The Gay Crusade Against Traditional Marriage
I’m not sure I’ve seen a more succinct summary of why most Americans oppose the strategy, tactics and language used by the Gay Left in the marriage debate than this excellent comment by GP Reader Ashpenaz in Dan’s posting yesterday.
Here’s why—gay advocates want to undermine the traditional understanding of marriage as a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship and change it to include multiple partners, open relationships, and serial monogamy. They are not trying to be included in the tradition—they are trying to warp the tradition because they believe they are victimized by a cruel patriarchy who uses marriage as a tool of oppression. Attempting to justify their inclusion in an established tradition would be contrary to their desire to destroy that tradition. It’s that simple. Now you know why.
As a gay American, it is hard to argue with those points.
And if you are a straight American, it is easy to see why you would recoil at judicially mandated gay marriage when anyone with honest intellectual capacities can figure out the real agenda.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
112 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The point is well made, but as a conservative Christian married guy, I am not sure if I completely agree. Maybe that’s because every gay person I know in real life is not like that, that is, not the sort of person trying to tear down traditional institutions, especially marriage, more for the sake of screwing up tradition rather than joining in it. They are much more live-and-let-live, not the sort that seem at all cynical and spiteful. (My Christian straight friends, who undoubtedly vastly outnumber the number of gay friends I have, also generally have a live-and-let-live attitude, and while their beliefs about policy wouldn’t make HRC happy, their beliefs nevertheless are quite more tolerant than the stereotypical idea of what conservative Christians is like with respect to the issue.)
The point certainly resonates more when looking at news headlines than when considering one’s own gay friends and acquaintances. While it’s easy for someone like me to dismiss the point when thinking about people one actually knows, it’s not as easy when one looks at the lawsuit-happy side of the movement. There, it appears much more to be about equality than marriage. I think a lot of people with values and experiences close to my own want to hear why gay people actually want to be married, not why they merely want to have “equal rights.”
And going along with that, I think what scares a lot of people with respect to gay marriage is not gay marriage itself, but that it is a stepping stone to the removal of one of the most fundamental rights—the right to publicly declare that one finds a certain action to be “sinful” or “wrong.” One might think it’s paranoid to worry about that, but if one considers how it is in other countries and considers how aggressive the liberal gay movement is and how it doesn’t even seem to care to dialogue with more moderate straight religious people on the issue, I think they’ve left center-right Christians with a lot of reason to be wary that it won’t stop with gay marriage.
Comment by cme — April 5, 2009 @ 7:52 am - April 5, 2009
you’re being sarcastic…right?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 5, 2009 @ 8:34 am - April 5, 2009
No.
But emphasizing the moral or symbolic importance of the m-word could alienate some religious and unmarried families, both of which make up a large segment of potential voters. Discussing the latter group, Jean offered her own version of a response to the princess ad, to much laughter and applause:
“Here’s the message I wanted to see. … ‘You’re right honey, you can marry a princess, and isn’t that wonderful? You can also marry someone of [a different] race. And you know what, you don’t have to get married; in fact I think you should consider whether you want to participate in that patriarchal institution.’”
Jean wasn’t the only one at Creating Change calling for pro-marriage messages that were nontraditional and spoke to the reality of many American families. Featured panelists stressed the importance of non-apologetic messaging, building coalitions, and opening up legal and social possibilities for all people.
See? Gay-sex liberals like yourself, boob, don’t care one whit about marriage; in fact, you speak of it with contempt as a “patriarchal” institution and ally yourself with groups who are openly AGAINST marriage and its moral and symbolic importance.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 11:12 am - April 5, 2009
I’m a same-sex marriage opponent and would be remiss not to state my disagreement with such simplistic reasoning. Of course there are some same-sex marriage advocates who see tradition as a continuation of an oppressive past just as there are anti-same-sex reactionaries who cling to tradition because they fear even small societal changes and designations will upset a teetering culture. I believe both are minority views.
I understand what Ashpenaz is expressing because I agree with him on the issues of same-sex marriage and the nihilism of some of its advocates, but he’s applying the same wide brush applied to gay liberals when they have the temerity to post a disagreeing comment and are then thrown the litany of extreme vice: white powder sent in envelopes, children dressed up as sex slaves, sexual activity in the streets, etc.
I believe most same-sex marriage advocates are good people who are motivated by what they think is best for themselves and for society (usually in that order). I disagree with them, i.e. what I consider best for society and for myself (usually in that order). And that’s just one of the liberal/conservative ironies: conservatism is more concerned for societal health than liberalism, despite liberalism’s claims.
Comment by Ignatius — April 5, 2009 @ 11:14 am - April 5, 2009
And here we see another example of what gay-sex liberals who demand marriage actually are thinking:
I agree with Katz when he says that monogamy is “one of the pillars of heterosexual marriage and perhaps its key source of trauma.” It’s almost impossible for two people to be all things to each other sexually, and the expectation that two people can or should be all things to each other sexually — that they should never find another person attractive or act on that attraction — does a great deal of harm. Human beings didn’t evolve to be monogamous, and everything from divorce rates to recent impeachment proceedings prove, I think, that the expectation of lifelong monogamy places an incredible strain on a marriage.
See? Boob and his fellow gay-sex liberals are not only against monogamy for themselves, they want it taught and preached that monogamy is “harmful” and that it shouldn’t be expected of married individuals. They want the whole expectation of marriage changed so that their inability to stop themselves from being promiscuous and to commit to one person for a lifetime is now “normal”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 11:17 am - April 5, 2009
thank you, ig, for your thoughtful response. we may not agree out the merits of same-sex marriage, but i appreciate that you don’t attempt to demonize those of us with different views.
and ndt: do you not realize that no one even clicks on your links?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 5, 2009 @ 11:45 am - April 5, 2009
For me, the ultimate irony would be for teh gheys to get same-sex marriage just in time for a global economic collapse caused by socialist economic policies, followed by widespread implementation of shari’a law; where the only gay right is the right to be hanged from a crane.
All because people were willing to trade off national security and economic realism for the sake of a little piece of paper from a state bureaucracy that they thought would validate their lives.
Comment by V the K — April 5, 2009 @ 12:23 pm - April 5, 2009
Not to nitpick, but:
Sorry, but it has already been changed to “serial monogamy”, and heterosexuals did it when they passed no-fault divorce. No one can honestly blame teh gays for that one.
Having said that, I agree with this aspect of the overall point: the Gay Left does not value monogamy and does not understand marriage or child-rearing. The Gay Left does not want to bring them to gays. Rather, it wants to de-privilege them; to make the statement “Breeders are no better than us” and have it writ large. It’s only logical that masses of heterosexual voters would react negatively.
I say that as a gay marriage supporter. I have a Gay Right (for lack of a better term, though I am no conservative) understanding of gay marriage, namely: spreading the monogamous ideal among gays; giving the next generation of gays an established, happy alternative to Gay Left sexual norms. In keeping with that, I want gay marriage to be achieved democratically (NOT judicially), however long that may take, because I recognize that marriage is a social institution whose definition, qualifications, obligations and benefits should and must rest on a social consensus. P.S., I also favor repealing no-fault divorce.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2009 @ 12:59 pm - April 5, 2009
excuse me, but monogamy is an ideal of neither the left nor the right. not everything is politicized, you know. there is nothing inherent in liberalism that goes against monogamy.
as for no-fault divorce…how exactly would a couple qualify for divorce w/o no-fault divorce then? would one partner have to prove the other was cheating on him/her? what if there is no proof and the cheating parter denies it? what if a husband is abusing his wife, but she can’t prove it? should she have to remain married to this person?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 5, 2009 @ 1:14 pm - April 5, 2009
bob, you’re welcome. Small minds are like small houses: always in need of cleaning.
Comment by Ignatius — April 5, 2009 @ 1:21 pm - April 5, 2009
Very well, then. Kindly point me to the leftists – particularly the GAY leftists; gays who stand in the left-wing Stonewall, Gay Liberation tradition, and who are recognized and embraced as such (rather than rejected and criticized) by the other apostles of that tradition – who understand, and value, and seek to promote, *monogamy* as the ideal for gays to emulate.
Can’t do it? Cat got your tongue?
Nothing inherent in *classical* liberalism, very true. As a classical liberal, I would know. But inherent in leftism? Yes. Very much so. Most of the great leftists in history have derided monogamy and traditional marriage as “bourgeois” (or other names). And the left-liberalism of which I speak, modern American left-liberalism, is far more left than liberal, as I’ve explained to you many times now.
See history. No-fault divorce is an historically recent innovation; marriage worked for hundreds of years without it – and yes, there were still ways to divorce couples appropriately.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2009 @ 1:25 pm - April 5, 2009
“…and change it to include multiple partners, open relationships, and serial monogamy. They are not trying to be included in the tradition–they are trying to warp the tradition because they believe they are victimized by a cruel patriarchy who uses marriage as a tool of oppression.”
Some might. One could even trot out an example or three. But the plaintiffs in these cases aren’t hanging out at truck stops or swingers bars. They’re too busy raising kids and working at their family life to be hedonists. On behalf of them and the many like-minded gays, I say we should be able to marry.
And, as individuals and couples, we should have the right to screw the institution up just as badly as straight people have managed to do for centuries. Being heterosexual doesn’t give anyone a moral claim to hegemony on equal protection under the law. The notion that there’s a plot afoot to “destroy marriage” is the paranoid rantings of the self-loathing and small.
And self-loathing, small people deserve to be kicked out of their beloved’s hospital room as he lays dying, not be allowed to adopt a foster kid thriving under their care, and have their homes seized by bigoted relatives when they are widowed and the decedent’s will is challenged. Good luck, kids!
Comment by Thomas — April 5, 2009 @ 1:34 pm - April 5, 2009
Wow. Thanks for clearing that up. In the wake of marital bliss since the passage of Prop 8 I had forgotten the true motivation behind our marriage: to cheapen, denigrate and ultimately destroy the institution as revenge for years upon years of oppression. And that it had nothing to do with being head-over-heels in love with my partner with whom I’ve enjoyed a faithful 9-year relationship.
I’m sure that the 16 thousand same-sex couples who were married in California last year were similarly motivated, their desire to “warp” the institution of marriage central to their vows of matrimony.
While I encourage and welcome open discourse, featuring Asphenaz’s comment so prominently here, giving it an air of credibility, speaks volumes. And the labeling of those of who dissent as fascist seems de riguer for this site.
Please, don’t generalize and paint with broad strokes my reasons for supporting gay marriage, as I will not generalize that most visitors here are self-hating homosexuals, bent over and enjoying a reach-around by the social conservatives who drive the agenda for their party/movement.
Comment by Inlookout — April 5, 2009 @ 1:39 pm - April 5, 2009
It really feels odd to have people sort of agree with me. I’m not sure how to respond. You like me–you really like me!?!
Most people see marriage as designed by God for heterosexuals–certainly, Rick Warren and the Mormons and 90% of Iowans do. So, when gay activists argue about how society changes over time and traditions should too, they are completely missing the point Warren and the Mormons and 90% of Iowans are trying to make. So everybody throws rocks at each other.
I believe, with Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc., that marriage is designed by God for heterosexuals. So I share a foundation with Warren, et. al., that gay activists don’t. I also believe that Jesus welcomed eunuchs, that is, people born without the inclination for traditional marriage, into His Kingdom. I also believe that Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz, the Centurion and his pais all had same-sex covenants which were blessed by God. So, I can demonstrate the positive side of same-sex relationships with Warren et. al., because I am building from the same foundation.
Gay activists simply undo any good I and other gay Christians might do by trying to undermine and remake a tradition which was not designed for homosexuals. I want to work toward a new tradition which is based on the same moral absolutes which God gives to heterosexuals. I bet that makes more sense to more Americans than the gay left.
Comment by Ashpenaz — April 5, 2009 @ 1:43 pm - April 5, 2009
I’d really like someone to find a prominent gay activist who says that gay relationships should be lifelong and sexually exclusive. Just one.
Comment by Ashpenaz — April 5, 2009 @ 2:28 pm - April 5, 2009
Gene Robinson:
I am committed to monogamy and faithfulness in relationships. Some would argue, ‘Oh my God! If we give in on this, the next thing is we’ll be having threesomes and foursomes and sex with animals and children.’ That is absolutely absurd. No one is saying that anything goes. What we are saying is that faithful, monogamous, lifelong, intentioned relationships don’t always have to be with the opposite sex.
Also some education:
Gay and Lesbian Youth Want Long-Term Couple Relationships and Raising Children
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/540057/
Comment by Inlookout — April 5, 2009 @ 3:14 pm - April 5, 2009
Inlookout, you reinforce the point I made in the post which started all this (to which Ashpenaz originally attached his comment). Now, if people like you would speak out more and the leading gay marriage advocates — or the MSM–would give you more prominence.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 5, 2009 @ 3:22 pm - April 5, 2009
I’m very happy to see people from all sides of the issue point out the extreme and potentially misleading aspects of the claims made in this post. I am sick and tired, after 22 years of a monogamous relationship, of not only being left out of the discussion, but of being told I support things I have never supported and that, as a result, I should understand and accept people denying me rights available to any serial killer on death row.
For the record, when I was a leftist gay activist I rejected all calls for anything but extending traditional marriage rights and concepts to gays. Further I have always, as a leftist and non-leftist, strongly believed that children should have married patents (unfortunately some of my straight friends haven’t gone that route, to my disapproval).
It’s certainly the case that there are people who believe as stated in this post, and that they have seriously hurt the cause by becoming the public face of this issue. Rather than tarring all of us with their crimes, and perpetuating the idea that it is understandable for rights to be denied because of them, how about finding out how many people DON’T believe in that stuff and championing THEIR stories once in a while?
Comment by Ronald Hayden — April 5, 2009 @ 3:24 pm - April 5, 2009
No one is saying that anything goes.
Isn’t it amazing how much gay-sex liberals like Gene Robinson lie?
Just look at Beyond Marriage, which demands legalization of parent-child and sibling relationships, as well as “households with more than one conjugal partner”.
Or look at this:
In the case of lust, Savage attends a Lifestyles Organization (LSO) swinger’s convention in Las Vegas, where heterosexual couples add spice to their lives by swapping spouses. Here Savage reminds us that monogamy is unnatural, and that “only fools would build marriages with monogamy as their foundation (and only a foolish society would demand such behavior).â€
Since Gene Robinson is demonstrably a liar, why should anyone believe him when he says he supports monogamy and commitment? If he does, why isn’t he speaking out against his fellow gay-sex liberals who advocate exactly the opposite?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 3:30 pm - April 5, 2009
Look at it this way – Even a broken clock is right twice a day
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you’ve suggested before that Americans were tolerant of gays until Stonewall / the modern gay era. Sorry, but I find that highly mistaken. Public discourse in the early 1960s, 50s, 40s, 30s, 20s generally numbered homosexuals among the criminally insane, hardly an attitude of tolerance.
I’ve also seen you invoke “queer theory” before, to emphasize the fluidity of sexual orientation / identity. Again sorry, but Queer Theory isn’t worth much and sexual orientation isn’t fluid for most people; only for a minority, and we even have a special name for that minority, though perhaps a poorly-chosen name. (Bisexuals)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2009 @ 3:32 pm - April 5, 2009
How about finding out how many people DON’T believe in that stuff and championing THEIR stories once in a while?
Sure, and how about The Advocate, the Blade, the Logo Channel, the HRC, and all of those other groups coming out strongly in favor of committed monogamy as the ideal for teh ghey relationships? How about those same groups denounce events like Folsom Street Fair, Southern Decadence, and the like as being depraved, indecent, and unrepresentative of the values of gay people. Any chance of that?
Comment by V the K — April 5, 2009 @ 3:34 pm - April 5, 2009
Rather than tarring all of us with their crimes, and perpetuating the idea that it is understandable for rights to be denied because of them, how about finding out how many people DON’T believe in that stuff and championing THEIR stories once in a while?
How about you get off your ass and start going after them, Ronald? You know, like you do after your STRAIGHT friends who do things of which you disapprove?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 3:34 pm - April 5, 2009
As usual, let’s trot out Dan Savage who obviously speaks for the overwhelming entirety of the gay community.
While I often find his columns entertaining, I don’t share his views on same-sex marriage. But I guess since I am gay, and I am liberal, and probably a fascist… I must.
Comment by Inlookout — April 5, 2009 @ 3:44 pm - April 5, 2009
well said, inlookout.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 5, 2009 @ 3:47 pm - April 5, 2009
Ah, but you see, Inlookout, I didn’t just trot out Dan Savage; I also brought out the Beyond Marriage coalition, which includes literally thousands of gay leaders and has the blessing and backing of gay organizations like NGLTF. I also quoted above the No on 8 campaign, which you fully supported and endorsed, namecalling and deriding marriage as a “patriarchal” institution and saying that gays should avoid the “moral and symbolic” value of marriage.
When you throw the same sort of screaming hissy fits against them that you do against the gay people here and anyone else who you happen to dislike, then you might have a point.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 4:10 pm - April 5, 2009
Yes, I think society was much more accepting and tolerant of homosexuals before Stonewall. I think that instead of gay marriage, we should work for the legalization same-sex covenants based on the groundwork laid by previous generations of homosexuals. My image of a homosexual covenant is based on David and Jonathan, Achilles and Patroclus, Sergius and Bacchus, the covenants of the Middle Ages described by Boswell, the relationship Tennyson wrote about in In Memoriam, the “adhesion” described by Whitman, the various cowboy couples, the Boston marriages, etc.–these were all ways of being public and out in society before Stonewall. And they weren’t an attempt to undermine straight marriage–they were homosexuals’ own creative way of developing partnerships. Our goal should not be to mimic heterosexual relationships, but to honor our history by legalizing our own fiercely loyal, monogamous, and lifelong relationships created by our forebears. And foreotters.
Comment by Ashpenaz — April 5, 2009 @ 4:11 pm - April 5, 2009
As usual, let’s trot out Dan Savage who obviously speaks for the overwhelming entirety of the gay community.
Well, show us some prominent gay persons, organizations, or media outlets denouncing Savage. Where exactly are the gay organizations that call for commitment and monogamy as the model for gay relationships? Show me someone besides affirmed liar Gene Robinson.
Comment by V the K — April 5, 2009 @ 4:13 pm - April 5, 2009
Going out on a limb here, Ashpenaz, but I’m guessing you’ve never spent any time in Iowa — excluding flyover time. While repealing the same-sex marriage ban would not win a referendum — yet — bundling up the same set of rights in a package labeled “civil union” probably would. That, after all, is what civil marriage is. The folks floating around Hollywood may assign us the role of simple-minded rubes, but reality, fortunately, does not.
BTW, are there any reliable stats on divorce rates that distinguish the underlying marriages by whether they were strictly civil in nature versus those that began with a religious consecration?
Comment by Brezhnev — April 5, 2009 @ 4:16 pm - April 5, 2009
I think society was much more accepting and tolerant of homosexuals before Stonewall.
Wasn’t around then, but I tend to think you have a point. What most people don’t seem to realize is that the Religious Right didn’t start the Culture War, the Religious Right is a product of the Culture Wars. When the left took over schools, the media, and the mainline churches and used them to push their socialist and libertine agendas, those who were appalled by the use of state institutions to assault their values fought back.
And a lot of us are concerned about what comes next after the “Gay Marriage” is checked on the Gay Agenda. I certainly don’t expect the likes of HRC and NGLTF to dissolve their organizations and get real jobs. If examples from abroad are followed, churches will be sued for not performing same-sex ceremonies (look what happened to eHarmony), and “hate speech” laws against anyone who opposes any aspect of gay life can be expected. At which point, boob, lookout, and the rest will cheer just as they cheer the Prop-8 hate groups targeting people who donated to the campaign.
Comment by V the K — April 5, 2009 @ 4:22 pm - April 5, 2009
OK Brezhnev, I’m guessing you’re new to this site. Ashphenaz most likely HAS been to Iowa: he lives in Nebraska (the state right next door to the west of Iowa).
Comment by Jimbo — April 5, 2009 @ 4:25 pm - April 5, 2009
“Here’s why–gay advocates want to undermine the traditional understanding of marriage…”
These are your words, Ashpernaz. Now, in Item 12 you are saying
“prominent gay activist”, not any gay advocate. Why are you now qualifying your words? Painting any idea with such a board brush can get you into trouble with words. I do not know any prominent gay activist personally. But I do read articles written by gays who believe that gay relationships should be lifelong and sexually exclusive. And I personally know gay couples who have been in sexually exclusive relationships for a very long time. One couple I attended their wedding in church back in 1986 and they have been happily married ever since (even though society and the government here in Virginia does not recognize their vows as being a legal marriage).
Yes, North Dallas Thirty, they really are many Christians that believe gays should be able to be legally married and that their relationships should be lifelong and sexually exclusive. And many of them are not left leaning liberals. And they are not so quick to judge other people who happen to disagree with them.
Comment by Cecil — April 5, 2009 @ 4:35 pm - April 5, 2009
Just as LaBarbera speaks for everybody on the right, I suppose.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 5, 2009 @ 4:48 pm - April 5, 2009
Wow, North Dallas Thirty… your not actually saying that Beyond Marriage advocates marriage between siblings and multiple partners? Is that how you are painting it? Is everything on the left so insidious to you?
They don’t advocate it. They acknowledge that different kinds of families exist, and those families deserve some of the same basic economic benefits awarded to married couples, who enjoy them whether they choose to form a family or not. If one of the primary definitions of marriage is to preserve the family, and a couple chooses not to have children, is there not an inherent hypocrisy in allowing them to enjoy the privilege and benefits of marriage?
From the report:
Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. While we honor those for whom marriage is the most meaningful personal – for some, also a deeply spiritual – choice, we believe that many other kinds of kinship relationship, households, and families must also be accorded recognition.
and…
Rather than focus on same-sex marriage rights as the only strategy, we believe the LGBT movement should reinforce the idea that marriage should be one of many avenues through which households, families, partners, and kinship relationships can gain access to the support of a caring civil society.
I wonder of NDT really knows what he is talking about…
Comment by Inlookout — April 5, 2009 @ 4:55 pm - April 5, 2009
I am fairly optimistic that LaBarbera doesn’t speak for everyone on the right. But I don’t have enough fingers or toes to count the LaBarera clones who get plenty of attention on the radio, tv and internet spreading anti-gay rhetoric.
Tell me, how many Dan Savage’s are out there?
Lefties are always accused of giving their own a pass, and I am sure it’s true some of the time, but it also happens on the right. How many times have I seen gay conservative blogs take to task some of the most hateful things said about the gay community by members of their own movement?
Not often enough I’m afraid.
Comment by Inlookout — April 5, 2009 @ 5:07 pm - April 5, 2009
Lookout is wrong, of course. Traditional, monogamous heterosexual marriage is the best vehicle, the best foundation for society, and as such does deserve a unique and privileged status above all other arrangements.
Not only does it provide the stability that is so essentially to the raising of children, but it also provides an ideal model for children raised in that environment to emulate. Children raised in stable, committed environments in turn benefit society by becoming the most productive citizens, who contribute the most while demanding the least in resources. No other arrangement succeeds better at raising children than the committed, monogamous heterosexual one.
Even I, as a single, adoptive parent can admit that. Yes: married heterosexual couples make better parents. See, I said it, but my life is still worthy, I still did a pretty fair job at raising my boys, my sense of self-validation is intact even though I can admit the environment I raised them in was less-than-ideal.
Also, in saying that he doesn’t think there’s anything special about a traditional family, he more or less concedes the point of the original post. Game. Set. Match.
Comment by V the K — April 5, 2009 @ 5:27 pm - April 5, 2009
They acknowledge that different kinds of families exist, and those families deserve some of the same basic economic benefits awarded to married couples, who enjoy them whether they choose to form a family or not.
What an utter whitewash. Quote:
To have our government define as “legitimate families†only those households with couples in conjugal relationships does a tremendous disservice to the many other ways in which people actually construct their families, kinship networks, households, and relationships. For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?
This statement says that households “in which there is more than one conjugal partner”, “single parent households”, parent-child relationships, and people who set out to make a child that belongs to neither couple, but which will be shared between households, are just as socially, economically, and spiritually valuable, useful, and practical as marriage, and should be accorded equal recognition.
Problem here, Inlookout, is that gay-sex liberals like yourself simply don’t have the capability to recognize right and wrong any more. Instead of sticking up for marriage as something special and recognizing that it does hold more value to society than these other relationships, your need to defend the leftist gay community and its utter contempt for marriage takes precedence. You would rather support and endorse plural relationships than dare tell your fellow gay-sex liberals they’re wrong.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 5:36 pm - April 5, 2009
You hear this so much, that we forget to actually question it, but what exactly is so stable about the traditional (meaning Victorian) view of marriage? The family could be poor, forcing a choice between both parents working and letting the kids in some sense fend for themselves. The mother or father can die, leaving the kids with only one parent. The couple can get divorced, leaving one parent with the primary responsibility, and the other often off somewhere vaguely connected to the family. Or the two parents can simply dislike each other, leading to all sorts of instability. What exactly is so stable about the Victorian nuclear family?
Comment by Little Boots — April 5, 2009 @ 5:37 pm - April 5, 2009
Also, in saying that he doesn’t think there’s anything special about a traditional family, he more or less concedes the point of the original post. Game. Set. Match.
Exactly, V the K. Isn’t it funny how gay-sex liberals like Inlookout insist they need marriage to validate their relationships, but then insist that marriage is meaningless and of exactly the same value to society as incestuous and plural relationships?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 5:38 pm - April 5, 2009
Again with the weird and arbitrary censorship.
Comment by Little Boots — April 5, 2009 @ 5:41 pm - April 5, 2009
This is pointless!
We will have parity on this issue – and in my lifetime – but doing it through the courts is a recipe for disaster.
What about Roe? Think that solved anything? Forty years of sniffing robes to see how they might “vote” on the issue?
We live in a democratic republic, for chrissakes. Knock on doors and rally friends to get it voted on the state legislature, if it means so much to you.
Personally, I’ve never looked to straights to validate my existence, but if that’s your game – more power to you! Canvas the neighborhoods – the blueprint is right there. The courts might be tempting way to short-circuit the process and give the stiff digit to the voting public, but believe me – they won’t take it lying down.
Comment by MFS — April 5, 2009 @ 5:43 pm - April 5, 2009
In the pre-1960s era, gay sex was illegal in most states. Gay bars were routinely raided. Gays, or anyone with a gay impulse, were routinely ‘treated’ with electroshock therapy. ‘Gay jokes’ were de rigeur. Hiding one’s homosexual impulses was de rigeur. Gays were routinely fired from jobs – for nothing they’d done.
Now, none of that ended overnight and I am not claiming it did, so you can find continued instances of all that into the 80s, 90s, maybe even today. It’s also true that there have always been little pockets of acceptance for discreet homosexuality – for example, the Old West or whatever.
But today, gay sex is illegal in 0 states. Having it known that you’re gay is no big deal. To suggest that earlier eras were more tolerant of homosexuality than the era we are living in, is simply absurd. Or a claim greatly in need of extensive proof, shall we say.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2009 @ 5:44 pm - April 5, 2009
(Earlier eras in modern times, I mean. I’m aware that Greek, Roman, and even medieval times to some extent, up to the 13th or 14th century, were gay-accepting.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2009 @ 5:46 pm - April 5, 2009
Gay sex is illegal in 0 states because of judicial activism, indeed, the dreaded Supreme Court Activism. You do know that, ILC, right?
Comment by Little Boots — April 5, 2009 @ 5:49 pm - April 5, 2009
And on a side note, the middle ages were anything but “gay accepting.” That had to be overcome by evil LIEberals and secularists.
Comment by Little Boots — April 5, 2009 @ 5:51 pm - April 5, 2009
Gay sex is illegal in 0 states because of judicial activism, indeed, the dreaded Supreme Court Activism. You do know that, ILC, right?
Actually, that only applies to 14 states (and only 4 who applied only to gays) because of judicial activism. Such statutes had already been repealed or were nonexistent in 36 others.
Let’s see, four versus 36. I’d say legislative action wins that one. Too bad it’s something that gay-sex liberals like Little Boots are utterly incapable of doing, mainly because it requires making coherent and intelligent arguments to more than a few people.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 5:55 pm - April 5, 2009
No, LB. Not in the sense you mean.
‘Judicial activism’ refers to positive legislation from the bench, or the mandating of legislation. ‘Judicial review’ refers to veto from the bench. Striking down sodomy laws was an example of the latter, not the former. So your quip is worthless, LB.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2009 @ 5:55 pm - April 5, 2009
how do you feel about judicially mandated equal education opportunities
Comment by Kevin — April 5, 2009 @ 5:55 pm - April 5, 2009
Wrong again, LB. Up to the 13th or 14th century, large areas of Western Europe were relatively gay-accepting: more so than in the centuries that followed. I think Ash might agree with me on that bit, at least, and could tell you more about it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2009 @ 5:57 pm - April 5, 2009
In other words, when you agree with the ruling, it’s judicial review, when you don’t it’s judicial activism. Got it.
Comment by Little Boots — April 5, 2009 @ 5:58 pm - April 5, 2009
What are we talking about? Be more specific. Are we talking about the striking down of bad laws that prevent it? Or are we talking about, say, school busing – that is, acts of positive legislation from the bench that actually harm education and harm kids?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2009 @ 5:58 pm - April 5, 2009
And no, ILC, homosexuality was never accepted in Christendom. It was, in very restricted ways that a lot of us would reject, in the Hellenistic Age. It is a silly fantasy that because Kings and Popes did not actually have the power to stamp out homosexuality that it was in any way accepted.
Comment by Little Boots — April 5, 2009 @ 6:00 pm - April 5, 2009
Wrong again, LB. As I said:
- ‘Judicial activism’ refers to positive legislation from the bench, or mandating that the Legislature write some legislation.
- ‘Judicial review’ refers to veto from the bench of legislation already written and passed.
Please try harder, LB, if you want to be an effective and respected participant in this forum.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2009 @ 6:01 pm - April 5, 2009
I can see you’re behind the times.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2009 @ 6:02 pm - April 5, 2009
It was, in very restricted ways that a lot of us would reject, in the Hellenistic Age.
Yup, as in gay people were perfectly free to do as they wished, but if they wanted the benefits and privileges of marriage, it had to be with a woman.
I wonder why they were able to figure that one out?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 6:06 pm - April 5, 2009
No, NDT, as in men of all kinds were expected to penetrate their social inferiors: slaves, boys, or women.
Comment by Little Boots — April 5, 2009 @ 6:08 pm - April 5, 2009
WTF is a gay-sex liberal? Is this some unique turn of a phrase you’ve coined NDT? How clever… How sad.
I was not describing my view, but the reports’. If I didn’t believe in the importance and the idea of marriage why would I have bothered? It must have meant something if I was willing to put myself into serious debt doing it. But I also believe other types of families shouldn’t be left out in the cold. I’m not qualified (and neither are you) to determine where those boundaries should be drawn, but am in general sympathetic to their efforts. Plus acknowledgement vs encouragement (which you seem to think the report suggests) are totally separate things, and the distinction is often lost in trying to make a partisan point.
Bringing up incest is entirely another matter however, and I wonder how and why your mind insists on bending in that direction. Again sad, and so typical, that you have to frame your argument on those terms.
Comment by Inlookout — April 5, 2009 @ 6:09 pm - April 5, 2009
Kevin #44 is absolutly right and I’ll cop to it.
Brown v Board of Education flies morally with the angels and procedurally sent us all to Hell. Conservatives (and libertarians) were concerned at the time that allowing this “one, important exception” would open the floodgates.
Sure, it standardized where the country was heading. But the cost is played out every day with exactly the sort of nonsense that caused such heat and light here. No good will come of this.
Comment by MFS — April 5, 2009 @ 6:11 pm - April 5, 2009
First of all, I’m not sure how true all of that is. I am sure those things happened, but I don’t know how systemic it all was. So much of what I was fed as propaganda as a kid has turned out to be not true, I am suspicious whenever leftists describe a history that suits their narrative.
BTW, gay jokes are still de rigeur, even among Reliably left-wing producers.
Second, I just increasingly come to believe that society doesn’t have to celebrate everything it tolerates.
Third, people get fired for bad reasons all the time. I think the cure for it is a robust and open market with lots of opportunity, not laws where the government dictates to employers who they have to hire and who they can’t fire.
Comment by V the K — April 5, 2009 @ 6:11 pm - April 5, 2009
And I can see you’re behind some times and ahead of others, ILC. There was never an acceptance of homosexuality in Christendom, however much latter-day gay Christianists would like to pretend there was. Acceptance of gay people has been entirely the work of people questioning conservative views of society.
Comment by Little Boots — April 5, 2009 @ 6:11 pm - April 5, 2009
Describe this “celebration” V the K. And for that matter, describe the propaganda that has turned out to be untrue. Mccarthyism? Jim Crow Laws? Homosexuality being illegal?
Comment by Little Boots — April 5, 2009 @ 6:17 pm - April 5, 2009
As a member of the liberal left, and someone who has been in a monogamous gay relationship for 24 years, it is interesting to hear how others are defining me.
Comment by Loren Olson — April 5, 2009 @ 6:22 pm - April 5, 2009
V, all of the older heterosexuals that I know have always told me it is so. They grew up in the 30s, 40s, 50s and witnessed the transition from the 70s to today. My dad, my mom, my stepmom, my uncle, all told me in no uncertain terms that gays were treated far more negatively when they were younger. Ask the ‘old people’ you know.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2009 @ 6:22 pm - April 5, 2009
Agreed.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2009 @ 6:41 pm - April 5, 2009
There will never be “lots of opportunity” for the vast number of people. Most will have to choose between one crappy job or crappy company or crappy boss or another. That is reality. Trying to ameliorate that reality with some laws about hiring and firing makes a lot of sense in that context.
Comment by Little Boots — April 5, 2009 @ 6:44 pm - April 5, 2009
OK, put me on a cross – I thought the ‘Glory Hole’ bit was amusing. LOL.
Comment by MFS — April 5, 2009 @ 6:47 pm - April 5, 2009
If I didn’t believe in the importance and the idea of marriage why would I have bothered? It must have meant something if I was willing to put myself into serious debt doing it.
Yes; it meant an excuse to throw a big party that you couldn’t afford.
Perhaps the problem here is that we simply don’t view marriage the same way. I view it as the bedrock of society, an institution created, maintained, and solemnized to stabilize our world and produce the best possible environment for perpetuating society’s values, culture, and basic biology, built on a meaningful lifelong commitment between two individuals who agree to stay together and to work through the problems of two becoming one.
You, on the other hand, seem to view it as an excuse to throw a party. Perhaps that’s why you’re so willing to side with those who insist that there’s nothing special about marriage, that Octo-Mom should have all the rights and benefits without having to make the commitment, that sort of thing. It’s really nothing more than an event to the gay left, with little to no meaning or value outside tax breaks and party planning.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 6:58 pm - April 5, 2009
Bringing up incest is entirely another matter however, and I wonder how and why your mind insists on bending in that direction.
Actually, you don’t wonder it at all. You’re simply too much of a coward to come right out and accuse me of it, so you try the smear by implication game.
What’s really funny is how you in one post say you “aren’t qualified” to say that things like incestuous relationships are wrong and “draw the boundaries” like that, but then try to insult me by implying that I am or have engaged in one. That’s why I call you a gay-sex liberal; your value system is quite obviously that anything gay or related to sexual gratification must always be right, and everything else in society should rework itself to accomodate that.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 7:04 pm - April 5, 2009
Not if Democrats and the Dear Teleprompter have their way; certainly not. But we already knew that.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2009 @ 7:06 pm - April 5, 2009
ndt: seek. therapy. now.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 5, 2009 @ 7:07 pm - April 5, 2009
“… and don’t confuse me [LB] with any facts!”
http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Social-Tolerance-Homosexuality-Fourteenth/dp/0226067114/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238973048&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238973048&sr=1-2
(Cue a totally misinformed, meaningless shriek of “Boswell was debunked!!!!(tm)” by someone who very obviously hasn’t read the material, in 5… 4… 3…)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2009 @ 7:12 pm - April 5, 2009
And, bob reverts to personal attacks, as he always does.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2009 @ 7:16 pm - April 5, 2009
Little Boots,
Using the IA court ruling, as well as the court ruling on the LA death penalty for minors, we do see the court not ruling on the laws as written, so much as consensus, AKA “[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.â€
If the courts in the 60′s and before had found such mysteries as generational standards, they’d not find the drugs and ect horrid. After all the ‘standards of the generation’ was that it was a mental aberration that needed to be corrected.
And I’m sure those cheering this decision will be the first in line to cheer, if the ‘standards of the generation’ are seen differently in 20 years.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 5, 2009 @ 7:18 pm - April 5, 2009
Unlike under Bush, ILC. Are you trying to be a caricature, or is it just an inevitable byproduct of too much Ayn Rand in your younger years?
Comment by Little Boots — April 5, 2009 @ 7:18 pm - April 5, 2009
The funny part is that boob says that people like me who support monogamy and commitment in marriage, see the value of it for society, and think committed heterosexual relationships are the best ones for childraising, need “therapy”.
People who take kids dressed as sex slaves to sex fairs? People who insist that monogamy is “foolish” and “harmful”? People who demand recognition for incestuous and plural relationships? People who blast marriage as “patriarchal” and something to be avoided? All part of the “diversity” of the gay community that boob champions.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 7:19 pm - April 5, 2009
How would you define “cruel and unusual” without reference to any generational standards, Livewire?
Comment by Little Boots — April 5, 2009 @ 7:19 pm - April 5, 2009
I loved Caligula.
*snicker*
Comment by Ignatius — April 5, 2009 @ 7:20 pm - April 5, 2009
Silly gay-sex conservative.
What I was implying is that people often use incendiary words or phrases to draw up support for their cause and frame the argument slanted to their POV. Like “on-demand abortion.” Like “incest.”
As for party, yeah i just needed an excuse to throw one… And what tax breaks? Sorry there were none. Shouldn’t you know that?
And for the record, don’t assume I want to give Octo-Mom a free lunch. I don’t and won’t. I’m of half a mind the kids should be placed with gay foster parents.
Done.
Comment by Inlookout — April 5, 2009 @ 7:22 pm - April 5, 2009
Well, don’t tell NTD, Ignatius. He might think you’re teh gay!
Comment by Little Boots — April 5, 2009 @ 7:22 pm - April 5, 2009
And, bob reverts to personal attacks, as he always does.
You can’t really expect someone who hasn’t mastered capitals to argue like a grown-up, can you?
Hm, I’m sure most here are aware that “Caligula” translates at “Little Boots.” I guess that’s the real “values message” being transmitted by the new troll.
What I was implying is that people often use incendiary words or phrases to draw up support for their cause and frame the argument slanted to their POV.
Like when leftists use the word “hate” to describe any position that disagrees with theirs.
Comment by V the K — April 5, 2009 @ 7:33 pm - April 5, 2009
Bringing up incest is entirely another matter however, and I wonder how and why your mind insists on bending in that direction.
BTW, Adult incest is legal in Spain, France, Portugal, and the Netherlands. Sweden allows incestuous couples to marry. So, it’s not really irrelevant to point out where “progressive” attitudes of sexuality lead to.
Comment by V the K — April 5, 2009 @ 7:37 pm - April 5, 2009
Not a troll, and not transmitting any “values” message. But carry on with the mutual admiration society.
Comment by Little Boots — April 5, 2009 @ 7:37 pm - April 5, 2009
Wow. Just wow.
Gay couples who have been together for 20 years want to get married to destroy traditional marriage? Do you honestly believe that?
BTW, “multiple partners, open relationships, and serial monogamy” already existed in heterosexual culture long before there was any serious debate on same sex marriage. Gays are not to blame failure of so many marriages and relationships.
If the institution of marriage is in trouble, it is not the doing of folks like me. Straight people screwed this up all on their own and need to stop scapegoating and fix their own broken relationships.
Comment by Houndentenor — April 5, 2009 @ 7:40 pm - April 5, 2009
And again, which of the terrible things you were homeschooled about turn out to be false: racism in American history, homophobia, misogyny? What exactly do you think was going on before you graced this planet with your presence?
Comment by Little Boots — April 5, 2009 @ 7:40 pm - April 5, 2009
BTW, some of you have been living in California too long. I can’t remember the last time I heard the word “patriarchal” used in a sentence except on right wing blogs. I know there are radical lefties who obsess about this sort of thing but they really are the fringe everywhere but a few liberal oases. They are off the radar even for most progressives.
Comment by Houndentenor — April 5, 2009 @ 7:42 pm - April 5, 2009
Bush ran deficits in the 100-500 billion range and “misery indexes” (inflation plus unemployment) in the 7-8 range. The Dear Teleprompter is running deficits in the 1-2 trillion range and his current misery index is 9 and counting. But I digress. And, another digression, I was and am a heavy critic of Bush’s economic policies.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2009 @ 7:42 pm - April 5, 2009
I know there are radical lefties who obsess about this sort of thing but they really are the fringe everywhere but a few liberal oases. They are off the radar even for most progressives.
Which is, of course, why they were leading the No on 8 campaign.
But emphasizing the moral or symbolic importance of the m-word could alienate some religious and unmarried families, both of which make up a large segment of potential voters. Discussing the latter group, Jean offered her own version of a response to the princess ad, to much laughter and applause:
“Here’s the message I wanted to see. … ‘You’re right honey, you can marry a princess, and isn’t that wonderful? You can also marry someone of [a different] race. And you know what, you don’t have to get married; in fact I think you should consider whether you want to participate in that patriarchal institution.’â€
Jean wasn’t the only one at Creating Change calling for pro-marriage messages that were nontraditional and spoke to the reality of many American families. Featured panelists stressed the importance of non-apologetic messaging, building coalitions, and opening up legal and social possibilities for all people.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 7:47 pm - April 5, 2009
How exactly do you think nation’s avert depressions, ILC, other than prayer and pretense? Deficit spending. That is the only option in the face of a depression. No, tax cuts for the top 2 percent don’t do it. Sorry. Only massive deficit spending does it. That’s it. That’s the only option. Sorry if that violates Randian principles, but there it is.
Comment by Little Boots — April 5, 2009 @ 7:50 pm - April 5, 2009
Gay couples who have been together for 20 years want to get married to destroy traditional marriage?
Sort of. I mean, maybe back in the sixties, advocates for the “Great Society” and “Sexual Liberation” didn’t know that they were going to sentence millions to intergenerational poverty, devastate family structures, and create massive, unsustainable government programs. (There were a few people warning that they would. These people were ignored.) They only focused on doing what made them feel better about themselves, and damn the consequences.
Some of these couples may not know, or think, about the social ramifications of what they are demanding. Some do, and they just don’t care. They only care about their own personal validation, and aren’t giving thought to what happens to society.
People who support it may well have good intentions. A helicopter parent who goes out of her way to make sure her child never confronts any obstacle or adversity may think she is doing so out of compassion; but the kid grows up to be neurotic and weak because he has never had to deal with any real challenges.
We all know what paves the road to Hell.
Comment by V the K — April 5, 2009 @ 7:54 pm - April 5, 2009
And for the record, don’t assume I want to give Octo-Mom a free lunch. I don’t and won’t.
Sorry; this is what you said previously.
But I also believe other types of families shouldn’t be left out in the cold. I’m not qualified (and neither are you) to determine where those boundaries should be drawn, but am in general sympathetic to their efforts.
Too bad you were too busy trying to defend your fellow gay-sex liberals to actually think about the consequences of what you were doing and saying. By your own words, you have no right to condemn Octo-Mom, and in fact are being a bad person by not being sympathetic to her and demanding that she receive the same recognition and reward as married couples.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 7:56 pm - April 5, 2009
Then, please identify the leaders in the gay marriage movement who strongly advocate that monogamy and commitment are intrinsic to the institution of marriage. Quotes and cites, please. (He said, raising the usual crucifix and garlic to the vampire of vapid left-wing talking points.)
Comment by V the K — April 5, 2009 @ 7:57 pm - April 5, 2009
Or it may be one of those cases where mythical threats to society, never really spelled out in any detail, turn out to be crap, like the way ending slavery or segregation or miscegenation laws didn’t actually doom society, despite all the howling and shrieking beforehand.
Comment by Little Boots — April 5, 2009 @ 7:57 pm - April 5, 2009
Every time NDT has made an assertion about the Gay Left, he has backed it up with a link to a prominent SSM advocate or publication backing it up. The number of links or citations I’ve seen from those denying what he says is… let me recount… ZERO!.
Comment by V the K — April 5, 2009 @ 8:15 pm - April 5, 2009
(There were a few people warning that they would. These people were ignored.)
Or, more precisely, called “haters”, told they were “uncompassionate”, and denounced in the public square.
It all ties to what a very wise sage once told me: the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe the people who came before them may have known a thing or two, and liberals are sure those people didn’t know anything.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 8:36 pm - April 5, 2009
Or, conservatives are those who believe in doing what has been proven to work, and avoiding what has been proven to fail. Liberals are the other way around.
Since none of the little letter people can substantiate their talking points, maybe we should try an experiment. Someone with a stronger stomach than me should find a gay marriage thread on a popular left-wing blog, comment under a pseudonym saying things like gay couples should be committed and monogamous and emulate heterosexual marriage, and see how the regulars respond to that. Then, we’d have more evidence about what their values actually are.
Comment by V the K — April 5, 2009 @ 8:47 pm - April 5, 2009
St. Sergius. St. Aelred. Michelangelo. Gerard Manley Hopkins. W. H. Auden. Handel. OK, that’s just a short list of gay Christi–ns in history. Any hint of oppression there? Read Boswell’s work on gay rituals.
My Mom got married in the 50s. My Dad’s best man was gay. We lived down the street from an openly gay couple. Certainly, I had openly gay friends–in high school, we hung out after school at a disco run by a gay man from New York. It’s how I met Grace Jones. This was in South Dakota. It wasn’t a big deal.
As I’ve tried to explain, sodomy laws may have been on the books, but that was just for show. They were never enforced. Uncle Joe and his good friend John shared a house in the country and nobody batted an eye. Even Oscar Wilde was tried not for sex acts, but because his friend’s father thought he was of the wrong class. Please read the writings of Ruskin, Whitman, Melville, and Tennyson, just for a start–they were completely open about their feelings for men and no one victimized them for it.
The point is, gays don’t have to mimic heterosexuals. We don’t need marriage. We can work for equal rights based on a different understanding of relationships. We can be loyal, monogamous, lifelong partners, the way we have always been portrayed in history. We can skip over the post-Stonewall years as a bad blip in an otherwise wonderful, creative history. We can be separate but better.
Comment by Ashpenaz — April 5, 2009 @ 9:22 pm - April 5, 2009
Well… I thought I was done.
NDT… You level an accusation, and then ignore the rebuttal. Can I take that your decline to address the rebuttal as an act of affirmation?
Your arguments are so tangential. You take a point and run with it, do a 180 run with another point. Never know which way you are going next. First I’m out to destroy gay marriage. Then you call Gene Robinson a liar. The you get bent out of shape about incest. And then I’m bad because I don’t support Octo Mom (but no credit for supporting her children).
You know they have medication for that and well the outrage, well, it’s just phony.
Comment by Inlookout — April 5, 2009 @ 9:30 pm - April 5, 2009
And the way Lookout refutes NDT’s arguments (supported by facts and citations) is to … list some of them and tell him to take medication.
I thought the left was supposed to be smarter than us, more informed, better at arguing… but this is all we ever seem to get. I’m not seeing it, frankly.
No evidence that most gay people seek to emulate traditional models of commitment, just assertions that this is so… backed up by nothing. And, anyway, they go and deny their own assertion by saying we shouldn’t support traditional models because they aren’t “inclusive” enough.
Maybe I should just apologize for trying to hold you leftists to at least a college-level standard of argument.
Comment by V the K — April 5, 2009 @ 9:42 pm - April 5, 2009
Can I take that your decline to address the rebuttal as an act of affirmation?
You’ll have to be more specific on what the rebuttal was in the first place.
First I’m out to destroy gay marriage. Then you call Gene Robinson a liar. The you get bent out of shape about incest. And then I’m bad because I don’t support Octo Mom (but no credit for supporting her children).
You’re out to destroy marriage, Gene Robinson is a liar, incest is a horrible crime that society should condemn and avoid, and you were the one going on about how you “weren’t qualified” to “draw the boundaries” that would mean people like Octo-Mom weren’t entitled to the same benefits and privileges as heterosexual married couples; I merely held you to the standards you had established.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 9:42 pm - April 5, 2009
No evidence that most gay people seek to emulate traditional models of commitment, just assertions that this is so… backed up by nothing. And, anyway, they go and deny their own assertion by saying we shouldn’t support traditional models because they aren’t “inclusive†enough.
That would be because, V, the gay-sex liberal mentality is to say one thing and do another. That’s why Gene Robinson got called a liar; he was insisting that “No one says that anything goes,” and I found two citations in a heartbeat showing gays insisting that monogamy was “foolish” and demanding that plural and incestuous relationships were just as “worthy” as marriage and should receive the same recognition.
I sometimes wonder just what sort of environment produced today’s gay-sex liberals. Then I go into public schools, where children are taught that they can lie with impunity, that right and wrong are relative, that no one can ever judge anyone else’s behavior, that if something goes wrong, it’s never their fault, and it all becomes very clear very quickly.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 9:49 pm - April 5, 2009
You obviously missed my marshmallow post.
Comment by V the K — April 5, 2009 @ 9:54 pm - April 5, 2009
As a heterosexual, Native American, I have enjoyed this immensely thought provoking exchange (dialogue) between conservative and liberal gay individuals. It has reminded me of intelligent dialogues between Natives who grew up on Reservations and Natives who grew up in urban locals. Thanks to all.
Comment by Duffy - Native Intelligence — April 6, 2009 @ 12:02 am - April 6, 2009
[...] of the social change they’re promoting, many of the institution’s practitioners do, as this comment to Bruce’s post reveals. The writers simply acknowledges that his 24-year gay relationship [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Gay Marriage: its Advocates, its Practitioners & its Skeptics — April 6, 2009 @ 4:08 am - April 6, 2009
[...] of the social change they’re promoting, many of the institution’s practitioners do, as this comment to Bruce’s post reveals. The writers simply acknowledges that his 24-year gay relationship [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Gay Marriage: its Advocates, its Practitioners & its Skeptics — April 6, 2009 @ 4:08 am - April 6, 2009
By all means, try.
Maybe if you could provide some examples of such? Based on your comment, there sounds like there ought to be plenty for you to bring to our attention.
I’m not familiar with anybody here saying so.
Then the question arises, again, why the hell do you want to participate in it if it sucks so damn bad?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 6, 2009 @ 5:06 am - April 6, 2009
You mean like saying “maricón” on the Imus show? That was Bill Richardson (D, NM).
Or how about the “everyone knows gays are pedaphiles” angle the liberals used during Foley-gate? We criticized that right here.
Maybe you mean like when John Edwards (D, Douchebags) said “I’m not comfortable around those people“.
Emphasis mine (maybe his too).
Or how about the favorite liberal hero, Joe Wilson when he said “But then they realized they couldn’t use those because I’ve never actually denied them. I mean, I’m the first to admit that, unlike Ken Mehlman and David Dreier, I really like women.”
Maybe you mean something like Pete “little fruitcake” Stark (D, CA) whose comments were defended (big azz surprise) by HRC.
Oh and remind me again which president signed the HIV travel ban into law and which one signed the repeal.
Speaking of which, why do liberals get their panties in a wad when gays are fired, but they don’t particularly give a damn when their president signs a law which results in the firings of hundreds?
How does that work? Do tell, Inlookout.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 6, 2009 @ 5:42 am - April 6, 2009
If only this robust of a dialogue was allowed in the Echo Chamber Gay Left circles.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — April 6, 2009 @ 9:27 am - April 6, 2009
This unfairly lumps the pro-normativity Non-Hetero Left with the pro-sexual diversity Non-Hetero Left. Sure some radical queers want multiple partners or open relationships, but so do a lot of radical straights. They’re just called “hippies.” The majority of the gay marriage movement doesn’t want that: that’s why there’s decension amongst the left over this issue (read Bilerico sometime). Lumping every queer activist under one agenda is discounting someone’s opinion, and it’s the lumper’s decision which opinion they ignore. Don’t point to the view you’re selling to justify that same view; circular logic is immoral.
Comment by Kuhnsy — April 6, 2009 @ 12:16 pm - April 6, 2009
[...] social issues under the guise of social justice is that the Emperor has no clothes, or as a post on Gay Patriot points out, in reference to pushback against lefty gay political activists who demand court [...]
Pingback by Clothes-Shopping For The Emperor « Justbkuz — April 6, 2009 @ 12:53 pm - April 6, 2009
The majority of the gay marriage movement doesn’t want that:
And yet, when challenged, none of the people purporting that libertines are a minority in the gay marriage movement can identify a single leader or organization in that movement that advocates monogamy and commitment.
Comment by V the K — April 6, 2009 @ 1:21 pm - April 6, 2009
Yes, there’s a wide diversity on the gay left–from those who want to eradicate marriage completely for everybody all the way to those who want “marriage” to mean “open relationships which allow us all the freedom we want and still give us legal rights to each other’s property.” What’s missing on this spectrum, what absolute no prominent gay activist supports, not even sweet little Jon Rauch if you read him carefully, is the idea that gay relationships should be lifelong and sexually exclusive. (Rauch wants relationships that look to all the world as if they are sexually exclusive, but without caring whether they actually are.)
Comment by Ashpenaz — April 6, 2009 @ 2:14 pm - April 6, 2009
P. S. Not that size matters, but is this the longest thread EVER?!?
Comment by Ashpenaz — April 6, 2009 @ 3:31 pm - April 6, 2009
The longest thread EVER was well into the 300s, I believe. May have topped 400.
But yeah, this is a long one by recent standards.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 6, 2009 @ 5:02 pm - April 6, 2009