“When did the gays get so mean, anyway?“
So asks writer (and GayPatriot reader) Charles Winecoff in a piece, Love, War – and Gay Marriage, on Big Hollywood. In it, he comes to a conclusion consistent with something I’ve blogged about on a regular basis for quite some time–the mean-spirited attitudes all too many gay marriage advocates toward those who disagree with them. Sometimes, it seems they’re acting like commissars from the Soviet Union in its heyday:
But the Gestapo tactics over Prop 8 – McCarthy-style blacklists, boycotting of otherwise gay-friendly businesses, apologies coerced out of individual supporters who made the “wrong†choice, enforced politically-correct donations to the Human Rights Campaign – clarified it for me.
Charles wonders why this animosity given how much things have improved for gay people since he came out as a teenager in 1977. He describes his own disenchantment with the gay movement, observing how it’s become more about left-wing politics than gay issues.
The movement, or should I say urban gay culture, didn’t seem to be about being gay anymore; it had become fixated on hating US authority – not so much Big Brother as “Big Daddy,†some imaginary, omnipotent, no doubt conservative patriarchal figure in the sky (obviously the product of a lot of transference). Spoiled American gays were running out of oppressors to attack – so they found a convenient new target just within reach: themselves.
Case in point: the mystifyingly misguided group “Queers for Palestine.â€Â In their mechanical hatred of all things Bush-related – well, almost all things – these good little left-wing soldiers stand in perverse support of possibly the most homophobic regime on earth. Once upon a time, even I used to glibly spout that a gay person voting Republican was like a Jew voting Nazi – but Queers for Palestine go straight to the source. Talk about internalized homophobia.
These gay activists seem to have found a real enemy, not those who persecute gay people, but those who espouse a political philosophy at odds with their own:Â Republicans:
United against evil Republicans and their bugaboo “Religious Right,†gays have turned a willful blind eye to Islamic supremacy, many choosing to view it not as a palpable threat to their own existence, but as a fear-mongering fabrication of the imperialist Bush administration.
Finally, he raises a question similar to one in my post yesterday on the failure of gay activists to address Barney Frank’s conflict of interest, serving on a congressional committee while regulated an entity where his then-partner worked:
I don’t believe most gay people really do want marriage. There’s certainly no consensus on it. As a rule, gay folk tend to distrust organized religion (not without good reason) and middle class heterosexual norms. So why the sudden mania for wedding bells? Could it be the result of watching too much Bravo?
I do know some gay people who do want marriage, but it seems the most vocal advocates see gay marriage more as, to quote my friend Dale Carpenter, a “trophy in the cultural wars” than anything else.
As these above selections indicate, Charles has a lot to say. And there’s more to his piece than just what I’ve quoted. So just take my advice and read the whole thing!
118 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
GPW, i’m a bit confused why you, as a conservative, would take issue with so-called “boycotts” of business that voted “yes” on prop 8. is that not the most free-market, non-gov’t way to have your voice heard? the people get a more complete set of information and then people are free to choose (or choose not) to stop shopping somewhere based on that company’s vote.
i realize the boycotts weren’t the main point of your post, but this complaint from conservatives (which i’ve heard before) strikes me as contradictory.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 7:55 pm - March 19, 2009
and frankly, i think the argument you make in your last couple sentences is weak. you don’t know what peoples’ motives are, first of all. and secondly, there is a general principle worth fighting for here, GPW. i personally want to get “married” someday, regardless of whether or not the gov’t allows me to have the same rights as heteros. but even if i didn’t, i would still support and argue for gay marriage rights on principle.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 8:00 pm - March 19, 2009
When they became part of the Fascist Left.
Comment by V the K — March 19, 2009 @ 8:10 pm - March 19, 2009
Sure it is. That doesn’t make the boycotts any less mean-spirited and stupid, though.
You seem confused indeed, bob. No one here (or at least no one serious) questions people’s *right* to boycott whomever and however they see fit. There is a difference between questioning a person’s right to do or be something, and questioning the motives, goal, judgment or wisdom of them doing/being that thing.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2009 @ 8:13 pm - March 19, 2009
how is it mean-spirited and/or stupid?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 8:17 pm - March 19, 2009
and for the record, i never said GPW (or anyone else) was questioning the “right” to boycott. i asked why he was railing against it.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 8:20 pm - March 19, 2009
We had entire, lengthy threads about this on GP, bob – where you failed to get it. First give me a reason to believe your mind is more open, now.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2009 @ 8:36 pm - March 19, 2009
i was never involved a debate about the boycotts. i didn’t think you’d be able to answer my q, though.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 8:36 pm - March 19, 2009
No bob, that’s not it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2009 @ 8:44 pm - March 19, 2009
that’s what i thought.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 8:54 pm - March 19, 2009
Well then, boob, I have a perfect solution for you. Move to Massachusetts. You can marry some other silly little letter leftist. You’ll have a one-party Democrat state. You’ll have ridiculously high taxes. You’ll have everything you want, and the rest of America can be spared your bullsh-t.
Sounds like the ideal solution to me. Let the states decide, and let teh gheys move to a state where it’s legal, if they think they need a piece of paper from a state bureaucracy to validate their existence.
Comment by V the K — March 19, 2009 @ 8:59 pm - March 19, 2009
Gays have always been mean. One of my main reasons for attempting reparative therapy was the bitchy anger of my gay friends. I didn’t want to be like them or around them. I didn’t want multiple partners or express myself by wearing makeup and a dress. The message the gay community attempted to give me was this: “You’re gay! You’re free! You don’t have to obey any rules! Nothing applies to you! People hate you for your freedom!” Because I admired things like maturity, accountability, responsibility, integrity, and loyalty, I decided reparative therapy was better than attempting to wedge myself into a community with which I had nothing in common.
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 19, 2009 @ 9:10 pm - March 19, 2009
i don’t know about you, v the k, but i’d like to have the ability and right to live where i choose in the u.s. w/o worrying about whether i’ll lose the rights heteros enjoy in all 50 states.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 9:11 pm - March 19, 2009
ashpenaz: with all due respect, the fact that you tried reparative therapy (assuming you did so as an adult) shows you are probably not quite right upstairs.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 9:12 pm - March 19, 2009
the people tried to have a ballot question in Mass.
the legislature did not allow it
the people had a ballot iniative[spell/sorry[ in Ca.
they voted
the legislature/courts are trying to dis-allow it
no one burned cars/or hated gays in mass.
they hated peeps in cali
question-wheres your tolerance?
oh- u say- the rights of the minority?
just look what’s happening now in our national political
debate
i don’t hate u for ur sexual orientation u fascist
Comment by pdbuttons — March 19, 2009 @ 9:28 pm - March 19, 2009
No Ashpenaz, it shows that you’re a threat to bob’s very sense of self.
And bob’s going to try to divert the subject again.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 19, 2009 @ 9:39 pm - March 19, 2009
boob illustrates a fundamental difference between the conservative right and the Fascist left. The conservative right likes the idea of the people of the several states deciding things for themselves, and enjoying the freedom and responsibility that comes with that. But boob, being a fascist, wants his values and his point of view forced on everybody across the country. He wants to force Utah and Alabama to live under San Francisco values, and can not accept that different areas might want to be free to set their own moral values.
And when people push back against those who would use the power of the state to ram San Francisco values down their throat, he accuses them of being hate-filled bigots.
Comment by V the K — March 19, 2009 @ 9:40 pm - March 19, 2009
divert the subject from what, livewire?
v the k: just fyi, fascism is generally considered a ring-wing ideology. just fyi.
so, v the k, if alabama decided it didn’t think black people should have full rights, should san francisco be allowed to push their liberal values on them?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 9:49 pm - March 19, 2009
V, bob illustrates close-mindedness.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2009 @ 9:49 pm - March 19, 2009
and perhaps i was being a little tough on ash. i don’t really think he’s looney or anything for going to reparative therapy. what i honestly think is that people who go that route tend to have been brainwashed. let me guess, ash, you still like penis, no? even after all that therapy?
look, the point is, reparative therapy is destructive and a sham. when you found yourself not liking your lifestyle or the people with whom you associated in the gay community, here’s an idea: GET NEW FRIENDS. there are plenty of gay people out there who are not slutty or into drag (myself included). stop seeing the world in stereotypes and get out there and live your life.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 9:52 pm - March 19, 2009
It’s well and widely known that fascism is a left-wing ideology. The Germans called it National *Socialism*, after all. They were the National Socialist German *Workers’* Party. Who could possibly consider a socialist workers’ party to be right-wing? Oh, yeah: Left-liberals, who, as leftists, desperately need to distract and divert blame from themselves.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2009 @ 9:52 pm - March 19, 2009
yeah, i’m close-minded because i think praying away the gay is a sham.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 9:54 pm - March 19, 2009
the nazis were right-wing, despite using socialism as a veil.
authoritarianism is right-wing, as is nationalism.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 9:54 pm - March 19, 2009
um, adolph’s gov’t was not left-wing. they were authoritarian, nationalist racists. sounds awfully right-wing to me. just b/c some party spouts off something about socialism doesn’t mean they are left wing.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 9:56 pm - March 19, 2009
i am being filtered like a mofo.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 9:57 pm - March 19, 2009
um, germany’s gov’t was not left-wing. they were author_itarian, national_ist rac_ists. sounds awfully right-wing to me. just b/c some party spouts off something about socialism doesn’t mean they are left wing.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 9:58 pm - March 19, 2009
and fascism is generally not described in terms of economic policy. fascism is generally described in terms of social policy, military, and putting the state above the person.
the main tenets of fascism are authoritarianism and nationalism, both of which are firmly entrenched in the right-wing.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 10:02 pm - March 19, 2009
filtered. again.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 19, 2009 @ 10:03 pm - March 19, 2009
I don’t want to throw gas on this fire, but I’m sure we can all be mean. When I lived in San Francisco a guy tried to run me off the road (literally ramming my car, btw) while yelling nasty things about my Christian bumper sticker and that he was gay and I should leave him alone. At the time, I was seven months pregnant and didn’t want to lose my job or be treated differently at work because I’m a Christian, so I just never told anyone about it. A dozen incidences like this made me truly deplore the hatefulness of the “progressive” left. When I started my last job, the guy who sat next to me was a gay man in a committed relationship (he literally wore a button telling people he was gay, yikes), I was scared to even talk to him at all at first, but soon we became thick as thieves. I guess the point to the seemingly endless diatribe is that I suspect that the further left you are, the more hateful you tend to be. So, I suppose I wouldn’t generalize that gays are mean, just politically extreme gays are mean. If you don’t care if a government takes away everyone else’s rights as long as you get what you want, that’s pretty definitive liberal.
Comment by Carolynp — March 19, 2009 @ 10:07 pm - March 19, 2009
Bob, you can continue to spread the meme that Fascism is only a right wing ideology, but from what the Democrats have done in the past, and are currently doing in Congress today, it sure looks like fascism is also a left wing thing.
Comment by RogerCfromSD — March 19, 2009 @ 10:25 pm - March 19, 2009
Yes, they were. Consciously. Explicitly. Programmatically. The Nazis’ top theoretician said, “Basically, Marxism and National Socialism are the same.”
Fixed it for ya.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2009 @ 10:30 pm - March 19, 2009
Poor baby!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2009 @ 10:31 pm - March 19, 2009
Yes, they were. Consciously. Explicitly. The Nazis’ top theoretician said, “Basically, Marxism and National Socialism are the same.”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2009 @ 10:32 pm - March 19, 2009
Fixed it for ya.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2009 @ 10:33 pm - March 19, 2009
The Nzis believed in state control and regulation of industry, the nationalization of the financial sector, socialized medicine, the use of the public schools to indoctrinate youth, mass transit, subservience of the individual to the state bureaucracy, and censorship and punishment of all who disagreed with them. Sounds like the same positions held by the faculty of Harvard.
And unlike boob, who seemingly hates and looks down upon the good people of Alabama from his loft, but little-lettered perch, I trust the good people of Alabama to be able to govern themselves wisely… without the “help” of sanctimonious hippie gasbags like himself… who are as ignorant of history as they are of the rules of punctuation.
Comment by V the K — March 19, 2009 @ 10:52 pm - March 19, 2009
bob (aka boob) at #23:
This is as stupid a comment as has ever appeared on this site, or any other web log I’ve ever visited.
You can’t throw the term “right-wing” around without context. The fascists, including the Nazis, can only be called right-wing within the context of the Left. They were the nationalist faction of the socialist movement. Nationalism isn’t incompatible with socialism.
So because you’re a leftie all tyranny comes from the Right, eh boob? Neither the Right nor the Left has a monopoly on authoritarian thinking. (As if the Soviet Union wasn’t leftist and authoritarian.)
Stop polluting Gay Patriot with your childish nonsense.
Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — March 19, 2009 @ 11:56 pm - March 19, 2009
I spent several years of misery because I didn’t want to be a gay like he described. Am I “not quite right upstairs” as well?
Only to those who don’t have any clue what fascism is and/or desperately want to deflect attention from themselves.
But you are an arrogant, bigoted prick.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 20, 2009 @ 12:08 am - March 20, 2009
#28
Not to mention the Nazis were obsessed with health and fitness making it mandatory, rather than letting people decide for themselves. They were also obsessed with anti-smoking, vegetarianism, organic foods etc.
You know, sorta like the Center for Science in the “Public Interest”.
How “right wing” is that?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 20, 2009 @ 12:18 am - March 20, 2009
Boob hate to bust your bubble but Nazi’s are right wing only in the sense that they are to the right of Joseph Stalin. The Nazi economic policies for Germany were pretty much on par with the more lefty of the current EU states. The fascist were a bit more to the left than the current Obamunist Administration and the current democratic congress.
Now as for totalitarian being right wing…please!……..and just what would call the KGB and the Gulag?
Comment by cubanbob — March 20, 2009 @ 12:18 am - March 20, 2009
The gay community is the biggest supplier of clients for reparative therapy. When I was young and coming to terms with my sexuality, I had two choices before me–an amoral lifestyle of drugs, multiple partners, subversive behavior, and spreading disease–or, trying to change. Well, duh–I tried to change. Reparative therapy is full of men like me who are fighting against the gay subculture more than the fact of being gay. I’ve actually always been fine with being attracted to men. But I found no support from the mean, bitchy, angry gay community for the sort of traditional relationship I wanted.
If being homosexual was clearly associated with lifelong, monogamous relationships, reparative therapy would be out of business tomorrow. Reparative therapy is not about hating yourself for being gay–it’s about hating the gay community and wanting to find a way out.
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 20, 2009 @ 1:19 am - March 20, 2009
“hen I was young and coming to terms with my sexuality, I had two choices before me–an amoral lifestyle of drugs, multiple partners, subversive behavior, and spreading disease–or, trying to change.”
um…you don’t have to do drugs, have multiple partners, spread disease, etc. if you are gay. juuuuust so ya know.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 20, 2009 @ 6:41 am - March 20, 2009
ilc: see my comment #20 w/r/t to your reparative therapy.
but yeah, from your other posts, i’d say you’re not quite right.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 20, 2009 @ 6:43 am - March 20, 2009
Nothing’s changed since you were young. It’s the SS,DD. You’re SUPPOSED to be bitching about Reagan not spending trillions of dollars on AIDS while you’re getting creampied through some Travel Centers of America tearoom glory hole.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 20, 2009 @ 6:43 am - March 20, 2009
and from wikipedia:
Some associate ethnic nationalism and certain forms of populism with the right.[22][43] According to some libertarian scholars of fascism, there are both left and right influences on fascist ideology, and fascism has historically attacked communism, liberalism and conservatism. A prominent potential link between the right and fascism is corporatism. But many scholars argue that fascism is a search for a third way among these all these views.[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] Roger Griffin claims that fascist movements have become more monolithically right-wing, and fascism has become intertwined with the radical right.[53][54]
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 20, 2009 @ 6:48 am - March 20, 2009
and since i’m being filtered once again, go look up “right-wing politics” on wikipedia for a better understanding of fascism. fascism is neither explicitly right-wing or explicitly left-wing; it’s more complicated than that. but surely, the most notable tenets of that ideology involve the military, nationalism, and authoritarianism, which any political scholar would put on the right side of the spectrum.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 20, 2009 @ 6:52 am - March 20, 2009
Ash,
I’m sorry you felt you had to make a choice like that. I know one of my friends, who is bi, and cute as all hell, says she gets more static from the greek-island-girls about being bi than from straights, even straight women.
I do think that the point Ash was trying to make, lost in bob’s attacks on him and trying to rewrite the history of the left, is that the prevelant image of gay men is that of quick sex, loose drugs and sore bums. Given that image, why wouldn’t you go wo xiang mei er, mei xin, bian shi tou?
I’m not sorry you tried to change though Ash. Few people challenge themselves and try to change. The fact that you didn’t wake up one day and go ‘poof! I’m straight’ doesn’t make you less of a person. In my experience, the effort made me more comfortable with who I am in the end, and I hope it did the same for you.
Back on topic. I think the ‘angry gay’ trope does have some basis in reality. Both because it’s the part you see on TV (squeaky wheels and all that) and because there are a few who are desperately angry, flailing about, seeking justification and acceptance from others because they hate themselves so much. Because they act ‘that way’, not having the will to better themselves, no having the fainted modicum of self control.
Does that make them evil? No, not automatically. It does however, make them human.
Comment by The Livewire — March 20, 2009 @ 7:01 am - March 20, 2009
Arrgh, post in the filter, thought I’d tricked it. Help me Obi-Dan, you’re my only hope!
Comment by The Livewire — March 20, 2009 @ 7:02 am - March 20, 2009
34: Mass transit is an outgrowth of the Nazi state? seriously, you’ve started my day with a big laugh, proving once again what a whack job you truly are.
Comment by Kevin — March 20, 2009 @ 7:04 am - March 20, 2009
#44: Well, he does belong to a religious cult, after all.
Comment by Attmay — March 20, 2009 @ 7:44 am - March 20, 2009
*sigh* What rights Attmay?
Comment by The Livewire — March 20, 2009 @ 8:36 am - March 20, 2009
The RIGHT to get married in California. Just because it wasn’t around when man EVOLVED from CHIMPS doesn’t make it any less of a right. But you “straight” people stole it.
Comment by Attmay — March 20, 2009 @ 9:29 am - March 20, 2009
Nope. You have a right to commit to a partner. Hopefully you will have better luck than I.
You have the privlege of entering into a commitment with one (1) person (at a time, see Taylor, Elizabeth), and having the benefit of that commitment being recognized by the state, subject to the limitations of that state’s laws and constitution. That’s not been taken away.
Indeed, it’s the ‘gay marriage’ advocates that argued in front of the supreme court that it should be taken away from everyone in the name of ‘fairness’.
So who’s ’stealing’ ‘rights’ again?
Comment by The Livewire — March 20, 2009 @ 9:45 am - March 20, 2009
Interesting. Is there room in your construct for two men to commit to one another, make a covenant with one another, but never have sex with each other? (or anyone else.)
To a certain way of looking at things, that would be an ideal relationship. Teh gheys are always saying “it’s not about sex,” and the sex part is what religious folk object to. Chaste same sex relationships would appear to be the answer to everyone.
Comment by V the K — March 20, 2009 @ 9:54 am - March 20, 2009
#50,
but presumably not as fun.
I have this arguement with my sister all the time about Lutheran Clergy.
“If you’re not married, you should be chaste as a pastor.”
“But Gays can’t get married!”
“Then they need to be chaste while serving the church as a minister.”
“That’s not fair!”
“He called, they answered. If they didn’t like the rules, they shouldn’t have answered the call, yes?”
*sister’s head explodes, changes subject*
Comment by The Livewire — March 20, 2009 @ 10:12 am - March 20, 2009
boob to Asphanez (#41):
Given what you’ve said on this thread, bob/boob, you have a fat lot of nerve saying that to anybody!
Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — March 20, 2009 @ 10:13 am - March 20, 2009
This from a guy who has a pathological aversion to using the Shift key.
Comment by V the K — March 20, 2009 @ 10:27 am - March 20, 2009
Booob,
As to your ignorant idea that fascism is a thing of the right; fascism cannot exist without big government. You want big government, the right wants small limited government. Hell the Nazis were big environmentalists too! tyranny always comes from those who want to take power away from the individual — namely you and your ilk — not those who want to take power away from central govt and give it back to the individual.
Communism, naziism, fascism .. all gradations of the same thing — leftism.
Comment by American Elephant — March 20, 2009 @ 11:02 am - March 20, 2009
Don’t fascists normally have a Messiah at the helm?
Comment by heliotrope — March 20, 2009 @ 11:42 am - March 20, 2009
Why all the anger towards someone that chooses reparative therapy? Sure, I think its nonsense and that it is harmful, but so what!? How does that hurt YOU? Let people live the way they want instead of dictating how YOU think they should live! (wow….feel that irony?).
And regarding all the protestations of gay culture not being being coercive with destructive behaviors- gimmee a break!
You take one step outside of the orthodoxy in your OWN behavior and words, and you are “uptight,” “small-minded,” “judgemental,” and the worst, – “no fun.” To be “accepted” you must accept the absence of good and evil and the deification of “fun” as the ultimate purpose of life.
Yes, there are gay people that refuse to follow orders, but they are usually not to be found in gay bars and gay culture. Sucks, but that’s the way it is.
Comment by 23eagle — March 20, 2009 @ 11:53 am - March 20, 2009
Don’t fascists also make schoolchildren sing hymns to the Dear Leader?
Comment by V the K — March 20, 2009 @ 11:54 am - March 20, 2009
It’s threatening to a certain ideology that says gays can’t help behaving the way they do and shouldn’t be asked to.
Comment by V the K — March 20, 2009 @ 12:03 pm - March 20, 2009
Strange, the title of this post is
Comment by heliotrope — March 20, 2009 @ 12:22 pm - March 20, 2009
Boob- Would you STFU about being filtered? Your comments do get published.
And if you didn’t know that fascism is a left-wing ideology, it proves yet again that u musst haf gune 2 publik skool in the past 20 years.
Comment by GayPatriot — March 20, 2009 @ 12:31 pm - March 20, 2009
I’m not in reparative therapy now because I realized I liked being attracted to men and I always have. I like men better than women. Reparative therapy was never about changing those feelings–it was about escaping the gay community. I’m still all about escaping the gay community–but this time, I want to escape with Jason Statham.
Is it possible to have a relationship not based on sex? According to the gay community, it’s not a relationship unless it’s all about sex. If there’s no sex, it’s an acquaintance at best. I developed some very close friends with men, and when I tried to explain their importance to gays, those feelings and relationships were dismissed as irrelevant, even though one of them was my pillar and constant after my mother died. But we weren’t doing it up the pooper, so it didn’t count.
I do want a relationship which goes beyond friendship, but not necessarily for sex. I want someone to buy a house with. I want someone to travel with. I want to know someone will visit me in the hospital and explain to the nurse that yes, I really, really do want to be resusitated at all costs. I want to go to church with someone and hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer and look warmly into each other’s eyes. This does mean a covenant. It might not mean sex. Unless it does turn out to be Jason Statham.
I get no support for that from the gay community. It’s all “Are you doing it up the pooper yet?”
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 20, 2009 @ 12:32 pm - March 20, 2009
#61,
Ashpenaz.
I’m glad to hear you’re comfortable with yourself. It is a rarity, I find, in our ‘touchy feely’ society to be that way.
And your Jason Statham bit is amusing. I go on a length about Grace Park the same way. Shame she’s married.
Comment by The Livewire — March 20, 2009 @ 12:47 pm - March 20, 2009
I get no support for that from the gay community. It’s all “Are you doing it up the pooper yet?â€
Shortly after college, I became friends with a stunningly attractive 20 year old who was “just coming out.” And over a late night bull session, he expressed his point of view that he thought that being with a guy who really cared about him and was really committed to a relationship was more important than physical attraction.
Two years later, via an online chat, he informed me that his policy was to only hook up with black boys because he was a “bottom” and could only be satisfied with a well endowed partner.
That kind of thing goes on in the gay community all the time. It makes me sad.
Comment by V the K — March 20, 2009 @ 1:09 pm - March 20, 2009
As A Strait fundamentalist far-right Christan who has been lurking here the past few week Ashpenaz is right on it is the sex part we object to most. It is my belief and my pastor when we did a indepth search of the scriptures that even if thier “orientation” is to homosexualitly if they do not have sex they have not sinned in that way. I myself have a very close friend who is gey but taken a oath to be chaste for the rest of his life. In his own words “I would rather have God than carnal Lusts.”
Comment by Silverwolf — March 20, 2009 @ 1:23 pm - March 20, 2009
Welcome to the world of commenting Silverwolf.
Be careful, it’s addictive
Comment by The Livewire — March 20, 2009 @ 1:49 pm - March 20, 2009
#59: Sometime around June of 1969. Some girl from a flying monkey movie kicked the bucket, and some bar got raided. Then some orange juice shill decided she hated gays more than she liked pimping orange juice.
#56: I’m angry that these groups exist. If these are acceptable, why not have groups saying you can change your race through prayer, or even your species? They are shams that do long-term psychological damage. I could pray for Paul Blart: Mall Cop to sweep the Oscars but that ain’t gonna happen (although given the quality of some of the recent Oscar winners…).
#63: It makes me sad, too, but rights and/or “privileges” are not based on that. Black men leave their wives and children at the mercy of the welfare state all the time. Should we therefore say that blacks shouldn’t be allowed to marry? Ashleymadison.com makes a fortune in setting up affairs, so let’s ban heterosexual marriage, since “straight” “people” aren’t worthy of it by the same logic that denies gays marriage rights.
Comment by Attmay — March 20, 2009 @ 3:39 pm - March 20, 2009
Ah hah, I’ve found out Attmay’s secret Idenity… Non-sequetor Man!
Comment by The_Livewire — March 20, 2009 @ 3:41 pm - March 20, 2009
Not even Bruce’s shirtless country music singer posts will be immune from Attmay’s straight-bashing, gay-marriage tirades.
Comment by V the K — March 20, 2009 @ 4:18 pm - March 20, 2009
If denying the physical aspect of a relationship leads to a heightened intimacy, can that intimacy be reached by a homosexual with a member of the opposite sex? Why differentiate between male/female, straight/gay if sex is disavowed? Sure, an attraction is more than genitals but celibacy needn’t limit nor even recognize an in-born or in-grained orientation if a deep, personal, non-sexual intimacy is desired.
Personally, I think sex is healthy. Necessary? No, but important. I think celibacy (for perfectly normal adults without physical impediments, etc.) is unhealthy unless there are deep, psychological reasons why the individual’s mental health is better suited to such a lifestyle. To choose to have sex is a serious decision and to choose to never have sex is perhaps an even more serious decision with perhaps greater long-term consequences.
Comment by Ignatius — March 20, 2009 @ 5:31 pm - March 20, 2009
actually, GP, one of my comments on fascism has not been published yet.
and obviously you are the one who doesn’t know the definition of fascism. go get an encyclopedia.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 20, 2009 @ 6:04 pm - March 20, 2009
also, one little question:
since liberals are always accused of not being “patriotic” enough, of being too cosmopolitan, of being too inclined to “blame america first”, how exactly does that characterization jive with nationalism, one of the major tenets of fascism? i’m hoping i don’t need to define nationalism for you all.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 20, 2009 @ 6:06 pm - March 20, 2009
if naziism, an ideology based largely on racism, is a thing of left, then how come the democratic party is highly diverse, while the republican party is over 90% white?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 20, 2009 @ 6:09 pm - March 20, 2009
bob, I’ve not focused on this thread, save when I briefly scan the comments I rescue from the spam filter. So, are you saying that authoritarianism is only a phenomenon of the right?
Are you dismissing Soviet Communism (and that of its satellite states as well as China and North Korea) and examples today from Chavez’s Venezuela and in recent years from Ortega’s Nicaragua (and maybe once again there as well)?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 20, 2009 @ 6:15 pm - March 20, 2009
#64, ash: if it’s all about sex, it’s not a relationship. if there is no sex, it is more a friendship than a romantic relationship. what you talk about in that post makes it sound like you’re looking more for a best friend than a romantic partner. maybe that’s true, and that’s fine. but if you’re “attracted to men” as you say, that attraction inevitably is centered around sexual attraction. that’s just a fact of life. of course, attraction goes deeper than that — it’s emotional, psychological, even. but somehow i get the feeling that your disinterest in sex with men is based on irrational prejudice toward homosexuality instead of reasoned thought.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 20, 2009 @ 6:16 pm - March 20, 2009
here’s an idea…why don’t you try to have a relationship with a guy in which you go to church together, travel together, have long, deep discussions together; a relationship in which you are financially cooperative and emotionally devoted; but also a relationship that is intimate sexually, in a committed and monogamous manner. why can’t you have all those things with someone? many people, gay and straight, do.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 20, 2009 @ 6:18 pm - March 20, 2009
GPW: soviet communism was both right and left. obviously central planning in terms of economic policy is a far-left ideology. but the social and military policy were far-right. i think the real answer is that fascism cannot neatly fall into any category. it has manifested itself in many different forms throughout history. my point was that the most dangerous parts of fascism: nationalism, a_u_thori_tarianism and militarism are more aligned with the right than the left. to ignore this fact is naive.
whom do you see as more likely to have secret police murdering dissidents, to invade other countries, to become suspicious of intellectuals: bush/cheney or barney frank?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 20, 2009 @ 6:23 pm - March 20, 2009
GPW: soviet communism was both right and left. obviously central planning in terms of economic policy is a far-left ideology. but the social and military policy were far-right. i think the real answer is that fascism cannot neatly fall into any category. it has manifested itself in many different forms throughout history. my point was that the most dangerous parts of fascism: nationalism, the a “ism” that gets me filtered, and militarism are more aligned with the right than the left. to ignore this fact is naive.
whom do you see as more likely to have secret police murdering dissidents, to invade other countries, to become suspicious of intellectuals: bush/cheney or barney frank?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 20, 2009 @ 6:24 pm - March 20, 2009
The right/left spectrum is simplistic and confusing. Here’s a better template.
Comment by Ignatius — March 20, 2009 @ 7:03 pm - March 20, 2009
interesting quiz, ig. apparently i’m a liberal. and here is the definition of liberal according to this quiz, since many of you don’t seem to know it:
LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal
matters, but tend to support significant government control of the
economy. They generally support a government-funded “safety net”
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation
of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,
defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action
to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 20, 2009 @ 7:27 pm - March 20, 2009
if naziism, an ideology based largely on racism, is a thing of left, then how come the democratic party is highly diverse, while the republican party is over 90% white?
Let us demonstrate an example of the “diversity” of the Obama Party.
White and Kinney both testified Kilpatrick used the F-word in describing them while urging his security detail to get them off the porch. They said the mayor also made racial remarks about her and White.
“You’re a black woman,” Kinney quoted the mayor as telling her. “You should be ashamed of yourself being with a man with the last name white. You should not be a part of this.”
As we see from your party and the actions of Obama Party politicians like Kwame Kilpatrick, boob, your determination of whether or not one is a racist is based solely on their skin color. Actions have nothing to do with it; you assume that the Republican Party is racist because it happens to be predominantly white, and you assume that the Obama Party and its members are not racist because it is “diverse”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 20, 2009 @ 8:29 pm - March 20, 2009
if naziism, an ideology based largely on racism, is a thing of left, then how come the democratic party is highly diverse, while the republican party is over 90% white?
Let us demonstrate an example of the “diversity” of the Obama Party.
White and Kinney both testified Kilpatrick used the F-word in describing them while urging his security detail to get them off the porch. They said the mayor also made racial remarks about her and White.
“You’re a black woman,” Kinney quoted the mayor as telling her. “You should be ashamed of yourself being with a man with the last name white. You should not be a part of this.”
As we see from your party and the actions of Obama Party politicians like Kwame Kilpatrick, boob, your determination of whether or not one is a racist is based solely on their skin color. Actions have nothing to do with it; you assume that the Republican Party is racist because it happens to be predominantly white, and you assume that the Obama Party and its members are not racist because it is “diverse”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 20, 2009 @ 8:31 pm - March 20, 2009
Dictonary.com, bob
fas⋅cism   /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power,(North Korea, Cuba) forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism,(Cuba, China) regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. (China, Venezuela), and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. (China, Cuba, Venezuela)
Ergo, the left. Also, see National Socialism.
The more bob posts, the easier this gets.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 20, 2009 @ 8:38 pm - March 20, 2009
So, basically, to be a liberal, you are willing to trade away your economic rights… i.e. the right to keep what you earn and spend your money as you choose; make your own medical choices; choose what vehicle you may drive; choose what foods you’re allowed to eat; choose whether or not to join a union; choose whom you may employ or rent to; choose what radio programs you may listen to; choose where to send your children to school; choose to defend yourself with firearms; and all those other decisions boob’s beloved left would either take away from you or make for you…
And in exchange, you get to put your thing into the orifice of your choosing in the bedroom.
And to someone like boob, that’s a fair exchange.
Comment by V the K — March 20, 2009 @ 8:39 pm - March 20, 2009
Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations…
To the extent that businesses are shut down and thousands are put out of well-paying jobs for the sake of marginal, statistically insignificant changes in air quality; to the point that they are willing to sacrifice 4,000,000 American jobs and take away the economic freedoms of millions more… based on the junk science of climate change, and the possible reduction of a few tenths of one degree in temperature.
defend civil liberties and free expression…
But only for groups they favor. The ACLU is happy to defend NAMBLA, militant atheists, and Muslim Terrorists, but anti-abortion protesters and gun owners … not so much.
support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.
Equality = mediocrity. It’s like those idiot soccer leagues where no one is allowed to keep score. No one is allowed to fail. No one is really allowed to succeed either.
And, as with civil liberties, the tolerance only extends to “certain” lifestyles. If you’re a deranged vagrant who assaults people on the subway, a Marxist revolutionary terrorist, or someone who enjoys sex with horses… the liberal left will defend you, give you a tenured teaching position, and make arty movies about you. But if you’re a middle-class conservative who upholds traditional values, the left will subject you to ridicule, hatred… and if you give to the wrong political campaign, they’ll harass your employer until you lose your job.
Comment by V the K — March 20, 2009 @ 8:48 pm - March 20, 2009
aw, it’s almost cute how clueless you guys are.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 20, 2009 @ 8:59 pm - March 20, 2009
aw, it’s almost cute how clueless you guys are.
Translation: “I can’t refute your facts, so I’m going to insult you now.”
Comment by V the K — March 20, 2009 @ 9:15 pm - March 20, 2009
#84 TL – A comparison of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia shows that fascism is a phenomenon of the Left.
- Both practiced a “command economy”. (what modern liberals want)
- Both argued, and believed, that they were the vanguard of the working class.
- Both practiced a single-party State, maintained by police repression and torture.
- Both practiced nationalism.
- Both practiced anti-Semitism.
In short, both were totalitarian socialists. What were the differences between them? Differences of propaganda, really.
- The Soviets, while being racist Russian nationalists in fact, claimed (that is, lied) in their propaganda that they were multi-racial and internationalist.
- The Nazis, while having a totalitarian socialist command economy in fact, claimed (that is lied) in their propaganda that they still retained a little bit of respect for private property.
Essentially, they were two competing entities promoting the same basic brand of poison. They had to “differentiate in their marketing” (as we might say today). The Soviets, for their part, did that by painting the Nazis as rightists – which was ridiculous of course, but swallowed hook, line and sinker by the American Left. To this day.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 20, 2009 @ 10:33 pm - March 20, 2009
(#89 continued) In conclusion, one could say:
If one adds: …In the propaganda of the Soviets. And in the propaganda of the Soviets’ successors and/or apologists in the modern American Left. But not in the real world.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 20, 2009 @ 10:45 pm - March 20, 2009
88, you beat me to it.
89. A longer version of my post, now with more detail
poor bob, he likes to think he’s so superior. I think that’s called overcompensation.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 20, 2009 @ 10:46 pm - March 20, 2009
P.S. A couple more similarities:
- Both had theoreticians who admired Marx. (It was actually Hitler who said the quote I gave earlier, “basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same.”)
- Both wanted to take over the world.
And another difference:
- Soviet propaganda/theory put more emphasis on Marx, and of course quite a bit more on Lenin.
Again, it’s a difference that, in the end, makes little difference. Leftism predates Marxism; just because one set of leftists cares about Marx, Lenin, Mao, etc. quite a bit less than another, does not change the basic fact that they are leftists.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 20, 2009 @ 10:55 pm - March 20, 2009
So, basically, to be a liberal, you are willing to trade away your economic rights
Actually, that’s not quite correct, V the K. Boob isn’t willing to trade away HIS economic rights; he wants to trade away everyone ELSE’S.
It’s the same theory for why the Obama Party actively wants destroyed anything that would give parents a choice other than the public schools while their own children have never darkened the door of anything even remotely resembling one. Or why the Obama Party tries to impose crushing new taxes on people through Congresspersons and Treasury officials who aren’t paying their own.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2009 @ 12:50 am - March 21, 2009
I would like a best friend who is “married” to me. I have close friends who are married to other people. I’d like that same level of friendship but have us be each other’s primary relationship. That, for me, is the story of David and Jonathan. They were each other’s primary relationship. Other relationships were a fulfillment of their social duties. The same is true of Naomi and Ruth.
Today, since we no longer have those social duties, this “primary friendship” would be sexually exclusive. It’s not based on traditional marriage (which is why the world “married” is in quotes above), which is why I don’t support gay marriage. It’s a same-sex covenant. The two people in the covenant get to decide what role sex plays in the relationship, but whatever role it plays, neither goes outside the relationship for sex.
None of this makes any sense to the gay community, so they’re just mean and bitchy about it.
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 21, 2009 @ 9:53 am - March 21, 2009
#87: Shove it, fascist.
Comment by Attmay — March 21, 2009 @ 1:50 pm - March 21, 2009
Shove what? When? Where? Why and how? Please use your big-boy words.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2009 @ 3:18 pm - March 21, 2009
#97: Check the numbers. Those are the posts to which I am responding.
Comment by Attmay — March 21, 2009 @ 3:38 pm - March 21, 2009
“The two people in the covenant get to decide what role sex plays in the relationship, but whatever role it plays, neither goes outside the relationship for sex.”
so how is this relationship any different than a hetero marriage, other than both of you being male?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 21, 2009 @ 3:52 pm - March 21, 2009
and for the record, i’m not trying to be a smart ass here…i’m actually trying to understand what you’re talking about, ash.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 21, 2009 @ 3:53 pm - March 21, 2009
It’s different than hetero marriage in 3 ways:
1. There is less expectation of procreation.
2. Two families are typically not seen as merged as a result of the relationship.
3. The two people tend to retain full independent identities, whereas hetero marriage tends to merge two people into a single unit.
Homosexual dynamics are different than heterosexual dynamics in (at least) the above 3 ways, therefore we can’t simply transpose heterosexual marriage on homosexuals. We can create a fully equal, fully legal relationship using civil unions. In churches who wish to bless these relationships, I suggest the term “same-sex covenant.”
We can create same-sex covenants which are separate but better.
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 21, 2009 @ 4:18 pm - March 21, 2009
101. I prefer ‘fred’ Ashpenaz
But I think you and I agree on the method.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 21, 2009 @ 4:30 pm - March 21, 2009
i wasn’t asking about the legal differences; i was curious about what type of relationship you are talking about. it sounds like you are talking about a sexual partner/spouse.
#1 is kinda obvious. as for #2…is that because you’re closeted? assuming you’re close with your family, would you not want your loved ones to meet the person with whom you’ve chosen to live your life? when your family gets together for holidays, would you guys just go your separate ways and pretend like you’re single? as for #3, most of the married hetero people i know are actually still individual people. they might get a join checking account or something, but i think you’re over-generalizing about heteros to imply that married couples no longer have any individual identity.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 21, 2009 @ 4:32 pm - March 21, 2009
and if this is your argument against gay “marriage”, then what do you call a gay union in which the couple plans to have a family (via adoption or some other avenue), has families that embrace their relationship, and has a joint identity, as you described it?
and more importantly, do you think this “covenant” deserves the same legal benefits as heteros? if so, then why bother making the distinction in semantics? i don’t really care if you want to call gay marriage “asparagus” as long as the rights and privileges are exactly the same under the law.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 21, 2009 @ 4:39 pm - March 21, 2009
No, I’m not closeted or self-loathing. Jerk. As per 1: Yes, homosexuals can have children and families, but, no, it’s not as big an expectation with heteros. Again, this is a blurry area, but I really think you can say that a greater percentage of heteros enter a lifelong relationship with the intention and expectation of having a family than do homosexuals. Really. Truly. As per 2: What I mean is that when heteros get married, they get “in-laws.” The relatives of homosexual partners are not necessarily considered part of the extended family. Your partner’s mother isn’t your “mother-in-law”–she is “your partner’s mother.” Sad, but true.
It has nothing to do with the outedness of the partners. As per 3: Hetero couples frequently share the same last name as a symbol of their merging of identities–homosexuals don’t.
None of these are absolutes, but I would say that they are generally true. Thus, we can say that homosexual relationships are different than heterosexual relationships. Hence, these DIFFERENT relationships can have DIFFERENT names and still have the EXACT SAME legal rights. Same-sex covenants are legally equal to marriages. Separate but better.
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 21, 2009 @ 6:11 pm - March 21, 2009
“Your partner’s mother isn’t your “mother-in-lawâ€â€“she is “your partner’s mother.—
this is because gay people can’t legally get married (in most states); where do you think the term “in-law” came from? you’re family by law, not blood. this is a distinction w/o a difference, ash.
“Hetero couples frequently share the same last name as a symbol of their merging of identities–homosexuals don’t.”
again, this fact is more b/c of legal issues. and for the record, there is an increased trend these days of hetero couples now taking the female’s last name, of hyphenated names, and of women keeping their last names. i’m not quite sure what your point is. as gay marriage continues to gain mainstream acceptance and after full legal rights are extended to gay unions, i imagine a similar construct may come to fruition for gays, especially for those couples planning a family.
the irony of your argument is that you’re saying we shouldn’t call it “gay marriage”, because of reasons that are derived from the fact that gays currently can’t get married.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 21, 2009 @ 6:23 pm - March 21, 2009
but i suppose my points are moot if you want the same exact rights as hetero unions. at least from my perspective, that is all that matters. i’ll call my marriage what i want.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 21, 2009 @ 6:24 pm - March 21, 2009
Does not answer my questions (and incidentally, I checked the comments before I asked my questions). Again: Shove what? When? Where? Why and how?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2009 @ 6:29 pm - March 21, 2009
Thank you for providing a partial answer. You still left out ‘when’, and ‘how’, but I think I can mentally fill those in now.
In answer to your question: Umm, I would say it still needs further dumbing down. A sentiment like that can never be dumb enough. Probably needs more spittle and bile, too.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2009 @ 9:02 pm - March 21, 2009
(e.g., capital letters or exclamation points)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2009 @ 9:03 pm - March 21, 2009
Slippery Slope? What slippery slope?
Comment by V the K — March 21, 2009 @ 9:10 pm - March 21, 2009
V the K, while I find the decriminalization of incest in Romania bizarre, I don’t see the slippery slope here. As far as I know, there are no civil unions in Romania. And as far as I’m concerned, incest and same-sex relationships are totally separate issues.
The only slippery slope I see here, is that perhaps recently, Romania also decriminalized homosexual sex, so now since that is allowed, it was somehow inevitable that consensual incest would now be decriminalized. I don’t think anyone here is arguing that it is better for homosexual sex to be criminalized. Or am I wrong about that? In any case, if there is any slippery slope, it began when any sex was allowed.
It’s different than hetero marriage in 3 ways:
I get your point, Ashpenaz, when you are talking in general terms. Aside from #1, the others are as a result from many years of opposite sex marriage, and no expectation of same sex marriage or civil unions except only very recently. And even with #1, besides the fact that same sex couples do adopt, etc., just like infertile younger straight couples, there are plenty of straight couples that have no intention of having children.
Further, looking at marriage at the individual level, the dynamics of heterosexual married couples, in your #1,2,3, are so varied as well.
Comment by Pat — March 22, 2009 @ 12:05 pm - March 22, 2009
Maybe you should have read the article a bit more closely, Pat. France, Spain, and Portugal have also decriminalized consensual adult incest. The age of consent in Spain, BTW, is 12.
It’s part of the broader contextual narrative Rick Santorum was speaking to when he noted that if you take away the power to outlaw one form of consensual sexual behavior, you essentially take away the power to outlaw any form of consensual sexual behavior.
Comment by V the K — March 22, 2009 @ 12:42 pm - March 22, 2009
V the K, sure, Spain has same sex marriage and France has some kind of civil unions, (which apparently, in France, opposite sex couples are taking advantage of). I’m not aware that Portugal has any kind of legal same sex relationship recognition. So my point still remains that these appear to be separate issues. In fact, the laws in France, Spain, and Portugal have been on the books long before same sex marriage or civil unions were even thought of. Further, my understanding is that these were done through the legislatures of these countries. At least that is what will apparently happen in Romania.
As for Rick Santorum, I get what he was supposed to have meant when he criticized the Lawrence v. Texas decision. That he didn’t want the courts to have the power to make such decisions. And I would have respected Santorum’s outrage if he made a point of trying to get rid of sodomy laws through legislative means. As far as I’m aware, he didn’t, and apparently would have liked to have kept same sex sodomy laws on the books. Whatever, that’s his opinion. Also, it wasn’t just consensual sex that Santorum was likening homosexual sex to.
If Santorum’s point is as you say, who should decide then what forms of consensual sex should be allowed and not allowed? I suppose it would be best in the legislatures. Maybe the Supreme Court shouldn’t have done it. But other than Santorum and a couple of other loonies, there really wasn’t any outcry over the decision. So whereas there is opposition to same sex marriage and even civil unions, and amendments to bar such, there isn’t the same reaction to the Lawrence decision.
Anyway, just because two issues are tangentially related, doesn’t justify keeping both outlawed. I believe there are compelling reasons to outlaw incest relationships while not outlawing homosexual relationships. That seems to be the place where most people in this country are. So I don’t expect our state or federal legislatures or courts legalizing or decriminalizing any form of incest any time soon.
As for age of consent laws, as far as I’m concerned, anything under 18 is too low. Certainly 12 is way too low. It seems to me that should be more the focus in Spain, as opposed to same sex marriages. I personally don’t believe that anyone under 18 should be having sex. And I believe it should be illegal for an adult who is, say, at least four years older than a child to have sex. As such, I certainly believe that the minimum age for marriage should be 18. What I find astounding is that some people actually mitigate sex, including pregnancy, involving a teen if there is a promise of marriage. Go figure.
Comment by Pat — March 22, 2009 @ 1:15 pm - March 22, 2009
Admittedly, I’m a little late to this thread, but … here goes: what’s of concern is more than just the No-on-Ha8 crowd’s “attitudes” – it has to do with abuse of the electoral process rooted in a terrible conflation of senses of victimhood, a kneejerk (fascist, as Winecoff suggests) militancy; a terrible confusion of the judicial, legislative, and electoral functions of government; the responsibilities attendant upon civic argument and persuasion. It also has to do with crime and endangerment (viz., the arson at Gov. Palin’s former church) – which Winecoff didn’t even mention.
Comment by Jeremayakovka — March 22, 2009 @ 2:10 pm - March 22, 2009
v the K: back to our conversation on fascism…
i’m pretty sure that trying to have the government ban the consensual sex between two adults that happen to be of the same sex could be considered a fascist sentiment…especially when you consider the reasons given for such a ban: that “that” kind of sex is not good for the state, will bring down the moral fabric of the state, etc.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 22, 2009 @ 3:32 pm - March 22, 2009
#112: Like many people here, you have the nerve to insult others but act like the victim when the tables are turned. You’re nothing more than a common, bitchy queen.
Friggeth thee and ye noble steed upon which thou rodest.
Comment by Attmay — March 22, 2009 @ 5:08 pm - March 22, 2009
Attmay –atta way to go, kiddo! Right on target.
Wow, ILC is having a bad week it seems. If only he could earnestly apologize to all for his shameless posturing about the hate that gayLeft has for others while spreading the petty, spiteful mean-spiritedness all around here?
Come on, ILC. Change those old spots; change that old bark; change those old tricks.
When Dan wrote: “… the mean-spirited attitudes all too many gay marriage advocates toward those who disagree with them. Sometimes, it seems they’re acting like commissars from the Soviet Union in its heyday…” I think he could have striken the words “gay marriage advocates” and just inserted “commenters here”
Commissars from the old Soviet Union? Did they have old dawgs with the same old spots, same old bark, same old tricks in Moscow?
But Attmay, you may be in deep trouble now for openly disagreeing with the most disagreeable commenter in the Commissar… I mean, here.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 24, 2009 @ 11:41 am - March 24, 2009