.

    – Find it necessary to demonize and caricature those with whom they disagree. Prone to making up ridiculous lies about people with whom they disagree. (e.g. “the Bush Crime family” “Republicans want to exterminate gays.” “Christan Pride Camps were the extermination of gays is cheered.”)

    Most if not all of these stereotypes are validated daily by the lefties who post here.

    Just sayin’…

    Comment by V the K — February 20, 2009 @ 7:56 am - February 20, 2009

  26. Great post Dan!!! It is true that Liberals see everyone as “evil”, and have applied moral relativism to political disagreements and those who mean to kill all of us.

    They are really sad cartoons of themselves as “small l” liberals. JFK is spinning in his grave.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — February 20, 2009 @ 8:27 am - February 20, 2009

  27. Bruce, liberal, at one time meant an inclination toward open-mindedness, thoughtful deliberation, tolerance, and human freedom.

    When the left co-opted liberalism, it killed off all of those traits. Open-mindedness was replaced by the tyranny of political correctness and speech codes. Thoughtful deliberation was replaced by mindless chants like “Yes, we can” and “No on H8.” Tolerance went the way of open-mindedness. And human freedom was replaced by submission to Marxism, environmentalism, affirmative action, unionism, and any other excuse to diminish the choices available to an individual. Indeed, the so-called liberal left not only opposes the extension of human rights to brown peoples, it regards freedom as the gravest threat to humanity. With one exception, you’ll still be allowed to bone whoever you want in your bedroom. Once you step outside the bedroom, your every choice will be limited by the state.

    Some people think that’s a fair trade.

    Comment by V the K — February 20, 2009 @ 8:47 am - February 20, 2009

  28. It is true that Liberals see everyone as “evil”…

    Wow. Talk about ad hominem attacks.

    Comment by CR — February 20, 2009 @ 9:53 am - February 20, 2009

  29. Maybe it’s truer to say that liberals have a warped idea of what constitutes “evil.”

    Defending traditional marriage – evil. Expressing disagreement with Dear Leader Obama – evil. Making profits – evil. Putting physical stress on terrorists to save innocent lives – evil. Christianity – evil.

    Killing hundreds of dissidents in cold blood like Che Guevara – not evil if communists do it. Beheading prisoners of war – not evil if Muslim terrorists do it. Executing gays – not evil if Iran does it.

    Basically, if you’re an enemy of the United States, nothing you do will be called evil by the left. If you support capitalism, free markets, and traditional values, *everything* you do will be called evil by the left.

    Comment by V the K — February 20, 2009 @ 10:04 am - February 20, 2009

  30. Maybe it’s truer to say that liberals have a warped idea of what constitutes “evil.”

    Defending traditional marriage – evil. Expressing disagreement with Dear Leader Obama – evil. Making profits – evil. Putting physical stress on terrorists to save innocent lives – evil. C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-i-t-y – evil.

    Killing hundreds of dissidents in cold blood like Che Guevara – not evil if communists do it. Beheading prisoners of war – not evil if Muslim terrorists do it. Executing gays – not evil if Iran does it.

    Basically, if you’re an enemy of the United States, nothing you do will be called evil by the left. If you support capitalism, free markets, and traditional values, *everything* you do will be called evil by the left.

    Comment by V the K — February 20, 2009 @ 10:04 am - February 20, 2009

  31. We can distinguish between enemies and opponents.

    Not always, I’m afraid.

    Basically, if you’re an enemy of the United States, nothing you do will be called evil by the left. If you support capitalism, free markets, and traditional values, *everything* you do will be called evil by the left.

    Case in point: President Bush. Obama is continuing many Bush policies and even intensifying some of them… but suddenly they are to be supported or at least ignored… simply because it’s a different *person* doing them. Integrity, anyone?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 20, 2009 @ 10:18 am - February 20, 2009

  32. Dan, I’m thinking that both political or philosophical sides of our community use the “self-loathing” and “self-hating” tags with near equal aplomb. Unlike you, my experience inside both the GOP and Federalist Society and other conservative groups has been mixed at times, very good at others -as far as acceptance or tolerance of my gay nature.

    But arguing with a fellow gay politico about whether one is self-loathing or self-hating is a lot different than the Left using “Hate Speech” as a mechamism to intimidate and marginalize uncomfortable ideas. The former is nothing more than a grade school quality put-down or cut-down pulled from the therapists’ couch… which has greater currency among gay people. Gov Romney noted once that “Hate Speech” is like making a pre-emptive strike with the entire nuclear arsenal… it’s meant to level your opponent, dismiss their argument, marginalize them in the debate. He thought we sometimes use the questionable patriotism point to the same intended effect.

    I have heard, just about equally, from Left gay activists that my GOP affiliation automatically makes me self-loathing as I’ve heard from GOP- and Libertarian- conservatives that being gay is anti-societal, injurious to the common good and moral fabric. I’d never expect to hear that from a moderate GOPer or progressive GOPer… and I can’t remember ever hearing it from that quarter.

    And yet, I still think (maybe wrongly) that one can’t be against the mission on the WOT and still support the troops or be patriotic to America. I don’t think real patriots sit during the National Anthem or Pledge of Allegiance either. I still think (maybe wrongly) that being in favor a building an Israeli-like wall at the border, demonizing illegal aliens and other actions are inherently racist in their impulse.

    On the latter, I’m still trying to see beyond the labels and understand the raw fear that might drive those proposals. And with the GayLeft’s or conservativeRight’s complaints about the dissonance of being gay and a GOPer… I know now that rational discussion will have little effect.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 20, 2009 @ 11:13 am - February 20, 2009

  33. A friend has just come up with a new term: conservaphobe, I think that defines most people on the left very well these days.

    I wish I had that term last week when a lovely old lady told me that she really liked me despite the fact that I am conservative.

    Having been told my whole life that one must respect ones elders, I said nothing, but having asked her if she is a conservaphobe might have done the trick.

    Comment by Leah — February 20, 2009 @ 11:42 am - February 20, 2009

  34. A friend has just come up with a new term: conservaphobe.

    I think most racists are actually Theophobes. Maybe ‘dextrophobe’ has more of a ring to it than conservaphobe.

    Comment by V the K — February 20, 2009 @ 12:16 pm - February 20, 2009

  35. I meant “atheists” not “racists.”

    Comment by V the K — February 20, 2009 @ 12:16 pm - February 20, 2009

  36. My main problem with modern liberalism is that it practices engineered liberty. It chooses winners and losers (and its winners are what it perceives to be society’s losers or victims) and promotes them by rationalizing the worst aspects of such communities, domestic and worldwide. This approach to society necessarily makes anyone who recognizes the need to erect guardrails as evil because any restriction on the behavior of a liberal’s select groups is an imposition and an imposition is a reduction in liberty. Thus, liberals aren’t interested in rules and laws that apply to everyone allowing individuals to develop according to their abilities and choices and thus, they’re not interested in liberty. To modern liberals, society is a structure that must be designed, nurtured, and built and that takes many, many laws and many, many double and triple standards, many boogeymen, many saints, and many executioners.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 20, 2009 @ 12:36 pm - February 20, 2009

  37. My main problem with modern liberalism is that it practices engineered liberty

    …which goal is a contradiction in terms. (Hence your other points… which with I agree.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 20, 2009 @ 12:55 pm - February 20, 2009

  38. I think a large part of the “self-hating” thing comes from the fact that a lot of gay people view politics through a “single issue” lens. They know what they think about sexuality and gender, but ask them about other issues and their opinions are horribly unsophisticated if they even have an opinion at all.

    When it comes to legislation on sexuality and gender, the Democratic party is most likely to promote “pro-gay” legislation. In their eyes (since sexuality and gender are the only political issues in their worldview), all gays must be democrats. If not, they support those people who oppose the aforementioned legislation and thus hate themselves.

    This of coarse ignores a plethora of other issues that many find just as important. But they are either unable to see the importance of those other issues, or think that sexuality and gender are the most important issues and they outweigh all other considerations.

    Comment by DanM — February 20, 2009 @ 1:38 pm - February 20, 2009

  39. […] GAY PATRIOT: (Some of) Our Critics & Their Imaginary Conservatives. Plus, at the Daily Kos, imaginary white […]

    Pingback by Instapundit » Blog Archive » AT GAY PATRIOT: (Some of) Our Critics & Their Imaginary Conservatives. Plus, at the Daily Kos, ima… — February 20, 2009 @ 2:07 pm - February 20, 2009

  40. According to my particular brand of religion, lots of people I know, like, work with, or whatever, are supposed to be going to Hell when they die. OK. Maybe they will. But that doesn’t stop me from liking them, working with them, hanging out with them, whatever. They’re full grown adults who make their own choices and will live, eternally or not, with the consequences.

    The social contract that we are *supposed* to have in America is that we are free to do all kinds of things other people might not *like*. But, as long as we, personally and individually, aren’t hurting anybody else, the government, the church, our neighbors, our friends, our relatives, whatever, are supposed to leave us alone. I don’t care about your race, color, or your creed as long as you leave me alone and help me defend all of our right to be left alone.

    Comment by Letalis Maximus, Esq. — February 20, 2009 @ 2:22 pm - February 20, 2009

  41. some of your “straight” visitors who spend so much time on a gay blog

    This is a conservative blog. “Gay” modifies “Patriot”.

    Comment by bgates — February 20, 2009 @ 2:34 pm - February 20, 2009

  42. Looking over the comments on this and other pro-freedom blogs, I see countless comments from “liberals” and other kinds of collectivists saying, “You conservatives believe this . . .” with the rest of the sentence naming some idea no conservative I have ever read or listened to has ever advocated. ( I believe I can be a fairly impartial judge of this since I am not actually a conservative, but a former Young American for Freedom and Young Republican who left the ranks of conservatives when conservatives told me libertarians were not “true” conservatives. My reaction: was a shrug and an “OK, if you say so.”)

    I think part of this is a conscious “straw-man” method of argumentation, part of it deliberate disinformation (the old “no truth but revolutionary truth” cliche), and a lot of it is simple deep-in-the-cocoon Hive-mindedness. I’m always tempted to ask: “Oh, really? Can you quote me some specific conservatives on that point?” I think the response would be crickets chirping like in a Warner Brothers cartoon.

    Comment by Bilwick1 — February 20, 2009 @ 2:50 pm - February 20, 2009

  43. This approach to society necessarily makes anyone who recognizes the need to erect guardrails as evil….

    Anyone who recognizes the “need” to construct societal guardrails is mistaken, not evil.

    The inherent problem with the “guardrail” theory is that the guardrail only performs its intended function when one crashes into it. The end result is therefore the same as what would have happened had there been no guardrail at all.

    Comment by Trouble — February 20, 2009 @ 3:10 pm - February 20, 2009

  44. Number 11: maybe some of straight people hang out here ’cause we like Dan and Bruce. Because they write well and are entertaining? Even if one of them when to Trinity?

    Last time I checked I was rather fond of myself… although since I have a life, I really don’t think about whether or not I loathe myself much.

    Number 13: So the mythical religous right is supposed to change their faith for your comfort? Why don’t you try selling that idea in your local mosque? Let us know how it goes.

    Comment by Kevin — February 20, 2009 @ 3:16 pm - February 20, 2009

  45. the left like to believe they are morally superior in action and policy, hence any opposition must be demonized as racist, homophobic, starve children, etc.

    Comment by robert verdi — February 20, 2009 @ 3:25 pm - February 20, 2009

  46. Then and Now…

    My friend Dan Blatt talks about some liberals and their mostly mythical enemies – the conservative homophobe. Fifteen years ago, I learned that most conservatives had no problem with an openly gay fellow. Granted, things were not as rosy in……

    Trackback by what if? — February 20, 2009 @ 3:27 pm - February 20, 2009

  47. One of the fundamental difference in liberal and conservative is how they thing of individuals and groups. Conservatives tend to value individual freedom, and thus have no problem with dealing with people acting outside of the clustering that we tend to stereotype people into. Liberals value groups over individuals, when people act outside of that grouping they are cutting to the core notion of how to treat people. How can a policy support GLBT needs as a group if they don’t act as a group?

    Comment by joe — February 20, 2009 @ 3:40 pm - February 20, 2009

  48. We are all aware of the cliche that if you are conservative at 20, you have no heart. If you are liberal at 40, you have no head. There’s a lot of truth to that. There’s also a saying that a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged.

    The fact is, most conservatives were liberal for at least a while in their youth. And then they got mugged, mugged by reality.

    The practical upshot of this is that most conservatives, being former liberals, know something about what it means to be liberal. Most liberals, having never been conservative, know very little about what it means to be conservative. That’s why you get the kinds of situations talked about here.

    FWIW, it doesn’t matter that bob is right about what conservatives should be doing. Apart from the fact that the post assumes without evidence that conservatives aren’t, it also insists that conservatives should do nothing else. They should be all economy all the time and no other issue. Until this one blows over.

    That’s a load of crap and bob knows it. If he believed that the economy should be everyone’s focus all the time, he wouldn’t be here posting about it, he’d be off studying economics. But he isn’t, is he?

    His post was made in bad faith.

    Comment by tim maguire — February 20, 2009 @ 3:41 pm - February 20, 2009

  49. Bob said “if you want conservatives to remain relevant in our country’s discussion (i, as a liberal, want conservatives to remain relevant to our country’s discussion), you would be well advised to think about how to make things better instead of about how to find a way to put liberals down. ”

    The issue of liberals demonizing conservatives is very relevent to actually solving our country’s problems. When conservative voices are stifled by false claims about how “intolerant” and “hateful” they are, it is impossible to have any meaningful discussions about our nation’s economic and political ills and possible solutions. The liberals suffer from self-inflicted deafness — they just can’t hear conservatives because their prejudices plug up their ears (and minds). To actually start productive dialogs about solutions, liberals need to give up their stereotypes about conservatives and become willing to actually listen to what conservatives have to say.

    Comment by CBDenver — February 20, 2009 @ 3:42 pm - February 20, 2009

  50. I think that a lot of gay leftists have a very powerful need to see everyone that disapproves of homosexuality as Rev. Fred Phelps. That way, it is possible to tar an entire political ideology as hate-filled crazies. A serious discussion with those of us who disapprove of homosexuality but don’t fit into their simple pigeonhole approach would be too complex for them.

    I have repeatedly stated that sodomy laws are stupid, practically unenforceable–and yet completely constitutional. Lawrence was wrongly decided. For a lot of gay leftists, the concept that a law might be constitutional but foolish seems incomprehensible to them, perhaps because they worship judicial activism, and find the idea of trying to win a public debate–rather than persuading judges–anethema.

    Like a lot of conservatives, I am not thrilled at the idea of gays in the military, not because gays can’t be good soldiers (we know that many have been, and are), but because we are concerned that once allowed in the military and out of the closet, there will be enormous pressure from the crowd that has street festivals such as “Up Your Alley” to define drag queens, bathroom stall activity, and other expressions of immature flamboyance as “part of their culture.” And that would NOT be good for our military–and definitely problematic for those gay men and women who are grown up enough to find such behavior distasteful.

    But why engage in a serious discussion? It’s easier for gay lefitsts to just imagine conservatives as having horns, tails, and fangs.

    Comment by Clayton E. Cramer — February 20, 2009 @ 4:07 pm - February 20, 2009

  51. #42: Anyone who recognizes the “need” to construct societal guardrails is mistaken, not evil.

    Here’s what I actually wrote:

    This approach to society necessarily makes anyone who recognizes the need to erect guardrails as evil…

    Rational people are law-abiding because they recognize that laws are necessary for society to survive and for individuals to thrive. The term ‘guardrails’ is a metaphor for laws (or rules or mores) that are recognizable and apply to all who travel on society’s metaphorical roads. People who understand their necessity are neither mistaken nor evil.

    The inherent problem with the “guardrail” theory is that the guardrail only performs its intended function when one crashes into it.

    When you drive down a road with a guardrail, do you see it and avoid it, knowing that its presence indicates that what lies on the other side may have necessitated its construction, i.e. contact with it may prove more consequential than a simple line painted on the pavement? Do you suspect that a guardrail is constructed because the damage caused if it were not there would be far greater, thus the guardrail?

    Comment by Ignatius — February 20, 2009 @ 4:08 pm - February 20, 2009

  52. CR: I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am a straight man who hangs here because he likes the conversation, likes funning with V the K… and likes mocking people like you. The assumption that visiting this site somehow must indicate my enclosetedness is a sign of the intense and unreasoning bigotry that the gay Left holds towards the Right.

    Frankly, I believe that people are more than what they do in bed. I’m sorry that so many on the Left have such a problem with this idea.

    Clayton: Selah.

    Comment by DaveP. — February 20, 2009 @ 4:28 pm - February 20, 2009

  53. Easy on the libs, y’all.

    If your political well-being depended on holding together a jittery coalition of identity politics groups, you’d be uptight and resorting to any means necessary too.

    Comment by Charlie — February 20, 2009 @ 4:29 pm - February 20, 2009

  54. “The only possible cases of self-loathing I think possibly exist here are some of your “straight” visitors who spend so much time on a gay blog, perhaps seeking to find some solace or balance between what it means to be gay (not that they are) and still conservative.”

    CM, as to your above statement, It could also be that a straight guy like myself, enjoy good writting, from a different perspective on an issue that interests me.

    Comment by Norm Roth — February 20, 2009 @ 4:39 pm - February 20, 2009

  55. L.M. Esq @ 40 and others above have touched on it, but a big part of the reason why some have such a warped view of those on the liberty-loving side is that, ironically enough, we’re a pretty tolerant lot. In my dealings, somebody who agrees with more than 70% of my political platform is a stalwart ally. This means that among my friends, you can find pot-smoking libertarians who believe that war should only be fought by volunteer mercenaries (if ever), generally pro-liberty folks who still believe in a social safety net guaranteed by the state, evangelicals who feel it their duty to try to save me from eternal hellfire, and racist homophobes around whom I need to be very careful to avoid bringing up subjects that are likely to end in shouting matches.

    It’s this understanding that none of us are angels, and that there’s nothing the State can do to improve us without horribly trampling our rights, that leads us to this level of tolerance. However, it also makes it easy for our opponents to find any number of examples of writing or behavior that are technically “hypocritical” to some aspect or another of our platform.

    Unfortunately, it’s nearly impossible to state, “Sure, the guy’s a raving bigot, but he has an excellent sense of personal liberty, so we let him stick around and try not to let him get started about his prejudices.” At least, not without coming across as being a supporter of said bigot.

    Odd, that those with such a mastery of nuance and subtlety of thought have such trouble seeing the difference between endorsement and tolerance.

    Comment by Squid — February 20, 2009 @ 4:45 pm - February 20, 2009

  56. #49: “I think that a lot of gay leftists have a very powerful need to see everyone that disapproves of homosexuality as Rev. Fred Phelps. That way, it is possible to tar an entire political ideology as hate-filled crazies. A serious discussion with those of us who disapprove of homosexuality but don’t fit into their simple pigeonhole approach would be too complex for them.”

    You’re correct, Clayton, and your example illustrates perfectly the Left’s propensity to see individuals not for who they are, but for what they symbolize or represent. The Left has already decided that all conservatives are hate-mongering, homophobic bigots, so Phelps (an ACTUAL hate-mongering, homophobic bigot) just helps them personify and demonize it. But as usual, reality fails to cooperate with the Left’s standard little boxes and labels: Phelps is a lifelong DEMOCRAT. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1999/03/man-who-loves-hate

    Comment by Sean A — February 20, 2009 @ 5:08 pm - February 20, 2009

  57. Meanwhile in California, prop 8 passed because of all of those conservative Republicans who dominate California politics. Right?

    Comment by Self-hating Boomer — February 20, 2009 @ 5:21 pm - February 20, 2009

  58. Good point, Squid. I’d add that in the internet age a lot of junk gets written and published by all sorts of different people. You can make pretty much any statement you want about the other side and somewhere out there there is an example illustrating your point.

    Comment by tim maguire — February 20, 2009 @ 5:41 pm - February 20, 2009

  59. 1) yammering on and going for the soundbite about a (fictional) san francisco mouse in the stimulus bill is not putting forth solutions, nor is it productive to the discourse on the economy. the same thing goes for the fictional acorn bit repubs were pushing.

    2) i’m sure you would all scream and yell if a liberal made the types of generalizations about conservatives that are rampant on these comment sections about liberals. i don’t think people with whom i disagree are evil. [as a sidenote, i was never arguing that the iranian government hasn’t done evil things…but labeling an entire country with millions of diverse people as “evil” is generally not productive foreign policy. and more to the point, i was simply refuting the notion that liberals are the only ones who use the word “evil” to label their enemies or adversaries.]

    3) believing in the free-markets or supply-side economics or a hawkish foreign policy is in no way antithetical to being a gay person. however, putting aside your thoughts of what the name should be (marriage, civil union, etc.) there aren’t any valid arguments for denying gay people the same RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES given to straight people (and please don’t make the sham marriage argument, morons). if you’re a gay person who honestly believes that your long-term, committed relationship should be evaluated by the government as somehow less valuable, and thus not eligible to receive, the same health care, tax, immigration, judicial, and emotional rights as straight couples…it’s hard for most people to understand how you aren’t, at the very least, a bit brainwashed.

    self-loathing? i’m not sure…but i can see why someone would come to that conclusion.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 20, 2009 @ 5:48 pm - February 20, 2009

  60. i’m being filtered once again.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 20, 2009 @ 5:49 pm - February 20, 2009

  61. Me, I come here for the same reason I go to NeoNeoCon: it feels friendly to read the (accomplished, entertaining) writings of others who are political minorities where they are. I’m in the political minority in my gender, my neighborhood, and my church; my political community exists mostly in my blogroll. And, I benefit from reading the approaches to discussion and debate our hosts and Neo take. Simple as that…

    Comment by Jamie — February 20, 2009 @ 5:52 pm - February 20, 2009

  62. Self-hating gays, self-hating Jews…. it’s how folks give themselves permission to despise and discount those who refuse to conform.

    On the right, however, treating homosexuality as a condition that can be remedied by those with the will to try just strikes me as a more polite form of moral opprobrium. At a Republican campaign conclave in Greensboro, NC last year, I was stunned to read that Log Cabin Republicans were not allocated a space in the hall and had to set up shop outside.

    They did set up shop though, I believe, and they will ultimately do far more to win the necessary hearts and minds by pushing what we share than the perpetually enraged gay activists on the left who mistakenly insist that social conservatives on the right are the only ones who stand in their way — while pushing the very hot buttons that alienate social conservatives on the left as well. They’ll go on believing their own excuses for reverses while others are making steady progress family by family, friend by friend, neighbor by neighbor and co-worker by co-worker, in spite of the resistance that politicized assaults engender.

    The only time I’ve heard my kids and any of their friends even talk about “gay issues” is when they wonder how anybody could possibly be opposed to gay marriage. I find myself remembering the old saw about recovering from a cold: a doctor can cure you in 7 days, if you go it alone it will take a whole week. Profound change takes 25 years or a generation no matter how you slice it.

    Comment by JM Hanes — February 20, 2009 @ 5:57 pm - February 20, 2009

  63. Just want to congratulate the host and 98% of his commenters for having one of the most lucid/intellectual and cogent comment threads I’ve yet to read.
    While I’m a Conservative, I truly wish there was some way to bring equally lucid/intellectual/cogent left-0f-center commenters to the site, regardless of sexual orientation.
    But, no, it seems we’re/you’re only getting bumper sticker Democrats.
    Maybe a contest, most rational l-o-c commenter gets his/her choice of a Ted Nugent book or CD.
    LoL!

    Comment by MikeD — February 20, 2009 @ 6:03 pm - February 20, 2009

  64. JM Hanes, the lack of respect accorded the LCR last year might have had a little something to do with their heavily-publicised refusal to endorse President Bush in 2004. A little less victimhood, please.

    Comment by DaveP. — February 20, 2009 @ 6:38 pm - February 20, 2009

  65. “Simply put, our actual experiences don’t register to these people.”

    I think you could apply that to the way that type of leftie treats anything that doesn’t fit presuppositions.

    Comment by Rob — February 20, 2009 @ 6:45 pm - February 20, 2009

  66. This is one of those quandries that confuse and confound conservatives. There are conservatives who are nutjobs, and say awful things about liberals, also, but typically they get more marginalized than their liberal counterparts do. So why are liberals so free to make hateful statements, against conservatives who happen to be black, gay, or female?

    For one thing, the average liberal these days thinks that conservatives don’t have a leg to stand on philosophically. They’re certain that they’re right, and anyone who disagrees with them does so out of narrow self-interest. People who oppose affirmative action, for instance, *must* be either white men who lost jobs as a result, business owners who are unhappy having to hire minorities they don’t trust, or outright racists. There is *NO* good argument against the program.

    Same thing with all gay issues, and all feminist opinions. The difficulty for them comes when they meet a person who is one of the groups that they claim to represent, and the person has the opposite opinion. Their opinion *can’t* be thought through or well-composed, or seriously espoused. Gay people are expected to all espouse a long list of opinions on everything from gun control to child welfare, even though gay people should be as intelligent and free-thinking as the rest of us, perhaps a bit more free-thinking even. So, if a gay person expresses an opinion that contradicts the party line, it must be because he rejects the whole gay party line…which in turn means he hates himself, and his sexual orientation.

    Blacks and women who aren’t liberals are similarly derided. Look at what Sarah Palin just went through. No one in the media would dare treat Obama or Hilary Clinton like that, regardless of how outlandishly liberal their ideas are.

    Comment by DavidN — February 20, 2009 @ 6:46 pm - February 20, 2009

  67. CR – “The only possible cases of self-loathing I think possibly exist here are some of your “straight” visitors who spend so much time on a gay blog, perhaps seeking to find some solace or balance between what it means to be gay (not that they are) and still conservative.”

    I’m straight and visit this blog on occassion (mostly when linked by the blogfather) and I don’t visit looking for a “gay perspective”, or because I’m trying to figure out “what it means to be gay and still conservative”, or any of that crap. When I read something here it is because it is about a topic that I find interesting and the post is well written, often putting things into words in a way that I can’t.

    I couldn’t give a tinker’s hoot if this blog was written by a hermaphroditic cyclops with an Oedipus complex. It’s the writing that matters, not who does it.

    Comment by MikeMangum — February 20, 2009 @ 6:48 pm - February 20, 2009

  68. if you’re a gay person who honestly believes that your long-term, committed relationship should be evaluated by the government as somehow less valuable, and thus not eligible to receive, the same health care, tax, immigration, judicial, and emotional rights as straight couples…it’s hard for most people to understand how you aren’t, at the very least, a bit brainwashed.

    “Valuable” is in the eye of the beholder.

    The whining by people like bob over gay marriage is easy to explain when you understand that their values system is based solely on self-gratification. If it makes bob happy, it must be right, no matter how self-destructive or damaging it is to society. That is why the arguments of people like bob focus, not on how gay marriage would benefit society, but instead on tearing down heterosexuals and crying about how bob is being “denied” things.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 20, 2009 @ 9:12 pm - February 20, 2009

  69. bob, the only bogus marriage argument I see is yours.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 20, 2009 @ 9:14 pm - February 20, 2009

  70. As a general rule, Liberals tend to feel, Conservatives tend to think. There are outliers on each side but when you examine the mainstream of each “philosophy” I think this hold true.

    As a system engineer (Computer Geek) I deal with this a lot… people ask me how I feel about a solution or technology and I always reply, “You don’t pay me to feel, you pay me to think.”

    Emotions are personal and cannot be quantified or proved false. “My feelings are mine and I am entitled to them”.

    Logic and rational thought are definable and testable so they are anathama to those who have been taught that feeling trumps all else. Our schools have been obsessed with emotional issues since the ’60s, hence the generation of entitled little snowflakes we seniors are constantly forced to train to survive in the real world, where failure has consequences.

    Most leftists are emotional retards who are being manipulated by cold blooded sociopaths who could not care less about anyone other than themselves. The manipulators are often brutal and (dare I say it?) evil.

    So, the prople with personalities dominated by their emotions do not listen to logic and are easily manipulated by lies and false promises that are never fulfilled?

    Well duh!

    Comment by Mike S — February 20, 2009 @ 9:21 pm - February 20, 2009

  71. Gay Conservatives:…

    Interesting post by the Gay Patriot: “It’s easier to be gay among conservatives than it is to be conservative among gays.”…

    Trackback by The Volokh Conspiracy — February 20, 2009 @ 9:22 pm - February 20, 2009

  72. I think most racists are actually Theophobes. Maybe ‘dextrophobe’ has more of a ring to it than conservaphobe.

    Comment by V the K — February 20, 2009 @ 12:16 pm – February 20, 2009

    I meant “atheists” not “racists.”

    Oh, don’t be silly. I’m a fiscal conservative, socially libertarian, and I’m an atheist. I’m not afraid of Jews or Christians, I just find the evidence-free belief in god silly and a sign of gullibility. And I can say this with confidence that I may offend some Jews and Christians by saying so, but they are not likely to respond by trying to behead me.

    As for Islam, as the Quran is intended to be taken literally, and as it commands Muslims to convert or kill “the infidel,” I think I have a rather reasonable fear of the spread of Islam. As do all the people (like the courageous Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and Geert Wilders) who are marked for death thanks to the “religion of peace.”

    Walter Benn Michaels, in The Trouble With Diversity, brings up the essential point that shows how people are silly in thinking that criticism of religion is bigotry. It’s no more hateful to think somebody is ridiculous for believing that there’s a big man in the sky moving us all around like chess pieces than it is to think people on the left are idiots for believing it’s rational to think socialism is a workable system vis a vis human nature. In short, it’s simply a difference of opinion.

    And, hi Dan!

    Comment by Amy Alkon — February 20, 2009 @ 9:38 pm - February 20, 2009

  73. … immigration, judicial, and emotional rights as straight couples…

    Emotional rights?

    Comment by Ignatius — February 20, 2009 @ 10:18 pm - February 20, 2009

  74. ‘ I see countless comments from “liberals” and other kinds of collectivists saying, “You conservatives believe this . . . ” with the rest of the sentence naming some idea no conservative I have ever read or listened to has ever advocated.’

    Amazing statement in light of the fact that many if not most of the 73 comments so far are saying exactly the same thing about “liberals” – spouting unadulterated BS and claiming thats what we believe. There are certainly some good points being made about how “opponents” view each other but unfortunately there are those who comment here regularly who are just trapped in their warped, stereotypical views and hallucinations of the rest of the world. The problem goes both ways, and an honest person would admit that and stop being part of the problem.

    Comment by a different Dave — February 21, 2009 @ 12:57 am - February 21, 2009

  75. No, Amy, atheism is quite irrational. Descartes demonstrated that conclusively. To be an atheist is to wager everything in the hopes of gaining nothing. To be a believer is to wager nothing in the hopes of gaining everything.

    As for adDave, every time he posts some ignorant assertion (e.g. “C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n Pride Camps where the extermination of gays is celebrated”) with no link or source to back it up, he reconfirms the stereotype. When PeeJ drops in from on high and leaves a post dripping with ignorance and condescension, it confirms a stereotype. When gillie or boob leaves a post whose grammar is as poor as its reasoning, it confirms a stereotype. Whenever torrentprime slobbers over Obama, it confirms a stereotype.

    The only leftist in this forum who even makes an effort to sound reasonable and informed is Pat.

    Amy just proves my point in her previous post. She can’t just say “I’m an atheist,” she has to throw in the insulting and condescending language that people are silly and gullible for believing in imaginary sky-gods. Her statement that religious people believe that “god moves people around like chess pieces” is ignorant of thousands of religious philosophy, and the concepts like agency. But she thinks the mere fact of her atheism makes her smarter than religious folk.

    Comment by V the K — February 21, 2009 @ 10:30 am - February 21, 2009

  76. […] group blog, someone put up a link yesterday to a post by a guy who calls himself Gay Patriot West, saying that gay conservatives on campus get a warmer welcome from conservatives than they do from […]

    Pingback by History Minute: Gays and Conservatives. « studentactivism.net — February 21, 2009 @ 10:45 am - February 21, 2009

  77. “made up mostly of people who hate me because of the nature of my .”

    The nature of your… what? Maybe this is a clever stylistic omission of a word, but just in case it’s just an editing goof, I wanted to point it out for correction.

    [thanks for drawing my attention to this error. It was an oversight, something I didn’t catch in the editing process. Since fixed. Much appreciated! –Dan]

    Comment by Bad — February 21, 2009 @ 11:33 am - February 21, 2009

  78. I’ve put up a response to this piece over at my place. Check it out, if you like.

    Comment by studentactivism.net — February 21, 2009 @ 11:34 am - February 21, 2009

  79. […] a recent comment, bob, one of our most regular critic chimes in with some good advice for conservatives: rather than spending so much energy on criticizing your political opponents, perhaps you should […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Sound (but Loaded?) Advice from a Critic — February 21, 2009 @ 12:15 pm - February 21, 2009

  80. I think I will comment on 2 posts I read today.
    #68- Same-sex marriages will benefit society in the same way that opposite-sex marriages will. Gay people can have children (surrogacy(gay males)/sperm banks(gay females)), have homes, have jobs, white picket fence with dog on other side…you know: typical. Furthermore, things in society need not have a benefit society to exist, they instead need to be benign to society. Free society excludes that which is harmful to society, while despots exclude that which is not beneficial to society. The USA is a free society, not a despot. You are arguing for the wrong form.

    #75- While I am sure Amy doesn’t need my help, I think I will aid her anyway. Overall, your first comment is nonsensical to most atheists ( as I understand them) because there is nothing to “hope to gain”. And I think theists (believer) wager more than nothing because if you wager nothing you will get nothing. Your final paragraph shows that you didn’t understand the point that Amy was trying to make. Her point is that it is no more hurtful to say what she said than it is to say: “liberal left not only opposes the extension of human rights to brown peoples, it regards freedom as the gravest threat to humanity.” (see #27). I’m sure that there are people who are equally outraged by your comment as you are of hers. Her point is that it is simply a matter of differing opinions, not a personal attack.

    Comment by DanM — February 21, 2009 @ 1:45 pm - February 21, 2009

  81. DanM, I disagree with your point about gay marriage. Marriage, like it or not, is a social construct and would not exist for any length of time without societal benefit. Your argument is a prime example of reducing marriage to a simple, private action with no consequence. Further, marriage isn’t about a scientific ability to work around what nature gives us; there is a biological component to a heterosexual marriage that cannot and will never be replaced by pretending otherwise with sperm banks, artificial insemination, et al. A child may be raised by two women or two men, but that isn’t biologically and emotionally ideal and recognizing that proposes the question as to whether that ideal is worthy of legal preservation in the form of a special status. That child may grow up to be a very decent, productive person just as a child growing up in a heterosexual household may develop severe difficulties, but writing law cannot possibly address every type of situation and every exception, nor should it ignore a biological, emotional ideal. Also, that gay marriage is argued as a non-negative is attempting to argue without evidence in a very different way than arguing its opposite: Advocates of traditional marriage have cultural evidence both formal and informal to buttress their opposition to fundamentally changing the institution beyond traditional recognition, opening the door to even further changes in the definition, and all the legal and social changes that the new definition implies. What’s more, it is hard to believe that those who claim they value marriage to such a degree that they are willing to ignore a very basic definition of rights and stage violent demonstrations asserting that value while at the same time arguing that marriage must only meet the standard of a benign, private act whose extension is a mere non-detriment. This is pure hypocrisy.

    I do agree with your second paragraph, though.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 21, 2009 @ 2:23 pm - February 21, 2009

  82. DanM, I should add that my comment is a generally-directed one and that I didn’t read yours as a provocation to all of my objections.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 21, 2009 @ 2:33 pm - February 21, 2009

  83. I’ve heard of Pascal’s Wager but that Descartes thing from V the K is news to me.

    Comment by Micha Elyi — February 21, 2009 @ 2:37 pm - February 21, 2009

  84. I know moral equivalence is the coin of the realm on the left, but the reality is that some opinions are more valid than others. And when I assert that the left regards freedom as a grave threat, I can back that up with examples. The left wants to deny people basic freedoms for the sake of “saving the environment from global warming,” or because “hate speech leads to violence” or because “economic inequality is social injustice.” I’m characterizing the position of the left accurately when I say they regard freedom as dangerous.

    All that one wagers in choosing to believe or not believe is this one life, which has but one, inevitable, end. We come from nothing, we return to nothing. Atheists claim to be content with becoming nothing but a few pounds of rotting meet at the end. (IMHO, what atheists really can’t stand is the thought of being judged, but that is beside the point.) I, and those others who choose to believe, are wagering that there is a chance to become something greater than a few pounds of rotting meat. Since we’re going to die anyway, why not take the chance.

    I mean, what does religion ask of us in the meantime? That we seek knowledge and truth, that we treat others with kindness, that we exercise a generosity of spirit, that we take responsibility for our own moral choices? That we have gratitude for the life that’s been given us? Gosh, such horror and repression! Obviously, nutjobs like me do not deserve respect or a voice in public discourse.

    Comment by V the K — February 21, 2009 @ 3:02 pm - February 21, 2009

  85. Same-sex marriages will benefit society in the same way that opposite-sex marriages will. Gay people can have children (surrogacy(gay males)/sperm banks(gay females)), have homes, have jobs, white picket fence with dog on other side…you know: typical.

    Notice, though, that not a single one of those things you mentioned requires marriage.

    Add to that the fact that same-sex marriage supporters also demand the legalization of plural, sibling, parent-child, and other such relationships as equivalent to marriage while granting full welfare benefitst to non-citizens, and what one sees very quickly is that this is less about gay marriage than it is an all-out assault on societal values by leftists using gay marriage as a cover.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 21, 2009 @ 4:03 pm - February 21, 2009

  86. Notice, though, that not a single one of those things you mentioned requires marriage.

    Exactly.

    It’s a bit like saying, “Banks should give mortgages to people with bad credit, because that will teach them financial responsibility.” And we all know how well that worked out.

    Comment by V the K — February 21, 2009 @ 4:18 pm - February 21, 2009

  87. #85: There you go again. Bringing up the inane Beyond Marriage manifesto which no one, NO ONE here has supported.

    I have a mustache, so by your “logic” I am Joseph Stalin.

    Comment by Attmay — February 21, 2009 @ 8:53 pm - February 21, 2009

  88. another illogical comment from NorthDallas:

    “The whining by people like bob over gay marriage is easy to explain when you understand that their values system is based solely on self-gratification. If it makes bob happy, it must be right, no matter how self-destructive or damaging it is to society. That is why the arguments of people like bob focus, not on how gay marriage would benefit society, but instead on tearing down heterosexuals and crying about how bob is being “denied” things.”

    in case you haven’t realized this, dumbass, the legalization of gay marriage will not increase or decrease the number of gay people. it will not make more people gay or less people gay. thus, the notion that somehow society will be damaged by allowing gays to marry is absurd. all that will change is that people ALREADY LIVING TOGETHER AND IN A RELATIONSHIP will have the legal recognition (and the rights, privileges and responsibilities) of that legal relationship. can you tell me, NDT, why a gay couple who has lived together and been monogamous for 25 years should not be entitled to hospital visitation rights; why they shouldn’t have the same inheritance rights as straight people; why they shouldn’t have the same rights in a court of law w/r/t to the right to not have to testify against your spouse? no, you can’t.

    and another thing: i am not tearing down heterosexuals in any way. my point is that it’s hypocritical to contend that gays need to prove they’re somehow “worthy” of marriage when we don’t place that same burden on straight people.

    try to not be such a moron.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 21, 2009 @ 9:05 pm - February 21, 2009

  89. i’m being filtered.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 21, 2009 @ 9:06 pm - February 21, 2009

  90. another mindless comment from NorthDallas:

    “The whining by people like bob over gay marriage is easy to explain when you understand that their values system is based solely on self-gratification. If it makes bob happy, it must be right, no matter how self-destructive or damaging it is to society. That is why the arguments of people like bob focus, not on how gay marriage would benefit society, but instead on tearing down heterosexuals and crying about how bob is being “denied” things.”

    in case you haven’t realized this, the legalization of gay marriage will not increase or decrease the number of gay people. it will not make more people gay or less people gay. thus, the notion that somehow society will be damaged by allowing gays to marry is absurd. all that will change is that people ALREADY LIVING TOGETHER AND IN A RELATIONSHIP will have the legal recognition (and the rights, privileges and responsibilities) of that legal relationship. can you tell me, NDT, why a gay couple who has lived together and been monogamous for 25 years should not be entitled to hospital visitation rights; why they shouldn’t have the same inheritance rights as straight people; why they shouldn’t have the same rights in a court of law w/r/t to the right to not have to testify against your spouse? no, you can’t.

    and another thing: i am not tearing down heterosexuals in any way. my point is that it’s hypocritical to contend that gays need to prove they’re somehow “worthy” of marriage when we don’t place that same burden on straight people.

    [this is about the 10th time i’ve tried to post this rant.]

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 21, 2009 @ 9:42 pm - February 21, 2009

  91. can you tell me, NDT, why a gay couple who has lived together and been monogamous for 25 years should not be entitled to hospital visitation rights

    Because they were too lazy to fill out a healthcare power of attorney which would specifically guarantee that fact.

    why they shouldn’t have the same inheritance rights as straight people

    Because they were too lazy to fill out a will that would specifically guarantee that fact.

    why they shouldn’t have the same rights in a court of law w/r/t to the right to not have to testify against your spouse

    Spoken of course by the same liberals who screamed when Ken Lay and Andrew Fastow’s wives were given immunity that they should have been compelled to testify and that doing so only facilitated crime.

    So in short, boob, what you’re saying is that gays like you are too lazy to fill out healthcare powers of attorney or write wills, even though you claim the absence of doing so would hurt the sexual partners you allegedly “love”, and want to make sure your sexual partners can cover up any crimes you might commit.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 22, 2009 @ 12:29 am - February 22, 2009

  92. and another thing: i am not tearing down heterosexuals in any way. my point is that it’s hypocritical to contend that gays need to prove they’re somehow “worthy” of marriage when we don’t place that same burden on straight people.

    Straight people have several thousand years of demonstrating why their marriages are a good thing for society.

    boob and his leftist gay ilk have three decades of AIDS epidemic, billions of dollars lost, and millions of lives destroyed to demonstrate what their so-called “monogamous” relationships bring to society.

    The funny part is that, without straights, boob and his ilk wouldn’t even be here. Wonder when boob and his sexual partners will be able to do the simplest thing that heterosexuals can do and reproduce themselves?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 22, 2009 @ 12:32 am - February 22, 2009

  93. #81- You have touched on the one point that I have yet to completely work my logic around concerning the gay marriage debate. Marriage is most certainly a social construct. It is societies way of acknowledging that the spouses are “out of the dating pool” and “taken” so to speak. This of coarse takes a good degree of acceptance for the local community because it requires the community to acknowledge the couple. To this problem I have no solution.

    The “biological and emotional ideal” part of your paragraph is the most misleading one in the post. The current science says there is NO tangible difference (this includes emotional) between parents of same or opposite sex. While I understand that you may personally dislike the idea, this is just your opinion and has no basis in scientific fact. I am in no way trying to say that you are not entitled to that opinion, but I’m just saying that I would rather base laws on science rather than tradition or opinions.

    “opening the door to even further changes in the definition”- I usually laugh at these types of arguments because they utilize a logical fallacy known as “the slippery slope.” It is a type of false cause fallacy. They make great rhetoric, but hold no water in reasoned discourse. For more information: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

    The protests and demonstrations were not violent by a long shot, there were VERY few bad incidents. Furthermore, proving someone to be a hypocrite doesn’t make them wrong, it just makes them a hypocrite.

    I hope you don’t take this as some kind of assault because that is not my intent. I think that the whole debate is a huge treatise on the fact that humans are very uncomfortable with change.

    Comment by DanM — February 22, 2009 @ 4:49 am - February 22, 2009

  94. # 84- I think you partially misunderstand some of my post and its probably my fault. When you wrote: “To be a believer is to wager nothing in the hopes of gaining everything” I disagreed on a spiritual level. I wager my immortal soul that I get my beliefs correct, and should I be correct (which I am sure I am) I get everlasting life in heaven. I would not call my immortal soul “nothing”.

    “atheists really can’t stand is the thought of being judged”- I believe you are right here. It probably stems from being demeaned for so long.

    As for the freedom argument I could give examples in the other direction. The right likes to say “contraception only promote promiscuity” and then go on to say “abortion is murder” when the contraception would have prevented the abortion. They like to say “gay marriage is wrong…think of the children” when the gays already have children and science has already proven that there is no distinguishable difference between straight and gay parents (see post #93). Both sides reduce freedoms, the only difference is the emphasis.

    And finally: “Obviously, nutjobs like me do not deserve respect or a voice in public discourse.” I wasn’t aware I was disrespectful, if I was you have my apology. No one said you don’t deserve a voice in public discourse, where did you come to this conclusion?

    Comment by DanM — February 22, 2009 @ 5:07 am - February 22, 2009

  95. The rest: (because I’m being long winded)

    #85- “Notice, though, that not a single one of those things you mentioned requires marriage.” I suppose this is true. Please tell me, how does heterosexual marriage benefit society (since I’m obviously clueless)?

    Also, why should gay couples have to go through all of that paperwork when their straight counterparts have only to sign one document (marriage license).

    Later you wrote: “Wonder when boob and his sexual partners will be able to do the simplest thing that heterosexuals can do and reproduce themselves”- I’m sure if Bob wanted biological children he could do so without too much hassle. Just because he wouldn’t go through the same process as you, doesn’t mean it is any less an act of reproduction. Furthermore, if he wanted children it would be because he wants them. His partner and him (I’m assuming you’re hitched Bob) cannot have any “surprises” and definitely no abortions( that’s a straight person thing).

    Comment by DanM — February 22, 2009 @ 5:24 am - February 22, 2009

  96. #91: so you’re arguing, NDT, that there are no rights or privileges available to married couples that you cannot get some other way? i was giving just a few examples; there are countless more.

    “Straight people have several thousand years of demonstrating why their marriages are a good thing for society.”

    um, yes, if you include arranged marriages, polygamy and treating women as property…

    in other words, the purpose and meaning of marriage has evolved with the times (something conservatives typically fail to do).

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 22, 2009 @ 9:29 am - February 22, 2009

  97. DanM, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I disagree with you on several points.

    It is societies way of acknowledging that the spouses are “out of the dating pool” and “taken” so to speak.

    Sending society the message that one is no longer available isn’t the reason people enter into marriage. That message may be one effect, but it surely isn’t the cause; making the case that society’s opinion of the availability of one or both participants in a relationship motivates a willingness to engage in a public commitment defies common sense as well as rates of adultery and divorce.

    The current science says there is NO tangible difference (this includes emotional) between parents of same or opposite sex.

    There are obvious biological and emotional differences between parents that are, say, both male and one male/one female. A human being is comprised of both male and female traits. In fact, all human embryos are physically female until the seventh week at which point the Y-chromosomes (if present) begin to trigger the production of testosterone. That men have nipples is just one physical result of the way in which we develop, but I would argue (as would many, many others) that emotion is often linked to and even based upon biology, i.e. there are hormonal components to emotion. We joke about men “getting in touch with their feminine sides” and it’s entirely true: Humans are comprised of male and female components and since we are biological organisms, all else, including emotion, is produced by this biology.

    Do these facts lessen the differentiation between the sexes? Hardly! Science does not undermine but underlines our differences — and our commonalities. That there is scientific evidence that homosexuality is linked to the process of physical (and eventually emotional) masculinization doesn’t mean that homosexuals are necessarily less whole; for myself, this evidence underscores that each human is biologically male and biologically female.

    Where does all this lead? Like you, I respect science and would like our laws to reflect it. You state “… I’m just saying that I would rather base laws on science rather than tradition or opinions.” While I generally agree, marriage is not science but marriage does reflect our biology, our science. However, your statement reveals a truth you may not have intended. Marriage is an ancient institution and is traditional because it has derived from our biology, from the natural, familial unit and in its most primitive, informal forms, probably for purposes of survival. Is this a tradition that should remain unique? I believe it should. The tradition is justified, but is the tradition a justification for legal marriage remaining the sole province of heterosexuality? I believe it is one justification. Do I think this unique, special status renders homosexual relationships as invalid? Of course not.

    “opening the door to even further changes in the definition”- I usually laugh at these types of arguments because they utilize a logical fallacy known as “the slippery slope.”

    What advocates of same-sex marriage often forget is that marriage as currently defined prohibits marriage in all other possible forms, not merely those whose partners are of the same sex. However, let’s take the argument away from marriage for a moment and deal with the logic issue. During the holidays, there are an increasing number of battles being fought regarding holiday displays in airports, shopping centers, libraries, etc. If the decorations of one faith are allowed, is it a logical fallacy that adherents of other faiths expect the same treatment? But is it a logical fallacy that we afford the tradition of Christmas decorations a special status, reflecting the majority faith and its holiday celebrations?

    “Marriage Equality” is a term I often hear, but if logic is consistently applied, it cannot exist in any real way because not all relationships are valid, certainly not worthy of legal recognition. I agree wholeheartedly that heterosexual marriage enjoys a unique status in our society that is entirely inconsistent with the concept of perfect equality. A same-sex marriage advocate who is honest doesn’t use logic as his ally because he asks not to end discrimination but to directly participate in it — as evidenced by your refusal to apply the logic you invoke and have your legal goal associated with the logically applicable goals of relationships with which you don’t approve. I don’t find your argument laughable as you do mine, however.

    I’ve not claimed that perfect logical consistency is reasonable or even desirable — I cannot because my position on the same-sex marriage issue prevents it. However, your logical position is exactly the same as mine and it isn’t illogical to expect that others will want to enjoy the same privilege you seek, using the same arguments and the same laws. But bear in mind that I’m not making my argument because I fear something far worse than same-sex marriage, thus my argument against it. I argue in favor of heterosexual marriage as a unique institution that should legally remain so.

    The protests and demonstrations were not violent by a long shot, there were VERY few bad incidents.

    Are you claiming that the “VERY few bad incidents” weren’t violent? What made them bad? I didn’t mean to imply that all the protests were violent — not by a long shot — but I know what I saw on television. The camera doesn’t lie and the cameras weren’t filming long shots.

    Furthermore, proving someone to be a hypocrite doesn’t make them wrong, it just makes them a hypocrite.

    True, although my example illustrates two ideas opposed to one another, namely that same-sex marriage is a value to be sought while arguing that it need not prove beneficial to society with such questions as “How does gay marriage harm you?” While we may argue about direct and indirect harm, the lack of a detriment is no standard upon which society should base its values, reflected in its laws. Laws are frozen morals. Moreover, I would argue that applying such a standard (as you’ve argued above) is itself a detriment to society because it makes no place for ideals and a society without ideals cannot last.

    Sorry I’m so long-winded. I’m not going to proofread it, either. Feel free to attack.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 22, 2009 @ 9:54 am - February 22, 2009

  98. NDT says: “boob and his leftist gay ilk have three decades of AIDS epidemic, billions of dollars lost, and millions of lives destroyed to demonstrate what their so-called “monogamous” relationships bring to society.

    The funny part is that, without straights, boob and his ilk wouldn’t even be here. Wonder when boob and his sexual partners will be able to do the simplest thing that heterosexuals can do and reproduce themselves?”

    w.o.w. i wonder if GPW or one of the other conservatives on here will have the balls to step in and tell you how ridiculous and bigoted you sound.

    for the record, i am in a monogamous relationship.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 22, 2009 @ 9:59 am - February 22, 2009

  99. bob, though I’ve never engaged in a tit-for-tat with him, NDT is a case in point about how blind I think GP and GPW can be when it comes to their own conservative followers on this blog. For all the rhetoric about how lefties think everyone is “evil” and how we’re constantly taking pot shots, NDT and others offer gems like these that I think are just sad. The only reason I keep coming back is because I think Dan really does make good points sometimes, not always, but sometimes and it’s important to have a reality check once in a while.

    Comment by CR — February 22, 2009 @ 10:15 am - February 22, 2009

  100. All, a couple folks took exception with an earlier post of mine about some “straight” folks coming here, the implication being that they weren’t so straight. I think it was post #11 or thereabouts. I should have been more explicit. I did not mean to paint with so broad a brush as to encompass all self-proclaimed straight visitors to this site. Rather, I was referring to a subset of visitors who consistently come to this site to discuss conservative ideas but are also extremely homophobic yet seem to think some of GP and GPW’s posts validate their views because even the “fags think that way”. I don’t think that is GP or GPW’s intent in the slightest and if you read their posts closely enough, particularly GPWs, it’s clear that there is actually a very pro-gay perspective just a political philosophy towards achieving gay “equality” (whatever that is) that differs from the “gay mainstream” (which is largely leftist). Nonetheless, I think there are a few people who come here because of internal conflict rather than political. I could very well be wrong, but I’ve seen it enough in my own family, friends and in college that some of the signs are fairly evident. I readily admit its an assumption on my part. Anyway, my original point was that I didn’t think GP or GPW were self-loathing — perhaps I ought to have just stuck with that. 🙂

    Comment by CR — February 22, 2009 @ 10:27 am - February 22, 2009

  101. w.o.w. i wonder if GPW or one of the other conservatives on here will have the balls to step in and tell you how ridiculous and bigoted you sound.

    LOL…..which part is ridiculous and bigoted, boob; the three decades of AIDS epidemic, the billions of dollars lost, or the millions of lives destroyed?

    Because those are all statistical facts.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 22, 2009 @ 12:42 pm - February 22, 2009

  102. the bigoted part, NDT, comes from the notion that because a group of people had high infection rates of a particular disease, they shouldn’t be allowed the same rights as other americans.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 22, 2009 @ 12:54 pm - February 22, 2009

  103. hello,

    i had no idea there were so many conservative gay ppl, and just wanted to greet my fellow travelers 🙂

    i’m not gay and used to have a real problem with it, but over the years i’ve come to realize that it’s reckless and needlessly harmful behavior that upsets me, the Founding Fathers stressed the need for a moral and ethical populace, they did not set in stone what those morals and ethics were, true they advocated judeo-christian values in their personal lives but were careful not to have the State as arbitraitor, i believe the Founding Fathers understood that there are honest, dependable, reasonable ppl who give more to society than they take, who posess the morals and ethics nesscessary to not have to be taken care of by the State, but who are not christian or who don’t adopt all christian values (or see them differently).

    a person of sound character does not need the Law to make them do right.

    a person of unsound character no amount of Law will stop from doing wrong.

    Down with the Unicorn Collective!

    Comment by shoey — February 22, 2009 @ 3:23 pm - February 22, 2009

  104. they shouldn’t be allowed the same rights as other americans.

    boob — those are YOUR words, not NDT’s.

    He is simply stating the facts about how terrible the gay community’s record is over 30 years.

    It is pretty cut & dry.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — February 22, 2009 @ 4:21 pm - February 22, 2009

  105. his implication, GP, is that because of this so-called terrible record, gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married.

    by this logic, should we deny the right to marry people of race “x” because of their high disease rates, high divorce rates, etc.?

    what’s your point?

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 22, 2009 @ 4:58 pm - February 22, 2009

  106. put another way:

    you are making sweeping generalizations about a group of people, and then you are contending that because of this generalization, all people belonging to this group should be treated a certain way under the law. do i need to explain the fallacy of this reasoning?

    i am gay. i am not promiscuous. i am in a monogamous relationship. i have no diseases. why should i not be allowed to get married someday to someone i love?

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 22, 2009 @ 5:01 pm - February 22, 2009

  107. ^^ and that above comment is for the sake of argument. i’m not saying ppl with diseases or people who are or have been promiscuous should be denied marriage rights.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 22, 2009 @ 5:02 pm - February 22, 2009

  108. #91: so you’re arguing, NDT, that there are no rights or privileges available to married couples that you cannot get some other way?

    Actually, what I’m doing is showing how gay liberals like yourself, boob, won’t even take advantage of the protections you already get — and how you flat-out lie in claiming that these protections aren’t available, presumably to cover up the fact that you are too lazy to actually get them.

    Why should I believe you want marriage or that you care about your sexual partners when you won’t even take these simple legal steps to protect them?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 22, 2009 @ 6:29 pm - February 22, 2009

  109. the bigoted part, NDT, comes from the notion that because a group of people had high infection rates of a particular disease, they shouldn’t be allowed the same rights as other americans.

    The reason gays have a high infection rate of AIDS, boob, is because the gay community and liberal gays like yourself endorse, support, and practice the very behaviors that spread it — namely promiscuous sex with multiple partners.

    Granted, as has been made obvious in multiple locations, liberal gays like boob don’t see anything wrong with having promiscuous sex with multiple partners within their “monogamous” relationships, and demanding that society should endorse and support their behavior because “men are pigs” and it’s not “practical” to expect otherwise.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 22, 2009 @ 6:40 pm - February 22, 2009

  110. And finally, boob, marriage is not a “right”; it is a privilege that society extends. The “right” mentality is the one held by gay leftists like yourself who are also arguing that incestuous and plural relationships are just as good as marriage and should be equally recognized.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 22, 2009 @ 6:44 pm - February 22, 2009

  111. I was referring to a subset of visitors who consistently come to this site to discuss conservative ideas but are also extremely homophobic yet seem to think some of GP and GPW’s posts validate their views because even the “fags think that way”.

    Who, specifically?

    Name names. Because I can’t think of anyone who fits that description.

    Comment by V the K — February 23, 2009 @ 7:12 am - February 23, 2009

  112. bob,

    I know a few polyamourous relationships who have gone through the work of filling out the POA/Living Will/Medical POA forms to make sure they’re covering each other.

    I hold my roommates POA (well part of it) and I need to get her to fill out mine, in case I become unable to make decisions for myself (or become liberal, same difference).

    I have to agree with NDT. If you’re in a non-traditional relationship, and you don’t take advantage of the protections already there, then you’re lazy. So lazy that you out you and your partner(s)’s health and well being at risk.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 23, 2009 @ 7:36 am - February 23, 2009

  113. you’re missing the (quite obvious) point, NDT, but i fear no amount of crystal clear explanation will help your puny brain understand such concepts.

    and v the k, you too are quite blind to simple reasoning. 1) there are some rights and benefits of marriage that singles simply cannot receive. when an american marries a non-american, the non-american can instantly get citizenship. a gay couple doesn’t have this benefit. that’s just one example of thousands.

    and the fact that there are certain legal rights you can achieve without marriage is a weak argument. the point is that people should be treated the same. gay people shouldn’t have to jump through hoops anymore than straight people, “lazy” or not.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 23, 2009 @ 7:15 pm - February 23, 2009

  114. Ignatius (#97),

    Thanks for the response.
    When I was talking about marriage and society, I think I was talking about part of the “social contract” that marriage is suppose to be a part of. I understand that divorce and infidelity is a problem in today’s society, I was putting forth a more traditional view of what marriage should be about. I am a firm believer in monogamy. My purpose ultimately was to show you that I understand that marriage has a social component. The argument that same sex marriage doesn’t effect anyone but the two married persons is not correct because there is a certain social recognition that is necessary beyond that of mere law.

    There are most certainly differences in the sexes. I tend to view these differences as strengths because it is always good to come at any challenge or problem from different perspectives. I agree with your assessment that “[m]arriage is an ancient institution and is traditional because it has derived from our biology, from the natural, familial unit and in its most primitive, informal forms, probably for purposes of survival.” But like your first point that showed that my more traditional view point no longer holds sway, this view point is also outdated. In our society, people marry for love. This is actually a very recent thing, usually marriage has been about politics and money (marry your daughter well sort of thing). This change was the downfall of traditional marriage and it happened years ago. Love is now the standard reason for marriage, not status in society or survival. This isn’t a bad thing though. A loving relationship should produce loving parents and this still provides for our species’ survival and overall makes for happier citizenry. Just because people are in love doesn’t mean they should be able to get married. What society does is determine which relationships it wants to prohibit and it should do so for good (sound and scientific) reasons. There is no reason in today’s society why same-sex marriages shouldn’t be recognized.

    Your uniqueness of marriage was an interesting argument. There will always be straight people who are married and they will always be in the majority. Furthermore, most of us will always come from this tradition as well. I think the uniqueness of traditional marriage is unassailable. Allowing gay people marriage will change none of this, it simply allows for the less common, un-detrimental couples to be recognized in law. Marriage as you propose it may not render gay couples invalid, but it does render them meaningless.

    By “VERY few bad incidents” I was referring to the violent ones. Like you implied, cameras don’t lie and every protest usually has emotional charge that can get out of hand no matter the subject. Overall, I am pleased that violence was so sparse on both side’s protests.

    I never argue “that same-sex marriage is a value to be sought,” instead I argue that freedom and liberty (society’s ideals) dictate that same-sex marriage should never have been banned in the first place. The fact that it was is understandable given our understanding of homosexuality through history. However, once our understanding changes, so too should our laws.

    Comment by DanM — February 24, 2009 @ 3:16 pm - February 24, 2009

  115. 112. You are treated the same, bob. *yawn* let me try small words.

    You (or any person) are allowed to be married to any one person of the opposite sex, subject to the laws and rules of the state you live in. This privilege is available to you regardless of race, creed, or sexual orientation.

    You’re welcome for the education.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 24, 2009 @ 9:50 pm - February 24, 2009

  116. Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…

    Trackback by Anonymous — March 10, 2009 @ 1:43 pm - March 10, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.