V the K, I saw the comment. My understanding is that OTV is not a leftie. If he really is, I take back my statement.

As for this blog: Yes, I have seen some lefties here explicitly repudiate monogamy. OTV is the first person whom I know to be not-a-leftist (in my sense of the word), whom I’ve seen do the same.

Okay. Perhaps I missed it. Also, my comment wasn’t only about explicitly repudiating monogamy. It was also about not even trying to have a commitment, because they have said that there was no way they could stick with one man. And in a couple of cases, I recall the posters saying that they wouldn’t even have a relationship with a man (only have one night stands or such), because they viewed such relationships as inferior. Anyway, I haven’t seen these posters in a while.

I disagree completely. Yes there are anti-Christian attitudes among some but there are also many active Christians and practitioner of other religions who are part of the mainstream gay community (whatever that is). Look at the success of MCC and other gay Christian groups, as well as welcoming churches that are part of many of the larger Christian denominations. Religion is not as hated by gays as some on here would like us to believe. But of course, unless they paint all gays as satanic and out of control they can’t justify how much they despise all things gay. It’s unfair to judge the larger and varied gay communities by the actions of a few protesters and the words of some ignorant people

And I agree with your post on Pat. There’s left (Pat) Far left (bob) and so far left his brain is off (BNL)

just like there’s Right (Sarah Palin) Far Right (Me) and so far right he’s a cartoon character (this guy)

Perhaps this type of rationalization happens more to lefties… On the other hand, I haven’t seen lefties on this blog admit that

Pat, first, when I say “leftist” or “leftie”, I mean people committed to a Far Left ideology both politically and socially. Think Code Pink and Michael Moore and radical-queer types; people who explicitly detest what their forbears used to call ‘bourgeois convention’. Rather than, say, you. I understand there is a subset of Democrats (not reflected in the party’s current leadership) whom I would consider salt-of-the-earth mensches and even conservative. Heck, some of them are my best friends… and I used to be one myself

As for this blog: Yes, I have seen some lefties here explicitly repudiate monogamy. OTV is the first person whom I know to be not-a-leftist (in my sense of the word), whom I’ve seen do the same. BTW, OTV is a nice guy: a friend-of-a-friend of mine, so we’ve met once or twice.

90% of married couples (gay and straight) I know of have had partners unfaithful to each other.

We are known by the company we keep. Perhaps #16 might consider why he hangs out with these losers. After all, he must consort with contributors to viper pit levels of gossip or he swings so freely that his level of moral turpitude as turned to turpentine. (or torrentprime.)

A few months ago, I was at a dinner with one of the leading “intellectuals” of America. She was a goy converted to Judaism, and was spouting off some crackpot conspiracy theory about how the Catholic opposition to Obama coming to Notre Dame was really a Mormon conspiracy.

I was too dumbstruck to say anything. What I should have said was replace “Mormon” with “Jew”, and then listen to the theory. It really doesn’t matter if Mormons as an organization have a particular viewpoint, you’re flirting with bigotry when you use that broad a brush, and start uncritically passing around these claims.

Um, OutliciousTV said that exact thing in comment 16 of this very thread.

True, ILC. I have debunked the argument that humans should only do things that occur naturally in the animal kingdom in another thread.

I wanted to live a life devoid of reason, morality and personal honor, expressing nothing more than my lowest animal urges and instincts, then I would be a leftist.

Perhaps this type of rationalization happens more to lefties, but as you suggested, this is not limited to the left. In fact, I recall in the past some Republicans/conservative posters on this blog admit they have no intention on having a committed relationship. It was either because they didn’t want to, or because they didn’t believe that gay relationships weren’t worthy of that status. On the other hand, I haven’t seen lefties on this blog admit that. Perhaps those on the right are more open about this and more willing to admit it when that’s the case.

Ashpenaz, speaking only for myself, I have no problem with how you decide your sexual choices. And I apologize if any of it came out snarky. My problem is that it may not work for everybody. For example, there are religious people who do not believe Jesus as the Son of God. Anyway, if this works for you, then great.

I think that much of the gay community is rooted in the rejection of God.

I’m not convinced that’s true. Sure, of course there are gay people that do reject God, are atheist, and/or even antagonistic against God and all religion (in fact, this is true of all people, for that matter). But just about all the gay people I know are not anti-religion (most are Christian or Jewish), and believe in God. At most, these persons are against religions that demonize homosexuality. And that’s where any hostility ends.

Some of that is fair, because they have been told God hates them because their gay. But some of it is just that they don’t want God telling them that multiple partners, drugs, and exploiting young people is wrong.

Agreed.

It is entirely OK for Mormons to be against gay marriage as it is for Catholics to be against contraception, Hindus against eating beef, and Buddhists to be against eating meat. If you can’t, in conscience, support the Mormons, Catholics, Hindus, or Buddhists, then you can become something else.

I don’t know much about the others, but almost all Catholics not only do not agree with the Church’s position on contraceptives, they don’t observe themselves. Heck, my parents would have had 20 children if they adhered to it, and still ended up with four. We just don’t have nearly as many large Catholic families that we’ve had in the past. Further, many Catholic persons, including priests and religious sisters are not against homosexuality. One even mentioned that same sex marriage should be allowed.

I think that Roman Catholics have the right idea. They are staunchly against the idea of gay marriage. But their wording is such that they are not necessarily against same-sex relationships with the same status at some future date.

Right now, the Church teaching is that gay persons must remain celibate. So forget about any gay relationships, let alone marriage. Of course, the teaching may change in the future (way in the future). And if and when it does, perhaps they will not be opposed to same sex marriage. In other words, if they find that homosexual relationships are no more and no less than heterosexual relationships, they may want to encourage committed same sex relationships as they do opposite sex relationships. I don’t think I’ll live long enough for this to happen though.

Christians are excluded and marginalized in the gay community.

Again, I just don’t see this, in general.

But gays don’t care about the people they oppress.

I have to agree with you there. What’s interesting is the same ones who were oppressed as teens and young adults are the ones who try to oppress others, including gay persons, when they get older. But usually it has nothing to do with religion. It may be because you’re not young enough, pretty enough, rich enough, or left enough. The rare times that I have been a “victim” of that, I just laughed it off. I suppose the key is not to allow yourself to be a victim, even if the oppression is coming from within your community.

It is truly dismissive of the gays throughout history to say their relationships weren’t a good enough model for us and we would rather have something straights created.

I don’t know if it’s being dismissive, but being realistic that many gay relationships were limited in how they could be recognized, about how open people can be. I don’t think we know for sure in the examples you cite, if these couples, while perhaps content in their relationships, would have also enjoyed the same type of recognition that their straight counterparts had, but realistic that they couldn’t.

If gay liberals like buckeyenutlover support bans on gay marriage, opposition to gay marriage, and claims that marriage is a “sacred bond” between a man and a woman as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when endorsed by Obama and the Obama Party, I fail to see why the same changes when other people do it.

Unless, of course, you’re practicing bigotry and prejudice against religion, which is what the gay community and its leaders like buckeyenutlover are doing.

If you’re against same-sex marriage, don’t marry someone from the same sex. Otherwise, stay out of others’ lives. And isn’t that one of the gop’s mantras? It’s just another hypocrisy of the repugnant right.

My own view is this: It is indeed against biology to be faithful… and so what? A lot of good things that humans do are ‘against biology’. If I wanted to live a life devoid of reason, morality and personal honor, expressing nothing more than my lowest animal urges and instincts, then I would be a leftist. But I happens I don’t want to be like that.

At least one leftist is honest about the contempt they hold for commitment and monogamy. It’s somewhat refreshing, actually.

“Why is it that gay marriage activists are so determined to use the debate on their issue to vilify members of a particular faith . . .”</I.

Bigotry