GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Sean Penn, the Oscars and Gay Marriage

by

As movies have the power to transcend human difference and remind us of our common humanity, I believe the Oscars should focus on those transcendent themes of film and the artistic achievements which help make them manifest on the silver screen.  To that end, it would be better if award winners did use their time on stage as a platform to advocate this or that cause, or, in the case at hand, to trash one’s ideological adversaries.

What was telling to me about Sean Penn’s speech last night was not merely that he used it to make a political statement, two actually, but that he did so in such a spiteful way, choosing to attack rather than promote:

I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support.

If he had to make a political statement on gay marriage, particularly as he won an award for portraying Harvey Milk, couldn’t he have said that he hopes this movie will show those who voted for Proposition 8 of the human dignity that this activist/politician had advocated in his all-too-short time on the political stage?

Instead he says they should be ashamed for believing marriage should be defined as it has long been defined.

Why did he make a vituperative statement instead of an uplifting one?

This all gets back to my oft-repeated point about why so many advocates of gay marriage choose to attack the opponents of gay marriage rather than defend the idea of gay marriage.  Bear in mind we’re not trying to prevent those opponents from being elected to office, but to advance an idea.

Sean Penn and others who wish to promote gay marriage should learn from people like Jonathan Rauch (whose advocacy of gay marriage I have often praised) and Catherine Thienmann who dare make the case for gay marriage, telling us why it’s a good thing not just for gay people, but also for society.

Comments

  1. While Sean Penn’s remarks were to be expected, I thought that Lance Black’e remarks were to-the-point and totally in-context as it both referenced how Harvey Milk changes Black’s life..and the importance of telling the Milk’s story, which is what Black’s Award was for.

  2. Is there anything that doesn’t offfend you? Olberman should say this, Penn should say that. I get the impression that if you didn’t have anything to complain about, you’d complain about that. You sound, to me, like a pissy, petty queen.

    Note: Before everyone slams me for calling you a queen, I didn’t. I have no idea whether you act “queeny” or “str8” or what. That is, I didn’t say you are a pissy, pety queen, but that your web persona matches very well with the stereotype of same.

    I predict however, that I will be accused of it anyway.

  3. While I don’t agree that the Oscars should be used as a political platform, in this case, it’s Sean Penn, so it’s no surprise that his political speech was more of an angry screed than a plea for peace, love and understanding. Penn himself referenced his well-known beligerance more than once.

    As for how to present the issue to the public-at-large, it doesn’t matter. Those against it are against it for ideological reasons. Change THAT, if you can, and you have a chance to change some minds. It’s just not going to happen any time soon (as much as we wish it could be).

  4. Dan, as the nasty self-loathing homophobic remark in #2 illustrates (yes, PeeJ, I will be the first to accuse you), the Gay Left is not only intolerant of those who support traditional marriage, but also intolerant of those who support same-sex marriage but merely advocate a more thoughtful and civil tone in the debate. It seems that we conservatives are all a bunch of angry hate-filled right wing bigots… unless, of course, we behave like a bunch of angry hate-filled left wing bigots.

  5. To that end, it would be better if award winners did use their time on stage as a platform to advocate this or that cause, or, in the case at hand, to trash one’s ideological adversaries.

    Still trying to get past this sentence.

  6. Funny how the libtards love to embrace the “peace” and “love” mantra but their public statements are about anything but that mantra.

    Spiccolli has won 2 Oscars the past 3 years or so – I think he’s been way overexposed by the Academy.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  7. It seems that we conservatives are all a bunch of angry hate-filled right wing bigots

    That’s my impression, yes.

    … unless, of course, we behave like a bunch of angry hate-filled left wing bigots.

    What? I have no idea what that means.

  9. >>There is just something delightful about having the only “thank you God” coming from a gay man. <>It throws anti-gays into complete confusion.<>agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead. <>In all sharp moral disagreements, maximalism is the constant temptation. People dig in, positions harden and we tend to convince ourselves that our opponents are not only wrong-headed but also malicious and acting in bad faith. In such conflicts, it can seem not only difficult, but also wrong, to compromise on a core belief. <>But clinging to extremes can also be quite dangerous. In the case of gay marriage, a scorched-earth debate, pitting what some regard as nonnegotiable religious freedom against what others regard as a nonnegotiable human right, would do great harm to our civil society. When a reasonable accommodation on a tough issue seems possible, both sides should have the courage to explore it.<<

    back in the day, female impersonators/drag queens would gather to ‘detail’ their gowns and bead their dresses all while ‘reading the beads’ of those around them and even those not present.
    Seems like the dismissal of the petty act of ‘reading the beads’ of commentors here at GP would be highly beneficial, but that would be a challenge.

    A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage
    David Blankenhorn is president of the Institute for American Values and the author of “The Future of Marriage.” Jonathan Rauch is a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and the author of “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights and Good for America.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22rauch.html?_r=3&em

  11. you also have an impression of a right to drive.

    I do? There is no right to drive in the US. It’s a privilege, and is granted only upon the acceptance of certain conditions and restrictions. Wherever did you get such a silly idea?

    Small wonder your reality is so skewed.

    Let me see: you claim to know what I think (without a whiff of evidence), which you then claim is proof that I’m a loon. I clearly stated that those things were “my impression”, “my opinion” etc. My reality is skewed becasue I have a different opinion? Sounds a lot like angry, hate-filled bigotry to me.

    I once had a contretemps with a co-worker who, upon sitting in my office and hearing my opinioin of the issue, said “Your opinion is wrong.” I told him to get the eff out of my office. By definition, my opinion cannot be “wrong.” If you would like to change my impression, citing facts which are assembled and presented in a logical manner with an argument that is well reasoned I should be delighted to reexamine my impressions.

    Making something up out of thin air then simply calling me a loon is not such an endeavor. It does, however, reinforce my orginal impression.

  14. Name for me any movie where off screen the participants, producers helped the message.

    Did you learn how to do that from Jonah Goldberg?

    And Sean, unlike you deities over here, I am unable to read minds. I can only speculate therefore when I guess what subtext you think might be buried in so little text.

    I see two of your responses to my comments and each has been nothing but a brief insult. You stay classy, boy, stay classy.

  16. By definition, my opinion cannot be “wrong.”

    But of course, Sean Penn says that everyone else’s opinion about gay marriage is “wrong” and that they should be “shamed” by it.

    You have no problem with saying peoples’ opinions are wrong, PeeJ; you merely have a problem with people saying your OWN is wrong, and you use a laughable rationalization for doing so that collapses into a pile of hypocrisy-laden dust when it is obvious that you never apply that rationalization to anyone but yourself.

  18. I was proud of Penn for saying what he did, and whether you liked it or not, or agreed with it or not, the fact of the matter is when Oscar winners make a political statement, it resonates and is remembered (ala Marlon Brando w/the Native Indian statement in the ’70s).

    Besides, Penn was speaking the truth, and not opining. I’m sure most grandkids of racist bigots’ (ie the Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmonds) aren’t proud of their grandparents vicious remarks from way-back-when; similarly, those that have stood against gay marriage will, in time, be remembered as bigots, and rightfully so.

    I came here knowing full-well there would be some snarky comments from the moderator about what Penn did. I wasn’t disappointed.

    Why does the gay right hate equal rights so?

  19. But of course, Sean Penn says that everyone else’s opinion about gay marriage is “wrong” and that they should be “shamed” by it.
    I am not Sean Penn, silly.

    You have no problem with saying peoples’ opinions are wrong, PeeJ [citation needed]

    Teh Great Gazoogle can help you if you need to look up some definitions. Expressing one’s own opinion – even to the point of telling people they should be ashamed, which is an opinion – is not equivalent to telling someone their opiiion is wrong. It is a way of letting someone know that you have a different opinion – in the case of saying “shame”, a markedly different and deeply held opinion. Civilized people do it all the time. It can lead to dialog, to discussion, to discovery. I see your reactio0n as a knee-jerk counter attack against an attack that exists only in your head. That’s not only my opinion, that’s an inference.

  21. Ted B., in #2, well said about Lance Black’s remarks. They were uplifting and while a tad political, not offensive.

    PeeJ, what can I say, except to smile. It seems that each word you type into our comment box helps prove my point about the prejudices of all too many on the gay left. So, keep chiming in. I wonder sometimes if you’re a conservative in disguise for your words just keep making one of the points I have long been making on this blog.

    But, when I read that you have no idea what “angry hate-filled left wing bigots” means, I know you’re really a man of the left. Too bad you’re not self-aware enough to realize that your side too can hate and that when you call your intellectual adversaries names and make assumptions about them (most of which prove to have no basis in reality whatsoever), that so can be construed as hate speech.

    It’s just not right-wingers who hate. Indeed, it seems there is far more hate — far, far more–on the left-side of the blogosphere than there is on the right.

    Just look at your own comments and the impressions you have of gay conservatives. You assume the worst about us. You fault me for always needing to complain about something in a post which I ended (deliberately) on an upbeat note.

    So, if you contend I always need something to complain about, how do you address those Bush-haters, who even now, more than one month after Bush left office, continue to barrage me with links to anti-Bush blog posts? Will you call them pissy, petty queens?

    Call me what you want, make whatever impressions you like of me, I’ll just side back and add another piece of evidence to my file on the anti-conservatives prejudices of the gay left. And smile as I do. And wonder why you (and others like you) need to make such assumptions about your ideological adversaries and remain so reluctant to take seriously our ideas.

    Oh, and, if you peruse this blog’s archives, you’ll see I’ve been writing about this for quite some time.

  22. Aside from Sean Penn’s comments, is anyone else as sick to death as I am of straight actors winning Oscars for playing gay men? I know there aren’t any (out) A-list actors who can open a film and all that, but I find the awards in themselves to be condescending, as if it takes a REALLY good actor to “act” gay. I found Sean Penn’s and Tom Hanks’ Oscar-winning performances to be good, but not great, and I found William Hurt’s gay Oscar turn to be downright offensive. Let’s face it, straight actors get “gay” Oscars whenever Hollywood is feeling guilty (Hanks, Hurt) or petulant (Penn)

    I have an idea for Hollywood. How about a gay character who ISN’T victimized in one way or another before the final reel.

  24. @ EVERYONE bar some….

    “Instead he says they should be ashamed for believing marriage should be defined as it has long been defined.

    Why did he make a vituperative statement instead of an uplifting one?”

    And what? Gays have been the majority?? Do you NOT understand the concept of minority OR majority?

    So after persecution, Gays should smile and bow down like ‘uncle tom’??

    WTF?

    Isn’t conservatism about standing up and taking no shit????

    EXPLAIN to me what ‘right wing/republican/conservatism regarding gay people is’…

  25. #19: “Civilized people do it all the time. It can lead to dialog, to discussion, to discovery.”

    Peej, you’ve posted about 50 comments on GP and it is clear that a discussion with you leads to nothing more than the discovery that you are incapable of discussing anything other than discussion itself. That, and condescendingly referring everyone to “gazoogle” whenever the discussion about discussion gets within 10 miles of a substantive issue. We get it. You’re a master orator with a towering intellect. For anything else, we will consult this mysterious, omnipotent “gazoogle” apparatus you have graciously brought to our attention.

  26. Actually PeeJ, I misattributed a quote from another poster to you about the right to drive thing. I apologize as the arguments looked so much alike.

    In my defense though, you still say you’re denied the ‘right’ to marriage. Which is incorrect on both counts, so I still feel justified in calling your views, ‘skewed’

    Draybee,

    I understand you’re frustration. At the same time, it’s called ‘acting’ for a reason.

    Funny, now that i think about it two of my favourite characters in lit who are gay, are captured/tortured, but I never associated Vanyel’s (The Last Herald Mage) sexualtiy with assault. Johann Vierziger’s (The Sharp End) sexuality was part of his torture, but one might say that it was a minor part.

    If you take the slash-fic route, Legolas and Gimli lived happily ever after. 🙂

    BSG’s gay couple got killed two episodes apart.

    Wow, I can’t think of any examples either.

  27. I was a bit surprised that Sean Penn should suddenly become a champion of gay rights. Considering his affection for the likes of Chavez, Castro, Amadinijad and Hussien, none of whom have ever shown any care for gay people, in fact go out of their way to imprison and murder gay people, he seems just a tad hypocritical.

    And does anyone know what Philip Seymour Hoffman had on his head last night?

  28. @ http://www.gaypatriot.org/

    “It’s just not right-wingers who hate. Indeed, it seems there is far more hate — far, far more–on the left-side of the blogosphere than there is on the right.”

    But WHY do they hate???

    YOU as a right winger has been in power for…erm….how long….

    So again, Einstien (sorry he’s a jew!), why are you so devastated that a lefty with no fucking power in the most right wing nation of the world…..has a go???

    WTF?

  29. I have yet to read at this blog a full-fledged, fully formed, point-by-point explanation why the definition of marriage should be changed to include homosexuals, complete with a promotional strategy. I read lots and lots and lots of vague statements making various claims implying it’s good for society, the referencing of names of authors who have done the spadework, and complaints about advocates who need reform school but never have I read here a reasoned, detailed, thoughtful proposal. I’m certainly not entitled to one and I’m not holding my breath thinking that at some point one will appear, but since the subject is frequently addressed, it would be great if we could get beyond the insubstantial, unsubstantiated stage. No offense — just an observation.

  30. Dan,it was tha apposition of the two phrases that made no sense. I did not understand what the writer meant. I just read it again and still can’t see the logic.
    Here it is again, (almost) in propositional logic.
    we conservatives [A] are angry, hate-filled right-wing bigots [W,X,R,Z respectively]
    .. unless we [A] exhibit the characteristics [W, X, L, Z]
    Sorry, I can’t make heads nor tails of that.

    Too bad you’re not self-aware enough to realize that your side too can hate and that when you call your intellectual adversaries names and make assumptions about them…

    Whattaya mean my side, Bucko? I don’t have a “side.” Please stop addressing me as though I am the official representative of the radical left or something. I make no apologies for them because I CAN’T. It would mean less than nothing.

    Just look at your own comments and the impressions you have of gay conservative
    I stipulate that those are impressions I have of you, and others here, based entirely on what you all have written on these very pages. I know precious few gay conservatives (come to think of it, I *used* to know one back at Penn State but I haven’t seen him in several years). Reading that again, I can’t help but make it a joke: “few precious gay conserrvatives.” Lame, but I adore word games so there it is. Seriously, I really have few or no impressions of gay conservatives except for this crowd. I am aksing you to treat me in exactly the same way I am approaching you; what we say here, in this place, is what we have to go on. I’m getting awfully tire of being blamed for every whacko idjit that happens to be a Democrat.

    (Btw, It’s not important, but do you have a rough breakdown of your reders/commenters by gay/str8/other? I ask solely from curiosity)

    You assume the worst about us

    There you go, reading my mind again! That’s an amazing talent you all share. I’d like to get me some of that.

    It’s just not right-wingers who hate.

    I agree completely.

    it seems there is far more hate — far, far more–on the left-side of the blogosphere than there is on the right.

    I do not agree at all. That is what’s called a difference of opinion. I could cite Michelle Malkin, Rush “can I get me some Dominican boybutt” Limbaugh, the shreiking harpy Pam Atlas who has openly called for genocide, etc etc. And if one really wanted to get serious about it, one could probably put toogether a crawler with some contextual association wizardry and try to empirically analyze it. *I* don’t have the time or inclination for it so let’s either get to some specifics or just agree to disagree. Is that kosher; can we do that? (umm, please don’t tell me I need to change that to is that cricket or I’m guilty of hate speech. Again.)

    So, if you contend I always need something to complain about, how do you address those Bush-haters, who even now, more than one month after Bush left office, continue to barrage me with links to anti-Bush blog posts?

    The impressioon is garnered from what I’ve seen of your posts in these very pages. As for the others, I do not address them. I am not one of them. I have nothing to do with them. There is no reason nor obligation for me to to address their existence, actions, phobias, fetishes, penmanship, anything! I do wish you and your homeys (yeah, I’m that old) would stop blaming me for what other people do and also stop assuming that all liberals toe some liberal mafia line. And once again, don’t ask me to apologize for or explain the actions of anyone else. Try as you may, you can’t make me responsible for what others have done.

    Will you call them pissy, petty queens?

    I’m more likely to call them deranged dickwads or whiny assed babies or something.

  31. #22: Tom Hanks was horrible in “Philadelphia.” That scene where he “vogues” to a Maria Callas record has to be a new low in gay cinema. The only remotely good performance in that condescending piece of slush came from Denzel Washington, which is just as well; his character was the only interesting one.

    I may just stop supporting gay marriage now that its most prominent advocate is a twice-divorced, fascist-loving, wife-beating heterosexual.

  32. I saw his comments on a news clip, who cares what he says. . But this guy flew down to hang out with the radical leader Chavez from venezuala, and as we know birds of a feather flock together. As John Lennon sang in revolution ” if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao u aint gonna make it with anyone any how.

  33. @ 27

    Why don’t you use your intellectual brain if you have one and explain why ALL these assholes you’ve just pointed out hate gay people…..??

    WHO put them into power smart ass??

    And no…I want no frigging half arsed opinions…who the f*ck put these bastards into power…

    The RIGHT???

    orrrrrrrrrrrr….

    The LEFT??

    WHO created ‘free market revolution’? or ‘ideology’?

    You righties need to know how to argue effectively. Why do you think Friedman was sooo successful on what cause this economical situation??

  34. @ Don

    You are more a hysterial right winger…..than an open minded right winger??

    Ok doufus.

    Please tell me wha..aaaat the previous government did for you!

  35. No, John from England, I’m not saying gays should bow down like Uncle Tom, but yes, I’m saying they should smile and make a positive case for gay marriage as Jonathan Rauch has done — and as I have repeatedly praised him for doing.

    In the same manner, I think conservatives should stand up and challenge the prevailing ideology in our nation’s capital.

    So John from England in #28, you think people just hate just because a Republican has been in the White House for 8 years? Hmm . . . since Bush hatred started well before his inauguration, then I guess that justifies Obama-hatred which should grow in strength the longer he serves.

    Guess that means, I’ll scratch my proposed post warning conservatives of emerging ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) where critics attack the man and not his policy. I mean, if a man’s tenure in office justifies hating him, I guess the Obama hates have a right too to hate the president.

    PeeJ in #30, no, I don’t see you as the representative of your side, but do find you have something in common with many on your side (i.e., the left-side of the political spectrum), reacting to anything any gay conservatives write with a tone of suspicion and the language of accusation.

    I’d be glad to treat you fairly, but first you need treat me fairly. Recall, you’re the only replying to my posts. So, go back, read your comments to this blog (and not just this post) and see how you respond to points I have made in good faith. I’d be glad to praise you if you made a comment as did DoorHold in #4 who noted in a civil tone, that we can’t expect Sean Penn to make a positive case for gay marriage; it’s just not his personality. Go reread that comment, it’s not baiting, it’s not insulting. It’s just offering a different point of view.

    Learn from him how to criticize.

  36. Ignatius,

    I have yet to read at this blog a full-fledged, fully formed, point-by-point explanation why the definition of marriage should be changed to include homosexuals, complete with a promotional strategy

    Last time I particpated in a “discussion” about the issue here it seemed more like a bunch of monkeys throwing feces at each other – there was very little point by point. It’s a divisive issue and there’s just no way around it – everyone has very strong opinions.

    One may argue, as many have, that marriage is not defined (as in codified in the Constitution) to either include or exclude same sex partners. Put another way, this argument claims that extending marriage rights to same sex partners does not change the definition of marriage because there is none. Put yet another way, the argument says that homosexuals ARE entitled to marriage because the law does not make a disticnction and that the due process and equal protection clauses mandate it. Put yet another way, the law, according to this argument, already allows gays to marry and what’s being changed is actually the ending of an illegal, discriminatory practice. Obviously, state constituional amendments and other laws are in place in some states so the above may or may not apply in any particular state.

    Anyway, that’s one argument that has had some acceptance by the SCOTUS (see Bowers v. Hardwick, Lawrence v. Texas which basically reversed Bowers, Turner v Safley, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Loving v. Virginia). Additonally, California, and Massachusetts Supremes have weighed in and you know where they stand. Vermont was mandated by its Supremes to extend the fulll rights and privileges (or some such legalese) but allowed the State to call it marriage or civil unions, or, I suppose, purple popcorn pails, if they wished.

    I am not a constituional lawyer, I’m not a lawyer of any kind, so I am not qualified to argue the legal merits. I would be happy to give my opinion, my interpretation but it aint worth a hill of beans in court.

    I have done some research on the “definition of marriage” and it is quite clear that definition is, and has mostly always been, at best inchoate. And it has changed, adapted and mutated many many times. At one time, interracial marriage was prohibited in the US. At one time in the US, a woman ceded many rights to her husband when she married. At one time, way way back when, men were permitted many wives not to mention concubines. The Yale historian John Boswell made a pretty good case that up until the 12 century or so, the Catholic Church had rites solemnizing same sex “marriages.” Some people, myself included, claim that what most people mean by “traditional definition of marriage” is actually not so traditional and is of fairly recent vintage. I don’t think there’s any consensus on that vintage, some would say early 20th century, others would say post 1950 or so. If we asked five people we’d get five different answers. Six, if one of them went to Harvard.

    Another, to me compelling, argument is that the “traditional” definition of marriage is a religious construction while marriage itself is a civil contract established by the State and hence no religious influence should determine the form of marriage. I am a strong advocate of church/state separation so this makes sense to me. Consider that no priest, pastor, pilot, or anyone else authorized to solemnize a marriage – licenses for which must be issued by the stater – may dissolve a marriage. For that, one must go to the courts. The courts have decided many times over that the State must have a compelling reason for whatever restrictions, bans, limitations and etc. it may wish to apply to marriage. Therefore, in order to deny gays marriage equality, one must show how anyone would be harmed by it.

    As for the promotional plan, I don’t think there is one. Or maybe I should say I don’t think there is only one. I don’t really know. I can say that Kirk and Madsen (form the 80’s, gazoogle it) have been resurrected lately by some group or groups of religious right.

  37. the right, largely funded by religious organizations, runs misleading ads accusing gay people of recruiting their children, pedophilia, and (quite literally) trying to end western civilization.

    we’re called satanists and disgusting, immoral people by the right because of whom we’re attracted to. we’re slandered and told that if we just pray a little harder, our evil impulses will go away.

    sean penn tells ppl voting “yes” on prop 8 to be ashamed of themselves. i think we’re even, no?

  39. @ gaypatriotwest…

    Should I go on? Bush/right wing/friedmenite have been doing this for 30 fucking years.

    How will this change with Obama??? HOW??

    Obama, hase been given the most fucked up right wing team ever…

    Well done.

    Your free market bullshit gave us this…

    But go on…blame Obama…only 2 frigging WEEKS in office.

    You fucking sciopaths…

    WHO do YOU care about??

  40. your first link is 1) in a different country and 2) some fringe group whom 99% of gay people in this country would oppose. your second link doesn’t advance your thesis. your third link shows nothing more than that there are some crazy gay people out there. last time i checked, there are some crazy straight people out there too. i’ve read about straight couples drowning their babies in the bathtub; straight fathers raping their daughters (the, by far, most common form of incest and child molestation, btw). are those accurate representations of most straight people? of course not.

  41. LOL….but of course, boob, in your post, you never condemn any of these groups, do you? You only scream about how awful straight people are.

    Why is it so hard for you to condemn bad behavior by your fellow liberal gays, boob? Can you explain to us why your first reaction, instead of condemning these gays, is to whine about how awful straight people are?

    Nothing but excuses. One would think that it would be easy for boob to condemn his fellow liberal gays who sexualize children, but as we see, boob would rather blame heterosexuals than admit his fellow liberal gays were wrong. Boob’s priorities obviously are putting his fellow liberal gays ahead of the welfare of children.

  42. Oh, and by the way, boob, that’s why liberal gays like yourself aren’t fit for public office of any sort. I don’t want a faggot like yourself who, when confronted with the example of gay parents sexualizing their children, argues that since straight people have harmed their children, these gays should not be held accountable.

    Maybe when you grow up and learn to think beyond your sexual orientation, you can get adult responsibilities. But for now, all you’re demonstrating is that gays like yourself are nothing but children who are ruled by their sexual orientation, and thus should be treated accordingly.

  44. NDT, don’t let your anger get in the way of a good debate.

    You gave links busting bob’s argument, and his chops. all bob will give is vitrol without anything to document it.

    As to his ‘religious right’ bit. Maybe he means Fred Phelps, or paragons of racial tolerance like Robert ‘Sheets’ Byrd.

    Oh, and who funded the attacks on the Mormon church in the ads?

  47. those people are loons, NDT. they don’t speak for me and i disagree with them and think they are damaging to the gay cause and to society. that’s not the point though. my point is they are not representative of the larger gay community, and pointing out fringe people to generalize about a large population is absurd–especially when you’re trying to use that fringe to deny the rest of a certain “group” equal rights. i have nothing against straight people…i was making a point…a point which apparently flew right over your little head.

  49. uh huh…when did i say those gay parents sexualizing their children shouldn’t be held accountable? i don’t remember doing that.

    i’ve never seen someone twist arguments and put words in other peoples’ mouths as much as you.

    oh, and GPW, whom i respect for at least generally keeping the discussion civil, i hope you’re paying attention to comment # 43. you should keep that one in mind next time you go on one of your rants about “liberal hate” and bigotry.

  50. those people are loons, NDT. they don’t speak for me and i disagree with them and think they are damaging to the gay cause and to society.

    One would think then, boob, that you would actually attack, condemn, and shame them, given that you admit their behavior is damaging to the “gay cause”.

    But instead of attacking them, you and your fellow liberal gays and “supporters” like Sean Penn attack the religious people who point out what these gays are doing and condemn it, calling them “homophobic” and “intolerant”.

    So explain that to us: you don’t support these gays and claim that they have nothing to do with the gay community, but you scream that religious people attacking them and their behavior is “homophobic”.

    Nothing but lies, boob. Your actions make it clear that you have no problem with what these “loons” do — just with it being publicized.

  51. wow. your ability to reason logically is astoundingly horrible.

    you posted links about fringe groups and fringe people as an explanation for why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry. i responded to why that argument you put forth is a logical fallacy. i then even said i condemned those people (btw, i’m not sure why i have any particular sway here…). anyway, when the right goes out and says what they say about gay people, they are not differentiating between the fringe 1% and the rest of us, the 99%. the paint all gays as evil child molesters trying to destroy civilization (sorta like what you do here). that is the problem. i am not responsible for those loons, and i should not have to apologize for them. they don’t represent me.

  52. Umm, NDT, do you need to go back on the meds or something?

    LOL….but of course, boob, in your post, you never condemn any of these groups, do you? You only scream about how awful straight people are.

    I didn’t see him screaming, and certainly not at length. Nor did he say stright people are awful.

    What’s more, calling them crazy seems to be a repudiation if not a condemnation. More, he was responding to YOUR comments, your fatuous, tired, extremist misinformation and innuendo.

    Your transferrence – meds can help with that. You really should start taking them again.

  53. wow. your ability to reason logically is astoundingly horrible nonexistent.

    FTFY.

    Go ahead boob, say “I condemn them.” After you’ve been forced to say what an obvious raving lunatic insists (for no logical reason to be found) that you say, then ask the original question. Let’s see what non-sequitur NDT throws up next.

  54. Actually, boob, this is what you first stated:

    the right, largely funded by religious organizations, runs misleading ads accusing gay people of recruiting their children, pedophilia, and (quite literally) trying to end western civilization.

    Then I pointed out that those ads were not misleading since there are numerous gay liberals out recruiting children, practicing pedophilia, and demanding the end of civilization by advocating the legalization of incestuous and plural marriages.

    Your response was to first blame straight people, then whine about why you shouldn’t have to condemn the behavior of these liberal gays.

    None of which involves actually condemning the behavior — which is hilariously hypocritical, given your own admittance that said behavior is harmful to gays and society.

  56. here’s the breakdown in your logic, NDT. those ads ARE misleading because they paint ALL gay people with a broad brush in an attempt to build up resentment and fear toward gay people (to push their agenda). the vast majority of gay people pushing for equal rights (and the vast majority of the gay population in general) are not extremists like that. my only reason for bringing up the straight people example is that THERE ARE CRAZIES OF ALL SORTS. the fact that there are some crazy straight people out there doesn’t mean we should cast all straights as radicals or try to deny them rights.

    making sense yet? good lord.

  57. Is anyone else amused by the fact that PeeJ and boob seemingly have such a hard time condemning gay liberals like themselves who advocate sex with children, who advocate teaching gay sex to five-year-olds, who take toddler-age children dressed as sexual slaves to sex fairs, and who insist on legalization of incestuous and plural marriage?

    This would seem to be a slam-dunk — if you live in the non-gay-liberal world, where right and wrong don’t fluctuate with one’s sexual orientation. Pity PeeJ and boob don’t.

  59. The people NDT is linking to are engaged in a campign of disinformation. NDT claims they are merely trying to stop some reprehensible behavior (and it is) but that’s not what they’re really trying to do. They’re focusing on a very small group of whackjobs and making them the face of all gays and using that to impose their prohibiutions on all gays. It boils down to this: No gays should be allowed to marry because some are disgusting, vile dangerous loons.

    Anger nd fear due to irrational Castigating all gays, ostensibly becuase some small number have a certain trait is irrational. The anger and fear demonstrated by those poeple is apparent to any level headed person. That is the textbook definiton of homophobia.

  60. … hard time condemning gay liberals like themselves who advocate sex with children, who advocate teaching gay sex to five-year-olds, who take toddler-age children dressed as sexual slaves to sex fairs, and who insist on legalization of incestuous and plural marriage?

    Those “gay liberals” are not like me. FAIL #1.
    I did condemn them. FAIL #2.
    Francois de la Rouchefoucauld said Those who are incapable of committing great crimes do not readily suspect them in others.

    The converse of course is, people who suspect and imagine great crimes are those most capable and likely of committing them.

    You protest too much, NDT. FAIL #3

  62. PeeJ and boob, for the moment, forget the motivation of the persons authoring the articles, and forget whatever NDT’s rationale for bringing these things up. Do you condemn these behaviors: pedophilia, dressing children as sex slaves and bringing them to sex fairs, and those who favor incestuous and plural marriage. I believe you both said that you don’t advocate it, and that you find the actions disgusting and or the persons loony. But are you willing to state that you condemn these actions? Thanks.

    For the record, I condemn all of them, except possibly the plural marriage part. I don’t advocate plural marriage, as I think it is a terrible idea and would not benefit society. But while I strongly disagree with those who have that opinion, I don’t condemn them.

  63. are you serious, pat? of course i condemn those things.

    btw, what exactly is the obsession on this comments board with incest? maybe it’s because i’ve lived in blue states most my life, but incest is extremely rare as far as i know, and generally when it exists, it is in the form of abuse, not people in relationships seeking marriage.

  64. #63:
    I have condemned each and every one of those behaviors time and time again, but that’s not good enough for North Dallas Traitor. Oh, no. Gays must be as pure as the driven snow for rights to even be considered.

    North Dallas Traitor, I’ll see your Beyond Marriage and raise you an Ashley Madison. By your “logic”, heterosexual marriage should be banned immediately.

  68. #47: “Is anyone else amused by John “from England” trying to lecture the US about economics?”

    I’m always amazed when Brits try to lecture us vulgar, stupid Americans about ANYTHING. I usually respond by observing that they must not have received our memo. You know, the one dated July 4, 1776 that says essentially “go fu*k yourselves.” (I’m paraphrasing.) Since we got that useless, sinking sea anchor off our necks, in just over 200 years we’ve managed to fly to the Moon and back while they can’t seem to build a decent automobile, master cosmetic dentistry, and still have a branch of government led by a person chosen by birth, in power for life, wears a crown, and carries a fu*king scepter like he/she is presiding over Narnia. The nerve. But if you believe Mark Steyn (and I do), then we only have to listen to it for another generation or two until it officially becomes an Islamic republic. The only advice the British are qualified to give Americans is a recommendation of a pub with decent fish ‘n’ chips.

  69. Let’s try it in pieces then:

    I have condemned, repudiated and villified those criminal, pathological acts at least two or three times in my last few comments.

    And why are we forced to state the obvious? Because we’re gay. Shall I insist that NDT and every str8 person here immediately condemn killing UUC church members because they’re probably liberals (aka white conservative terrorism)? Why haven’t you condemned GOP child molesters? And so on and so forth. You haven’t because there’s no reason to believe you support, advocate or condone it. We didn’t demand your condemnation because we didn’t assume that such criminal, pathological behavior was something you supported simply because you’re a Republican, or whatever.

    I don’t toss around terms like hate speech lightly.

    Oh, and by the way, boob, that’s why liberal gays like yourself aren’t fit for public office of any sort. I don’t want a faggot like yourself…

    and
    like themselves who advocate sex with children, who advocate teaching gay sex to five-year-olds, who take toddler-age children dressed as sexual slaves to sex fairs, and who insist on legalization of incestuous and plural marriage?

    I know it when I see it though. NDT, you really do have a problem. You’re obsessive and irrational. You’ve libeled me, you’ve raged agianst a nonexistent menace. Please, get professional help. Soon.

  70. PeeJ, thanks for responding and doing so thoughtfully. I agree that few folks here enjoy a calm, rational discussion and most are terribly offended if you disagree with them, resort to name-calling, comments dripping with insults implying you’ve no intelligence, etc. In my experience, gay men are a miserable lot; in real life, I associate almost exclusively with straights. I’m glad I’ve found a good guy — I assume most of the men here are single, lonely, and will die alone. I enjoy putting in my two cents, but that’s about it.

    (Before I launch, bear in mind that I’m discussing in generalities; addressing every possibly exception and objection isn’t possible in this format.)

    Where I generally disagree with your legal examples is that marriage has always been implied (with some very few, obscure exceptions) as between members of opposite sexes. That some state laws and constitutions don’t explicitly exclude homosexuals doesn’t mean that such relationships were even considered when those documents were written (and most state constitutions that have been amended to officially forbid the legal recognition of homosexual marriages are just that — amendments, not law that is rewritten or newly written; witness that these amendments have not been the catalyst for the movement to extend the marriage privilege, but quite the opposite). Even your examples of polygamous and same-race relationships/statutes are based upon heterosexuality and just as civil rights for members of racial minorities are a distinct set of legal constructs — or a recognition of their applicability to everyone regardless of race, I tend to resist linking the extension of the marriage privilege to the struggle for racial equality before the law. One deals with rights, the other with privileges. Also, regardless of general commonalities that may exist between minority groups that seek any greater legal recognition, I believe it’s best to take each on their own merits and not blur distinct needs of both minorities and majorities as well as dull the legal precision needed to serve all parties. Rather than agree that the definition of marriage has changed, I would say that it has become more refined but that the basic idea of marriage is still, as it has always been in the lasting sense, between man and woman. What same-sex marriage proposes is change.

    Regardless of historical precedence that is extremely scanty and random (I don’t discount history — I love history — nor examining other cultures and I do appreciate the examples you’ve provided), the issue before us is the current state of marriage. How do we define the institution and does this definition serve society well? I ask that question because marriage is social, not private, and I believe that how we treat marriage as a legal and social construct will have long-range effects on society. We likely both care deeply about societal health (that we are both taking the time to seriously consider an important issue should indicate as much) and I hope that such an attitude can be the common ground for those on both sides of what you’ve rightly described as a contentious issue. The contention is a very healthy sign.

    But this is a very complicated issue. Let me give one example of a possible argument.

    To my mind, one of the most persuasive arguments in favor of same-sex marriage concerns biology. Since we are biological in origin, the sexual desire or impulse is biological. Some would say it is the most immediately biological and there have likely been moments in our lives where we would certainly agree! But as basic as it is, it is also hard to define and lately there is a gradual scientific case that is being built to support the idea that homosexuality is at the very least of a biological predisposition. This is likely a case where science merely confirms what most homosexuals already know: References to homosexuality have existed very early in recorded history and without proof, it is entirely reasonable (to me) to assume homosexuality has always existed.

    If homosexuality is a biological, specifically hormonal result, then it must be assumed that the homosexual impulse is completely natural. If one man’s desire to be with another is natural, then isn’t a homosexual relationship natural — at least, natural to him? And if heterosexual relationships are explicitly addressed in legal privileges (and heterosexuality’s origins have never been in doubt), why aren’t homosexual relationships given the same privileges when their origins are just as biological, just as natural? Based upon but beyond mere sexual attraction, isn’t a natural, healthy gay love worthy of similar consideration?

    Aside from the obvious point that not all things in nature are worthy of respect, there are several problems with this argument. The term marriage has come to mean something much more than a relationship between two people. No, it doesn’t have to mean more, but legally there are responsibilities associated with a public, social commitment, especially concerning reproduction. (I understand that the definition of family has changed and is still changing and I for one resist the idea that a family, like a marriage, is only how one chooses to define it.) In short, I believe that a heterosexual marriage is unique for its biology, for its tradition spanning the survival of our species to the maintenance of present-day society, and for all its other unique aspects such as emotions. I also believe that although relationships and families are imperfect there is a distinct biological component to interaction and there is nothing far-fetched in thinking that children relate to their natural parents differently than they do with adults who aren’t, let alone their natural curiosity as to their own origins.

    Does heterosexuality’s unique position and function mean it should occupy a place in society that is legally separate and unique? I think that despite scientific advances, despite all the legal minutiae and arguments as to where rights begin and privileges end, despite the politics associated with minority protections and our long history of equality before the law, nature, with all its functional hierarchies, is being lost or at the very least is being discounted. To argue that homosexuality’s biology is a basis for legal privileges only emphasizes the importance of heterosexuality’s unique grounds for maintaining a singular social position. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal and never will be. Finally, I believe that while biology may offer a compelling argument for greater recognition of homosexual relationships, I don’t think it should be used to blur its own uniqueness in an imitation of the majority culture.

    There are many same-sex marriage advocates that will never be satisfied with a status that is less than the legal equivalent of traditional marriage and are offended when offered the second rung of civil unions. This all-or-nothing approach isn’t reasonable nor politically astute, but I as a gay man am offended by the idea that to affirm heterosexuality’s uniqueness by protecting traditional marriage is to somehow devalue homosexuals and their social contributions.

    Anyway, those are some of my thoughts on the subject. Gotta go — going out to dinner! I hope you stick around and get to know some of us.

  71. #64: “what exactly is the obsession on this comments board with incest? maybe it’s because i’ve lived in blue states most my life, but incest is extremely rare as far as i know”

    Well, that depends on the issue. If a liberal is discussing same sex marriage, incest is rare to the point of myth. If a liberal is discussing abortion, incest touches most families and is the quickest way young women find themselves burdened with an unwanted pregnancy.

  72. Thanks, Ig.

    It’s immediately apparent that we have widely different perspectives. I would enjoy going back and forth with you on the question. I don’t think that would be useful or fruitful (heh – I said fruit) in this forum. A really serious dialogue doesn’t work very well in an open forum like this. Too many distractions and things generally get derailed.

    For what it’s worth, my partner of almost 20 years and I have never been much intyerested in marriage mostly because we don’t want to be part of an institution that has has demonized us.

    If you like, feel free to email me, vmweenie_98 AT yahoo DOT com.

  74. Excellent!

    Part 2:
    And why are we forced to state the obvious? Because we’re gay. Shall I insist that NDT and every str8 person here immediately condemn shooting UUC church members because they’re probably liberals (aka white conservative terrorism)? Why haven’t you condemned GOP child molesters*? And so on and so forth. You haven’t because there’s no reason to believe you support, advocate or condone it. We didn’t demand your condemnation because we didn’t assume that such criminal, pathological behavior was something you supported simply because you’re a Republican, or whatever.

  75. Aha! part III seems to be the problem

    Part III a:
    I don’t toss around terms like hate speech lightly.

    Oh, and by the way, boob, that’s why liberal gays like yourself aren’t fit for public office of any sort. I don’t want a faggot like yourself…

  76. part III b, take two:

    and
    like themselves who advocate sex with children, who advocate teaching gay sex to five-year-olds, who take toddler-age children dressed as sexual slaves to sex fairs, and who insist on legalization of incestuous and plural marriage?

  77. I had asked Dan to repost this earlier today. . .but he did say that he was a tad bit brain dead

    so

    ‘There is just something delightful about having the only “thank you God” coming from a gay man. ‘ Timothy Kincaid over at BTB in regards to Black’s thank you speech. . .Kincaid continues: ‘It throws anti-gays into complete confusion.’
    looking into Rauch I found an article from last Saturday with Blankenhorn about the reconciliation of gay marriage:
    they propose and ‘agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead. ‘
    it is time for compromise, and more civility. . .
    ‘In all sharp moral disagreements, maximalism is the constant temptation. People dig in, positions harden and we tend to convince ourselves that our opponents are not only wrong-headed but also malicious and acting in bad faith. In such conflicts, it can seem not only difficult, but also wrong, to compromise on a core belief. ‘
    personal attacks, snarkiness, and further ‘reading of beads’ is getting everyone nowhere. maybe it is time to agree to become more civil and leave the name-calling out of this.
    ‘But clinging to extremes can also be quite dangerous. In the case of gay marriage, a scorched-earth debate, pitting what some regard as nonnegotiable religious freedom against what others regard as a nonnegotiable human right, would do great harm to our civil society. When a reasonable accommodation on a tough issue seems possible, both sides should have the courage to explore it.’
    back in the day, female impersonators/drag queens would gather to ‘detail’ their gowns and bead their dresses all while ‘reading the beads’ of those around them and even those not present.
    Seems like the dismissal of the petty act of ‘reading the beads’ of commentors here at GP would be highly beneficial, but that would be a challenge.
    A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage
    David Blankenhorn is president of the Institute for American Values and the author of “The Future of Marriage.” Jonathan Rauch is a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and the author of “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights and Good for America.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22rauch.html?_r=3&em

    —
    ciao, rusty
    “Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind.” Dr. Suess

  79. part III c, take three:

    I know it when I see it though. ____ you have a problem. Your behavior is obsessive and irrational. You’ve libeled me, you’ve raged against a nonexistent menace. Please, seek help. Soon.

  80. seana said: “Well, that depends on the issue. If a liberal is discussing same sex marriage, incest is rare to the point of myth. If a liberal is discussing abortion, incest touches most families and is the quickest way young women find themselves burdened with an unwanted pregnancy.”

    actually, sean, there is a distinction there. the main situation in which incest occurs is through sexual abuse–usually a father/step-father/uncle molesting/raping his daughter/niece. pregnancy can often result from that, as we learn in 4th grade. by contrast, there aren’t a lot of brother and sister couples out there trying to get married.

  81. those ads ARE misleading because they paint ALL gay people with a broad brush in an attempt to build up resentment and fear toward gay people (to push their agenda).

    Hmmm. Didn’t you just do the EXACT same thing when you said:

    the right, largely funded by religious organizations,

    The left has no qualms with generating resentment and fear of religious folk and/or Republicans.

  83. #80: “by contrast, there aren’t a lot of brother and sister couples out there trying to get married.”

    If you base the privilege of state-recognized marriage on love, then it wouldn’t matter if it were demanded by one or one million incestuous couples. There would be no basis to deny them the privilege. 40 years ago, society treated girls who got pregnant out-of-wedlock like they had been exposed for being cannibals. Today, single mothers are celebrated for their bravery. You have no idea how our culture will have changed 10, 20, 30 years from now. It’s completely insufficient to address the points being made about incest, bestiality, and 3+ partner marriages by stating, oh no, that’s crazy, no one will EVER try to pull something like thaaaaat! The fact is, we have created a culture that condemns the application of objective standards of right and wrong to voluntary behavior. In a culture like that, we have a lot of freedom. But it also means that our society will ultimately accommodate anything as long as someone steps up to the microphone and starts demanding it.

  84. #82: TGC, that’s perfect.

    By the way, in a country of over 300,000,000 people, there aren’t a lot of homosexual couples trying to get married either. But with the help of the MSM, the coverage of this issue gives the impression that 30-40% of the citizens of this country are gay people desperate to make it onto the bridal registry at Williams-Sonoma. If we don’t have to worry about brother-sister couples demanding legalized marriage due to their small numbers, the same can easily be said of gay couples demanding the same thing.

    This is why conservatives oppose tinkering with the definition itself just to make gay people feel better about themselves. They’ve actually considered the long-term potential impact of the changes that gays are so cavalier about. The gay left just wants what it wants and wants it NOW. They figure that if it makes them happy, then what could possibly go wrong? Three or four people trying to marry each other? You must be joking–no one would ever suggest such an outlandish thing! Yeah, right.

  85. North Dallas Traitor, I’ll see your Beyond Marriage and raise you an Ashley Madison. By your “logic”, heterosexual marriage should be banned immediately.

    Unfortunately for you, Attmay, Beyond Marriage is mainstream and endorsed by an enormous number of gay leaders, and Ashley Madison is definitely NON-mainstream and vehemently opposed by numerous heterosexual leaders.

    When national heterosexual organizations that purport to speak for the vast majority of heterosexuals start endorsing Ashley Madison, then you’ll have a point. But until then, all you’re making yourself do is look foolish by trying to make excuses for the gay mainstream’s belief that plural and incestuous marriages should be legalized and supported for gays.

  87. Why haven’t you condemned GOP child molesters*? And so on and so forth.

    Actually, I did — and that is a very wide view of what exactly constitutes child molestation, far more than liberal gays like Sam Adams consider it to be.

    You see, PeeJ, you and your fellow liberal gays like boob can’t comprehend that. You can’t criticize or condemn your fellow liberal gays and their sexual exploitation of children, so you think that conservatives share your weakness. Unfortunately for you, we have principles, and unlike you, we feel no need to blame straights or spin like mad to avoid condemning people of our own sexual orientation who rape, molest, and sexualize children.

    To you, any criticism of gay behavior is homophobic. You’re little more than a brainwashed shill who’s been programmed to scream “hate speech” whenever anyone dares criticize a gay, regardless of what that gay has done. And that’s why you ARE unfit for public office; society does not need people like you who are bigoted and make prejudiced decisions based on your sexual orientation having anything to do with making or enforcing public laws.

  89. #89: OH…MY…GOD. Thanks for the link. Of course, I knew this was the next “frontier” for the crowd hell-bent on the destruction of every traditional institution and ideal of civilized society, but I had no idea that the “whatever makes you happy” approach to state-sanctioned marriage had gone this mainstream yet. Scary.

  90. Get off your high horses. Legalized polygamy and incestuous marriage existed for years without gay marriage. Likewise, gay marriage can exist without polygamous or incestuous marriage

    I am not making an “excuse” for a fringe group like Beyond Marriage. Who are these “mainstream” gay “leaders” endorsing it, and who gave them permission to speak for me or any other gays?

    And you’re fooling no one with the accusation that because the ACLU of UTAH, probably defending the FLDS “Church” that is unlikely to accept anything remotely gay at any point in any of our lifetimes, defends polygamy, means “the rest of the ACLU liberals”. I haven’t seen so many straw men since the audition for “The Wizard of Oz.”

    To you, any criticism of gay behavior is homophobic

    I don’t believe that at all. I have never, at any time in my life, countenanced promiscuous, unsafe, or loveless sex, or called LEGITIMATE criticism of gay behavior homophobic. I think pride parades are embarrassing and I think almost all gay movies, TV shows, plays, and books that I have seen or read reinforce every horrendous stereotype there is. But to you any criticism of gay bashers who cite the man-made Bible or use their political beliefs to justify it is “anti-religious bigotry” and “Republican bashing”. Do you consider Sally Kern’s and Chris Buttars’s vile statements that “gays are worse than terrorists” homophobic? I do. Do you consider some hetero neanderthal saying “At least Milk had a happy ending” in the FreeRepublic Oscar thread homophobic? I do. If you don’t consider being compared unfavorably to the scum of the earth by the scum of the earth because you are gay homophobic, then, wow, just pig-fucking wow.

    The Sally Kerns and Chris Buttars and freepers and their ilk are NOT good people in any way. They cannot be swayed by logic, facts, reason, or any positive examples of gay life. They are the ideological kissin’ cousins of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. These people are our enemies. They are not like those who say they’re against gay marriage but could be swayed if conclusive proof that it would not open the floodgates of debauchery could be found (although the sky has yet to fall Massachusetts and New York, just as it didn’t fall when women got the vote or blacks got the rights due to them under the Constitution). They don’t look at social change and see a warning light. They see a stop light and they want to slam the brakes as hard as they can, regardless of the traffic situation.

    I can’t predict what social change will come from gay marriage. But even if we got it in all 50 states right now it would take decades to determine its transformation of gay culture, if any, and the overall culture. But if the positives outweigh the negatives, it will be worth it.

  92. TheGayConservative said: “hmm. Didn’t you just do the EXACT same thing when you said:

    the right, largely funded by religious organizations,

    The left has no qualms with generating resentment and fear of religious folk and/or Republicans.”

    no, i didn’t. i was talking about the “right” in the context of the proposition 8 debate, which, as a matter of undisputed fact, was largely funded by the mormon church. most free-market republicans don’t give a rat’s ass about dave and billy next door getting hitched. it’s the social conservatives, organized by the religious organizations, that are fighting gay marriage tooth and nail. by contrast, trying to scare the general public about gay people “recruiting our children” and all that rubbish is outrageous in that it uses fringe groups of ppl (and outright lies) to generalize about an entire, much larger group.

  93. i’ve become convinced that NDT lives in a fantasy world in which other people say whatever he wants them to say in his head so he can then knock down a straw man.

    btw, GPW, no comments here? really?

    your silence speaks volumes.

  94. Sean Penn visited Iraq before the war – while Hussein was still in power. He also visted Iran to cover the “elections” in 2005. My question would be is why Sean Penn was soooooooo brave at the Academy Awards dishing and shaming people in California for voting for the ban on gay marriage in California, but he never said a peep in Iran or Iraq for murdering gay people in both those countries. Kind of like the gays in California were brave enough to picket Christian and Mormon Churches but did not stop by the local Mosques in California to protest against Muslims who voted for the gay marriage ban. Is Penn a coward? You bet he is.

  95. Attmay,

    See, that’s one of the strengths, I feel, to my ‘fred’ argument. By creating the institution, it doesn’t leave a legal door open to the royal family/Scottsman and his sheep/Harem/Cartoon Character arguements. It bypasses the slippery slope by saying “You want the bennies and drawbacks, build something.’

    You and I may never agree on the concept, but if it helps, that’s one of the advantages I see.

    And NDT does raise good points, but they get lost in the rhetoric sometimes.

    Taking something non-sexual, look at gamers. Most people who do RPGs live normal lives, go to work, have families, etc. But we’re constantly fighting against the stereotype of the 30 year old living in his parents’ basement.

    For any deviation from the norm, since it’s a smaller sampling, the aberrations stick out. Stuff like FSF amplifies it. I’ve said that here in Ohio, we’d have nothing like it. Is it a ‘failure’ of the ‘gay community’ to condemn it? Hells yes. But it is a failure of the city/county/state to not enforce the laws. If they’re afraid of a ‘backlash’ then there is no government and it’s rule by mob.

    On one of NBC’s ‘to catch a predator’ specials, one of the (straight) perverts that shows up had as his chat nickname a term that only a gamer, specifically a BattleTech player, would use. I was outraged because 1) It reflected on me as a gamer and b) I might have sit across the table from this scum.

    It’s the same with the FSF. There may be the same number of stupid people in the ‘gay community’ as in the straights, there may be less for all I know. No one’s done a survey ‘are you gay and stupid?’ 😉 but they -are- more visible, because of the smaller sample.

    Disclaimer 1: Why is it that incest is a ‘hillbilly’ stereotype? It’s much more historically common in nobility.
    Disclaimer 2: I use the term ‘gay community’ in quotes, as I think this board shows there is no such thing.
    Disclaimer 3: Now, with a decent night’s sleep, I’ve made a post w/o misattributing anything to PeeJ. Everyone applaud.

  97. hmm, funny…i don’t remember arguing that the mormons are unamerican.

    should they lose their tax-exempt status if they want to push a massive political agenda? most likely, but that’s for another debate.

  98. My point is, bob, that you’re condemning them for exercising their rights as American citizens.

    If you look, there’s no check coming from “The Mormon Church, Salt Lake City Utah, LLC” People donated. People exercising their rights of assembly, free speech, right to petition, etc.

    And now you want to punish the group for the actions of the individuals “should they lose their tax-exempt status if they want to push a massive political agenda? most likely”

    Why, that’s like condemning the entire gay community for two women dressing their children up in fetsh gear, or for the existance of NAMBLA. Actions you’ve condemned NDT for doing. You just want to have the government do it for you in the name of tolerance.

  99. #91: “I can’t predict what social change will come from gay marriage. But even if we got it in all 50 states right now it would take decades to determine its transformation of gay culture, if any, and the overall culture. But if the positives outweigh the negatives, it will be worth it.”

    Exactly. You DON’T know how it will affect our culture, but the fact that you want it outweighs everything and we should just hope for the best. Furthermore, you’re mortally offended by the idea that gays should have to make the case that the “positives outweigh the negatives” BEFORE we start tinkering with the definitions of state-sanctioned relationships. Implicit in your statements is the concession that if the positives don’t outweigh the negatives then it WON’T be worth it, but you think we should all be willing to risk it on the hope that there will ultimately be a positive outcome. Sorry. Not good enough.

  100. And you’re fooling no one with the accusation that because the ACLU of UTAH, probably defending the FLDS “Church” that is unlikely to accept anything remotely gay at any point in any of our lifetimes, defends polygamy, means “the rest of the ACLU liberals”.

    A word of advice, Attmay; instead of stopping at the URL, actually read the link. If you had, you might have noticed the fact that “NATIONAL POLICY” is plastered all over it.

    I don’t believe that at all. I have never, at any time in my life, countenanced promiscuous, unsafe, or loveless sex, or called LEGITIMATE criticism of gay behavior homophobic.

    Makes sense, because I wasn’t talking to you.

    Do you consider Sally Kern’s and Chris Buttars’s vile statements that “gays are worse than terrorists” homophobic? I do.

    If you look in terms of actual Americans killed, the gay community’s addiction to and promotion of promiscuous sex has killed far more Americans than al-Qaeda has ever managed. Think about that for a while.

    Do you consider some hetero neanderthal saying “At least Milk had a happy ending” in the FreeRepublic Oscar thread homophobic?

    Nope. Calling that “homophobic” is akin to arguing that you wouldn’t have cared about the comment had Milk been straight. Personally, I think calling someone’s death a “happy ending” is wrong regardless of the sexual orientation of the person. Don’t you?

  102. By the way, entertaining gay liberal contradiction of the day.

    First boob whines this:

    i’ve become convinced that NDT lives in a fantasy world in which other people say whatever he wants them to say in his head so he can then knock down a straw man.

    Followed by:

    btw, GPW, no comments here? really?

    your silence speaks volumes.

    In other words, boob is attacking me for allegedly doing what he is obviously doing in the same comment.

  104. “Likewise, gay marriage can exist without polygamous or incestuous marriage.”

    On what basis can this claim be made? Marriage has existed for the entirety of human civilization. Homosexual relationships have existed throughout that time as well, in some times and cultures openly. And yet in no time or culture were these relationships ever considered marriages, even where they were respected. Yet you want to believe that we can add relationships which have never been considered marriages while still excluding relationships which have in many times and places been accepted as marriage? What justification can be offered to support this?

    Can it be that we as a culture don’t want them included? A large majority of Americans do not want gay marriage. By definition if we end up with judicially recognized gay marriage public opposition has been ruled an invalid reason for exclusion. In this circumstance what reason is there to exclude polygamy? There are only two endings to attempted judicially enforced gay marriage: (1) the definition of marriage today, and (2) all non-coercive relationships whose practitioners desire to be recognized as marriage. This is why the judicial activist path is wrong.

    Supporters of judicial activism make these assertions without any thought or concern as to their veracity.

  105. if you read my actual original comment, i said something like: “misleading ads funding by the right (mostly religious organizations)…” i didn’t start out singling out the mormons.

    but anyway, point is that the church itself, not some fringe group within the mormon church, largely funded that campaign. and their campaign relied largely on propaganda, as does the entire religious right’s campaign against gay rights. the “mormon church” is a different entity than the “gay population” because the gay population has no official organizing body. the church does. no one person or organization speaks for the gay community. and certainly none of those fringe freaks speak for me (or most gays). so the point is, your analogy is terrible.

  107. MJ said: “Can it be that we as a culture don’t want them included? A large majority of Americans do not want gay marriage. By definition if we end up with judicially recognized gay marriage public opposition has been ruled an invalid reason for exclusion.”

    so tell me, MJ, hypothetically…if the majority of americans wanted to deny people of race “x” the right to vote, should that be the law of the land?

    we have a constitution for a reason.

  108. “I thought Dan’s silence spoke volumes too…

    …That he, unlike the rest of us, has a life ;-)”

    there might be some truth to this claim if GPW didn’t post several times during this comments debate. i think he simply chose not to participate because he disagrees w/ the conservative shills (i.e. NDT, livewire, etc.).

  109. it’s funny how when a liberal uses language on these boards that GPW considers “hateful”, he writes an entire post about it–maybe two or three. when conservatives use disgusting, hateful language, he pretends like he doesn’t see it.

    cognitive dissonance, maybe?

  112. And again, the pure amusement value.

    i think he simply chose not to participate because he disagrees w/ the conservative shills (i.e. NDT, livewire, etc.).

    This is, of course, coming from the same person who whined above:

    i’ve never seen someone twist arguments and put words in other peoples’ mouths as much as you.

  113. Wow, I’m a conservative ‘shill’? Coming from a shrill like bob…

    And what, exactly is incorrect about that ad bob? I’m assuming you can provide the documentation of the Church getting involved.

    His reaction to my comment does prove one thing. self effacement is not funny to bob.

    AMybe bob’s upset that Dan’s dating and he’s not?

  115. are you serious, pat? of course i condemn those things.

    Bob, I did this in the hopes of getting beyond that, and be able to debate the actual topic. I see that you, PeeJ, and Attmay did condemn those things, and it apparently didn’t matter. I tried.

    I understand the point about condemning the obvious. And being silent does not necessarily mean that one supports something abominable. Funny, my straight friends and colleagues don’t constantly wring their hands constantly condemning the behaviors of Britney Spears, Newt Gingrich, Mardi Gras participants, James Dobson, parents who excoriate their gay children simply for being gay, or other bad behaviors by straight people.

    i’ve never seen someone twist arguments and put words in other peoples’ mouths as much as you.

    NDT, I’m afraid you still do that too often. For some reason, it’s not good enough to disagree with you. You seem like you have to make the other person’s position more extreme that it is in order to prop up your own position.

  116. #107
    *Hands bob a history book*
    *Hands bob a copy of the constitution, complete with strike throughs*
    *points out to bob where we -did- deny people the right to vote.*
    *points out where we ammended the constitution*
    *waits for bob to make the connection, reads War and Peace, still waiting for him to make the connection*
    *hands bob his petard, the better to hoist himself with.*

  117. Bob,

    So you agree that polygamy will be legal under the civil right standard. Thanks for being vastly more honest than most gay marriage activists.

    Now, to the separate and distinct question of whether you have a constitutional right to have your relationship recognized as marriage, I also say no. As I pointed out, marriage has existed for the entirety of human civilization without gay relationships ever being included. The idea that a modern government has the right to redefine an institution which predates it by more than 5 millenia is absurd. Marriage simply doesn’t include gay relationships. It doesn’t mean those relationships or the people who practice them are worth less. It really doesn’t mean anything to those in the relationships, except for those few insecure souls who need a government to validate their lives.

    However, supporting this idea accepts that our judiciary has virtually unlimited power to enact any piece of social reform it considers positive. You might want to consider what this could mean for future generations. Leftists seem to accept judicial oligarchy as a positive because they assume the judiciary will always be on their side. But this isn’t how human institutions work. There will be a time in the future when leftists generally and gay activists specifically regret removing virtually all limits on judicial power. I hope it’s a long way off so I personally don’t have to choose between abandoning principle and joining your pathetic group of poseurs.

    Your comparison to voting is stupid and reflects that you have no real understanding of the facts. Voting is a function of government and is therefore properly bound by the rules government sets. Marriage is a social institution government has used for its own ends. If they find it an inappropriate basis for those ends they can stop using it.

    If Americans want their government to recognize gay relationships in the same way marriage is recognized I’m fine with that. If the government concludes granting benefits to married couples is unfair and instead changes the basis to individuals I’m fine with that too. But neither of those is the issue.

  118. MJ and Livewire bring up a good point; technically, no one has a “right” to marriage. It’s a privilege that’s been extended throughout history to various groups in accordance with the thought of the time.

    The simple problem here is that none of the gay left can make a coherent argument to people for gay marriage — mainly because the gay left and its behaviors in several ways are completely antithetical to the value that society sees in and puts on marriage.

  119. “The Gay Left”

    I’m no fan of left-wing activists, but this monolithic “gay left” you talk of is a straw man you keep setting up just so you could knock it down.

    We saw what happened in France when the government gave gays civil unions to save marriage “privileges” exclusively for the ungays. The ungays decided to partake of civil unions, too. They kept gays out of marriage but undermined it anyway.

    So if you are willing to accept civil unions, are you willing to insist that they be a privilege exclusively to gays, and denied to ungays?

  120. #118 NDLabarbera strikes again. You need to remember that our most vocal critics don’t distinguish between gays on the left or the right. We are all judged the same by those who you parrot. Which means that your behavior must be “in several ways are completely antithetical to the value that society sees in and puts on marriage.” You are most likely a pedophile, recruit children to the lifestyle, have 100s of sex partners a year, can’t maintain a monogamous relationship, hate all religious people and you might even be a necrophiliac. Your a bigger threat than the terrorists and God hates you. The slime you spread splashes all over you and you are just to obsessed to see it.

    I can’t remember who it was that criticized GPW (and I’m too lazy to scroll up and find out) but if you look around at the various threads more often than not he does not get involved in the comments. Sure, he’s harder on the left wing than he is the right but that makes total sense. Is it hypocritical? Yeah, probably but who on the left is innocent of the same? If you can actually find a truly impartial person I doubt he/she would be a major poster on a political blog.

  121. You need to remember that our most vocal critics don’t distinguish between gays on the left or the right.

    Or at least you hope so, adDave, because that’s the excuse you and your fellow gay leftists have used for decades to avoid any responsibility for your behavior or any sort of impetus to clean up your act.

    The problem here adDave, is that you are more concerned about staying popular in the leftist community than you are about right and wrong. That’s why gay liberals like yourself won’t condemn your ACLU allies for demanding plural marriage; you’re terrified that taking a principled stand would alienate them, and you don’t have sufficient emotional or intellectual strength to handle that.

  122. actually, mj, my comparison to voting is spot on. you argued that b/c “the people don’t want it” that that necessarily means the law of the land should reflect the wishes of the people. that is ridiculous. i used the voting example to demonstrate that the will of the majority is not always the best thing–especially when you are a member of a minority group.

    “Voting is a function of government and is therefore properly bound by the rules government sets. Marriage is a social institution government has used for its own ends.”

    um…i’m pretty sure this shows that YOU have no understanding of the facts. marriage is, whether you like it or not, a function of the government. you know that little paperwork you have to fill out when you get married? all those signatures and stuff? yeah, that’s you signing a civil contract, aka a government contract. *waits for all the conservatives to pee their pants at the sight of the word “government”.* the government bestows rights and privileges to you based on that contract.

    and go do a little research. marriage has evolved tremendously over the years. the “this is the way it’s been” argument is one of the weakest ones out there.

  123. also, i’ve already explained to some particularly dense posters why the polygamy and incest arguments are specious, but i suppose i’ll approach them one more time.

    first, i believe this incest argument is a total slippery-slope straw man. incest, by and large, exists in the form of sexual abuse, not functional relationships. there is not an abundance of brother/sister pairs out there itching to get married. there just aren’t. frankly, i don’t really care about what two consenting adults do tbh. think about it. the reason we want to prevent incest is b/c the freaky genetic results from siblings mating. but people don’t need to be married to have babies…if they are screwing each other, they’re screwing each other. barring them from marrying doesn’t prevent anything, and allowing incest marriages isn’t exactly going to encourage bobby to propose to his little sis. but anyway, that is a different discussion. the point is that there is a distinction between allowing gays to marry and allowing incestuous marriages.

    for one thing, homosexuality is a sexual orientation. incest is not an orientation, it is a behavior. there aren’t people out there (correct me if i’m wrong) who only have attractions to their siblings. by denying gay marriage, gay people are being totally cut out of marriage. by definition, gay people only love people of the same sex, and the government is banning them from marrying that entire sex. with incest, you’re being banned from marrying your sibling. there is a difference there.

    polygamy is also not an orientation. polygamy is a lifestyle choice (funny that the right uses that phrase to define gays, who are biologically made to love people of the same sex). while my main concern about polygamy is that women are coerced into it and abused (and children are abused too usually) i nevertheless don’t think the government should arrest men for living with several women if that’s what everyone is consenting to, but i also don’t think the gov’t should consider them all married. we can have a polygamy discussion sometime if people really want, but allowing gay marriage doesn’t necessitate polygamous marriages.

  124. Actually, boob, they’re not specious, because you just admitted that you and your fellow gay liberals are perfectly fine with incestuous and plural marriage.

    Which is good, because, since you and your fellow gay liberals have demanded that biological differences are irrelevant and should be ignored in favor of “love”, means that you fully support and endorse the removal of bans on both plural and incestuous marriage in the name of “equal protection”.

  125. Bob, you’ve made some excellent points about why polygamy and incesuous marriage. It is true that we can’t stop two adult and consentual family members from having sex, or multiple partners. But that doesn’t mean that we, as a society, have to legitimize it with marriage. There are reasons why we don’t think incest is a good idea. One of them is the children that may result from such a union. But that’s not the only reason. The idea is to form unions with ones that we have not grown up with as children, for another reason. And as you mentioned, the coercion or psychological manipulation that usually causes the incest to begin with. As for multiple partners, I agree it’s a bad idea. Like I said, people are free to associate as they wish, but that doesn’t mean we have to legitimize it with marriage.

    It is different with homosexuality. I (and most people today) find that consensual sex between any two non-related adults is fine. I’m not making an argument that it’s equivalent, biologically exactly the same, or that two persons of the same sex could ever produce children without assistance. That’s beside the point. But should two men or two women have the same chance of marriage, in what we believe that marriage has come today. In other words, about two people who love each other and want to commit to each other. We can argue about what the origins of marriage are, whether love has anything to do with it, or whether all married couples should procreate. But that’s not what marriage has become. We encourage straight couples to marry, if they want to commit to each other, whether or not they want to have children. So are homosexual relationships valid enough to encourage that for same sex couples. Or do we say that homosexual relationships are fine, but we should half-ass it.

    I understand those who find homosexuality an abomination why they wouldn’t want same sex marriage. Just as I understand why incest is an abomination and shouldn’t be legitimized with marriage. But most agree now that homosexuality is fine.

  127. Bob,

    First, marriage cannot be a function of government as it preexisted government by millenia. Government uses marriage to further its own goals. This is different as your commentary proves. If there were no government would marriage end? Since the answer is no marriage is not a function of government. To contrast, if there were no government would we vote?

    Secondly, you have stated the arguments about incest and polygamy are specious, but you certainly have not backed up this assertion with logically consistent facts. You state that both events are too infrequent to worry about. This of course is what many people say about gay marriage, so I’m not sure what meaning you think this has. Your point about coersion is a dodge, we are obviously discussing only non-coersive cases. Your comment that you are against recognizing polygamy means nothing since you are advocating a position that the opinions of the population are irrelevant.

    Extending marriage to gay couples has less historical and cultural precedent that extending it to polgamous groups. Once you remove cultural approval as a requirement (your position) there is no basis to include gay relationships while excluding polygamy.

  128. mj, you’re not very smart, huh? regardless of whether marriage predates government, marriage, as it currently exists in our society, is a government contract. it can also be a religious thing for you as well, but marriage needs not have a religious component to receive the benefits from the government. as a gay person, i’m not asking anyone’s church to give me some sort of “nod” or recognition; i just want the same actual rights and benefits as heterosexuals.

  129. and the main point is not about the infrequency, but instead it’s about the nature of the people engaging in the respective behaviors/relationships. if you can’t understand the difference between an orientation and a behavior or a lifestyle choice (hint: being gay isn’t a behavior or a lifestyle choice), then you are not worth speaking to on this topic.

  130. Bob,

    I thought leftists prided themselves on nuance, but I see you simply deal in surface level dogma. When you gain the intellect to discuss the matter intelligently be sure to post.

    For the rest, the government can set the terms of its own contracts. However, government’s decision to use an institution does not give them the right to change it. If they don’t approve of its nature they can use something else.

  132. Sean Penn should open his eyes when in Iran, Venezuela, Cuba to see and see that Gays are imprisoned, killed for being perversions to humanity.

    Stop buying his movie tickets. He is doing do good beyond his own pocketbook.