Perhaps, the editors of Newsweek and Time really don’t want to see state recognition of same-sex marriage. Given that fact that each magazine has now promoted a man who wears his contempt for Christianity on his sleeve, it seems their editors are little interested in changing the minds of the overwhelming majority of Americans who profess that faith.
Or maybe said editors are oblivious (or indifferent) to the faithful and believe that most people have a worldview similar to their own — only they just need be made aware of it. Reader Peter Hughes alerted me to a post on Newsbusters analyzing Dan Savage’s Time magazine interview:
In this week’s issue, Time magazine followed Newsweek in honoring gay sex columnist Dan Savage and offering him space to trash conservatives. The liberal media sets Savage up as an anti-bullying activist, then lets him push conservative faces in the dirt. In December Newsweek printed him saying “F— John McCain” and asserting Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was clearly a “c—sucker.”
Why does this fellow have to be so nasty so often? Maybe he’s having a perpetual bad day? When asked what advice he could “give readers of TIME“, this gay marriage advocate chose to express contempt for monogamy:
We talk about love in a way that’s very unrealistic: “If you’re in love, you’re not going to want to have sex with anyone else but that person.” That’s not true. We need to acknowledge that truth so that people don’t have to spend 40 years of marriage lying to and policing each other.
There is no doubt that monogamy is indeed a challenge, particularly for men. But, it does yield rewards in terms of a deeper emotional connection and greater intimacy. If someone wants to shack up with another and have other sexual encounters on the side, he should be allowed that choice, but such a relationship is not marriage.
Savage may well be right that someone in love will indeed want to have sex with others, but many in love while desiring such physical intimacy just know that acting on that desire will compromise the relationship. All that said, why is it that Mr. Savage can’t express his advocacy for open relationships without trashing conservatives or Christians?
There’s a reason we hold up monogamy as the ideal; it’s because it works. It keeps families intact, it maintains a stable environment for children, and it makes people happy.
Where he sees couples “lying and policing” each other, I see people trying to uphold an ideal, and trying to make things work in the context of human frailty. In a sense, they are admitting monogamy is the ideal, even though they may fail at it.
Yeah, it sucks that infidelity happens, but what Savage is saying is, “fidelity is too hard, so let’s not even try.” That way lies broken families, disease, and heartache.
In real life, it’s the stuff that’s hard to do that’s the most worthwhile.
Psychological speaking he is right. Just because you love someone does not mean you are not going to want to have sex with other people, we are human. What matters is sticking to the rules of the relationship you and your partner have.
Personally I can’t do open relationships but they work for some people so more power to them. That being said, Dan Savage is the man.
No actually, in terms of what you’re talking about Savage, it is true.
One can “want” in the ineffectual sense of “looking” or “fantasizing”, like “I wish I had a million dollars”… “Yeah that guy is cute”… etc. And of course people who are in love will continue to do that with others.
But that’s obvious. So, you must mean something different. One can “want” in the more effectual sense that you *are actually going to make it happen*. You must mean that. But if you’re in love with someone: then no, you are not going to *want* (in the effectual sense of your going to make it happen) to have sex with anyone else but that person. If you do, then you are not in love. Or at the least, you are not clear on the concept of love. (Hint: It involves preference… preferring one above all others.)
Married people understand that. Meanwhile, jerks like Dan Savage make gay marriage advocates look like idiots. Thanks for setting back the cause of gay marriage,
Dan Savagejerk.A miniature snapshot of the insanity of judgment-free liberal relativism. “Even though I personally *know* that X doesn’t work, I can’t bring myself to do the sensible thing of calling it wrong, and to prove it, I’m going to actively praise the jerks out there who claim that it does work for them.”
For fun, let’s try out a variation or two. “Personally I can’t do murders but they work for some people so more power to them. That being said, Al Capone is the man.” Well one variation is enough, you get the idea.
What is this continuing obsession of yours with Dan Savage and his right to not believe in invisible sky fairies or virgin births or what have you. Dan is guaranteed by the Constitution the freedom to express his beliefs anytime and anywhere he feels like.
If Christians are offended, they should sick their fingers in their ears.
As for the rest, you sound no different than your fellow conservatives, Peter LaBarbera and Tony Perkins.
>>>There’s a reason we hold up monogamy as the ideal; it’s because it works. It keeps families intact, it maintains a stable environment for children, and it makes people happy.
Yeah. Right. That’s why 50% of marriages end in divorce. At least people like Dan are trying to find what works for them and what holds their relationships together.
I can’t bring myself to taunt a disturbed individual about his/her illogic.
V the K, I’m in agreement with you here. Excellent points.
Dan, I agree with your point of giving people the choice who are in “committed” relationships to have open relationships. But as you say, it’s not marriage.
Oh good. I just *knew* Grannie Dogshit would have something useless to say.
Granny Goodness surely believes that the gays in Rwanda should just “stick their fingers in their ears” then, if they feel that the nation’s laws offend them.
In fact, Granny Goodness should just stick her fingers in her ears and stop challenging DOMA in the courts, if it offends her.
Yet another FANTASTIC reason to oppose gay marriage. Because the “mainstream gay community” has no intention of upholding the values that institution represents. They only want government to LIE to them and tell them their delusions are correct, that homosexuality is completely equal to, and just as valuable to society as heterosexuality.
Sorry, its not. Its a lie.
And no, we should not trash the institution to humor some gays insecurities and mental issues.
So we have the two most vocal, most prominent supporters of gay marriage Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan, and here Savage rejecting the reality of monogamy, which clearly suggests he sleeps around. and Andrew Sullivan, miss Milky Glutes, arrested in the outdoor bathhouse dunes of Ptown. Anyone think hes monogamous?
Gays do not want marriage, they want someone to humor their delusions that they are the same so they dont have to deal with and come to terms with being different….oh, and to be able to completely reject from the get-go the values of the institution.
Why be with one person if you’re seeing other people on the side? I don’t get it. When I’m dating other men, yes, I’ll see multiple guys. But when I get serious about one man, I drop the other men. Why is this so difficult? I mean I lose interest in looking at other men when I’m serious about one guy.
Dan Savage wants to have his cake & eat it too like so many closeted guys who want to have sex with men on the side. It’s disgusting. I’m not saying Savage is in the closet since he’s not. But he wants to keep taking other people’s food from the snack bar after he has his full plate.
I mean closeted married guys.
Miss Dogma, do you actually read my blog or just respond to your impressions of what you believe a gay conservative might say?
An obsession with someone whom (by a recent google search, I found) I last blogged about in December. Please tell me how I sound no different from those social conservatives. Did you, I ask once again, even read the post to which you attach your comment where I wrote, ” If someone wants to shack up with another and have other sexual encounters on the side, he should be allowed that choice, but such a relationship is not marriage.”
Please explain by providing examples from my writings, where I condemn the practice of homosexuality as do the social conservatives you reference. And where my philosophy is similar to theirs.
And please tell me where I ever contested Mr. Savage’s rights to express his opinions (narrow as they are).
You might be able to comment intelligently to my posts if you understand what the word, “freedom,” meant, you know the watchword for my political philosophy.
Once again, Miss Dogma, you seem to be venting your spleen at us, rather than engaging us. Maybe, as per my prior post, you’re having another bad day?
#14 – “Once again, Miss Dogma, you seem to be venting your spleen at us, rather than engaging us. Maybe, as per my prior post, you’re having another bad day?”
Of course she is. That is the end result of having a mental illness, or AIDS-related dementia, whichever is applicable. (I’m looking at you, Andrew Sullivan.)
Regards,
Peter H.
“Why does this fellow have to be so nasty so often?” You need to turn that around and examine why your own rhetoric is that way. The focus of this entire blog is always critical of liberals and progressive policy rather than celebrating the good of conservative and Republican policy. Why are you so nasty so ofter? Your comments are rarely empathetic to progressive concerns, and the commenters prove the level of hate and ugly sentiments conservatives and Republicans truly feel.
Turn it around.
“Why does this fellow have to be so nasty so often?” You need to turn that around and examine why your own rhetoric is that way. The focus of this entire blog is always critical of liberals and progressive policy rather than celebrating the good of conservative and Republican policy. Why are you so nasty so ofter? Your comments are rarely empathetic to progressive concerns, and the commenters prove the level of hate and ugly sentiments conservatives and Republicans truly feel.
Turn it around.
1) Untrue; actually the blog often promotes the good of conservative ideas.
2) Umm… CV… have you *read* any liberal blogs? Ever? Do “BUSH LIED!!!(tm)”, “BUSHITLER” and “IMPEACH BUSH!!! ™” ring any bells?
Because it’s a conservative blog. Yikes, now you are faulting the blog basically for existing, i.e., for being “the Internet home of the gay conservative” rather than another left-wing gay blog. Pathetic.
You all are being so polite. Dan Savage is the classic case of borderline personality disorder run amok.
I don’t think open relationships are wrong, they just aren’t the type of relationship for me. Unlike you I am able to see how something that does not work for me works for others.
For people who talk about “maximizing freedom” you sure are close minded and quick to defend Christians, while in the same breath claiming all Muslims are bad.
And why does Dan Savage have to be so “nasty”. Because he takes a pragmatic approach to dealing with hateful nasty bigots, mainly calling them on their crap.
If thats being nasty…well being clean is overrated.
Then this begs the question. Why do these people favor same-sex marriage?! It sounds like people like Savage and Sully are just full of it. These clowns set back convincing those who oppose same-sex marriage oh maybe a few decades. But it is the leftywhore media that in reality favors this whole open marriage concept.
Um Why do straight people have open marriages? Why do you people always seem to act as if gays are the only people who do things outside of the “norm”.
Maybe some guys are open daters but if they were to be married would be strictly monogamous, which to be honest isn’t really that rare regardless of gay/bi/straight.
The double standards here are ridiculous.
Ummmmm…..we’re not talking about straight people, are we? Why are you making excuses? Are you going to tell me that you’re so f*king brilliant and tolerant™ of open relationships because YOU are the only one who knows what it means to grow up black in America anytime soon?
You people?
Side note: Thanks to Sen. Turban Durbin’s Wall Street “reform” amendment, I can no longer earn reward miles on my debit card. Thanks a lot, drooling assholes on the liberal left.
Doom, don’t know that it’s possible to parse the second ¶ of your comment #20 without seeing you as clueless as to what freedom means.
Please tell me where I have claimed that all Muslims are bad. I have never done so and will never to do. Why do so many lefties read into conservatives’ critiques of Islamofascism and extremism a definition of all Muslims as “bad” (to borrow your term)?
And please note that I don’t defend all Christians. In this case, i.e., the post to which you attach your comment, I criticize Mr. Savage for his anti-Christian record (which, as per your following comment, is indeed nasty).
Back to maximizing freedom (as you put it). Well, if we extend freedom to Christians, doesn’t that mean that have the freedom to speak their mind, even on homosexuality, a liberty Mr. Savage would like to deny those who do not toe his line.
I believe they should have the freedom to speak their minds, even if I disagree with what they say. And even when I do disagree with them, I find they almost always adopt a far more civil tone than does Mr. Savage in criticizing them and conservatives.
Of course doop’s double standards are totally fine because he’s black.
If you wanna know the truth, I don’t think straight people in open relationships should be considered married either.
I think if heterosexuals hadn’t demeaned the institution of marriage through open marriages and easy divorce, gay people wouldn’t even be interested in it.
I mean, SRSLY, when have I ever given the impression I approve of sleazy straight people any more than I approve of sleazy gay people?
Same here.
#30 – Ditto that.
Regards,
Peter H.
Taking this in a slightly different direction: Earlier today, on another forum, I was contrasting the officially-recognized Catholic group for homosexuals, Courage, with the unofficial “dissident/heretic” Catholic group for homosexuals,Dignity.
Apart from the fact that Dignity isn’t recognized by the RCC and may sometimes have to hold its meetings in a sympathetic Lutheran or Episcopalian church building, one of the pertinent differences between the two groups is that Courage is a “celibacy-affirming” ministry, while Dignity is a “monogamy-affirming” ministry.
And I wrote:
Anyway, I wanted to throw this out for discussion: Assuming that monogamy is actually the ideal that ought to be promoted, is it possible that Dignity’s monogamy-affirming approach isn’t “challenging” enough in contrast to the secular gay mainstream, and that Courage’s celibacy-affirming approach will, on average, do a better job at promoting monogamy?
(Although my background is Catholic, I have zero personal experience with either Dignity or Courage ministries — so I’m just kinda guessing, as an observer of human nature, that in both cases the practice is a bit different from the theory! But I’m curious to hear feedback from people who have personally been involved with either “monogamy affirming” or “celibacy affirming” ministries for homosexuals.)
And doop is gone, again, for a week or so.
By making monogamy look like an attractive alternative? Maybe, but my first reaction is: too much game theory. If you believe in celibacy, promote that. If monogamy, promote that. If promiscuity, promote that. Whatever your view, you might be criticized – in moral terms. Because you might really be wrong. “Marketplace of ideas.”
Thank you, ILC and Peter H.
My real beef with Savage is that he is saying that what has always been considered abnormal, sleazy, and gross in the heterosexual community should be considered normal for Teh Gheys.
No one is stopping Savage from having as many partners as he wants.
Why does he want in on something that goes against his ‘nature’?
Is it because, like our lovely Islamist friends he’d like to destroy all the institutions that are the cornerstone of Western Civilization, unlike the Muslim world where nothing is civil at all.
Why does he want in on something that goes against his ‘nature’?
Because, like most gay marriage proponents, he wants the benefits without the responsibilities.
I take somewhat of an issue with that statement.
(A) Living monogamous isn’t that difficult. It comes down to making a relationship a priority over getting your rocks off with a stranger. Granted, the latter can be fun, but the former is, to me anyway, more gratifying.
(B) I don’t think it’s any more of a challenge for men than it is for women. Now, I would say, even though you see women portrayed as cheaters in the media “Desperate Housewives” (I don’t watch it, but I assume they cheated) you still have more of a stigma on them for cheating than you do of men. As Dan’s comment infers, it’s kind of expected of us. When a woman is called a slut, it’s taken as shameful. When a man is called a slut….
Curious. I hear that stat bandied about from time to time. Have you ever checked to see if it’s accurate?
Answer… It’s not. That 50% figure is an artifact of poor statistics. (and maybe wishful thinking). If you look around the internet, you’ll find the rate is anywhere from 25% to 40%, depending on who is crunching the numbers. But it has never actually been 50%. That is a myth.
.
My divorce rate is 100% (well 66% if you consider Donna and I married).
Monogamy is hard, Sonic. I’m a Hermit, not a Saint, I’ve said often. It’s also more rewarding to have someone to wake up next to in the morning, and that someone be the same person.
I do feel sorrow for those who have never had that experience.
WHEW!!!! and double WHEW!!!!
I am a straight, monogamous male with a long marriage and I have only brushed up against married “players” occasionally, but they all (from my memory) went down in flames in the marriage department leaving bitter spouses and children with deep hurt.
So, now we are not only talking about gays being married “just like the straights,” we are tilling the soil for understanding that same sex marriage also includes advancing and marching beyond the old bugaboo of fidelity, except in the case of straights who are scum when they play around. (Which they are.)
Oh, yeah, I understand this perfectly. Gay purity to being whatever kind of morally relativistic gay you may be trumps all.
Surely, sex with teenagers can’t be far behind. After all, who better to “mentor” a confused, gay teen than a seasoned, married, gay man with a special taste for virgins and fresh meat?
Sick, sick, sick. There comes a point where the mask has to come off. This kind of “debate” will put civil unions in deep jeopardy.
Really Heliotrope, allowing gay men to marry will lead to sex with teenage men?
Maybe he’s advocated for open relationships elsewhere, but that quote is not advocating open relationships, it’s advocating honesty. Nowhere (in that article) does he say “people should not be monogamous” but instead says we should admit we often don’t want to be.
In some relationships it’s fine to admit you are looking at someone else. In others, if you dare admit it the other person will blow up. That is a sign something is wrong, maybe the other person is just untrusting, or maybe you’ve given them reason to be untrusting.
I’ve been reading John M. Gottman, and according to his research no one ever splits up because of cheating. The cheating is the last symptom of many other failures that could be seen long before.
@rusty don’t forget bestiality and furries!! us gays are simply moral decay incarnate! just knowing that we exist can LITERALLY destroy straight people’s marriages. IF only we had listened to ND30 and quietly committed suicide and than disposed of our own bodies so there wouldn’t be a fuss!!
@Heliotrope so your telling me that the reason that straight people stick together is because gays can’t get married? Is that why there is a 65% divorce rate in Oklahoma among the first time married? But I don’t understand we banned gay marriage and people are still getting divorced. What if we lock all the women in the houses.. do you think that will work cause honestly I’ll do anything to protect the children.
@Sonic in Oklahoma the numbers for divorce among first marriages runs higher than 65% Oddly enough my gay friends are among the most monogamous (my ex not withstanding) while each of my straight friends have been divorced at least once, and or never married. All but one of my friends come from families that were divorced or raised by people other than both parents, meaning that their father or mother left and the other spouse remarried. At my work place out of 9 marriages only two of them have not been divorced and remarried. My warehouse manager is in his second marriage but has 8 kids between 3 women. My former room mate in fact lied to his now wife and told her that he had never been married before (to a woman for extra benefits in the military).
Personally my parents have been married for 38 years I prefer monogamous relationships, I stress that to my boy friends, and I get angry if they tell me that they do to and then cheat. It’s not that I want to tell them that they are wrong for having multiple sex partners I just don’t want that. Asking my straight co-workers this question all of them (all male) said the same thing, it’s not that normal for a man to be totally monogamous, but conversely none of them believed that women were any less sexually driven, just that they would cheat for different reasons.
While I’m often mystified by people who make open relationships work, it’s hard for me to say there has to be ONE perfect way, I think we should always be careful when we assume absolutes when it concerns living people. There are a lot of ways that people make life work, maybe thats what make it such a cool place to live.
Wow the fact that people like Helio,ILC, and NF30 say the things they say with nary so much as a batted eyelash by the blog runners or the other gay conservatives here truly speaks volumes.
I knew gay conservatives were nothing but uncle toms but wow…this is ridiculous.
Wow, Dooms can’t understand why he’s not embraced for his racist bile by others.
Look! I can do non sequetors too!
Fred Karger, gay republican, SSM advocate and proponent, running for President 2012.
Karger has already made many swings through Iowa and New Hampshire, laying the groundwork for his campaign in those key primary states. He’s run TV ads and met with dozens of young Republican activists to rally the troops. Today’s FEC filing simply makes his candidacy official. It also, no doubt, will make it harder for Republicans to keep him out of candidate forums and debates during the campaign, which some have been trying to do. While Karger met this week with officials at the RNC, including chairman Reince Priebus, in what he called a warm meeting, other members of the GOP establishment have not been so welcoming of his historic candidacy. As we reported earlier this month, RNC members in Iowa and a key organizer with Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition have not only threatened to keep Karger out of the race but also intentionally shut him out of a March 7 presidential forum in Des Moines organized by Reed’s group. Karger responded by filing a complaint against RNC member and Iowa Faith and Freedom organizer Steve Scheffler as well as his organization for violating federal election laws by discriminating against Karger because he’s gay. Karger’s official candidate status now will only help his complaint.
Fred Karger, gay republican, SSM advocate and proponent, running for President 2012.
Karger has already made many swings through Iowa and New Hampshire, laying the groundwork for his campaign in those key primary states. He’s run TV ads and met with dozens of young Republican activists to rally the troops. Today’s FEC filing simply makes his candidacy official. It also, no doubt, will make it harder for Republicans to keep him out of candidate forums and debates during the campaign, which some have been trying to do. While Karger met this week with officials at the RNC, including chairman Reince Priebus, in what he called a warm meeting, other members of the GOP establishment have not been so welcoming of his historic candidacy. As we reported earlier this month, RNC members in Iowa and a key organizer with Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition have not only threatened to keep Karger out of the race but also intentionally shut him out of a March 7 presidential forum in Des Moines organized by Reed’s group. Karger responded by filing a complaint against RNC member and Iowa Faith and Freedom organizer Steve Scheffler as well as his organization for violating federal election laws by discriminating against Karger because he’s gay. Karger’s official candidate status now will only help his complaint.
sorry about the double post, have noticed other double posts. . .
*sharpens poking stick to use on @rusty*
Wow. The fact that Rusty, Tim and Doop didn’t even read and comprehend what Helio wrote before popping off with stupid bullshit truly speaks volumes. It’s all about venting your hatred and nothing more.
(A) Living monogamous isn’t that difficult. It comes down to making a relationship a priority over getting your rocks off with a stranger. Granted, the latter can be fun, but the former is, to me anyway, more gratifying.
Sonic, I agree. Being monogamous isn’t that difficult. It’s a matter of not doing something versus doing something. In order to not be monogamous, you have to take several actions to get to the point where you are not monogamous.
And forgetting about the moral aspect for the moment, open relationships are much harder to navigate, causes more problems than it’s worth. At least that’s my take on it. I never tried it, and don’t plan on it.
(B) I don’t think it’s any more of a challenge for men than it is for women. Now, I would say, even though you see women portrayed as cheaters in the media “Desperate Housewives” (I don’t watch it, but I assume they cheated) you still have more of a stigma on them for cheating than you do of men. As Dan’s comment infers, it’s kind of expected of us. When a woman is called a slut, it’s taken as shameful. When a man is called a slut….
Yeah, the old double standard. I remember having a conversation with an older woman about Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. Basically, she blamed Lewinsky, and excused Clinton, because, he’s a man and she was a woman. It didn’t seem to matter that he was 50 or so, and she just a 25 year old intern.
Love Mr Pitts
Opinion: Leonard Pitts Jr.: In gay marriage debate, ‘unalienable rights’ should trump majority rule
By Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami Herald
Posted: 03/23/2011 12:50:37 PM PDT
We are gathered here today to look a gift horse in the mouth.
It seems a majority of the American people now favor marriage rights for gay men and lesbians. That majority, according to a Washington Post/ABC News survey released last week, is slender, just 51 percent. But even at that, it represents a significant increase from just five years ago, when only 36 percent of Americans approved.
Other polling organizations have reported similar trends, and for those who believe gay men and lesbians ought to be free to solemnize and formalize their relationships, that is very good news. It means they are — we are — winning the argument. That is cause for celebration.
But lurking at the edge of celebration there is, for me, at least, a nagging, impatient vexation. That vexation is based in what is arguably an esoteric question: In extolling the fact that the majority now approves same-sex marriage, do we not also tacitly accept the notion that the majority has the right to judge?
Try to imagine for a moment the consternation upon some woman’s face if a story in the paper announced that “X” percentage of Americans now favors allowing women to work outside the home. Try to picture the brisk dialogue that would ensue if you informed some Jewish man that you now supported his right to practice his religion.
If you can appreciate why the woman or the Jew might feel insulted by this putative magnanimity, maybe you can understand the
impulse to look this gift horse in the mouth. The news seems to mandate a two-tier response. On the one hand, you are grateful to see the majority’s attitudes moderating and hopeful that this will lead to the repeal of laws restricting marriage equality. On the other hand, there is that shadow of annoyance at the notion that human rights are something to be granted at the sufferance of the majority.
Yes, the will of the people matters a great deal. Indeed, in a democracy, few things are more deserving of deference. But still, one draws up short at the idea that human rights are subject to a popularity contest. One shudders to think what sort of nation this would be if Lyndon Johnson, before signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965, had first taken a poll of the American people.
We tend to regard America, proudly, as a nation where human rights are given. But that stance is actually at odds with the formulation famously propounded by one of the first Americans. Thomas Jefferson, after all, wrote that human rights are “unalienable” and that we are endowed with them from birth.
If you believe that, then you cannot buy into this notion of a nation where rights are magnanimously doled out to the minority on a timetable of the majority’s choosing. You and I cannot “give” rights. We can only acknowledge, respect and defend the rights human beings are born with.
That’s the pebble in the shoe, the popcorn husk between the teeth, that nags at the conscience when one reads polls tracking how many of us approve of other people’s lives and decisions. It’s all well and good that 51 percent of us support the right of gay men and lesbians to tell it to the judge, but really, what hubris makes us think we have a right to say yea or nay in the first place?
One hopes that, as they grapple with the issue of gay marriage, our leaders will also grapple with that question. And find in it the courage to understand what Lyndon Johnson did: You don’t do the right thing because it’s popular.
LEONARD PITTS JR. is a Miami Herald columnist.
Surely, sex with teenagers can’t be far behind. After all, who better to “mentor” a confused, gay teen than a seasoned, married, gay man with a special taste for virgins and fresh meat?
Heliotrope, as much as I disagree with Savage, I don’t think he was talking about sex with minors. Different story, and obviously much worse.
And what’s even worse is that many states have laws on the books that sanctions such opposite sex relationships. Well before same sex marriage was a twinkle in anyone’s eye.
So I invite you to join me in condemning such marriages (between adults and minors), and supporting changing the marriage laws in all states to 18 and over. Deal?
@ThatGayConservative i have reread @Helio’s comment three times and come to the same conclusion, his simplistic attitude that discussing sexuality leads to a slippery slope is infantile and deserves an infantile response. Any ad hoc attack linking gays with pedophilia with gays based on the discussion of monogamy in our culture is puerile. If I mentioned pedophilia every time I mentioned the catholic church I would be engaging in the same pattern.
I think its true that pedophilia will not be the next domino to fall because of gay marriage. Polygamy or incestuous relationships will. Once you have redefined an institution that exists to deal with baby-making to include couples with two uteruses and no penises, or two penises and zero uteruses, then you have utterly and foundationally redefined the institution into one that cannot have anything to do with reproduction, and therfore exists only and exclusively as an entitlement program for people who fall in love.
And once you have bastardized marriage into an entitlement program for couples, including couples who are categorically, biologically incapable of reproduction, then there is NO logical, defensible justification for excluding poligamy, or incestuous adults. After all there is ZERO difference between two gay men who want to get married and two grown brothers who want to get married.
The only reason gay marriage is even being considered is because society has been so dumbed down, and so emasculated that they can no longer see the fundamental difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality. That the former is FAR more significant to society than the latter. Sorry, its fact. And it really is maddening that Americans have become so stupid, and so brainwashed. And its embarrassing to be associated with a group that believes sticking your sick up some guys ass is morally equivalent to creating life. It just aint. Ever.
And once you have bastardized marriage into an entitlement program for couples, including couples who are categorically, biologically incapable of reproduction
We’ve been doing that for hundreds of years or so, American Elephant. And most of us has encouraged and applauded such unions.
After all there is ZERO difference between two gay men who want to get married and two grown brothers who want to get married.
ZERO difference? Interesting.
The only reason gay marriage is even being considered is because society has been so dumbed down, and so emasculated that they can no longer see the fundamental difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality. That the former is FAR more significant to society than the latter. Sorry, its fact. And it really is maddening that Americans have become so stupid, and so brainwashed. And its embarrassing to be associated with a group that believes sticking your sick up some guys ass is morally equivalent to creating life. It just aint. Ever.
Or it could be your perceptions of this is way off. I have never met anyone over 18 who didn’t know how babies are conceived. And I don’t think I have ever met anyone who equated marriage with insert A into B. Until now, that is. I think you’re also wrong as to who got brainwashed.
rusty,
Mr Pitts falls into the same language trap many people have been swallowed by before. If government recognition of marriage (for, let’s face it, that’s what we’re talking about) is an ‘unalienable right’ then it can’t be ‘alienable’ for anyone including children, the mentally ill, and polyamourous groups. Has Mr. Pitts argued anywhere that my ‘unalienable right’ to keep and bear arms allows me to own a P-90 or a suitcase nuke? If not then he seems to find ‘unalienable’ to be words of convienence, not of conviction.
I think I’m going to start posting this in reply to when Dooms race baits. Anyone want to make the ‘gay pardon’ version? 🙂
I think too many people dismiss this argument out of hand without thinking about it. If sex doesn’t matter to marriage, then why should numbers or biological relationships matter? Is marriage nothing but a pinata of social benefits, a matter of temporary legal convenience for people who happen to be boning each other? I really believe society is doomed if that’s all it is.
Wooooooooooow, this blog has redefined self hate.
Wooooooooooow, Dooms has redefined sensible, as well as original.
And with this we learn a great deal about Dooms. To him self hate is allowing people to express opinions that one might not agree with or that one might actually find offensive. Taking that a step farther, to Dooms to hate someone is to disagree with them or to express a differing opinion.
First, we redefine marriage to include same sex couples.
Then we are advised that fidelity does not necessarily include/imply sex. So, we have monogamy-lite where Mr. Happy can continue to troll the candy shop. (Of course, since children are never involved, what is the big deal?) Oops, we should add that even though Mr. Happy can continue to troll the candy shop, this should in no way be a conflict when adopting children. After all, adopting children is no different than buying a car or fulfilling an itch to parent. It is essentially a morally irrelevant event.
Then we come to the gay couple, married and delighted with their diploma which they have hanging above their bed. One is satisfied to enable his mate who loves to roam the candy store. It is not about love, folks, it is about libido. Clear?
So, how did I get into all this trouble (#40) with Doom and Tim and Pat and rusty? Well, I did not imply or mean to imply that gay marriage would lead to pedophilia. I simply expanded on Tim’s previous (other threads) that gay sex with under 18 year old males is also morally irrelevant.
Ergo, I can envision (through what I have learned on comments on this site) that this new marriage with Mr. Happy going to the candy store might very well take Mr. Happy to the bus station, or the park or anywhere else Mr. Happy might meet young men. I predicate this on the specific concept that some gay men, like straight men, might have a fetish connected with their libido. Understand?
This brings us to a loving spouse, alone at the house doing Soduko and all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that the mate is having fun with Mr. Happy and will return all rosy and satisfied and ready to snuggle and fall fast asleep in the enabling arms. In fact, I think that would be a great name for the house. Enabling Arms.
But, of course, maybe both of them are players and they go out together or on separate ways to get Mr. Happy serviced and satisfied. Maybe they could work as a tag team and set up a threesome or even an orgy.
I am a bit over my head here, because I don’t know a thing about letting my crotch do the thinking. I only know that “open marriage” has never worked out. I also know that married men who visit porn sites are overwhelmingly attracted to the young. (Barely legal. But that is a function of what the porn site is willing and able to risk, not the viewer.)
I have been to the “night market” in Bangkok and I have seen the men picking up little girls and boys. Don’t tell me that gays are immune from this moral relativity.
So, gays break through the same sex rule, ask for understanding about a liberal use of Mr. Happy and stop right there. Nothing else will “come up.” OK.
The thread that weaves its way through this is “moral relevancy.” I was just pulling on the thread. Sorry if I offended anyone.
And, Pat, I am not OK with taking away the right of each state to define its marriage rules unless it is accomplished by a Constitutional amendment. I have ancestors who had a family going at the age of 16 and they were a heck of a lot more realistic and mature than many 30 year olds of today are. But, they were also Bible thumpers.
Heliotrope, Danke’ – – for your clarification and again, you are an amazing wordsmith
LW, Mr Pitts may or may not have fallen into the language trap, but I still find his opinion piece something to consider. I have always like his views.
Given the comments here, looks like I’m living rent-free in Tim and Dooms’s heads. 🙂
Meanwhile, let’s deal with Pat’s spin.
We’ve been doing that for hundreds of years or so, American Elephant. And most of us has encouraged and applauded such unions.
Sure, Pat — for couples that are biologically abnormal, defective, or damaged in some way that relates to reproduction, which would include infertile and elderly couples. We don’t hold people accountable for things they cannot control like that.
Would you like to state that gays and lesbians are abnormal, defective, or damaged in some way? That would actually become a relevant argument at that point.
After all there is ZERO difference between two gay men who want to get married and two grown brothers who want to get married.
ZERO difference? Interesting.
Of course. They want to get married, so society has to support it and give them a marriage license. That’s the point of an inalienable right, and, per Leonard Pitts, the majority not only has no right to interfere, but must support and endorse their decision. Unless you can prove how two grown brothers marrying would interfere with your relationship, you have no right to contest it and are in fact a bigot whose beliefs should be publicly condemned and ostracized.
As Helio points out, this is all about moral relevancy. You insist that no one else has the right to dictate morals and that society must support and endorse whatever you do in the name of “equality”, but then you hilariously turn around and insist that you have the right to dictate morals to other people.
Dooms, you and your pathetic, disgusting Obama Party and your fellow gay and lesbian liberals made your views very clear this week when you stated that black children from two-parent, middle-class families are “Uncle Toms” who act “white”.
This is about nothing more than you and your friend Timmy trying to rationalize your failures by trying to claim that these are “normal” for gays and lesbians and that people who disagree are trying to suck up to “the man”, just like you insist that black people who have successful jobs and stable marriages are “ignorant” and “Uncle Toms”.
End hyperlink.
Dooms comes across in this forum as extremely shallow, extremely immature, and delusional enough to think these are attractive personal characteristics.
We have??? How so?
RIght now only male-female couples are allowed to marry, and not only are male-female couples NOT categorically, biologically incapable of reproduction, but just the opposite! Reproduction is categorically, biologically ONLY capable between one male and one female.
Or perhaps you mean that we’ve already bastardized marriage into an entitlement program for couples. Au contraire. Were that true, we would not be having this discussion. There are all sorts of couples that are not permitted to marry. ONLY one member of each of the sexes necessary for reproduction, who are not immediate family, and of age to consent to sex are permitted to and rewarded for marrying.
Yes! Zero relevant difference. Neither couple can ever procreate, so the fact that the two brothers are related becomes irrelevant.
If you are allowed to marry another man (assuming Pat is a male name in this case) simply because you love him, and marriage is for people who love each other, then how is there ANY logical reason to prohibit two brothers from getting married? Or a father and his adult son? They are exactly equivalent reproductively. The only possible remaining justification for prohibiting their marriage would be that the Bible prohibits incest. But of course if we were to use the Bible to justify marriage law, then gay marriage would not be acceptable.
So, yes, there is ZERO relevant difference.
Then youve apparently never met most of America, most of the world, and never read any of the marriage laws, or court decisions:
For just one of many examples from my very own, VERY liberal State of Washington.
So, gays break through the same sex rule, ask for understanding about a liberal use of Mr. Happy and stop right there. Nothing else will “come up.” OK.
Heliotrope, I guess I’m missing your point. Let me try. So we allow same sex marriage, we will have many (but not all, right?) gay couples that will cheat on their spouses, some with permission, some not. Neither of us like this, whether it is a same sex or opposite sex married couple. But then, some gay persons, married or not, will then have sex with underaged persons. Again, something we both don’t like either. But it’s not like this is new. And as you point out later on, many states still legitimized it, for opposite sex couples. (Don’t know specifically what the laws are in MA, CT, VT, IA, DC, so maybe some are legitimized for same sex couples now.)
And, Pat, I am not OK with taking away the right of each state to define its marriage rules unless it is accomplished by a Constitutional amendment. I have ancestors who had a family going at the age of 16 and they were a heck of a lot more realistic and mature than many 30 year olds of today are. But, they were also Bible thumpers.
I’m sure I have ancestors going back that got married at 16, or even younger, as well. But I’m talking about today. And I didn’t mean to imply that requiring a minimum age of 18 to be done contrary to the laws and constitution. So let me rephrase. Would you support laws changing the minimum age of marriage to 18 in all states (through the legal process)?
Meanwhile, let’s deal with Pat’s spin.
Let’s, NDT. Then we’ll deal with yours.
Sure, Pat — for couples that are biologically abnormal, defective, or damaged in some way that relates to reproduction, which would include infertile and elderly couples.
So, that’s how you refer to persons that are infertile or elderly. How nice.
We don’t hold people accountable for things they cannot control like that.
That’s good too. So then you don’t hold people who can’t change their sexual orientation as well.
Sure, people can control whether or not they have sex. So we can make laws so that couples who cannot or will not procreate from having sex. And then make laws so such couples cannot marry, right?
Would you like to state that gays and lesbians are abnormal, defective, or damaged in some way? That would actually become a relevant argument at that point.
Sorry, no relevance here.
That’s the point of an inalienable right, and, per Leonard Pitts, the majority not only has no right to interfere, but must support and endorse their decision.
Inalienable rights, like any other rights, can only be granted through the legal process, whether we like it or not.
You insist that no one else has the right to dictate morals and that society must support and endorse whatever you do in the name of “equality”, but then you hilariously turn around and insist that you have the right to dictate morals to other people.
I’ve never stated such a thing. Yes, I support same sex marriage. But I’ve also stated that this must happen through the legal process. (I’ve never said otherwise). I’ve even stated, as others have, that it’s better to have this go through the legislature and/or the people. I oppose incest, and certainly oppose the legitimization of it through marriage. But I also realize that, if somehow, it becomes the law of the land, then so be it. I also oppose pedophilia, and I oppose the legitimization of pedophilia will laws in various states that permit. I don’t like it, I accept it as law, but still oppose such laws. So now I ask you, once again, do you support or oppose such laws?
Now, it’s you and me. And we now both agree that any changes go through the legal process, and that everybody has their own opinion on who should be allowed to get married and whatnot. So let’s move beyond that. Do you personally believe that your relationship with your partner is equivalent to a romantic relationship between two siblings? between an adult and a child? between a human and an animal or plant?
RIght now only male-female couples are allowed to marry, and not only are male-female couples NOT categorically, biologically incapable of reproduction, but just the opposite! Reproduction is categorically, biologically ONLY capable between one male and one female.
AmericanElephant, as I have stated several times, and have never stated otherwise, I know that procreation can only occur with one man and one woman. So yes, two men or two women are “categorically, biologically incapable of reproduction.” So are opposite sex couples in which at least one of the persons is infertile. And yet we not only don’t prohibit such marriages, we encourage them. Since your notion of marriage is basically limited to A goes into B, procreate, shouldn’t we advocate that the fertile partner not marry the infertile partner, and find a more suitable partner (i.e., fertile) to marry. Then we can relegate infertile persons to civil unions, domestic partnerships, and/or shacking up, just like same sex couples.
If you are allowed to marry another man (assuming Pat is a male name in this case) simply because you love him, and marriage is for people who love each other, then how is there ANY logical reason to prohibit two brothers from getting married?
Okay. For now, forget about what the current laws are, forget what the Bible says or allegedly says. Do you equate a romantic relationship with two consenting adults of the same sex, non-related to a romantic relationship with two adult siblings? If so, then we obviously disagree, and would understand your view that there would be zero relevant difference. If not, then we have some agreement here. However, I would go further to say that there is nothing morally wrong or even inferior with such relationships. And just like we encourage straight persons to eventually settle down and marry (whether or not they choose and/or able to have kids), the same should be done for gay persons. On the other hand I think romantic relationships are a terrible idea, and we shouldn’t make things worse by sanctioning such relationships with marriage. I feel the same way about pedophilia, and support a minimum age of 18 for marriage.
And yes, I believe any such changes should happen through the legal process.
Then youve apparently never met most of America, most of the world, and never read any of the marriage laws, or court decisions:
I don’t know what to tell you. My parents never brought me up to believe that marriage equated to A goes into B. Nor any church I attended, friends, family, mentors, etc. If that wasn’t the case for you, so be it. I still find it hard to believe.
As for the court decision, they apparently deferred to the legislature. So does the legislature equate marriage with A goes into B? I guess that’s possible, but I doubt it.
Pat,
My comments were about moral relevancy. If gays have a greater propensity toward moral relevancy than the hetero population, then a larger proportion of gays will most likely have the problems caused by infidelity, jealousy, heartbreak, insecurity, and cold water in the face.
Furthermore, I didn’t even touch on the fact that where infidelity is practiced, the likelihood of dragging the “gift that keeps on giving” into the relationship is also greater.
“Dooms comes across in this forum as extremely shallow, extremely immature, and delusional enough to think these are attractive personal characteristics.”
Lol, this coming from a group of people who whine about the “gay left” yet openly embrace the very people who fight tooth and nail to keep them as second class citizens.
Lol, this coming from a group of people who whine about the “gay left” yet openly embrace the very people who fight tooth and nail to keep them as second class citizens.
Actually, Dooms, I would say that people like you who attack and try to harm successful, two-parent, middle-class black families by calling them “Uncle Toms” and race traitors, insisting that they’re not really black, are trying to keep black people as second-class citizens.
Why do you hate successful black people, Dooms? Is it because they demonstrate that you could succeed if you would actually work, instead of sitting on the plantation like a good little Obama Party slave and whining about how “whitey” keeps you down?
And is it any surprise that you do the same thing for gays, whining how any gay person who actually succeeds is pandering to the heterosexual supremacists?
So, that’s how you refer to persons that are infertile or elderly. How nice.
That is what they are. You might as well argue that acknowledging that someone is disabled is mean. It all depends on the context that you yourself put on it.
Now, it’s you and me. And we now both agree that any changes go through the legal process, and that everybody has their own opinion on who should be allowed to get married and whatnot. So let’s move beyond that.
Actually, Pat, we CAN’T move beyond that. You don’t agree with your first statement. You insist that the courts should impose gay-sex marriage on society and strike down existing laws because the Fourteenth Amendment creates the “inalienable right” to marriage. However, the Fourteenth Amendment does NOT contain any restrictions whatsoever in regard to age, number of individuals, blood relationships, or, depending on how one defines “person”, species — which means, according to your own rhetoric, that any restrictions on marriage based on any of those are unconstitutional and should be struck down.
Furthermore, you added another wrinkle with this:
That’s good too. So then you don’t hold people who can’t change their sexual orientation as well.
You acknowledged that this is about sexual orientation, or to what you are sexually attracted, rather than to gender. You have now established that marriage to whatever you are sexually attracted to is an inalienable right.
To use an example, pedophilia has already been shown to have a strong biological component and be very difficult, if not impossible, to change. You have stated that it is wrong to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying the objects of their sexual desire because sexual orientation has a strong biological component and is very difficult, if not impossible, to change. Thus, you have created the precedent for demanding pedophile marriage as an inalienable right.
You and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters, Pat, have short-circuited the process because you are incapable of or unwilling to put in the work of convincing voters. In the process, you have managed to undercut the legal and constitutional arguments for allowing and enforcing bans on pedophile and other types of marriages. You and yours have been warned repeatedly that this was happening, and you ignored it because you selfishly believed that you could force society to give you respect instead of earning it.
Dang Nabbit NDT, look at what those Catholics are doing now. . .
Marquette University in Milwaukee will begin offering domestic partner benefits to its employees beginning next year.
The move by the Catholic, Jesuit university comes about a year after the school rescinded a job offer to a lesbian and scholar at Seattle University. Marquette officials said at the time, rescinding the job offer to Jodi O’Brien had nothing to do with her sexual orientation. But, it triggered heated debate over the issue.
After the university and President Robert A. Wild announced the decision, dozens of faculty members at Marquette and Seattle condemned the school for rescinding the offer to O’Brien to become dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. Marquette later announced it had reached a “mutually acceptable resolution” with O’Brien, but didn’t provide details.
Recently, the University Academic Senate and the Marquette University Student Government voted to urge Marquette to offer benefits to domestic partners.
Wild said he’s been wrestling with the issue for years.
“If we are truly pastoral in our application of the Jesuit principle of cura personalis, I asked myself if I could reconcile that with denying health benefits to a couple who have legally registered their commitment to each other,” Wild said. In Latin, cura personalis means “care for the entire person.”
and then Robert Jones writes in the Washington Post
Looking at the data, it’s difficult to find an issue where the trends are so consistently, even dramatically, in a single direction: towards greater acceptance and support of rights for gay and lesbian Americans. This is true both in the general population and among Catholics. And given the very strong support among younger Catholics for gay and lesbian equality, this trend is likely only to accelerate.
Dr. Stephen Schneck, Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at Catholic University of America, summed up the future options for the Catholic Church hierarchy aptly in his remarks during a panel discussion at our new report’s release. As a practical matter, winning over rank and file Catholics to official church teachings seems highly improbable; rather, “the question facing the American bishops, who oppose same-sex marriage on doctrinal grounds, is how they will choose to address this momentum.”
(shrug) So? They can do as they like.
This is what’s funny about you, rusty. You seem to be demanding that other people be intolerant of the behaviors of others in the group to which they may belong — which is, granted, entirely consistent with your complete and total intolerance for anyone who disagrees with “gay dogma”.
Perhaps that’s the problem. You and your fellow liberal gays and lesbians are threatened by independent thought, which is why you attack and stigmatize anyone who doesn’t espouse “correct” gay and lesbian dogma as an “Uncle Tom”. Of course, you assume since everyone else thinks the same way that you do, that I’m going to get upset at Marquette.
Followers of ‘Gay and Lesbian Dogma’ ??
Supporters of gay marriage on the right:
Peter Theil AFER American Foundation for Equal Rights.
Ken Mehlman AFER
Mary Cheney AFER
and more on AFER http://www.towleroad.com/2010/09/afer-post.html
Sorry NDT, it’s not just a group of folk who make your eye twitch, or that cause you to rally up your silly banter of your alter ego ‘Miss Rita Beads’,
that are supporting Gay Marriage.
Sure, rusty.
Want to see where the gay and lesbian community wishes death on Mary Cheney and her child?
Want to see where the gay and lesbian community tells Ken Mehlman to commit suicide, or where they brand Peter Thiel a traitor?
You and yours threw these people out of the community and want them to kill themselves, rusty. Do you seriously expect us to believe that you would cite them as examples?
Nice attempt at distraction MISS BEADS. . .
so, yes or no, very simple. . . these folk of ‘the’ right support same sex marriage through the AMERICAN FOUNDATION for EQUAL RIGHTS.
My comments were about moral relevancy. If gays have a greater propensity toward moral relevancy than the hetero population, then a larger proportion of gays will most likely have the problems caused by infidelity, jealousy, heartbreak, insecurity, and cold water in the face.
Heliotrope, thanks for clarifying. I’m afraid I can’t argue with that.
That is what they are. You might as well argue that acknowledging that someone is disabled is mean. It all depends on the context that you yourself put on it.
Fine, I’ll let my cousin know that, I’m sure she would appreciate it.
You don’t agree with your first statement. You insist that the courts should impose gay-sex marriage on society and strike down existing laws because the Fourteenth Amendment creates the “inalienable right” to marriage.
NDT, I don’t believe I ever said such a thing, especially since I am nowhere near an expert on the 14th Amendment and the ramifications from. All I can tell you there are varying opinions on what ramifications are and what should be. It is possible I originally supported court action. But I favor legislative action now. So now can we move forward?
Thus, you have created the precedent for demanding pedophile marriage as an inalienable right.
Once again, you completely ignore the fact that marriage involves two people. Further, you are aware rape is a crime to, despite the fact that one of the persons involved in the rape feels entitled to commit the act.
And once again, I invite you to join me in supporting marriage laws making 18 the minimum age. How about it?
In the process, you have managed to undercut the legal and constitutional arguments for allowing and enforcing bans on pedophile and other types of marriages.
Not I.
You and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters
Does this mean I can address you by saying “you and your fellow straight-sex marriage only supporters? Or should we just stop this nonsense (the “you and your fellow” crap, and the “gay-sex” crap?
Rusty, nice to hear about Marquette.
Kinda exciting news out of Marquette, Pat. Have a fondness for the Jesuits, have many Jesuits as friends and mentors.
cura personalis means “care for the entire person.”
For Lent, I were a special crucifx and a Saint Camillus medallion, to remind me of my time working at the AIDS hospice.
A couple days late on this thread, but I’m from Seattle, which is Dan Savege Land, so I wanted to chime in here. Dan Savage acts so nasty all the time because he IS nasty. The man is GROSS. I will never forget when he and his lover adtoped a baby, and he wrote a whole column in “The Stranger” where he was talking about — kid you not — “my son’s cock.” This was his baby he was talking about. He said he wanted to circumcize his baby, because if he didn’t, the boy “might not get sucked off as much as he’d like as an adult.” Seriously… here’s a link to the article. Nothing Dan Savage does or says could ever suprise me. I think he is a sick puppy.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=2020
That’s “adopted,” of course, not “adtoped.” 😀
Thanks, Brian, for that. Dan Savage is a sick bastard. (Yes, Timmah, I’m being judgmental. I think judging sick behavior is essential to maintaining societal standards.) There’s not reason, except for self-promotion, to put such a private, personal decision out in public like that.
I’ve adopted three boys, and I have never seen their junk, ever. But if I had, I sure as hell wouldn’t write a column about it for a gay sleazerag.