What Gay Activists Can Learn from Mormons
As the producers of HBO’s series Big Love offers Hollywood’s latest “foray into anti-Mormon “exposé,” writer Orson Scott Card, a Mormon himself, observes:
It’s offensive when believers in one religion hold up the sacred rites of another religion to public ridicule. So we’re hurt — but we’re not surprised.
Mormons have always been the exception to America’s policy of religious tolerance. Throughout our history in America, Mormons have been oppressed by government, killed or driven out by mobs, slandered, and libeled — always by fellow Americans who professed to believe in religious tolerance.
Until recently, gay people have suffered similar slights. Yet, even in the face of yet another media misrepresentation of his faith, Scott observes
. . . that few [Mormons] have any desire to act as the worst of our opponents have acted. After someone has boycotted a friend’s business, it makes it a bit harder for you to want to call for a boycott.
By and large, while we’d prefer that everybody handle differences of opinion peacefully, we’d rather be persecuted than be the persecutors. The few times in our history when we have departed from that principle, the results have shamed us for generations. Tolerance works better.
And this is where gay activists can learn from Mormons. Show some tolerance for those who currently espouse the traditional definition of marriage. In contrast to those angry activists who protested the passage of Proposition 8 by attacking Mormons, a large number of the initiative’s backers (but alas not all) have not expressed animosity toward gay people.
Perhaps by showing some tolerance for their [i.e., opponents of gay marriage] concerns, gay activists might succeed in addressing them and persuading those backers to change their mind. So, let’s handle our differences of opinion peacefully, lest we learn, as did the Mormons, that angry responses serve only to shame us.
102 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
In extending such understanding to Mormons, we will be doing better than Card does toward us:
He doesn’t want to send us all to jail…just enough of us that the rest will shut up and stay invisible.
Comment by Ronald Hayden — March 13, 2009 @ 8:33 pm - March 13, 2009
While I will make no comment on Mormon theology, nor will I attempt to defend Mr. Card, I would like to tell the story of my relationship with a Mormon man and his family. I think it is insightful as to how Mormon’s practice their faith.
Some of you who are familiar with me know that my late partner was a Morman, from a very rural and conservative area in southeastern Idaho. We met while in the service and formed a relationship after we met again as civilians. Vince lived in Salt Lake City, I was in New York City. Shortly after we realized that we both wanted to live together, he moved to NYC and eventually we both moved to the SF Bay area. I was very nervous and apprehensive to meet the dreaded Mormon family, but Vince was very close to his family and assured me that there would be no problem. He was right.
From the moment I met his mother, I was another of her sons. Whenever we visited her, his grandmother, any of his brothers and sisters, we were treated like a couple, to the point that it was always assumed that we slept in the same bed, and indeed, in any of their homes, we were always put in a room with one bed. In all honesty, it was never discussed, but it was also never an issue. All of his many nieces and nephews became mine, and still are what I consider my family. We were always treated as a couple, Vince went with John, John went with Vince.
When Vince passed in 2007 after thirty years together, his brothers asked me to deliver the eulogy. His mother is still in weekly contact with me, as are all of his family members. Come Christmas and things like birthdays, all of his family remember me. There was never an issue of property settlements after his death, it would have been unthinkable to them to claim anything that Vince and I had gathered together.
I am not a Mormon, but I can say in all honesty, the ones I know have always been decent, caring and respectful humans, and I’m proud to know them.
I have never studied Mormon theology so I can not comment on it, but if Vince’s family practiced what they believed, I can only assume that normal human decency transends anything others might find offensive in their system of faith.
Comment by John in Dublin CA — March 13, 2009 @ 10:47 pm - March 13, 2009
…too…. much…. good sense…. in one sentence……. can’t…. speak…. must sit back…. and simply wait…. for…. lefties’…. heads…. to explode…..
(that was my William Shatner impression)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 13, 2009 @ 11:05 pm - March 13, 2009
(ok, it was lame)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 13, 2009 @ 11:12 pm - March 13, 2009
Ronald,
Read the last two paragraphs
Comment by The_Livewire — March 13, 2009 @ 11:17 pm - March 13, 2009
Darn, last two paragraphs of Orson Scott Card’s article kept in the filter.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 13, 2009 @ 11:18 pm - March 13, 2009
Mr. Hayden, does that mean you can’t take any wisdom from the article?
Nice article, well written.
Comment by Carolynp — March 13, 2009 @ 11:23 pm - March 13, 2009
Best of all, the two paragraphs quoted in #1 refer to the laws of the LDS church, as far as I can tell. So not only can Ron not take any wisdom from the 2009 article, he brings truth to the statement in the 1990 article about ‘The hypocrites of homosexuality are, of course, already preparing to answer these statements by accusing me of homophobia, gay-bashing, bigotry, intolerance; but nothing that I have said here — and nothing that has been said by any of the prophets or any of the Church leaders who have dealt with this issue — can be construed as advocating, encouraging, or even allowing harsh personal treatment of individuals who are unable to resist the temptation to have sexual relations with persons of the same sex.’
Thank you Ron, for proving his point.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 13, 2009 @ 11:55 pm - March 13, 2009
I can’t tell that Ron even read the piece he linked to.
What was the point, again?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 14, 2009 @ 1:10 am - March 14, 2009
Orson Scott Card is the kind of guy who would make most gays’ heads explode. He is a hate-the-sin and love-the-sinner kind of guy, an orthodox Mormon who’s very clear that homosexuality is sinful. His 1990 article does indeed support civil laws against homosexual acts, although he naively wishes them not to be enforced. And his strong opposition to the gay social and legal agenda is very clear. Yet, as a writer, he condemns movies like Mamma Mia for trivializing homosexual characters and asserts that in his own fiction, he aims to treat his (few) homosexual characters as fully and respectfully as his straight ones.
I have known, argued with and even liked men like him. They have returned the favor. He would see my erotic desires as a character flaw and he would situate me within a larger religious narrative that would enable him to condemn that flaw while still recognizing all my other virtues (and other nonsexual flaws). For gay men like me, who see our erotic desire as shaping our identity, this narrative sounds and feels like total condemnation of the self, even if that’s not what’s intended.
Takes brains, patience, motive and imagination to have a conversation that can navigate these opposing narrative contexts. The way our public discourse operates, built on slogans and name-calling, that’s unlikely.
Comment by EssEm — March 14, 2009 @ 5:32 am - March 14, 2009
Thanks for being willing to recognize the meaning of what he said. Though he indicates he does wish the laws to be enforced…enough to silence the rest of the community and render us invisible.
As it happens, Mr. Card is someone I’ve been reading since childhood, and his books played an important part in my personal evolution as a writer and reader. As such, I am actually pretty familiar with his beliefs, and aware of where I agree and disagree with him.
Snide responses above aside, it is completely appropriate, when Card is referenced as a paragon of tolerance for gays, to point out that he wishes to put some percentage of gays in jail.
There are things to learn from Card, certainly by most liberals; but I’m sure he wouldn’t want us to treat Mormons the way he wishes gays to be treated.
Comment by Ronald Hayden — March 14, 2009 @ 6:08 am - March 14, 2009
This is not correct. There is text above that applies to the church, but then he says:
It’s inescapable what his beliefs are here. Any defense of him has to accept what he is clearly saying.
Perhaps his personal affection for some gays, and his attempt to treat them fairly in his fiction is some sort of defense…but in the end the fact is he believes that laws and jails should be used to silence and suppress gays.
Comment by Ronald Hayden — March 14, 2009 @ 6:22 am - March 14, 2009
I’m still not sure your interpretation is a valid one, Ronald. I’m reading the ‘Polity’ in this case as the ‘ecclesiastical polity’ per Random House dictionary. Much how the ELCA is putting gay marriage as a sin to the vote of the ecclesiastical polity.
Even if I conceed he’s talking about the secular polity (Look, I’ve a new word to use!) I believe EssEmm’s interpretation is more correct than yours. His arguement seems to be more along the lines of whichever polity leaving people alone in private (like a couple playing ‘spank and tickle’ in the bedroom) but having recourse to drop the hammer on them when they disrupt the public (like the FSF). Now one real life flaw with that arguement is that the other laws (public sex, public nuditiy, corruption of minors) aren’t enforced with the FSF. The other flaw is using the laws to invade the privacy of the home. It’s happened here in Ohio with play parties, and goes a step further with the state filing charges. A man can be beating his wife in a mutually consentual, mutually fun way, and still be charged with domestic violence. If she’s being beat by a friend however, they can’t even charge assault w/o her consent.
It appears Orson Scott Card assumes, rightly or wrongly, a moral society which would only do the former, and never the later, in your understanding of the words.
So, Ronald, since you’re finding it so repugnant to use the govenrment to enforce a moral on people, I assume you’re vocally condemning the cries by some to remove the Mormon Church’s tax ecempt status?
Comment by The_Livewire — March 14, 2009 @ 10:12 am - March 14, 2009
The Amish people also treat people they way they would want to be treated. In our area, a gunman went into an Amish school and killed several children and then himself. The few survivors will never be the same. The children’s families have forgiven the man and treat his wife just as before. How many people would do the same thing?
Comment by Rosalie — March 14, 2009 @ 11:07 am - March 14, 2009
It’s this kind of false, circular logic that is dangerous to freedom in America. There is a big difference between religious freedom / religious tolerance and the acceptance of illegal/immoral acts which use religion as a shield. In my book, using religious writings to demonize gays is pretty immoral (Don’t forget, the Mormon church has been officially doing this long before the issue of gay marriage appeared).
The Mormon’s plea of tolerance has been suspect for over a century. The church issued it’s new manifesto forbidding plural marriages in 1890. The claim was that the church president received a revelation from Jesus. More likely, however, he saw the writing on the wall, since it was issued merely 5 months after they lost in the US Supreme Court over the Edmunds-Tucker act. Ever since, they’ve taken a wink-wink, nudge-nudge approach to the topic. Today, of course, we see the by-product of all of this in the form of FLDS sects which promotes nothing short of subjugation of women and abuse of children.
Many, but certainly not all, churches are based strictly on an authoritarian rule that is (supposedly) dictated by that churches religious writings. Generally, this philosophy is completely at odds with the concepts of democracy, free choice, free will, etc. If that’s the way you choose your life, then so be it. However, don’t expect to garner public support when you try to make religious doctrine the law of the land.
Comment by Kevin — March 14, 2009 @ 11:28 am - March 14, 2009
Card brings up an interesting idea for how a minority should react to perceived injustice from the majority. It is an interesting take, very Christian, turn the other cheek.
Instead of debating this issue, someone has to come up and dig up dirt on Card himself. How typical, destroy the messenger, find his flaws, that way we don’t need to examine ourselves and maybe change our ways.
Comment by Leah — March 14, 2009 @ 11:40 am - March 14, 2009
Ronald’s reading of Card on the legal system and homosexuality is accurate. I was on my way to making another point and was a bit less so.
I certainly want there to be no legal sanction against male-male sex that is not equally directed at male-female sex. That part of Card’s value background is totally unacceptable…but he should be debated on it rather than merely dismissed. I think that sometimes heading back to basics sharpens us up.
John Corvino’s series of debates with a man from Focus on the Family is a fascinating exception to the general way in which these discussions are held. Though even there, the depth of the disagreement can be painful to live with. http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/31707.html
What some of us don’t either realize or care about, naturally focussed on our own situation, is that for traditional communities of faith and or morality, the full acceptance of homosexuality means the deep deconstruction of those communities’ narratives, values and worldviews not just on sex but on other fundamental issues.
As to “snide comments”, I hope that my comments were not included in that grouping, since they were not so intended.
Comment by EssEm — March 14, 2009 @ 11:41 am - March 14, 2009
Orson Scot Card is expressing where middle America generally stands regarding gays. It is a sort of societal “get along to go along” understanding. “I think he is gay” used to be common office chatter. Now, often as not, the response to the remark is “so what?”
For middle America, being gay is not any more complicated than a person’s sexual desires. This is where tolerance is challenged. If a middle American unintentionally walks into a gay bar, he will walk right back out. Most middle Americans do not want to know what a gay bar is. At the same time, the public is generally indifferent to a gay bar, so long as it doesn’t spill out into the public. (I suppose this will generate a whirlwind of anecdotes about gay bars under siege.)
My point is, gays who push the envelope are doing themselves and their fellow gays no favor. I do not expect gays to be able to overturn religious beliefs. I do not expect gays to be able to ridicule religion out of existence. Progress for gays in middle America is incremental. It is all about respect and trust. Most middle Americans are willing to say “I respect our differences” and “I trust you won’t make an ass of yourself in the restroom.” Ultimately, gays are under the pressure of having to live and act according to societal norms. Norms not set by gays, but norms nonetheless.
Comment by heliotrope — March 14, 2009 @ 11:41 am - March 14, 2009
And this is where gay activists can learn from Mormons. Show some tolerance for those who currently espouse the traditional definition of marriage. In contrast to the anti-Mormon message of many activists protesting the passage of Proposition 8, a large number of the initiative’s backers (but alas not all) have not expressed animosity toward gay people.
As usual, I think you’ve got it exactly backwards. Here in the United States, you’re not supposed to tolerate people that would deny you the opportunity to do something that you want to do, especially if those people are invoking their religion as justification. Again, that’s what our system of courts was designed to ward against. Why should we show tolerance for their concerns, as you suggest, when their concerns range from the extremely silly to the downright condescending? Just because someone, somewhere, has a complaint about something, we have to stop everything and listen to them?
Comment by Levi — March 14, 2009 @ 11:44 am - March 14, 2009
My point is, gays who push the envelope are doing themselves and their fellow gays no favor.
Yes, yes. Of course. Gays just need to take their seat at the back of the bus and wait for the ever-so-important Middle Americans to graciously confer the right to marry upon them. After all, no one ever got what they wanted by, you know, trying to get it themselves.
Comment by Levi — March 14, 2009 @ 11:48 am - March 14, 2009
My comment wasn’t meant to be snide, either. It was meant to be taken seriously. Rather than attacking the author, are you listening to what is being said?
Comment by carolynp — March 14, 2009 @ 12:23 pm - March 14, 2009
As usual, I think you’ve got it exactly backwards. Here in the United States, you’re not supposed to tolerate people that would deny you the opportunity to do something that you want to do, especially if those people are invoking their religion as justification.
Comment by Levi — March 14, 2009 @ 11:44 am – March 14, 2009
Uuuumm…actually, yes, you are. I disagree with abortion. I’m still paying taxes to be used for abortion. That takes a degree of tolerance from me while people are invoking their lack of religion as justification.
Comment by carolynp — March 14, 2009 @ 12:26 pm - March 14, 2009
carolnyp,
Levi has said he has no problem with terorist tactics or violence as an end, so take any of his posts with a LARGE grain of salt.
Apparently he doesn’t want to be denied the ability to mail envelopes of white powder to Mormon churches, and wants to deny the ability of people to ammend their constitutional form of government.
He would like to deny you the ability to condemn him though.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 14, 2009 @ 12:58 pm - March 14, 2009
Levi, in all nakedness, unleashes his “words to live by.”
Like pork little boys? Like give your camel a hump? Like hide cameras in a day care restroom?
By golly, no one should ever “tolerate people that would deny you the opportunity to do something THAT YOU WANT TO DO!!!!!!!!” I’m sorry, but didn’t Jeffrey Dalmer have this as a bumper sticker on his freezer door?
Levi, Levi, Levi ……. Did you get your hand slapped for masturbating in class or something?
Comment by heliotrope — March 14, 2009 @ 1:01 pm - March 14, 2009
#20 Levi:
No, no. Of course. Gays just need to take their seat anywhere on the bus and keep their sex drives private and stop pretending that they are an oppressed minority.
Can you be so foolish as to think that gay marriage equals universal respect? You have to earn and maintain respect. A marriage certificate doesn’t do much for Drew Peterson. It is not how you are defined, it is who you are. If you insist on living on the edge or outside the societal norm, you will just have to get used people pointing at you and considering you part of the side show of life.
Sorry, pal, but your moral relevance temper tantrums give me the giggles.
Comment by heliotrope — March 14, 2009 @ 1:12 pm - March 14, 2009
EssEm and carolynp, I did not take your comments to be snide or inappropriate at all, and I apologize for not making that clear. Read the first several responses to my comment and I think it’s fair to say that I was not being the recipient, by and large, of civil discourse in the face of disagreement, or a sincere attempt to explore the source of disagreement. Your posts were certainly an exception to that.
As someone with a 30-year history of reading and listening to Card, and as someone who has struggled with the areas where I agree and disagree with him, my intent in pointing out Card’s beliefs on this subject is two-fold:
First to point out that Card’s words there did not seem to square with some of his beliefs…that his tolerance has a limit when it comes to gays. We all like to point out Obama’s inconsistencies, and I’m not going to shy away from doing so in other areas for other people. This doesn’t mean that Card’s call for tolerance is invalid, but surely the inconsistency can’t be ignored, and perhaps pointing it out might encourage Card or those who agree with him to re-evaluate how they feel about gays.
Second, to provide some insight into the hostility between gays and Mormons. While I completely agree with calls for civil discussion and an attempt at understanding between the groups, I also believe there is reason gays are wary. I suspect you’ll find few if any gays who believe Mormons should be jailed for their beliefs or private behaviors; I don’t know how many Mormons believe gays should be jailed (or at least some of them), but here is one of the most prominent Mormons I am aware of who does, and I take that seriously. My world is big enough to contain Card as he is; is his world big enough to contain me? As an out gay person using my own name who isn’t going to shut up or become invisible, I suspect not. Given the important influence Card had on me in my earlier life, this is actually something I find painful and unfortunate.
I don’t believe it’s wrong for the government to enforce some morals, and I don’t believe in tax-exempt status for any church. I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about the latter item, though, and I don’t know all the counter-arguments.
As relates to this situation, if an organization does accept tax-exempt status, they are going to be subject to some restrictions related to that. I don’t know, in this case, if there restrictions that would apply. However, I think it’s counter-productive to start playing legal tricks against Mormons.
The answer to people you disagree with is usually more discussion, not a lawsuit. Bullying Mormons in court is not the answer; walking away is not an answer either. We must engage in civil discussion and we must win people over by showing the best of ourselves and forging a compelling moral argument that cannot be ignored.
Comment by Ronald Hayden — March 14, 2009 @ 1:44 pm - March 14, 2009
Eh, in the last day various posts have appeared that were presumably blocked originally, which has reduced the annoying (to me, at least!) initial responses to a minority, outweighed by people engaging in actual conversation.
My faith in this forum is restored. Let us continue onward with the civility!
Comment by Ronald Hayden — March 14, 2009 @ 1:53 pm - March 14, 2009
Which United States do you mean? The real one, founded in 1789? Or the new one under Father Obama’s leftist hopenchange regime?
In the real United States, founded in 1789, *****of course you are***** supposed to tolerate people that would deny you the opportunity to do something that you want to do. Because they (the other people) have freedom and rights, too. You have to get down to brass tacks about what exactly that “something” is. For example, criminals ***are*** supposed to tolerate the police, those nasty police who would deny the criminals the opportunity to do something they want to do. Or, if the People have legislated that X, Y and Z are required to qualify for (say) a State driver’s license, then citizens who don’t meet the qualifications ***are*** supposed to tolerate those who would deny them the driver’s license. Now read that last sentence again, substituting “marriage license” for driver’s.
That’s the real United States. Now, in Father Obama’s United States, arguably we may be moving into a whole new philosophy. Arguably, in the brave new world of hopenchange, criminals aren’t supposed to tolerate the police, and citizens aren’t supposed to tolerate the slightest limits being placed on their ability to force other citizens to support their desires.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 14, 2009 @ 2:35 pm - March 14, 2009
#18 and #24 yet another example of a “conservative” who can’t distinguish between the aberrant behavior of a minority and the desire of the majority to live their lives freely. The “it’s all about sex” lie is the strongest weapon the bigots have and some on here are hellbent on helping them spread it. Perhaps some of you need to look inside and figure out where all those fantasies of anti-social sexual behavior are coming from and why you enjoy repeating them so often. If you can’t see the millions of peaceful LGBT people who don’t have sex wherever they feel like it, don’t try to recruit little boys, don’t mail fake anthrax to people and don’t do all the other things that you and the bigots attribute to all of us, then the problem is not with the gay communities it is with your warped minds. With a little therapy much of that can be relieved.
Comment by a different Dave — March 14, 2009 @ 3:08 pm - March 14, 2009
And adDave goes on the attack.
adDave. I’m lumping Levi only in with the terrorists sending anthrax scares to Mormon churches because of his own words http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=9494#comment-385373
Just as I understand you conceed you’re not being denied any rights, by your own words.
FSF isn’t all about sex, it’s about the breaking of several laws and hiding behind a shield of “Well it’s our right to oppose those who don’t tolerate us” which is another amusing argument Levi likes to trot out.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 14, 2009 @ 3:50 pm - March 14, 2009
I agree Ronald (can I call you that?), let’s have a civil discourse. It’s an emotionally charged issue and it seems apparent that a change must be made. We need communication now more than ever.
Comment by carolynp — March 14, 2009 @ 4:16 pm - March 14, 2009
What if, for all your opinions, all of this progress we’ve made is actually just the repercussions of radical activism in the 1980s? Is no one considering that this is an issue of disrupting an equilibrium and then letting the spectrum of possible debate shift further into the left, considering that the culture at large has the automatic reflex to absorb people back into the fold? I’m not convinced that people’s opinions truly change until the context that arranges their intuition changes.
Comment by Geoffrey — March 14, 2009 @ 4:19 pm - March 14, 2009
yet another example of a “conservative†who can’t distinguish between the aberrant behavior of a minority and the desire of the majority to live their lives freely.
Probably because you spend so much time screaming about how condemning that so-called “aberrant behavior” is “antigay”.
When gay liberals like you start mailing white powder to these gay activists, when you start demanding they be fired from their jobs, and when you start vandalizing their houses, adDave, then you will be actually demonstrating that you care about the behavior as opposed to the sexual orientation. But right now all we’re seeing is you blasting people like heliotrope as “antigay” for reacting to the behavior that you and your fellow liberal gays promote, endorse, and refuse to criticize or control.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 14, 2009 @ 4:29 pm - March 14, 2009
a different Dave calls me out in #29 as
Huh? I am a true conservative so the quotes are not necessary. Indeed I can “distinguish between the aberrant behavior of a minority and the desire of the majority to live their lives freely.”
Are you, a different Dave, speaking of a minority of gays who are aberrant and step on the majority of gays who wish to live their lives freely? The .0?% of the .04% of the population?
Well, if you are, then we agree. It is the gay freaks who spoil the progress of all gays.
This zinger really amazes me:
a different Dave, if you take sex out of being gay, what is left that is gay? Where is the lie? Do you mean to say that gays prefer the same sex without any sexual attraction? I call that the Elks Club. Except Elks Club folks are not all hot to marry each other.
You chose to use the word “aberrant.” Why? How does a society come to view a behavior as aberrant? Or is thinking something is aberrant just more hate crime?
Comment by heliotrope — March 14, 2009 @ 6:06 pm - March 14, 2009
Levi has said he has no problem with terorist tactics or violence as an end, so take any of his posts with a LARGE grain of salt.
Oooooooh yeah, I’m soooo sure I said that. Got a link?
Comment by Levi — March 14, 2009 @ 7:12 pm - March 14, 2009
I included the link Levi.
Your exact words are ” I haven’t seen anybody on the gay marriage side of things do anything I thought was too outrageous in the context of modern American politics.”
So to you, violence terrorism and anthrax scares are not ‘too outrageous’.
Game. Set. Match.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 14, 2009 @ 7:17 pm - March 14, 2009
Game. Set. Match.
Anthrax scares? Violent terrorism? Where and when did this happen? I believe the only thing referenced in the original post was that someone got called a vampire.
This is too ridiculous to address, really. I’m in favor of terrorism? That’s
what you get from “I haven’t seen anybody on the gay marriage side of things do anything I thought was too outrageous in the context of modern American politics.†Please do show me something that the gays have done that is sooooooooo outrageous that my statement is made not true.
Comment by Levi — March 14, 2009 @ 7:37 pm - March 14, 2009
*chortle*
Comment by American Elephant — March 14, 2009 @ 7:40 pm - March 14, 2009
If that’s the case then Americans should not tolerate liberals, because there is not one American to whom big-government nanny state liberals do not want to deny something — from guns to speech to the freedom of association to incandescent lightbulbs and SUV’s liberals want to deny us endless liberty…
SO I agree with Levi — lets grab our guns and pitchforks and drive the little nazi tyrants out of our country.
Comment by American Elephant — March 14, 2009 @ 7:48 pm - March 14, 2009
#39 AE-
I’ll bring the torches.
Comment by heliotrope — March 14, 2009 @ 8:30 pm - March 14, 2009
Yes Levi like this:
http://www.mormonlawyers.com/2008/11/possible-anthrax-sent-to-two-mormon.html
And this
http://cbs13.com/local/Vandals.Strike.Orangevale.2.859342.html
And this
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2424
and lets not forget this:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=308506
And this
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6081
Let me sit back and watch Levi feign ignorance that any of this existed, or maybe blame BushCheneyHaliburton for it.
But of course none of these things are “too outrageous in the context of modern American politics.”
Comment by The_Livewire — March 14, 2009 @ 8:37 pm - March 14, 2009
Reply shining light on Levi and watching him scurry like a cockroach lost in the filter.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 14, 2009 @ 8:37 pm - March 14, 2009
I’m running out, so this will be very fast. Guys, notice how the above is weasel-worded. The standard to be met is totally subjective: it’s whatever *Levi will say* might be “too outrageous in the context of modern American politics”. You could show him… oh, I don’t know… Prop 8 opponents who sent mock-anthrax letters to Mormon churches, an act designed to inspire terror, aka terrorism, and it wouldn’t be enough. Or videotape of Prop 8 demonstrators literally ripping a cross out of an old woman’s hands and throwing it to the ground and stomping on it, and that wouldn’t be enough. Because in either case, he just says “Come now, I don’t find that’s too outrageous”. This is why the earlier comparison I drew to past and present supporters of totalitarianism is meaningful; they use(d) the same tactic. Still, having said all that, someone should step in and show Levi some stuff and see how he reacts. TTYL.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 14, 2009 @ 8:53 pm - March 14, 2009
Shut your cake hole and pay attention sometime:
http://www.365gay.com/news/white-powder-sent-to-mormon-temples-in-utah-la/
http://cbs5.com/politics/mormon.temple.evacuations.2.864114.html
Google White Powder and Mormon
It occured during the gay hissy fit against the Mormons back in November. Less well known, apparently, was that some was sent to Catholic churches as well.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 14, 2009 @ 9:25 pm - March 14, 2009
#33 Since I have done none of those things NDT you need to shove your f*cking lies back up into that cesspool of your mind. I have nothing against criticizing unhealthy behavior and I have never shown anything different. You are a sick POS who gets off lying about people and have nothing of any value to add to any discussion period. Go, find a good therapist, get healed of whatever it is that makes you such a hateful person.
“a different Dave, if you take sex out of being gay, what is left that is gay?”
That is one of the saddest statements I have ever heard about being gay. Except perhaps NDT’s vile condemnations, but those aren’t really sad they’re just disgusting. Heliotrope if you claim to be gay, then I feel really sorry for you, there’s so much more to life than sex. If you aren’t, then you are a nasty bigot who is willing to boil the whole of a person’s life down to what they do with their genitals.
Comment by a different Dave — March 14, 2009 @ 9:28 pm - March 14, 2009
AE, this isn’t your country and you better get used to it. It is OUR country, all of us – E Pluribus Unum, you know the real motto of the USA. If can’t share it with those who you disagree with that it is on you to get the f*ck out and find someplace where the citizens are all forced to think one way. Your attitude towards fellow citizens is a far bigger threat to freedom in this country than most liberals could even imagine being. YOU are the one who hates freedom and justice for ALL.
Comment by a different Dave — March 14, 2009 @ 9:33 pm - March 14, 2009
So TGC, all told, just how many occurrences have there been to warrant the bashers on here screeching over and over about it as if it was a wide spread habit of all gay activists. The FACT is it was isolated behavior and the twisted people who try to paint all pro-marriage people with the same brush are just showing exactly how hateful towards others they really are.
Comment by a different Dave — March 14, 2009 @ 9:36 pm - March 14, 2009
no dave,
The fact is that Levi is found of saying that he finds nothing done by the gay marriage proponents “too outrageous in the context of modern American politics” Now he weasles that no one did that.
I’m not painting you with the same brush, neither is TGC. We’re calling him on his BS.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 14, 2009 @ 10:43 pm - March 14, 2009
How many acts of terrorism does there have to be?
Yeah it was just one time. It’s not like anybody died or anything. Who the hell cares, right?
So what if people lose their jobs or lose business, churches vandalised and possibly burned, people harrassed etc. because they stood up for what they believed in, right?
Had the tables been turned, the gays would have pissed themselves, called the police and we’d still be hearing about it. There would be new legislation on the Hill asserting control over businesses as to who they can hire and who they can fire.
I find it aweful damn pathetic that America has to bite on a pillow for gays to protect THEIR jobs but gays wouldn’t extend the same courtesy to those they really do HATE.
Would you shrug your shoulders if someone sent white powder to HRC? How about if the local gay bars were vandalized? How about if the patrons were harrassed? That one guy in WeHo screamed NIGGER. How about if someone stood outside a gay establishment screaming FAGGOT?
Would you ignore it as “isolated behavior”? Why would you allow it from some, but not others?
Should gays not be held to the same standards they demand of others?
Do tell, ADD.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 15, 2009 @ 12:50 am - March 15, 2009
i don’t condone any violence, TGC, whether orchestrated by gays or non-gays.
there is a fundamental distinction to be made, however, with the comparison some on here are making about the behavior of gays versus, versus, for example, the mormons after the proposition 8 vote. people are acting as though there was just a difference of opinion and the two parties voted their respective ways, and that’s the end of it. the problem is, gay peoples’ lives were actually affected (negatively) but the outcome; their rights were being put up to a ballot vote. if the decision had gone the other way, how would the lives of mormons be any different? would a hetero mormon marriage somehow be less valuable if adam and steve down the street, who already lived together and maybe even had a family, now had the legal protection of a marriage? i don’t think so. in other words, the stakes in this vote were not equal, and to point to the anger of gay people as some sort of example of why gay people are bad is a bit absurd. can you imagine if we were putting up to a ballot initiative the basic rights of mormon people? what if we were having a vote on whether mormons should be allowed to marry other mormons? what if, during the lead up to the vote, other groups (anti-mormon groups) conducted push polls and rolled television ads that (wrongly) portrayed mormons as preying on and trying to “recruit” your children? would mormons be a little pissed off at the other side?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 15, 2009 @ 10:27 am - March 15, 2009
TGC, when you calm down and actually read, try to comprehend and then respond you may say something intelligent about it. You are responding yet again to some fantasy of what I really said and what I was suggesting by saying it. I find it totally pathetic that many of you can’t be bothered to actually THINK but rather react in hysterical and idiotic rants against perceived ideas. And, yet again, like so many of your fellow lunatics you show that what is really inside is complete, unadulterated hatred of “faggots”. It’s no wonder that you have collectively bent over and said to the right wing haters – more please.
When you and your fellow bashers on here grow up and attribute guilt where it actually belongs then you MIGHT have something to say. As it stands, the only difference between you and the protesters that you claim represent all of is … well, actually there is no difference.
Livewire, I actually hadn’t even read your responses to Levi
Comment by a different Dave — March 15, 2009 @ 10:41 am - March 15, 2009
#45 a different Dave has at me
For what it is worth, I am not gay. But, by your words, that makes be a nasty bigot.
So, I stand full ready for an education. We have heterosexuals and homosexuals. The definition of those terms is all about sex. We have vernacular for those terms, such as straight, gay, etc. (Trying to avoid the filter here.) My friends Paul and Steve have lived together for 40 years. To my knowledge, they are not gay. I mean homosexual. I mean have homosexual relations.
Gays are God’s children and I respect the person and the soul. I do not accept the sexual acts as part of nature’s plan other than satisfying sexual desire.
Men and women are sanctioned in marriage so that their sexual intimacies are their private matter and their offspring, should they be possible, are legitimate under the lcivil law.
Please proceed with your explanation of how you can take homosexuality out of being gay. I am a well educated nasty bigot and I can always absorb and ruminate on good philosophy.
I would posit that when the label “gay” is applied the most of society regards it as a descriptor of “what they do with their genitals.”
To my nasty bigot thinking, society has given a great deal of respect to gays. I also think that some gays have pushed back in ways that really harm them.
In closing, I have no opinion of a different Dave other than he is a rather typical liberal who is more wrapped up in feelings than logic. I am rarely on the side of using government to enforce feelings. And, I think you are being quite foolish if you think a marriage certificate will force some sort of respect. Your protestations that a real person lives within the body of the gay are too simplistic for me. You will never find me on the side encouraging gay behavior. I am guilty of loving the sinner and hating the sin. (Probably just shot my foot off on that one.)
As an academic question, how many gays would take the “cure” if medicine were to find one?
Comment by heliotrope — March 15, 2009 @ 11:11 am - March 15, 2009
It got past the filter!!!!! Who would have thunk it?
Comment by heliotrope — March 15, 2009 @ 11:11 am - March 15, 2009
bob *sigh*
Marriage is not a right. Try saying it slowly.
The right to engage in contracts between consenting adults has never been abrogated.
The privilege of government recognition is not guaranteed. The court overreached bt trying to invent it as a right. The people, using the right to govern themselves and redress through petition, corrected them.
Since the lawyers arguing before the court said, in essence, marriage for everyone or for no one, they (IMHO) overplayed their hand. They admit marriage is not a right, since they argue the government can take it away from everyone.
Think about that argument for a moment. “We think it’s a right, but the government, to be fair, can deny it to everyone.”
I still worry where the court is going. Since the amendment is retroactive, as written, how is it the court can accept part of it and reject others (as watches seem to think they’re leaning.
Indeed, the supreme court made the mess worse by not staying their decision until Prop 8 was decided. One might think that *gasp* they had an agenda…
Comment by The Livewire — March 15, 2009 @ 11:32 am - March 15, 2009
And once again, adDave demonstrates his ability to make two completely contradictory statements within mere minutes of each other.
First, to me:
I have nothing against criticizing unhealthy behavior and I have never shown anything different.
But then he rants at TGC for TGC’s criticism of unhealthy behavior by liberal gays:
And, yet again, like so many of your fellow lunatics you show that what is really inside is complete, unadulterated hatred of “faggotsâ€.
Again, my point is proven: adDave claims to oppose unhealthy behavior, but, as he did to heliotrope, screams that anyone who opposes it is homophobic.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2009 @ 2:37 pm - March 15, 2009
Imagine someone who comes to a wedding and throws a glass of red wine at the bride. What would you think about that person? Would you say that this person has expressed animosity?
Now imagine someone who goes to tens of thousands of weddings and throws tens of thousands of glasses of red wine at tens of thousands of brides. What would you think about that person? Would you say that this person has expressed animosity?
Now imagine that instead of merely doing something very rude at tens of thousands of weddings, this person tries to prevent tens of thousands of weddings from happening at all. What would you think about that person? Would you say that this person has expressed animosity?
Comment by Rob — March 15, 2009 @ 2:38 pm - March 15, 2009
gay peoples’ lives were actually affected (negatively)
Correction, boob; the only gay peoples’ lives that were affected were the ones like yourself that need marriage to validate your existence and as a trophy against the religious people you hate.
Your psychological need for the government to affirm you and your pathological hatred of religious people are separate items from your sexual orientation; you merely try to use your sexual orientation as an excuse to make it more publicly palatable.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2009 @ 2:42 pm - March 15, 2009
would a hetero mormon marriage somehow be less valuable if adam and steve down the street, who already lived together and maybe even had a family, now had the legal protection of a marriage? i don’t think so.
Well, boob, since you insist that granting marriage to anyone else should be allowed because it doesn’t affect your own, why don’t you then demand that the bans on incestuous marriage, plural marriage, child marriage, and bestial marriage be lifted, since you insist no one else’s marriage affects anyone else’s?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2009 @ 2:44 pm - March 15, 2009
Now imagine that instead of merely doing something very rude at tens of thousands of weddings, this person tries to prevent tens of thousands of weddings from happening at all. What would you think about that person? Would you say that this person has expressed animosity?
So the same question, Rob; since we don’t want to express “animosity”, should we then repeal the bans on incestuous, plural, child, and bestial marriage? After all, gay liberals like yourself scream that you should be allowed to marry whomever you “love”, and that your marriage has no effect on anyone else’s, so why should society be allowed to ban or bar any of these out of “animosity”?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2009 @ 2:47 pm - March 15, 2009
what if, during the lead up to the vote, other groups (anti-mormon groups) conducted push polls and rolled television ads that (wrongly) portrayed mormons as preying on and trying to “recruit†your children?
Boob, you quite often forget that other people do not have nearly the incentive to ignore what the gay community promotes and endorses as you do.
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.
The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.
Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off……..
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2009 @ 2:52 pm - March 15, 2009
Imagine if a court had ruled that two consenting adults did not have the right to have sex in their bedrooms, Rob.
Now imagine that people asked the court to not enforce that ruling, and the court ignored them.
Now, imagine if you will, people banding together to make an ammendment vacating the court’s decision.
Now imagine the court deciding that they’d accept the ammendment in their graciousness, but all the people arrested in the time between their ruling and the constitution defining the right to be intimate in private would still have to serve sentences.
Now imagine your example making as much sense as mine.
No one went in and disrupted weddings. No one got in the way of celebrating the union of two people. Instead people reacted to the courts creative interpretation of the constitution.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 15, 2009 @ 4:20 pm - March 15, 2009
Orson Scott Card:
And by “savaged” he means, um, “verbally criticized.” F**kin’ pansy.
(Not that he’s worse than people who say “bashed” when they mean “made fun of” — just that he’s AS BAD.)
Comment by Throbert McGee — March 15, 2009 @ 4:36 pm - March 15, 2009
North Dallas Thirty: We gay liberals are not claiming that everybody should have the right to marry whomever they love. We’re claiming that everybody who is capable of a loving and consensual relationship should have the right to have a legally recognized marriage that isn’t a sham.
If you understand the argument for gay marriage correctly, there is no slippery slope. As a gay man, the only fully loving marriage I could have is a marriage with another man. I could choose to marry a woman, but it would be a sham marriage. By contrast, polyamorists are capable of loving monogamous relationships, though they choose to pursue other arrangements. As for child marriage and bestial marriage, neither is consensual. (Incidentally, there is no lower age limit in California for marriage with parental consent. I find this appalling.)
The _Livewire: An amendment that reverses a criminal prohibition needs to be interpreted differently from an amendment that takes away a right. If an amendment reverses a criminal prohibition, and it’s unclear whether it applies retroactively, the courts should understand it to apply retroactively. If an amendment takes away a right, and it’s unclear whether it applies retroactively, the courts should not understand it to apply retroactively.
Comment by Rob — March 15, 2009 @ 4:46 pm - March 15, 2009
#52 Heliotrope – sexuality is not simply what genitals go where. As a heterosexual your attractions to women go far beyond just physical do they not? And especially if you are married, is what you feel for your wife nothing more than a hard on? Hopefully your answer is no and when you are intimate it means more than getting off. Yet, you seem to think it’s not the same for gay couples. Perhaps bigot would be the wrong word but I truly can’t think of a positive one to use. That attitude to me, is one of superiority, which is nonsense. All human beings have to potential to bring life to society, not just those who produce children. The human race is hardly endangered by the small % who are not wired that way, emotionally at least. As long as you and others are focused on sexual behavior as the defining characteristic of LGBT people then there will always be prejudice and hostility. It doesn’t matter how “pretty” it is said – love the sinner, hate the sin when applied to homosexuals will always be condemnation of something that is an integral part of the “sinners” make up. Luckily for all us “sinners” that attitude is man-made and as such really need not have meaning and certainly should not have an impact on our lives. If gay marriage was simply a matter of desiring approval as some of the more arrogant opponents claim then there really would be no need for it.
NDT, the fact you are unable to comprehend what I am against in TGC’s latest rant and in most of your vomit merely shows the extent that you are lost in your putrid cesspool of a fantasy land.
Comment by a different Dave — March 15, 2009 @ 6:18 pm - March 15, 2009
Rob,
Except that Prop 8 doesn’t ‘take away a right’
Comment by The_Livewire — March 15, 2009 @ 7:19 pm - March 15, 2009
The _Livewire: Yes it did. The Court found in In re Marriage Cases that marriage is not only a right, but a “fundamental right,” that this right (prior to Prop
was not limited to the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and that this right includes the right to have the same legal status as other couples.
From the decision, section IV.B: “Whether or not the name ‘marriage,’ in the abstract, is considered a core element of the state constitutional right to marry, one of the core elements of this fundamental right is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships.”
Comment by Rob — March 15, 2009 @ 7:37 pm - March 15, 2009
Agh. I hate automatic smileys.
Comment by Rob — March 15, 2009 @ 7:38 pm - March 15, 2009
We gay liberals are not claiming that everybody should have the right to marry whomever they love.
Sure you are. You’re citing court decisions that state that marriage is a “fundamental right” and “constitutionally protected” — which means that it cannot be denied to anyone for any reason. Furthermore, the gay community, in the Beyond Marriage manifesto, makes it clear that the gay community is demanding, among other things, legalization of parent-child, sibling, and plural marriages, endorsed and supported by the national gay organizations and the Obama Party gays.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2009 @ 8:46 pm - March 15, 2009
And the funny part is that adDave’s whine above can just as legitimately be used to justify pedophilia, incest, plural marriage, and whatnot, given that he insists all relationships are the same, that society has no right to determine what is and isn’t legitimate, that any such determination is “man-made” and thus should be ignored, and that anyone who objects to any type of relationship is a bigot.
adDave and the rest of the liberal left are really the signs of what incompetent parenting and public schools have done; they’ve created an entire generation of whiny, spoiled children who want what they want when they want it, and have no concept of actually earning or providing a service to society. They expect us to ratify their behavior no matter how destructive it is, just like their parents excused everything they did and their public-school teachers gave them high grades for substandard work.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2009 @ 8:56 pm - March 15, 2009
Poor bob,
I am 67 and spending $40 a year (at $10 a pop) on Viagra is not appealing. My wife and I produced two children of our own and raised a bunch more. We chase each other with arthritic abandon and then forget why we started the chase in the first place. Our king-sized bed is so wide that by the time we move the cats aside and make the crawl toward one another we are exhausted.
Please do not speak to me of being soul mates. I have no problem with you and your soul mate, be it a he, she or goat. But homosexual necessarily involves sex. You are a sorry boob if you can not see the difference between brotherly love and brotherly sex.
Are you flat-footedly telling me that your attraction to your male partner is platonic and/or religious and not carnal? Once it is carnal, pal, you are a homosexual. If it is not carnal, you are in that league of “strange” men who live together.
Fie on you and your silly games. Either be man enough to say who and what you are or take a vacation from trying to fool people with an IQ of over 55.
I have years of experience lecturing in logic and ethics, but I admit to having the shortcoming of not being able to suffer fools gladly.
Comment by heliotrope — March 15, 2009 @ 8:59 pm - March 15, 2009
heliotrope — i think you are confusing me with rob. you are addressing what rob said above…although, while i don’t have the patience to give a full response, i’m fairly certain you are not understanding his point. somehow i’m not surprised.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 15, 2009 @ 11:18 pm - March 15, 2009
North Dallas Thirty: The “Beyond Marriage” folks are a fringe group. They do not speak for the bulk of the gay community.
Comment by Rob — March 16, 2009 @ 3:42 am - March 16, 2009
Differently Abled Dave,
Got your bib, helmet, and drool cup on? That seatbelt nice and tight? Ok lets go,
No, your country is France. The United States of America is my country. I love it, I seek to protect and preserve the constitution of the United States and return us to our founding principles. YOU see our founding document as a “living, breathing” document that means whatever the hell you tyrants want it to mean. You seek to make America resemble our founding principles less and make us resemble France more.
Yes, it means “out of many, one.” contrary to your f*cktard Presidential candidate, Al Gore, who tellingly said it was “out of one, many.”
Conservatives believe in the national motto. We seek to unite Americans with common language, culture, and equal treatment under the law. We believe in colorblind government. Liberals seek to divide us by promoting “multiculturalism”, dividing us into groups and promoting group rights. Far from being colorblind they want government to document and note skin color on every form and application and want laws that treat people differently depending what group they belong to.
Funny you should quote something so antithetical to liberalism.
Oh I am quite willing to share it with people who agree with the principles set forth in the document that founded our country in the first place. The rules to which we all agreed. The problem is liberals don’t agree with those principles. They loathe them and work to overturn them undemocratically. They say that our founding document is a “living, breathing” document that means whatever they want it to mean. My country is a Republic, the country you want is an Oligarchy.
Says the f*ckwit who seeks to deny the people the freedom to establish and define their own institutions.
You don’t even understand freedom. The only people to whom I would deny freedom are those who break the law. You have already proven you would deny freedom to everyone who opposes your agenda.
You truly are submoronic.
Now ring your little bell and have someone empty your drool-cup, its overflowing.
Comment by American Elephant — March 16, 2009 @ 6:39 am - March 16, 2009
Filtered
Comment by American Elephant — March 16, 2009 @ 6:40 am - March 16, 2009
Rob,
The problem with relying on the courts, executive or legislative branches for anything is, well, they get it wrong.
In the end, the final arbiter of government clearly defined what marriage is for the state of California. You may disagree with it, but that’s how it works.
Now, in a less bomb throwing way, NDT is right. If the court can declare/find/make up a ‘fundamental right’ for groups (even a group as small as two), it can’t then turn around and deny that right to others. This is one of my arguements behind creating a seperate construct, call it civil unions, call it ‘fred’ for all I care. It makes the traditionalists happy, gives the seperate but equal institution, and actually passes without an end run around the legislative process.
In fact, didn’t civil unions come in California through the legislative process? (Dan, ILC, please correct me if I’m wrong).
Comment by The Livewire — March 16, 2009 @ 6:52 am - March 16, 2009
Funny stuff!!
How so? They still have the same rights they did the day before. Apparently, those who opposed the gay left don’t.
Done and done. #51 was the sorriest excuse for a CYA I’ve ever seen.
I’ll tell you one damn thing, I’d have more respect for that person than some Mary screaching NIGGER, those who vandalised and protested churches, any who might have burned a church in Alaska, printed names and addresses of people with the intent of encouraging harrassment, any who mailed white powder to anyone, those who harrassed people at their workplace etc.etc.etc.
My questions still remain: Why should we accept the harrassment of some, but not others? Why should we expect gays to be immune from harrassment, but other people aren’t immune from the harrassment of gays? Why should we lift a finger to protect the jobs of gays when they don’t expect the same protection of anybody who opposes them?
Not only do I oppose ENDA because it dictates how people should run their own businesses, I now oppose it because gays don’t respect the rights of others.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 16, 2009 @ 7:21 am - March 16, 2009
Tolerance for Mormons?
Three words. Meadow Mountain Massacre.
Comment by Attmay — March 16, 2009 @ 11:13 am - March 16, 2009
First, Attmay, if you’re going to refer to historical events, at least get their names correctly spelled; it was the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
Second, historical evidence shows that even Brigham Young himself was against any attack on that particular wagon train, not to mention the fact that ultimately an all-Mormon jury tried and convicted the ringleader, John Lee, who was executed for the crime.
Third, that happened in 1857. If you’re still advocating bad blood from that far back, you might as well rally up with your Obama Party and its demands for slavery reparations.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2009 @ 11:50 am - March 16, 2009
“And the funny part is that” There’s nothing funny about your comprehension deficiency NDT and there’s nothing funny about the hatred that you and TGC clearly share for all LGBT people (including yourselves). You are perhaps more disgusting than Labarbera, Barber and that crowd because you should know that your gross generalizations are a pile of sh*t. You deliberately warp what others say so you can just spout more of your outrageous attacks. Your ignorance is astounding and the fact that it is accepted and repeated by others on here calls into question the validity of anything that is posted here. I do hope you’re willing to take what your allies have to give you because if they win (with your help) it’s going to get ugly. But, I have to be honest, I don’t care actually, you deserve it.
Heliotrope, though I disagree with much you say I trust you are intelligent enough to read what I said and actually have a clue as to what I was trying to get across.
At this point I must again take a break from reading right wing hate blogs. While this one doesn’t really fall in that category the overwhelming amount of excrement from a few of those who comment becomes too tiresome to dig through. Here, as in the rest of the conservative world, the decision must be made whether to continue to allow yourselves to be defined by the lunatics who have nothing to offer but hate. Certainly those voices should not be silenced but when there is nothing said to contradict them by those who should know better then it appears that they speak for all. The question is, do you want the true conservative position to be represented?
Comment by a different Dave — March 16, 2009 @ 12:49 pm - March 16, 2009
TheLivewire: Separate is inherently unequal. Civil unions are not an acceptable compromise, unless states get out of the marriage business altogether and we have civil unions for everybody, straight and gay.
In the next two years you’re going to see gay marriage get enacted through the normal legislative process in at least one state. Vermont, Maine, and New Jersey are the most likely candidates.
ThatGayConservative: A few protesters behaved very badly after Prop 8 passed. They do not speak for the gay community as a whole. It’s unfair to judge an entire community for the actions of a few people on the fringe.
Comment by Rob — March 16, 2009 @ 1:03 pm - March 16, 2009
Everyone look, adDave is leaving, again.
Rob. Why aren’t they an ‘acceptable compromise’?
Comment by The Livewire — March 16, 2009 @ 1:33 pm - March 16, 2009
Oh, the irony.
Here, as in the rest of the conservative world, the decision must be made whether to continue to allow yourselves to be defined by the lunatics who have nothing to offer but hate. Certainly those voices should not be silenced but when there is nothing said to contradict them by those who should know better then it appears that they speak for all.
So, adDave, you insist that it’s perfectly OK to hold all conservatives accountable for the behavior of a few and demand that things be said to contradict them, but squeal how unfair it is when gays like yourself are held accountable for the behavior of other gay liberals and that you shouldn’t have to say anything to contradict them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2009 @ 1:36 pm - March 16, 2009
Meanwhile, let’s show even more clearly the contradictorybehavior of gay leftists like Rob and adDave.
From Rob:
It’s unfair to judge an entire community for the actions of a few people on the fringe.
From adDave:
Here, as in the rest of the conservative world, the decision must be made whether to continue to allow yourselves to be defined by the lunatics who have nothing to offer but hate.
In short, the gay liberals Rob and adDave are saying that conservatives should be concerned about their being judged by a process that said gay liberals shriek is unfair — when applied to them, but not when applied to conservatives.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2009 @ 1:42 pm - March 16, 2009
Promises, promises…
I completely agree! republicans have been losing because they have allowed lunatic hate-filled Democrats to define them, and it must not be allowed to continue.
Comment by American Elephant — March 16, 2009 @ 6:50 pm - March 16, 2009
North Dallas Thirty: I don’t understand your last comment. I never suggested that all conservatives should be judged harshly for the actions of the conservative fringe. adDave doesn’t speak for me.
Comment by Rob — March 16, 2009 @ 10:58 pm - March 16, 2009
Livewire: Civil unions would be acceptable if all couples recognized by the states had civil union status. It’s not acceptable for the state to give gay relationships a different form of recognition from the recognition it gives to straight relationships. Having a separate category for gay relationships sends the message that gay relationships are in some way less worthy of recognition than straight relationships. This message is sent even if the two forms of recognition come with the same bundle of concrete rights and responsibilities.
Comment by Rob — March 17, 2009 @ 1:38 am - March 17, 2009
#78: I would support slave reparations for actual slaves, but they’re all dead, as are those who held them in bondage.
And if I supported the current proposition for slave reparations it would be the Democrat party who would have to pay, since they committed treason to try to continue the slave trade.
I refuse to accept the Mormon excuses for the MMM. By the way, the Catholic Church has yet to be punished for the Spanish Inquisition.
Comment by Attmay, a proud heterophobe — March 17, 2009 @ 6:47 am - March 17, 2009
I guess this is where we’re going to have to agree to disagree Rob. ‘fred’ is different than marriage. Marriage is the legally recognized partnership of one man and one woman, subject to the requirements and granted recognition by the state. Fred is is the legally recognized partnership of two people of the same sex, subject to the requirements and granted recognition by the state.
(Great, now I have coworkers looking at me strange for saying “Mawwige is what bwings us togeffer today.”).
I know that some state will (correctly) establish gay marriage via legislative means. Then we’ll see the typical reversion of roles, with Liberals saying that the full faith and credit exercise should be exerted, and the Conservatives remembering their roles in States rights. (Ironically, Dick Cheney will be unfazed as he’s a states rights guy already.)
Already we’re seeing Dred Scott cases to try to force the issue down the throats of people who have made their opinions clear. That couple in Rhode island who wanted to have their marriage recognized in RI so they could divorce. (I can’t find out if their marriage in MA is actually legal, actually). We’ll see more I’m sure.
Comment by The Livewire — March 17, 2009 @ 7:25 am - March 17, 2009
Having a separate category for gay relationships sends the message that gay relationships are in some way less worthy of recognition than straight relationships.
No, it acknowledges the reality that gay relationships are different than straight relationships.
Inferiority is in the mind of the beholder. The screaming insistence that recognizing gay relationships differently makes them inferior comes from the narcissism inherent in liberalism, in which treating people differently due to different results, different abilities, or different societal impacts is considered a cardinal sin. It is the same mentality as we see in public schools, where if a child performs poorly on a test, it is the test’s fault, never the child’s, and thus the child should be given equal treatment as the other children who did better.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 17, 2009 @ 1:15 pm - March 17, 2009
heliotrope, that’s the problem: The terms are misnomers. They were constructed – in the 19th century, I believe – by a doctor or psychiatrist, to emphasize sex. There should be a different term that encompasses love as well as sex.
I think of “straight” as “the predisposition to fall in love with, and/or have sexual relations with, the opposite sex”. I think of “gay” as “the predisposition to fall in love with, and/or have sexual relations with, the same sex.” So it isn’t sex alone; it’s love-and/or.
Think of it this way: If a straight person is celibate, do they stop being straight? No, because they still have an opposite-sex orientation (predisposition). They know in their hearts that, if for some reason they were to have relations-or-a-relationship and not be celibate, it would be opposite-sex. Same with a gay person. Celibacy does not make a gay person un-gay, for the reason just given.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 17, 2009 @ 1:20 pm - March 17, 2009
I wouldn’t, at this point. I’m used to how I am. and honestly, I don’t buy the idea of God having any problem with it. God would have a problem with my behavior if I raped, cheated or did other abusive things – but the same is true of straights, i.e., behavior (which a mentally normal person can always control) is different from orientation (which is innate for most people).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 17, 2009 @ 1:27 pm - March 17, 2009
Rob: No, I wouldn’t. It happens all the time. We (as a society) routinely prevent tens of thousands of couples from getting a State marriage license, who don’t qualify for the license for a variety of reasons. It doesn’t express animosity; it expresses that the license is set up to have certain qualifications before you can get it. I happen to think the opposite-sex restriction is bad public policy and should be lifted; I don’t think it expresses animosity per se.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 17, 2009 @ 1:30 pm - March 17, 2009
How would you know, Rob? Evidence, please.
So what? It may be “the only fully loving marriage” the person “is capable of”. P.S., you’ve left out incestuous marriages.
Look, NDT’s point is right: a polygamist, an incest couple, a child marriage couple or a bestial situation are all situations where one or more human beings could say “I have no choice… this is the person/thing I love” and you have not left yourself a leg to stand on, Rob, in refusing them a marriage license.
I support gay marriage for public policy reasons. I don’t want to go into those reasons at the moment, because yes, you could stretch them to cover other ‘couplings’ too. My point is, the other ‘couplings’ have countervailing public-policy reasons *against* recognizing them as marriage. By recognizing that State marriage licenses are a privilege not a right, and making extension of the privilege a public-policy question, I leave myself moral and logical ‘room’ to continue excluding those other ‘couplings’ who should be excluded. You don’t. You thereby set up a dynamic where the rest of society has no choice but to reject gay marriage – i.e., to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 17, 2009 @ 1:40 pm - March 17, 2009
Enough out of me for one day; I’ll skip the rest of the thread. Sorry if some of the points I made, were already made.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 17, 2009 @ 1:42 pm - March 17, 2009
#79 a different Dave addresses me:
Thanks for the expression of your trust. I am still grasping for a clue, but you will be the first to know if I am roused from sentience and struck with a sudden flash of perception. (Right now, the chin strap on my helmet is too tight and my brain itches.)
Thank you for letting me bask in your light.
Comment by heliotrope — March 17, 2009 @ 7:30 pm - March 17, 2009
Fair question. The main evidence I would point to is the lack of evidence to the contrary. If polyamory were a sexual orientation, not merely a sexual preference, we’d expect to hear a large number of people saying, “The only loving relationship I’m psychologically capable of having is a stable polyamorous triad.” We’re not hearing that. To be sure, there are lots of people who feel that monogamy isn’t possible for them. Generally, though, these people don’t feel that stable polyamorous relationships are the only relationships they can have. They consider open relationships, with one long-term partner and temporary outside adventures, a live option.
A relationship based on rape isn’t loving. As for incest, I’d make the same argument I made about polygamy. There are people who happen to fall in love with close relatives, but there’s nobody who’s psychologically incapable of loving anyone other than a close relative.
Comment by Rob — March 17, 2009 @ 7:53 pm - March 17, 2009
Rob,
I’d say ‘nobody’ is an overly broad term. But that’s just me nitpicking.
as to polyamory, what about a bisexual man/woman who just can’t pick one?
Comment by The Livewire — March 17, 2009 @ 8:18 pm - March 17, 2009
Bisexuality is about “or,” not “and.” A bisexual person is capable of having a loving relationship either with a man or with a woman. Monogamy is no more an issue for bisexuals than it is for straight people or for gay people.
I don’t doubt that some people prefer polygamous relationships, but I find it hard to believe that there is anyone who is so deeply polyamorous that a monogamous relationship would be a sham. What would that be like? Can anyone sincerely say, “I love my husband, but I couldn’t sincerely love him or feel physical attraction to him if I didn’t have a stable relationship with a second partner who lives openly with my husband and me?” I find this hard to imagine. If there are people like this out there, we’re not hearing from them.
Comment by Rob — March 17, 2009 @ 9:43 pm - March 17, 2009
Talk to my ex-wife.
(no, I’m not bitter, why?)
Comment by The Livewire — March 17, 2009 @ 9:49 pm - March 17, 2009
Fair question. The main evidence I would point to is the lack of evidence to the contrary.
Like the ACLU demanding the legalization of plural marriage, or the Beyond Marriage people above who are demanding that plus sibling and parent-child marriage?
And as for “not hearing that”, big surprise; people are understandably a bit reticient to talk about things like plural marriage, child marriage, bestial marriage, and incestuous marriage that carry prison sentences for practicing them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 18, 2009 @ 12:03 am - March 18, 2009
Whoa. Was that meant to refute my saying “P.S., you’ve left out incestuous marriages”? I was think of incest couples in the media who have been adult siblings, adult child-parent, etc. Rape doesn’t enter it (so the refutation is inoperative).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 18, 2009 @ 10:29 am - March 18, 2009
(continued, hit Send too soon)
Again, you have no proof of that. And anyway, the point is not whether the person *can* love someone other than a close relative, but whether they *do* love someone else.
Lust can be abstract: that is, one can lust after a category / type of person. But real love is never abstract. One loves a very specific person or thing, not a category / type, or else it isn’t love. You suggest in effect that society shouldn’t expect you to abandon the specific person you love. Fine. And neither should you expect the polygamist, incest couple, child-marriage couple or a bestiality person to abandon the specific person or thing they actually love. I don’t expect them to. I merely don’t grant them a marriage license either (because again it is a privilege with qualifications to be met, etc.).
To approach it from another angle: I could say, in the same sense as your quote above and with the same degree of justification, that there’s nobody who’s psychologically incapable of loving anyone other than the same sex. I mean, come on: gay men love women all the time. Either as deep friends, or even as sexual partners – the mother of their children, etc. (I’ve met several gay men like that.)
So don’t try to tell me that you can’t love a woman. But I respect the fact that you don’t. I respect the fact that (1) your same-sex orientation makes it easier to fall in love with a man, or strongly increases the likelihood that you will; and more than that, I respect the fact that (2) the specific person that you actually love, is a man. If anybody asks you to give up the man you love for a woman, I’ll call it stupid. And, since I see good policy reasons for extending the privilege of marriage to gay couples (where I don’t see reasons for extending them to the polygamous, the incestuous, etc.), it just happens that I would like give you a marriage license, if you want one.
As the saying goes, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Personally, I have heard polygamists make arguments along those lines. (The lines of ‘polygamy is natural and blessed by God; monogamy is unnatural; therefore I am only capable of polygamy’.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 18, 2009 @ 10:53 am - March 18, 2009