Gay Patriot Header Image

Majority of Americans find gay relationships morally acceptable,
but overwhelming majority find marital infidelity morally wrong

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:33 am - June 1, 2011.
Filed under: Post 9-11 America

Via Ann Althouse, I just learned of Gallup’s 2011 Values and Beliefs poll:

U.S. Perceived Moral Acceptability of Behaviors and Social Policies, May 2011

That blogress asks her readers, “What surprises you the most here?” Well, I’m no longer surprised that nearly 3 in 5 Americans find gay relationships morally acceptable. It corresponds with the numbers we’ve seen in Pew and Gallup surveys on state recognition of same-sex civil unions. The changes is social attitudes I blogged about here are very real.

What surprised me was the moral issue on which there is there greatest concord in America, marital fidelity. It seems my “gut feeling” about monogamy is more than just a visceral reaction, but something with which more than 90% of my fellow Americans can relate. And it’s something to bear in mind when we’re talking about state recognition of same-sex marriage.

Share

104 Comments

  1. I’m most surprised by the difference in the acceptability between doctor-assisted suicide and the old-fashioned kind. It’s more-or-less OK for a professional who swore an oath to preserve life to help you take yours, but ending yourself isn’t? There are reasons to be concerned about assisted suicide, not least the possibilty of co-option by the state, but the responsibility still rests with the individul. Seems a bit of cognitive dissonance here.

    Comment by Blair Ivey — June 1, 2011 @ 3:33 am - June 1, 2011

  2. Wow. Abortion is more popular than porn? I suspect some liberals thought abortion and porn was the same thing.

    Comment by TGC — June 1, 2011 @ 4:57 am - June 1, 2011

  3. “Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 5-8, 2011, with a random sample of 1,018 adults”

    1,018 people doesn’t equate to 300+ Million Americans and their views.

    Comment by Nate — June 1, 2011 @ 5:15 am - June 1, 2011

  4. I find it shocking that Americans are strongly of the view that the death penalty is morally acceptable. Violence, particularly revenge, seems always to be okay.

    Comment by F Young — June 1, 2011 @ 7:17 am - June 1, 2011

  5. Doctor-assisted suicide: The greater acceptance vs. regular suicide is probably just due to an assumption that the suicide is happening for extreme medical reasons.

    Fur, animal testing: I’m surprised and a little disappointed that more people don’t accept them. It’s true that unnecessary cruelty to animals is idiotic and a sign of emotional disturbance; it’s also true that animals are here for our use and thinking they have rights is idiotic. (Rights, by their nature, can only ever be had by sentient beings i.e. humans.)

    Research using stem cells “obtained from embryos”: Political bias in the question. More people (matching the abortion number) would be against research using stem cells “obtained from killing embryos”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2011 @ 8:15 am - June 1, 2011

  6. I can’t make the connection between the unacceptable numbers for abortion and the acceptable numbers for embryonic stem cell use. Just cannot get my head around that…

    Comment by aine — June 1, 2011 @ 8:36 am - June 1, 2011

  7. I can’t say I’m really all that surprised by any of the results. Well, maybe the 11% that think polygamy is morally acceptable. Seems a little high to me.

    As far as the dissonance regarding abortion vs. the embyonic stem cells, ILC makes a fair point about possible political bias in the question. I think it’s probably right that the numbers would be closer if the question referred to stem cells obtained by killing embryos. BUT – I think the majority of respondents that find it acceptable does so because they don’t connect embryonic stem cells with abortions. Or maybe a better way to say that is abortion providers don’t conduct abortions to harvest stem cells. Embryonic stem cells come from embryos that are otherwise being discarded during medical fertilization processes. Most people don’t consider the discarding of those embryos to be abortion, so they wouldn’t equate the two. That would be my guess anyway.

    ILC, I think you’re right about the doctor-assisted suicide issue too. I’d wager the same that people read that being a choice due to terminal medical conditions as opposed to suicide resulting from depression, etc.

    Comment by Neptune — June 1, 2011 @ 8:59 am - June 1, 2011

  8. ILC said (#3),
    “It’s true that unnecessary cruelty to animals is idiotic and a sign of emotional disturbance; it’s also true that animals are here for our use and thinking they have rights is idiotic.”

    On what possible basis did you conclude that “animals are here for our use?” . . . Oh, wait, that notion could only have come from religious beliefs (speaking of idiotic).

    Comment by Richard R — June 1, 2011 @ 10:13 am - June 1, 2011

  9. loved the will and grace post,

    (sidenote: Dan, here is a little experiment. . .while you have your errands, walkabouts etc in WEHO,
    just think about how many MO’s you see, what they are doing, how they are interacting, what roles do you see them taking on, and lastly, how many of them do you recognize?)

    And then we have his article from the Santa Barbara Independent:

    Don’t Say ‘Gay’
    Tennessee Tries to Outlaw Talk of Homosexuality in Schools

    ——————————————————————————–
    It’s the love that dare not speak its name—especially if you’re in Tennessee,

    Supporters say the bill allows parents, rather than teachers, to decide when and what (and, er, if?) their children learn about homosexuality. As if they didn’t actually learn all they need to know from watching Modern Family.

    But to me, the whole gay gag just looks like a bunch of uptight Republicans trying to squash a squirrelly little slice of reality that makes them terribly uncomfortable. And maybe just the slightest bit tingly.

    . . .

    I don’t know how to reverse ignorance and intolerance. But I do know this: They don’t go away just because we ignore them.

    Comment by rusty — June 1, 2011 @ 10:32 am - June 1, 2011

  10. On what possible basis did you conclude that “animals are here for our use?” . . . Oh, wait, that notion could only have come from religious beliefs

    Nope. Guess again. (Hint: logic)

    (speaking of idiotic).

    Looks like that’s you, Richard R ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2011 @ 10:57 am - June 1, 2011

  11. Oh, wait, that notion could only have come from religious beliefs

    Or that notion comes from oh, I don’t know…evolution? The fact that humans are the top of the food chain?

    We do use animals. Even keeping animals as beloved pets is “using” them. I like my dogs more than I like some of my neighbors, but I’m still using them. For companionship and for home security. In fact the only reason we have domesticated animals is because early human civilizations put those animals to use. They don’t have rights. My dog can’t go out and buy a gun or attend a protest rally. But I do have a responsibility as their owner (because yes, they are my property) to treat them well and care for them appropriately.

    Comment by Neptune — June 1, 2011 @ 10:58 am - June 1, 2011

  12. religious beliefs (speaking of idiotic).

    5,000 years of accumulated wisdom on morality and human nature dismissed as “idiotic” by a liberal who thinks he knows better. Typical.

    Comment by V the K — June 1, 2011 @ 10:58 am - June 1, 2011

  13. Neptune, correct.

    Another way to say it is to simply identify the central facts involved: that when I look out my window in the morning, there is this big world which is THERE… and it is filled with air, water, sun, land, plants, bacteria and ANIMALS which are available FOR HUMAN USE – as no superseding claims are applicable or even presented by, say, dolphins or Vulcans.

    Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2011 @ 11:27 am - June 1, 2011

  14. I’m not too surprised by the results. I think the discrepancy between abortion and stem-cell research is that there is probably a significant number of persons who oppose abortion, but accept it as a reality, and as such, may believe that stem-cell research is a positive outcome from it. I’m sure these same people would oppose abortions solely for the purpose of stem-cell research.

    As for doctor-assisted suicides, I think there is an assumption that the doctor is sure about a prognosis, and the individual/family decision is based on that knowledge.

    The one thing that surprised me was the small discrepancy between sex outside of marriage and same sex relationships (which I would believe include the assumption that sex is part of the relationship). If that’s the case, then it seems that only 4% of the people are okay with sex outside of marriage, but still think homosexual relationships are not okay. In other words, a high percentage of those who are hung up on homosexual relationships are hung up on premarital sex.

    5,000 years of accumulated wisdom on morality and human nature dismissed as “idiotic” by a liberal who thinks he knows better. Typical.

    V the K, Catholicism wasn’t quite dismissed as “idiotic,” but it did take a pretty big hit yesterday.

    Comment by Pat — June 1, 2011 @ 11:30 am - June 1, 2011

  15. Catholicism wasn’t quite dismissed as “idiotic,” but it did take a pretty big hit yesterday.

    What’s the ref, a news event?

    I know we had a thread where Catholic Social Teaching took a hit, but I wouldn’t say CST == Catholicism. OTOH, when I read V’s comment over there, I did think of crying out… “Mormon!” ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2011 @ 11:41 am - June 1, 2011

  16. Spock’s pet Sehlat, the “live teddy bear with six-inch fangs. . .from Yesteryear, animated Star Trek. . .Spock loved his pet

    Comment by rusty — June 1, 2011 @ 11:45 am - June 1, 2011

  17. I don’t understand why people find polygamy morally wrong. What’s wrong with polygamy?

    Comment by MV — June 1, 2011 @ 11:52 am - June 1, 2011

  18. rusty,

    Obligatory geek moment. The sehlat was first mentioned in ‘Journey to Babel’ then later brought to ‘life’ in TAS. (I also think that episode is the only one that is in ‘canon’ as it were.)

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 1, 2011 @ 12:22 pm - June 1, 2011

  19. It’s legalized cheating. Also, as practiced in most societies (e.g. Muslim), it subordinates women.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2011 @ 12:23 pm - June 1, 2011

  20. “I don’t understand why people find polygamy morally wrong. What’s wrong with polygamy?”

    Ask yourself why it can’t be found (outside tiny compounds of religious extremists) anywhere except in countries where women are horribly oppressed, denied equal citizenship and — in most cases — even full expression of their humanity. Therein will you find your answer.

    I’ll bet “MV” is an alias.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 1, 2011 @ 12:34 pm - June 1, 2011

  21. Oh Yeah, polygamy can also be found in countries where “progressive” dhimmis are encouraging Sharia-creep.

    MV is undoubtedly here from some anti-gay group trying to catch somebody here saying something typically liberal and stereotypically gay liberal. Feeding-time for the junkyard pit bulls.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 1, 2011 @ 12:37 pm - June 1, 2011

  22. My initial reaction was like most other comments regarding the wide difference between doctor assisted suicide and the ¨old fashion¨ suicide. Then as I thought more about it; doctor assisted is in most cases when there is no hope of recovery and the disease has progressed to a point where pain is unbearable and no amount of morphine will dull it. Self inflicted suicide usually occurs when there is present an unquenched mental anguish; such as happens to teens who have been bullied and rejected by their peers for their looks or for their life style, even by family, as with gay and lesbian youth. I use the term unquenched, because the victim, in most cases, failed to seek outside help such as psychological or spiritual conselling.

    Comment by Roberto — June 1, 2011 @ 2:14 pm - June 1, 2011

  23. ILC, yes, I was referring to yesterday’s posts about Catholic Social Teaching. Sure, Catholicism does not equal CST, but CST is a big chunk of what Catholicism. In any case, I really don’t have a problem with criticism of religion any more than criticism of any thing else. Yes, “religious beliefs are idiotic” is pretty strong stuff, but so are “libtards are idiotic” (or some variation thereof), “conservative gay are self-loathers,” etc.

    What’s the ref, a news event?

    Unless the Pope spoke, Catholicism probably didn’t take a hit in the news. :-)

    19. Also, as practiced in most societies (e.g. Muslim), it subordinates women.

    That’s my biggest problem with polygamy. I wouldn’t have as much an issue with it if all parties were equals (although I still would oppose it). Heck, I look down on marriages in which one person has unilaterally assumed a “more equal than” than the spouse role.

    This poll has clearly shown that people are much more receptive to same sex marriage/civil unions than formalizing and/or legalizing polygamy, and if other questions were asked, would show that no one is ready any time soon for formalizing and/or legalizing marriage between adults and children under 14 (14 year olds can still get married with parental permission in some states, yuch!), between close relatives, and between adults and other animate or inanimate objects.

    MV is undoubtedly here from some anti-gay group trying to catch somebody here saying something typically liberal and stereotypically gay liberal. Feeding-time for the junkyard pit bulls.

    Lori, that’s sort of my impression. Some people out there still equate same sex marriage with the other types of marriage I listed above, and use weak slippery slope arguments. The polls indicate that people don’t equate same sex relationships with pedophilia, incest, polygamy, etc.

    Comment by Pat — June 1, 2011 @ 2:14 pm - June 1, 2011

  24. “The polls indicate that people don’t equate same sex relationships with pedophilia, incest, polygamy, etc.”

    Pat,

    I’d add the qualifier, ‘now’. We can argue if that’s an improvement or not, but the fact is that the perceptions have changed.

    (Aside, I know a few people in plural relationships that have outlasted my (two) marriages. It can be done. Whether the government should recognize, or condemn, it is something else entirely)

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 1, 2011 @ 2:54 pm - June 1, 2011

  25. But to me, the whole gay gag just looks like a bunch of uptight Republicans trying to squash a squirrelly little slice of reality that makes them terribly uncomfortable. And maybe just the slightest bit tingly.

    What the hell do parents know about teaching their kids? It’s up to the State to do it.

    Comment by TGC — June 1, 2011 @ 4:28 pm - June 1, 2011

  26. The headline is misleading. I would examine Gay Relationships in the same framework as Sex between Unmarried Man and Woman, which are nearly the same. 56-39 vs 60-36. Slightly more think Gay Relationships are wrong when compared with Straight Unmarried Sex. You can sort of say there is a slight bias if 3 percent of the population is gay.

    These statistics show how gay acceptability is making loose morals among straight people the norm. The concern about marital fidelity is irrelevant since many are not likely to marry. Gay marriage only serves to decrease marriage for everyone.

    Comment by anon23532 — June 1, 2011 @ 4:42 pm - June 1, 2011

  27. These statistics show how gay acceptability is making loose morals among straight people the norm.

    Correlation does not mean causation. Gay people being “acceptable” isn’t loosening the morals of straight people. That’s an absurd suggestion. My neighbors find me more “acceptable”, therefore that will drive them to loosen their own morals? Ridiculous. “Gee, the gay neighbors do it in the bu++…maybe we should too honey!”

    If you think homosexuality is immoral (I don’t), the reverse of your point would be the better argument, namely that the loosening of morals generally among straight people makes them more likely to accept homosexuals as not morally objectionable.

    Comment by Neptune — June 1, 2011 @ 5:29 pm - June 1, 2011

  28. “…the reverse of your point would be the better argument, namely that the loosening of morals generally among straight people makes them more likely to accept homosexuals as not morally objectionable.

    Comment by Neptune — June 1, 2011 @ 5:29 pm – June”

    Exactly, Neptune. Which is why the smug assurance of people like Pat and Lori that acceptance of homosexuality won’t led to a slippery slope is so stupid. The acceptance of homosexualitiy is itself the result of “loosening morals”, i.e., of a slippery slope.

    Pat and Lori, please tell me what will stop the “loosening of morals” that’s led to acceptance of homosexuality from leading to the acceptance of any and every other abberrant sexuality/lifestyle. Tell me what gives you the right to pass harsh judgment on other sex groups when you both shriek that such judgements, when applied to gays, are–gasp!–bigotry. And no, you can’t rely on some generic “everybody knows polygamy/pedophilia/bestiality/incest is wrong” argument. Remember, 40 or 50 years ago “everybody knew” that homosexuality was wrong and had the same disgusted reaction to it that you and other gays now hypocritically display toward other abberrant sexualities.

    Pat and Lori, if you gays insist on rejecting the authority of “everybody knows”, even when such “knowing” is rooted in “5,000 years of accumulated wisdom on morality and human nature”, then why can’t anyone else?

    The acceptance of homosexuality is the result of spitting on a moral code that was adamantine just a generation ago. That tells me, Pat and Lori, that the door is now wide open for other sexual outsiders to stake their claim to “equality” in the name of “tolerance” and “diversity”. The hard work, i.e. tearing down the old moral edifice and demonizing its supporters as bigots, has already been done for them by gays and libertine straights. All that’s left for the other sexual “minorities” to do is to organize effectively. And traditional values-hating gays like the two of you have no moral right to oppose them. But I know you’ll continue to delude yourselves that you do.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 2, 2011 @ 12:53 am - June 2, 2011

  29. I can’t answer for Pat, but I personally refuse to respond to the shrill, shrieking demands of a phoney-baloney “conservative” who mindlessly lumps all gays together into one big, all-too-convenient wastebasket and tosses them away.

    Seane-Anna, you try so hard to convince people that you are a conservative. You are a homo-obsessed social reactionary. Your thinking has betrayed you — again and again — as a closet Leftist. People are merely groups to you, not individuals. No real conservative thinks like that.

    I’m done dealing with you — you will say whatever you damn well please. If Pat is smart, he will ignore you, too. As do most of the people who comment here regularly. They’ve learned not to bother taking you too seriously.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 2, 2011 @ 2:06 am - June 2, 2011

  30. Lori, you can’t answer for Pat and you can’t answer for yourself, either. Rather than responding to my questions you resort all to easily to attacking me personally. You used to try and discredit me by calling me a closet gay. Now you’ve moved on to calling me a closet Leftist. But you also label me a “social reactionary”. What a hoot. So which is it, Lori? Am I a Leftist or a reactionary? Since you’re the one supporting the agenda of the social Left, at least when it comes to gays. And since you’re the one who reflexively resorts to personal attacks rather than honest dialogue when confronted with dissent from your views, I believe the term “Leftist” much better applies to you. As for social reactionary, well, we’ll see who’ll be slapped with that label in a decade or two when the social change gays have unleashed upon society keeps moving on.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 2, 2011 @ 6:29 am - June 2, 2011

  31. I’d add the qualifier, ‘now’. We can argue if that’s an improvement or not, but the fact is that the perceptions have changed.

    Livewire, I agree about adding “now.” Things were different in the past, and perceptions may certainly change in the future. I would argue that they won’t change as much.

    I believe and maintain that the cornerstone of marriage is the fact that it involves two people. Other than that, major changes have come with marriage through the course of time. Yes, polygamy was rampant, and seemed to have some acceptance in the Bible. But even then, it’s the man that married the new wife. She is not married to the other wives. In any case, most cultures have abandoned polygamy. The other changes included allowing marriages to persons of different social classes and eventually, different races. Marriage became more about two people who love each other and decided they wanted to marry each other, instead of being arranged by others. Marriage become more about an equal partnership, than about a woman being a man’s piece of property. These changes have occurred because of societal and cultural changes. Now that there is acceptance of homosexuality, it stands to reason that there is an increasing acceptance of same sex marriage. But even if it only goes as far as Fred, two is still the magic number here. I don’t see the number increasing, at least not any time soon.

    Yes, there may be an increasing acceptance of plural relationships, especially if all parties are considered equals. And as your observation has noted, it is possible for such relationships to last. And further, such relationships are legal, and would seem fruitless to ban such relationships even if we wanted to. But to extend this to marriage will be much more of a tough sell, because then we are talking about a real fundamental change to marriage.

    Comment by Pat — June 2, 2011 @ 6:46 am - June 2, 2011

  32. If Pat is smart, he will ignore you, too.

    Lori, I’m not quite that smart yet. I’ll give it another try.

    Rather than responding to my questions you resort all to easily to attacking me personally.

    First of all, Seane-Anna, virtually all of your comments on this blog are personal attacks of most of the participants on this blog. So can the victimhood, okay.

    Pat and Lori, please tell me what will stop the “loosening of morals” that’s led to acceptance of homosexuality from leading to the acceptance of any and every other abberrant sexuality/lifestyle.

    I apologize that acceptance of my homosexuality has led to your own aberrant sexuality and lifestyle. Actually, it sounds like a personal problem on your part. Feel free to fix your own sexuality, even if homosexuality continues to be accepted. You don’t have to blame others for your own inadequacies and immoral behaviors.

    Tell me what gives you the right to pass harsh judgment on other sex groups when you both shriek that such judgements, when applied to gays, are–gasp!–bigotry. And no, you can’t rely on some generic “everybody knows polygamy/pedophilia/bestiality/incest is wrong” argument.

    I’ll let you know as soon as you explain what gives you the right to pass your own judgments despite your own sexual aberrations, and the sexual group that you belong to.

    Remember, 40 or 50 years ago “everybody knew” that homosexuality was wrong and had the same disgusted reaction to it that you and other gays now hypocritically display toward other abberrant sexualities.

    Yeah, I remember when 500 years ago, everybody thought the Sun revolved around the Earth (maybe you still believe that). I remember when 200 years ago, it was okay for one race of people to be enslaved by others (maybe you still believe that). No, I’m not equating these with the attitude changes about homosexuality. But it does show that your argument that homosexuality being shunned until recently as a reason to continue to find homosexuality morally objectionable is specious. You have to do a much better job.

    Pat and Lori, if you gays insist on rejecting the authority of “everybody knows”, even when such “knowing” is rooted in “5,000 years of accumulated wisdom on morality and human nature”, then why can’t anyone else?

    And yet, most people, including straight persons, who are devout followers of such tradition accept homosexuality. But feel free to stay stuck in your own morass of ignorance, and let someone or something to continue to do your own thinking.

    The hard work, i.e. tearing down the old moral edifice and demonizing its supporters as bigots, has already been done for them by gays and libertine straights.

    Aww, you don’t like being demonized? I guess that means you won’t demonize others, right?

    The acceptance of homosexuality is the result of spitting on a moral code that was adamantine just a generation ago.

    Yes, moral codes do need to be spit on every now and then. I gave two examples above. Here’s another one. Women are no longer subjugated to men in Western Civilization. This is also a recent development. Perhaps you are troubled by this change as well. If so, please continue to view yourself as inferior, as well as the sexual aberrant you are. Perhaps it is this change that has led to the slippery slope of the morality of today that you so decry. Maybe you need to convince other woman to resubjugate (if that’s a word) to men in order to stop all this rampant immorality, including your own, since you obviously need others to satisfy a moral code in order for you to be able to follow it.

    That tells me, Pat and Lori, that the door is now wide open for other sexual outsiders to stake their claim to “equality” in the name of “tolerance” and “diversity”.

    Maybe so. It’s up to us to decide what is acceptable and what’s not. But feel free to include more scare quotes.

    And traditional values-hating gays like the two of you have no moral right to oppose them.

    And you do? Who the hell made you God? Talk about smug arrogance. You are one piece of sexual aberrant work.

    But I know you’ll continue to delude yourselves that you do.

    Of course, as one who is deluded herself, you will continue to consider yourself morally upstanding, and deny your own sexual aberrance. Another symptom of your sexual aberrance.

    Have a blessed day, Seane-Anna.

    Comment by Pat — June 2, 2011 @ 7:41 am - June 2, 2011

  33. Pat,

    I do expect that many polygamy arguments will ‘borrow’ from SSM arguments, just as many pro SSM arguments look to Loving v Virginia for justification. Personally I’m a ‘live and let live’ on it. I don’t care if there’s a trio or a quad. I do see that the government has an interest in recognizing partnerships. Primarily for procreation, but in marriage as it stands, others can meet the basic criteria. (we have a gender test, relation test, etc. We don’t have a ‘performance test’ like in the finale of the Borgias)

    (kind of like how I can have a mammogram, even though I’m much less likely for breast cancer, being a guy)

    I accept that society changes, and not always towards liberalization. (Also not always the way I want.) So I don’t think it’s the end of the world if two guys or two girls can get “Fredded” (It’s also not the end of the world if they can get married, it’s just not a direction I want) I do think it is harmful if the men in black robes just ass pull out a ‘right’ to have a partnership recognized as ‘marriage.’

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 2, 2011 @ 9:18 am - June 2, 2011

  34. I’m not here from some anti-gay group. I was asking that because if we are suppose to be respectful of other people relationships why is polygamy not included in that. I think that polygamy should be something that is voluntary and not forced onto people. In case you didn’t polygamy has been practice just as long if not longer than monogamy and in some cases those relationships are better. I just find it weird that some people think that it is weird for three or more people to be in a relationship. It happens all the time. That’s all I was saying. And by the way I don’t care if the government recognizes polygamy, same-sex marriage or any other form of marriage. It should be privatized anyway.

    Comment by MV — June 2, 2011 @ 10:28 am - June 2, 2011

  35. Livewire, I don’t doubt that those who want government recognized polygamy would look at same sex marriage for justification. Let those who support it make the argument, just as those of us who advocate same sex marriage make the argument.

    MV, I’m getting what you are saying. But you are talking about two different things. On the one hand, you believe any kind of marriage should be privatized (including traditional opposite sex marriage?). If so, fine. I don’t think anyone ever advocated to make polyamory illegal. But since marriage is not (for the most part) privatized, it makes sense to discuss who can legally get married. Should it just be opposite sex couples? Those who can and say they will procreate only? Can couples from different races or economic/social classes marry?

    But I get the feeling, perhaps incorrectly, that you are saying that if one advocates something other than traditional relationships, then one should advocate all other types of relationships. That’s what Seane-Anna is basically saying in addition to her other bile. And I’m not buying it. Correct me if I am wrong.

    Comment by Pat — June 2, 2011 @ 11:27 am - June 2, 2011

  36. Pat,
    On that we agree.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 2, 2011 @ 11:38 am - June 2, 2011

  37. But I get the feeling, perhaps incorrectly, that you are saying that if one advocates something other than traditional relationships, then one should advocate all other types of relationships. That’s what Seane-Anna is basically saying in addition to her other bile. And I’m not buying it.

    No, Pat.

    What’s being said is that you are making these arguments for gay-sex marriage:

    1) You should be allowed to marry whomever you love.

    2) No one has the right to declare your love invalid and socially unacceptable.

    3) No one else has the right to enshrine their moral code that finds your love aberrant or worthy of denying marriage into law.

    4) No one else has the right to vote on or pass laws that interfere with your right to marry whomever you love, and such laws are automatically unconstitutional due to “equal protection”

    5) The key on whether or not something is right or wrong is whether it negatively affects your own relationship, and if it does not, then you are a hateful bigot acting solely on personal animus if you oppose it.

    So now you’re being asked to clarify why you oppose pedophiles, bestialists, and plural marriage practitioners being granted civil marriage, especially since 1) you have said marriage should be based solely on love, 2) you have stated that no one has the right to declare anyone else’s love invalid, 3) you have stated that no one has the right to enshrine their own moral code in law, 4) you have said that no one has the right to vote on or pass laws that interfere with anyone’s right to marry whomever they love and that such laws are automatically unconstitutional, and 5) you have never provided how such marriages would affect your relationships, which means you are acting solely out of animus, hate, and bigotry towards others and thus makes the laws you pass invalid.

    In short, people who are taking the long view and looking at the benefits to society as a whole, rather than shortsighted self-interest, are asking why these same arguments do not apply to these other situations and pointing out how, in your mad and desperate rush to get gay-sex marriage at any cost, are creating dangerous and foolish legal precedents and practices.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 2, 2011 @ 12:40 pm - June 2, 2011

  38. The acceptance of homosexuality is the result of spitting on a moral code that was adamantine just a generation ago.

    I don’t think this is the case at all. The acceptance of homosexuality is the result of two things that must be present: a better understanding of human sexuality and a recognition that consensual adult relationships are not necessarily harmful or reflective of mental illness. It’s also partially an outgrowth of the “sexual revolution” of the 60s and 70s.

    The “moral code” you speak of is little more than cultural norms, heavily influenced by Christianity and other monotheistic religions. And that’s not a bad thing, since we have that influence to thank for much of western civilization. But cultural norms do change over time, as does science (as pointed out by Pat).

    The uncomfortable reality – or as I sometimes put it, that which we don’t speak of in mixed company – is that gays and lesbians perform the same sexual acts as heterosexuals do. As more heterosexuals have become comfortable with those acts in their own lives (see, e.g. statistics on the number of people who admit to engaging in oral and anal sex), they begin to question why their friends and neighbors who do those things exclusively are any more morally unacceptable. You may not like that trend, but that’s just how it goes.

    Comment by Neptune — June 2, 2011 @ 12:48 pm - June 2, 2011

  39. Pat, good reply to Seane-Anna’s personal attacks. She makes a boatload of mindless assumptions about the people who comment here, based on her own personal problems. Which must be scary, indeed.

    MV, if you believe the government exists solely to protect individual freedom — as I do — then you’re on the right track. Many of the people who comment here (both Right and Left) seem to believe government should act as God and do absolutely everything for absolutely everybody.

    Or at least for the people it likes, because they’ve gotten ahold of the guns of government control and managed to turn them against everybody they don’t like.

    MV is right. The government never should have gotten into the business of dictating the terms of private relationships in the first place. It did so, originally, to prevent intermarriage between the races. We’ve come to realize it was wrong in that instance, yet we persist in believing it ought to do so in others.

    Believing that somebody “supports” a certain type of behavior simply because he or she does not believe the government ought to regulate or illegalize it is childish and absurd.

    Americans need to rediscover the value of minding their own damn business and living their own lives well. For many on both sides of the political spectrum, this has become a lost art.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 2, 2011 @ 2:30 pm - June 2, 2011

  40. When arguing against same-sex marriage, many would have you believe they are worried sick about it opening the flood gates to acceptance of pedophilia, bestiality, and plural marriages, etc.. Don’t believe it. They are simply grasping at anything they can find to support their visceral animus toward gays. Slippery slopes and subject-changing are time-tested tactics used to hoodwink stupid people. When was the last time you heard anyone railing against pedophilia, bestiality, or plural marriages outside of a context involving gay people? Yeah, I can’t remember, either.

    People with functioning brains can reason their way to the conclusion that adult same-sex marriages are not remotely harmful, and actually benefit, not only those involved, but all of society. And they can also reason their way to the conclusion that pedophilia, for example, IS harmful.

    Comment by Richard R — June 2, 2011 @ 4:32 pm - June 2, 2011

  41. The government never should have gotten into the business of dictating the terms of private relationships in the first place.

    Actually, I think that’s a bit of a misconception.

    The government does not in any way dictate the terms of private relationships between consenting adults.

    What it does dictate are the terms under which such relationships will be recognized for governmental purposes.

    Hybrid car tax credits are an excellent similar example. The government does not dictate what type of car you can buy or the terms under which you buy it; it simply says that, if you buy this particular type of car new, you are eligible to (not required to) claim a credit for doing so of a certain amount on your taxes.

    Heterosexual marriage is encouraged for three reasons: one, heterosexual activity tends to produce children; two, children do best when raised in a stabilized family environment by their parents, and three, society benefits and is perpetuated when one and two are effectively fulfilled. The essential purpose of governmentally-recognized marriage is to recognize, reward, and enable responsible child-rearing; the cost of doing so is offset by the benefit that happy, healthy, well-raised children ultimately produce for society.

    In contrast, same-sex marriage produces none of those benefits while still costing the same amount.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 2, 2011 @ 5:04 pm - June 2, 2011

  42. When arguing against same-sex marriage, many would have you believe they are worried sick about it opening the flood gates to acceptance of pedophilia, bestiality, and plural marriages, etc..

    Mainly because the gay and lesbian community has acknowledged that it wants incestuous and plural marriages recognized the same as others.

    Also because the organizations that have been pushing the hardest for gay-sex marriage support plural marriage and defend pedophile organizations like NAMBLA that advocate child sexualization and marriage.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 2, 2011 @ 5:13 pm - June 2, 2011

  43. 39.Pat, good reply to Seane-Anna’s personal attacks. She makes a boatload of mindless assumptions about the people who comment here, based on her own personal problems. Which must be scary, indeed.

    Lori, agreed. I don’t know what her personal problems are, but she best worry about her own sexuality. Perhaps focusing on others’ sexuality detracts from her own problems.

    Comment by Pat — June 2, 2011 @ 5:15 pm - June 2, 2011

  44. I don’t think this is the case at all.

    Neptune, I also used the term “spit,” just to use Seane-Anna’s term. What’s ironic is, that (if I recall correctly), as a Black woman, she has benefited from changes in the moral code and societal attitudes over the past 200 years, and now that she’s got hers, all progress must stop for the rest of us. And even worse, her reasons are specious.

    Comment by Pat — June 2, 2011 @ 5:23 pm - June 2, 2011

  45. “Far too often, the conversation on marriage can get lost in rhetoric,” Angelo said. “But this debate really centers around one idea: whether government has the right to say whom a person should love and marry. As a proud conservative, I believe in smaller, limited government, and that government should have no more of a right to say whom I can marry than they should be able to tell my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters whom they can marry.”

    “It is time for conservatives to get back to their roots,” Angelo said. “Through Iowa Republicans for Freedom, we will begin a conversation about whether our party and our state will stand for true conservative values, or whether we will allow ourselves to get lost in senseless debates that do nothing but demean our neighbors and threaten the rights of our fellow Iowans.”

    Angelo is a heterosexual father of three who identifies as an evangelical Christian. He regularly attends the Ames Evangelical Free Church. While he still considers himself “very much an activist Republican,” Angelo said he, and other Republicans, are recognizing banning same-sex marriage violates the widely-held conservative belief of personal freedoms.

    Today, Jeff Angelo, a former State Senator from Ames has launched a new group: Iowa Republicans for Freedom. TK at BTB

    Comment by rusty — June 2, 2011 @ 5:45 pm - June 2, 2011

  46. “What it does dictate are the terms under which such relationships will be recognized for governmental purposes.”

    NDT, I agree that the government does this — because so many people think it should be the fount of all blessings.

    Those of us who merely want to get off the gravy train and be left the hell alone should not be lumped together with people who want to cruise along on the gravy train forever.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 2, 2011 @ 6:01 pm - June 2, 2011

  47. Lori and Pat are so funny. They NEVER answered my questions and I know they never will. Why? Because it’s politically advantageous for them not to. ND30 said it well when he wrote about “short-sighted self-interest”. That really is what’s driving so many gays, epitomized here by Pat and Lori. They really are willing to get same-sex marriage legalized at ANY COST, even at the cost of “creating dangerous and foolish legal precedents and practices”. And they are willing to do this because legalized SSM will benefit them personally. Pat, Lori, and far too many other gays want it officially enshrined into law that homosexuality is GOOD, and the best way to do that, they believe, is to get gay marriage legalized. I believe that Pat, Lori, and most other gays don’t give a damn if gays actually marry. They just want the self-esteem boost of having the state give positive recognition to their desires.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 2, 2011 @ 6:42 pm - June 2, 2011

  48. Lori, if you truly “want to get off the gravy train and be left the hell alone” why are you so desperate to get the government to put an official stamp of approval on your sexual lifestyle?

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 2, 2011 @ 6:45 pm - June 2, 2011

  49. Seane-Anna, you have been a liar for so long you can’t even seem to help yourself.

    I do not desire government to “put an official stamp” on anything. I want it to leave me alone. What part of that are you intellectually incapable of understanding?

    People make plain what they think, and then you wilfully misrepresent them — sometimes immediately after they have said what they have to say.

    As for loosely flapping your jaws about other people’s “sexual lifestyles,” you’d better watch your mouth. My “lifestyle” — sexual or otherwise — you know nothing about. And it is none of your damned business.

    Every time you open your mouth, your filthy, tiny little mind falls right out of it.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 2, 2011 @ 7:19 pm - June 2, 2011

  50. Seane-Anna, I believe I answered all your questions, you just didn’t like the answers. However, feel free to re-ask the question you believe I didn’t answer.

    ND30 said it well when he wrote about “short-sighted self-interest”.

    Of course you agree with NDT. You disparaged him as well as other gay persons on this site, and his response was to lick your boots.

    They really are willing to get same-sex marriage legalized at ANY COST, even at the cost of “creating dangerous and foolish legal precedents and practices”. And they are willing to do this because legalized SSM will benefit them personally. Pat, Lori, and far too many other gays want it officially enshrined into law that homosexuality is GOOD, and the best way to do that, they believe, is to get gay marriage legalized.

    Now your reading comprehension sucks. Never said or implied any such thing. Sure, I support same-sex marriage. But the rest of what you wrote is tripe.

    They just want the self-esteem boost of having the state give positive recognition to their desires.

    So, it sounds like that you will never have a marriage recognized by the state and federal government, and you oppose all others, straight and gay, that do. At least you are not a total hypocrite.

    And while you re-state your question, you can state how it took people, whose shoulders you are standing on, to “spit” at 5000 years of tradition, etc., so you, as a Black woman, can enjoy the freedoms and liberties afforded everyone else.

    Comment by Pat — June 2, 2011 @ 7:34 pm - June 2, 2011

  51. Of course you agree with NDT. You disparaged him as well as other gay persons on this site, and his response was to lick your boots.

    Two questions:

    1) Where was I disparaged?

    2) What constituted the bootlicking?

    Meanwhile, this was interesting:

    What’s ironic is, that (if I recall correctly), as a Black woman, she has benefited from changes in the moral code and societal attitudes over the past 200 years, and now that she’s got hers, all progress must stop for the rest of us……

    And while you re-state your question, you can state how it took people, whose shoulders you are standing on, to “spit” at 5000 years of tradition, etc., so you, as a Black woman, can enjoy the freedoms and liberties afforded everyone else.

    So apparently, because Seane-Anna is black, she is only allowed to express those opinions considered acceptable by her white betters — and if she does otherwise, she’s an ungrateful race traitor.

    I always find it amusing how liberals like Pat are all about “freedom and liberty” for minorities — to do exactly what liberals tell them to do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 2, 2011 @ 9:59 pm - June 2, 2011

  52. Pat, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say and took it in a completely different direction. All I simply asked was why do people (as this poll shows) think polygamy is morally wrong. I don’t know how old you are but there are some people, particularly 20 something year olds, who are in relationships with multiple people at once whether just physical or emotional. Everyone one in the relationship is a consenting participant. If Gallup had asked whether having multiple partners but not being in a commit relationship was morally wrong the result might have been 50-50 or most people might have find it somewhat acceptable. That is basically what I was talking about in regards to polygamy. Except that there is an actually commitment to be in a relationship with how ever many people are involved.

    By the way, I do agree that if the government is going to supply benefits to people for forming a relationship that they should provide those benefits to all. But that in lies the problem with a marriage license. If same-sex marriage gets recognized and other forms of marriage don’t isn’t that essentially the government discriminating against polygamy, incest, bestiality, people who want to marry intimate objects, etc? That is why marriage should be privatized there was never any good intentions when the government decided to supply marriage licensees. The whole point was to discriminate.

    Comment by MV — June 2, 2011 @ 11:23 pm - June 2, 2011

  53. MV, apparently, I did misunderstand your post. My apologies. First of all, I’m 46, so that be part of the reason for difference of attitude regarding polygamy and multiple person relationships. Also, I really don’t know personally anybody in such a relationship (or I do, and they are in the closet about it). I know I could never be involved in such a relationship. On the other hand, obviously this is something that I don’t think can be illegal, even if I felt it should be. Now talking about commitment issues with this type of relationship, we have a new ball of wax. Is it any more morally acceptable or not, if this is a temporary, non-commital arrangement (similar to a couple dating, but who eventually decide not to commit), vs. a situation where all parties are committed? I don’t know, and to be honest, something I haven’t thought about.

    I think I understand your point about privatizing all marriages. Perhaps, this would ideally be better. But, the reality is, that isn’t going to happen. People consider state recognition of marriage to be important. In fact, that’s what most people opt. And it’s this type of recognition that others (family, friends, etc.) rely on to validate the marriage. As a side note, my partner and I were a committed couple for five years before we got a civil union 2 1/2 years ago. I thought that others saw us as such, but got an awakening that many people really didn’t see us as a committed couple until we got the civil union. No, we didn’t need the validation, but it was sure nice. I mean, why do most people have 100 or more guests when they get married?

    I do favor same sex marriage happening through the legislatures and referenda. This would avoid the problem you are suggesting regarding issuing marriage licences to close relatives, non-human animals, children under 18 (actually, this still happens in many states, something which I am adamantly opposed). I believe it is ultimately up to the people to decide who can get married, because there are, I believe good reasons to not issue marriage licenses for many of the situations you mentioned. I accept that most people felt this was true about same sex marriage, but now more and more people believe such restriction is not necessary. What I don’t think will change any time soon is the magic number of 2. Is this discrimination? Perhaps. But this discrimination began when only certain opposite sex couples could get married.

    Anyway, thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding.

    Comment by Pat — June 3, 2011 @ 12:19 am - June 3, 2011

  54. Speaking of misunderstandings…

    So apparently, because Seane-Anna is black, she is only allowed to express those opinions considered acceptable by her white betters — and if she does otherwise, she’s an ungrateful race traitor.

    If anybody else believes that I didn’t mean the opposite of what was posted here in response to my post, I’ll be happy to clarify. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — June 3, 2011 @ 12:22 am - June 3, 2011

  55. I don’t think you stuttered, Pat.

    What’s ironic is, that (if I recall correctly), as a Black woman, she has benefited from changes in the moral code and societal attitudes over the past 200 years, and now that she’s got hers, all progress must stop for the rest of us……

    And while you re-state your question, you can state how it took people, whose shoulders you are standing on, to “spit” at 5000 years of tradition, etc., so you, as a Black woman, can enjoy the freedoms and liberties afforded everyone else.

    What you DID do was play the Coalition of the Oppressed(TM) card to insinuate that Seane-Anna was some sort of ungrateful traitor, and I called you on it.

    Personally, I find it extraordinarily racist and misogynist that you believe Seane-Anna has to think a certain way because she’s black and female. But then again, I’m one of those peculiar conservative sorts that doesn’t believe you have to think a certain way because of your skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 3, 2011 @ 1:39 am - June 3, 2011

  56. Funny NDT, I read it as a mix of sarcasm and fact.

    Fact is, 50 years ago, the Democrats would have been upset that Seane-Anna could read let alone post and be clean and articulate.

    I think the thing to remember is we’re all free to express our opinions and lobby to have those grievances redressed. I can lobby for the creation of Fred and oppose SSM, Levi can lobby to have us all sent to re-education camps, etc.

    The key to civil discourse is to accept two facts. 1) We’re never going to convince everyone to our side (No one is going to be able to convince Dooms he’s not a victim, for example) 2) We’re never going to win all our battles. (Connecticut is an example for me, since they’ve changed marriage to include same sex couples, something I oppose.)

    What we *can* do is live our lives in a civil society. Dooms can preach all he wants that ‘The Man’ oppresses him. Most of us will look to the fact that he has a computer, internet connection, and the freedom to whine and laugh at him. Seane-Anna can teach her kids that homosexuality is *wrong* and that we’re all going to hell. She can’t teach them that it’s ok to help the gays get there faster (note: I’m not implying she does believe that killing you for your choice of bedpartner is right.) I could teach my (hypothetical) children that my mom and her partner weren’t ‘married’, they were in a ‘committed relationship’. etc.

    We’re all guilty of forgetting that at one point or another.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 3, 2011 @ 8:17 am - June 3, 2011

  57. Good post TL. You said it well.

    Comment by David in N.O. — June 3, 2011 @ 9:17 am - June 3, 2011

  58. Livewire, thanks and what David in N.O. said.

    Just to be 100% clear, I do believe Seane-Anna, like anybody else should have all the freedom and liberties as anyone else. That’s an obvious no-brainer. My point was this has happened because we have broken long-held traditions that that is now the case, and ironic to hear that the only reason she espouses anti-gay sentiment is to keep in line with tradition.

    I also hear your call for civility, and will do my best to comply. I once had a colleague who used to slander and harass his colleagues, including me, frequently. And what chills me is that he, like NDT, would think they were so clever when they intentionally twisted peoples words and/or made up meanings to it to suit their selfish purposes, and trot out quotes as if it was proof of their point. The smug arrogance from both is scary. It was difficult to just ignore this colleague, as it is now.

    I decided a month ago, in the interest of civility, to no longer directly communicate with NDT until he apologizes for his behaviors towards me. And now I think it’s best to completely ignore him. Even if it means NDT getting one last shot in, and if he continues to slander and harass me. I appreciate that others have mostly positive or neutral interaction with him, and hope that continues in the interest of this blog.

    Comment by Pat — June 3, 2011 @ 12:06 pm - June 3, 2011

  59. Fact is, 50 years ago, the Democrats would have been upset that Seane-Anna could read let alone post and be clean and articulate.

    Which, Livewire, I think expresses the problem.

    Why would they have been upset? Because she’s black and female, and in their stereotypical thinking, all black females are (or should be) illiterate, dirty, and inarticulate.

    Interestingly today, they haven’t changed; like Pat and Dooms demonstrate, they go around saying that, because Seane-Anna is black and female, she a) has automatically been discriminated against and b) must think and act and obey in accordance with the other members of the Coalition of the Oppressed.

    Pat is insisting that Seane-Anna’s ideas, thoughts, and life experiences are automatically trumped by her skin color and gender. He is making it clear that he is judging her arguments based on her skin color and gender (“as a Black female”).

    I have no problem with your keys to civil discourse. But what Pat is doing is aresorting to sniping about what Seane-Anna should think based on his stereotypical beliefs about her life experiences and knowledge based on her skin color and gender. This is no different than the “kapo”, “quisling”, and “Uncle Tom” rhetoric of the Obama Party left, and I’ll not put up with any attempts to paint it as “civil”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 3, 2011 @ 12:13 pm - June 3, 2011

  60. Wow, Pat, what an entertaining example of passive-aggressive bullshit.

    I once had a colleague who used to slander and harass his colleagues, including me, frequently.

    Well, isn’t that convenient.

    And what chills me is that he, like NDT, would think they were so clever when they intentionally twisted peoples words and/or made up meanings to it to suit their selfish purposes, and trot out quotes as if it was proof of their point. The smug arrogance from both is scary.

    The lesson here is clear: NDT is acting solely out of selfish purposes, is smug and arrogant, and is slandering me and harassing me. I just don’t have the balls to come out and say it directly and have it evaluated by observers, so I’ll link it to some unverifiable story to give it some credence.

    I decided a month ago, in the interest of civility, to no longer directly communicate with NDT until he apologizes for his behaviors towards me.

    After, of course, I called him a slanderer, a harasser, an arrogant smug liar, etc.

    Even if it means NDT getting one last shot in, and if he continues to slander and harass me.

    Look how much of a martyr I can be! Look, look, it’s certainly not MY behavior that causes a problem! I’m just a poor helpless victim of circumstance!

    (end sarc)

    What makes this funny, Pat, is that you’re really trying to play the aggrieved victim on a board where the regular commenters are constantly targeted by and called “kapos”, “quislings”, “Jewish Nazis”, and the like by your fellow liberals and gay-sex marriage supporters.

    And seriously? I’ve been told point-blank to kill myself and that people hope I get HIV. Like Don Surber so eloquently puts it, I have seen the liberal definition of “civil behavior”, and it is surreal.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 3, 2011 @ 12:35 pm - June 3, 2011

  61. Maybe we need a reminder of what the “tolerant” gay-sex marriage supporters were saying the other day when some of us gay folk wandered past the plantation boundaries and dared to criticize one of our Obama Party massas:

    Here you bitchy queens sit moralizing about a man who has never moralized about any of you. How much must you hate yourselves firstly to be part of an organization which despises you and finds you revolting? An African-American could probably find more support and acceptance in the KKK than a gay man is going to fnd in the GOP. Then, to go on the attack of a man who stands up for you, fights for you, and says the only thing immoral about the gay movement is the denial of basic human rights. I am a straight suburban mother of four sons at home. I actually live a conservative life and meet suburban Republicans constantly out here. Trust me, they HATE you all and you will never be allowed a seat at their table. They not only want to deny you rights, dignity, and acceptance, they want to overtur Lawrence v. Texas and make your loves entirely illegal. That you are willing to betray your own and stab those who fight on your behalf in the back, shows what ignorant fools the writer of this site is and all the bitchez writing these responses are. You all make me sick, yet will continue fighting for your rights despite you.

    Sure sounds tolerant, accepting, non-judgmental, and loving to me.

    That’s why I laugh at your complaints about religious parents, Pat. This is one of your so-called “supporters”, and this is the kind of crap she considers to be responsible parenting and modeling for her children. Her rhetoric and words are completely supported and endorsed by the gay and lesbian community, as we see from GLAAD’s endorsement of calling Republican gays “quislings” and “kapos”.

    Again, like Don Surber puts it, the left’s description of “civil discourse” is surreal — and as I put it, better described as free license for them to say whatever the hell they want while simultaneously gagging and tying up anyone who dares disagree with them.

    I’m not taking accusations of “slander and harassment” any more. I’ve been told to kill myself. I’ve been told that I’m a racist and that people hope I get HIV/AIDS. I’ve been called a quisling, kapo, and Jewish Nazi by the gay left for long enough.

    And you know what, Pat? This is where you shit or get off the pot. If you’re going to scream about how you’re being slandered or harassed, I think it perfectly fair to tell you to buck up, buttercup, because your fellow GLAAD and HRC gays are calling those who you claim are slandering and harassing you far worse without a peep from you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 3, 2011 @ 12:59 pm - June 3, 2011

  62. The lesson here is clear: NDT is acting solely out of selfish purposes, is smug and arrogant, and is slandering me and harassing me. I just don’t have the balls to come out and say it directly and have it evaluated by observers, so I’ll link it to some unverifiable story to give it some credence.

    Okay, NDT. I’ll break my promise one last time just for you. You are selfish, smug, arrogant, a liar, slanderer, and harasser. You or others can take or leave the story, it’s true and chilling how you two are similar.

    I patiently tried to correct your misperceptions about my posts, but they were only responded with repeated slander. Even fellow conservatives on this board had to tell you to cut your crap. No wonder you have been banned by other websites. Just maybe it’s you. But yet on this website, you’ve proved that you are no better than Auntie Dogma and her (or his) ilk.

    Is that direct enough for you?

    What makes this funny, Pat, is that you’re really trying to play the aggrieved victim on a board where the regular commenters are constantly targeted by and called “kapos”, “quislings”, “Jewish Nazis”, and the like by your fellow liberals and gay-sex marriage supporters.

    And seriously? I’ve been told point-blank to kill myself and that people hope I get HIV. Like Don Surber so eloquently puts it, I have seen the liberal definition of “civil behavior”, and it is surreal.

    All true. But NONE of this was EVER from me. Absolutely none. In fact, I’ve even defended you when someone told you to kill yourself. But yet you’ve lumped me in with all these people. Classy. Yet I’ve never linked you to anyone, or anyone else to you.

    Look how much of a martyr I can be! Look, look, it’s certainly not MY behavior that causes a problem!

    Yeah, because I’m the one that has been told regularly by other commenters that my behavior is bad, and have been banned by other websites. Good one.

    No, not a martyr. I take no pride in backing down from bullsh&t from the likes of you. But this is not my website, and I’m not going to be part of the pollution you bring to this website and others.

    Comment by Pat — June 3, 2011 @ 1:40 pm - June 3, 2011

  63. Dan, Bruce, my apologies. I will not engage further in this type of dialogue on your blog again.

    Comment by Pat — June 3, 2011 @ 1:41 pm - June 3, 2011

  64. NDT,

    The problem is, Pat has not engaged in any of the actions you claim. I don’t see anywhere he has said that Seane-Anna has to comply with the herd mentality. (Heck, from what I know of Seane-Anna, she’d deck him if he said that in earshot)

    Now Dooms on the other hand, argues from the ‘you can’t imagine what it’s like’ strawman. I can counter his absurdity any day of the week with a ‘wah, I’m left handed, the world doesn’t conform to me!’ screed.

    I don’t hold Pat responcible for other liberals’ words any more than I expect someone to hold me responcible for Fred Phelp’s ‘Christan’ rants. Pat *is* more liberal than I am. (duh) But we can both agree to present our points in the ‘arena of ideas’ and metaphorically duke it out there. It is possible to be intelligent and make wrong decisions (insert ex-wife joke here).

    I enjoy your bludgeoning of Dooms and Levi and the like when you paint them with the ‘broad brush’ they’re eager to paint their opponents with. That’s fighting fire with fire. When a person doesn’t engage in that tactic, then you belittle your own arguments.

    We are all products of our environments. I was raised in a small rural town in SE Ohio, and saw my share of racism. How did I rise above my environment? By learning to judge people by the sum of their being.

    We’re not going to be able to reach an accord with the Seane-Anna’s of the world without being better than we expect. Keep in mind, Seane-Anna and I both agree on being opposed to government recognition of same sex marriage. I just accept I a) can’t dictate by fiat (my nick says ‘The’ not ‘Emperor’) and b) we live in a republic.

    It is fair to point out that Seane-Anna a) is black and b) is female. Just like it’s fair to point out a) I’m a guy and b) I’m left handed. The factors are part of our lives, but Seane-Anna like most of us on the boards doesn’t let those attributes limit or define us. (again, see Dooms for the contrast. He can’t accept that anyone who’s a lighter shade might have empathy for him).

    Lumping Pat in the same catagory as Levi or Dooms is akin to lumping Seane-Anna in the same catagory as Dooms or Al Sharpton. I’ll be the first to hang him by his own words (as I enjoy doing to Levi) if he crosses the line, but right now, he doesn’t deserve the insult.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 3, 2011 @ 2:09 pm - June 3, 2011

  65. But yet on this website, you’ve proved that you are no better than Auntie Dogma and her (or his) ilk.

    That’s a hilarious comparison, Pat, because you actually defend the integrity of Auntie Dogma and support its insistence, for example, that conservatives deserve to have death threats made against them.

    And this was particularly funny.

    Yeah, because I’m the one that has been told regularly by other commenters that my behavior is bad, and have been banned by other websites. Good one.

    For the record:

    1) These were the websites with commenters saying that gay conservatives are Uncle Toms, quislings, and kapos, and telling me to kill myself.

    2) Those websites banned me and kept the commenters who were saying that gay conservatives are Uncle Toms, quislings, and kapos, and telling me to kill myself.

    So you’re using as your proof that I am a bad person the moral judgments of commenters and website owners that think it perfectly appropriate to tell gay conservatives to kill themselves, just for starters.

    Seems that if you thought it inappropriate to tell people to kill themselves that you would be getting after the commenters and website owners that support and endorse such behavior, rather than invoking their bans and their abusive language as proof that the people being told to kill themselves really are that awful.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 3, 2011 @ 2:25 pm - June 3, 2011

  66. I’ll be the first to hang him by his own words (as I enjoy doing to Levi) if he crosses the line, but right now, he doesn’t deserve the insult.

    Thanks again, Livewire. I think I did cross the line of civility in post 62, but will do my best to make sure that doesn’t happen again.

    Comment by Pat — June 3, 2011 @ 2:26 pm - June 3, 2011

  67. It is fair to point out that Seane-Anna a) is black and b) is female. Just like it’s fair to point out a) I’m a guy and b) I’m left handed. The factors are part of our lives, but Seane-Anna like most of us on the boards doesn’t let those attributes limit or define us.

    Problem is, Livewire, that’s exactly what Pat is doing.

    What’s ironic is, that (if I recall correctly), as a Black woman, she has benefited from changes in the moral code and societal attitudes over the past 200 years, and now that she’s got hers, all progress must stop for the rest of us……

    And while you re-state your question, you can state how it took people, whose shoulders you are standing on, to “spit” at 5000 years of tradition, etc., so you, as a Black woman, can enjoy the freedoms and liberties afforded everyone else.

    For contrast, insert “as a white, left-handed male” into the bolded part for both of those and see if they make any sense whatsoever.

    Pat is “limiting and defining” Seane-Anna’s life and background and what she “should” think based on her skin color and gender. He is not defining her by the sum of her being, but by the sum of her pigmentation and genetic structure. It’s certainly softer than the rampant racism and misogyny practiced by Dooms and Levi, but it is still seeing Seane-Anna based on what she is rather than what she says and does.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 3, 2011 @ 2:35 pm - June 3, 2011

  68. Actually NDT,

    quoting Pat

    No, he didn’t deserve to get the death threats. But, unfornunately, that sometimes come with the job. And unfortunately, that does come with leadership. This does not change the fact that the people who issued the death threats should spend some time in a jail cell.

    I see where he’s agreeing that death threats should be punished. Or to put it another way “If you’re drawing flak, you’re over the target.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 3, 2011 @ 2:36 pm - June 3, 2011

  69. Pat can defend himself…

    …but you’re reading his words wrong. He’s pointing out that society has changed to allow her to quoting Reagan “have the liberty without hindrance to be what God made [her].”

    50 years ago, I’d have teachers doing more harm than good trying to ‘break’ my being left handed. 500 years ago I might be accused of being a witch. As a leftie, it’s changes in society have benefitted me.

    Pat argues that Seane-Anna doesn’t think society should change any more, in doing so ignoring how societal evolution has benefitted her. He’s not saying that it’s ‘black-think’ or ‘woman-think’ to fight against societal change. He’s saying it’s ‘Seane-anna think.

    Now where we can disagree is how society should change. Pat believes (IIRC) Society should change to allow same sex marriage. I believe it should change to allow Fred, Seane-Anna believes it should change so that homosexuality and illegtimacy should be frowned on (I agree with the later, not the former), Levi beleives it should be changed so he’s God-Emperor, Cynthia McKinny believes it should change to put Quadaffy in charge, etc.

    You owe Pat an apology.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 3, 2011 @ 2:46 pm - June 3, 2011

  70. Livewire, let me demonstrate the point with a slight rephrasing of Pat’s statements, directed toward you — by someone who is demanding their right to marry a child or their close blood relatives.

    What’s ironic is, that (if I recall correctly), as a left-handed person, he (Livewire) has benefited from changes in the moral code and societal attitudes over the past 200 years, and now that he’s got his, all progress must stop for the rest of us……

    And while you re-state your question, you can state how it took people, whose shoulders you are standing on, to “spit” at 5000 years of tradition, etc., so you, as a left-handed person, can enjoy the freedoms and liberties afforded everyone else.

    Would you call that a valid argument?

    I hope not. You’d probably go that it makes a blanket statement about you based solely on one personal characteristic, that that personal characteristic is hardly germane to the discussion or even a relevant comparison, and that, even if it were germane and relative, the fact that you benefitted from one social change doesn’t mean that you have to support all others, that it’s somehow “ironic” or hypocritical when you don’t, and that your not supporting it was due solely to selfishness (“he’s got his”).

    And thus, no, I do not.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 3, 2011 @ 3:41 pm - June 3, 2011

  71. Actually, I’d argue that the paedophile can knock himself out trying to change society, but if he goes near my Godkids, they’d never find the body.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 3, 2011 @ 3:50 pm - June 3, 2011

  72. Livewire,

    I see where he’s agreeing that death threats should be punished. Or to put it another way “If you’re drawing flak, you’re over the target.”

    That wasn’t the question.

    That’s a hilarious comparison, Pat, because you actually defend the integrity of Auntie Dogma and support its insistence, for example, that conservatives deserve to have death threats made against them.

    And Dogma was insisting that conservatives deserve to have death threats made against them.

    King knew he was kicking a hornet’s nest. If he can’t stand the heat, he ought to stay out of the kitchen.

    Comment by Auntie Dogma — April 5, 2011 @ 9:45 am – April 5, 2011

    Dogma was specifically stating that Republicans should shut up and accept death threats and that it was wrong for Representative King to complain about them or demand that they be punished.

    Pity Pat wasn’t willing to hold Dogma accountable for its behavior.

    By the way, Livewire, I’ve been commenting with Pat much longer than you have, and that’s pretty typical. Talks a good game, but always finds a way to rationalize why people who tell you to kill yourself are right and why their judgment in banning you from their website proves you are wrong.

    By now, I just cut to the chase and ask him to actually do something — and the only way that ever happens is if he can figure out how to blame heterosexuals and Christians.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 3, 2011 @ 3:50 pm - June 3, 2011

  73. Actually, I’d argue that the paedophile can knock himself out trying to change society, but if he goes near my Godkids, they’d never find the body.

    And then he can call you a hatemonger and a bigot and someone who wants to murder people over their sexual preferences.

    Again, Livewire, it’s better than you not set the expectation that “because you’re x and x benefitted from social change in my opinion, you have to support y”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 3, 2011 @ 3:54 pm - June 3, 2011

  74. Livewire, thanks again. For the record, your interpretation of what I said regarding Seane-Anna, and death threats is the one I meant, regardless of what anyone else thinks I meant. And that’s what I stand by.

    Comment by Pat — June 3, 2011 @ 4:00 pm - June 3, 2011

  75. Pat I also understood what you meant. And Livewire, you are an honorable guy and I have a great deal of respect for you.

    While I don’t get involved in commenting very often, this is a great blog I enjoy reading and am happy to support it financially. I have learned a lot reading Dan’s posts as well as the commenters. But, unfortunately, I as come to see NDT, the same way I see Dooms, et al., not worth paying attention to. I say unfortunately because I believe NDT is smart guy and I probably believe a lot of the same things he does. It has been my observation when a thread is derailed, he is frequently the cause of it.

    Comment by David in N.O. — June 3, 2011 @ 4:44 pm - June 3, 2011

  76. Should be …I’ve come to see NDR…..

    Comment by David in N.O. — June 3, 2011 @ 4:45 pm - June 3, 2011

  77. should be NDT, not NDR……Gawd, this is why I don’t comment often. I am useless at a keyboard!

    Comment by David in N.O. — June 3, 2011 @ 4:47 pm - June 3, 2011

  78. Thanks, David. I agree with everything you stated in your post.

    Comment by Pat — June 3, 2011 @ 7:00 pm - June 3, 2011

  79. Will try this again. Kudos Pat and Congrats

    Comment by rusty — June 3, 2011 @ 7:11 pm - June 3, 2011

  80. This subject sure did produce a lot of comments! Thanks, NDT, for having my back.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 3, 2011 @ 7:32 pm - June 3, 2011

  81. And Pat, I haven’t responded to your remarks about social progress for women because I don’t buy the comparison you’re trying to make between the struggle for women’s rights and the gay rights movement.

    You see, I don’t adhere to the left-wing construct of homosexuality as an identity and gays as pseudo-ethnics. Gays are not an ethnic group. They are not a cultural group, a nationality, a religious group, a gender, or a race. Gays are a SEX GROUP who are demanding approval for their erotic BEHAVIOR. That is the essence of “gay rights”. “Black” and “female” are static conditions that have no intrinsic behavioral impulses which you must act upon to be fully and authentically female or black. Therefore, the struggles for civil rights and women’s rights were about no longer letting a CONDITION (race or gender) prevent those who had it from participating fully and equally in society. The gay rights movement, as I’ve said, is about forcing society to endorse a BEHAVIOR. Therefore, comparing gay rights with women’s rights or civil rights is the epitome of comparing apples to oranges.

    I know you’ll disagree, Pat, but I just wanted to clarify things.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 3, 2011 @ 8:12 pm - June 3, 2011

  82. Coming back to this one:

    Yeah, because I’m the one that has been told regularly by other commenters that my behavior is bad, and have been banned by other websites. Good one.

    You know, this is a great time to show one of those example websites from which I’m banned and, as linked in the cited post, what is considered civil and intelligent discourse there.

    Or how about this blog, where I’m also banned? Impressive example of judgment and character there.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 3, 2011 @ 11:01 pm - June 3, 2011

  83. Seane-Anna, thanks for addressing what I believed was a glaring contradiction. Yes, you’re right, I disagree, but not completely. You are definitely correct when you say gay persons are not a race, ethnic group, or gender. But it can be considered a cultural group.

    Gays are a SEX GROUP who are demanding approval for their erotic BEHAVIOR. That is the essence of “gay rights”.

    Obviously, I disagree with this statement. Gay rights is no more about sex, than women’s rights is about women’s body parts. There is a LOT more to it than that. I can’t speak for all gay people, but I believe most of us are NOT seeking approval of the type of sex we engage or don’t engage in. Just as I don’t believe that you or other straight people don’t seek approval for the sex you engage or don’t engage in. This is all personal stuff. If you don’t approve of the sex between me and my civil union partner. Fine by me. But the question is, should that prevent me from holding a job from which I am otherwise best qualified? Or housing? Or should my partner be denied hospital visitation rights? being able to marry (or Fred) a same sex partner, etc. Sure, one can argue if and how much government should get involved. But my point is being gay is a LOT more than just about who we have sex with, just like being a women is a LOT more than having a different anatomy than men.

    Therefore, the struggles for civil rights and women’s rights were about no longer letting a CONDITION (race or gender) prevent those who had it from participating fully and equally in society.

    Condition vs. Behavior? As I suggested above, I really think we’re splitting hairs. Again, for women, it’s not just about your gender or body parts. What if the men had said, “Sure, you can participate fully and equally in society, but now you have to ‘act’ like men. You have to be the breadwinner, you can’t get pregnant and be a mother, etc.” This is similar, I believe, to saying to gay people, “Sure, you can particiate fully and equally in society, but now you can only have sex with persons of the opposite gender.”

    So, the questions become, should women have to be like men to be able to participate fully and equally? And should gay persons have to only have sex with persons of the opposite sex to be able to participate fully and equally? In a free and just society, I believe there has to be good reasons to prevent such. Now, for example, I think we both agree that there are good reasons to prevent pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. But we obviously disagree about homosexuality. That is the reason why I don’t believe everything that is not heterosexual sex between consenting, non-related adults, should be lumped all together.

    But here’s another thing. You find a big distinction here between gay right’s and women’s rights being a condition vs. behavior thing. But yet, it took 5000 years to finally recognize that women, and Black persons should treated equally, even though it was just an “intrinsic condition.” Well, I guess better late than never.

    Therefore, comparing gay rights with women’s rights or civil rights is the epitome of comparing apples to oranges.

    So, this is the crux of our disagreement. Sure, I agree with you that gay rights are different than women’s rights and civil rights. But I also believe that the differences are not nearly enough to prevent gay rights in a free and just society. I’ll accept our difference of opinion here, and see it explains what I thought was a glaring contradiction to what you’ve said before, and leave it at that.

    Comment by Pat — June 4, 2011 @ 7:25 am - June 4, 2011

  84. Pat,

    There are two sexes. You are one of them. You have all of the civil rights accorded to every other person of your sex. Hopefully, we have erased the old differences of civil rights accorded to men but not women.

    You have a skin color and an ethnic background. Hopefully, we have erased the old differences of civil rights denied to a person because of his skin color or ethnic background.

    So, what is your claim for civil rights equality based on? Is it not to “love” differently? Are you not basing your civil rights claim on your “orientation?” If so, all your rationalization that it is not about “sex” goes out the window.

    If “orientation” is a basis for civil rights equality, are there other “orientations” that might also be considered? What separates “good” orientations from “bad” orientations other than societal approval?

    Therefore, are you not actually seeking societal approval for your orientation? Are you not actually seeking civil rights status for an orientation? I repeat, you have all the civil rights accorded to you as a male or female already.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 4, 2011 @ 8:04 am - June 4, 2011

  85. I repeat, you have all the civil rights accorded to you as a male or female already.

    Heliotrope, just about. Fifty years ago, that definitely was not the case. But we are just about there. For example, in the examples that I mentioned above, my job is safe, and not dependent on my sexual orientation. Housing is not an issue. And hospital visitation rights are not an issue. I wouldn’t have been so confident about that 50 years ago.

    There are two sexes. You are one of them. You have all of the civil rights accorded to every other person of your sex. Hopefully, we have erased the old differences of civil rights accorded to men but not women. You have a skin color and an ethnic background. Hopefully, we have erased the old differences of civil rights denied to a person because of his skin color or ethnic background.

    And hopefully, we have erased the old differences of civil rights denied to a person because of his sexual orientation. Like I said, just about there. But like women’s rights and civil rights, it’s a work in progress.

    If so, all your rationalization that it is not about “sex” goes out the window.

    No, not quite. Let’s go back 50 years ago. My current employment has zero to do with sex. Yet, I would not be able to have that job unless I was in the closet, and it never got out that I was gay. Pretty sad, right?

    What if you had a job, and then your employer said, “Oh, I didn’t know Heliotrope is married to a woman. He is probably straight. He’s an excellent worker, but I’m going to have to fire him anyway.” Then I think we can agree that your rights were violated.

    Getting back to this.

    I repeat, you have all the civil rights accorded to you as a male or female already.

    Let’s try this hypothetical situation. Let’s say that because of overpopulation, or some other reason, we wanted to cut down on heterosexual sex. We do this in some arbitrary fashion by deciding when one is born, which gender they are permitted to have sex with, say by a coin flip, and based on that, this person can only be a full and equal participant if they only had sex with the gender, as chosen by the flip, or remain celibate. Now, at your birth, the coin toss determines you cannot have sex with woman. So you can still argue that you have all the civil rights afforded to you as a male or female, because, we were all subject to the coin toss. But that wouldn’t amount to a hill of manure, would it? You couldn’t have had the marriage with your wife. Yeah, maybe you could have drawn up legal papers, and maybe her parents would have let you cohabit with her, and maybe you could have done this secretly, and kept your job, etc. Yeah, it would have sucked, right?

    Yes, this situation is hypothetical. But for gay persons, this is a reality. Heck, if we had a coin flip, we would at least have a 50% chance.

    Therefore, are you not actually seeking societal approval for your orientation?

    My answer is still no, but maybe I’m the one that is splitting hairs here. I am not seeking societal approval for my orientation, any more than you are. What I am seeking is for most in society to say something like, “I may not like homosexuality, because I’m straight, and that type of sex seems icky, but there is no earthly reason why such persons should not be able to full and equal members in society.” Now, does that admission require societal approval? Yeah, I guess so. Because we wouldn’t be at this point where we are today, unless a good majority of people felt that way. Now the question is, how far do we need to go, and how much willing is society to permit?

    Comment by Pat — June 4, 2011 @ 8:49 am - June 4, 2011

  86. So without being able to marry whomever you want to have sex with, you are not a full and equal participant in society.

    Furthermore, your argument is that, even if you find the kind of sex another person engages in to be icky, there is no reason to prevent that person from being a full and equal member of society.

    Therefore, Pat, pedophiles, plural marriage practitioners, and incest practitioners must be allowed to have sex with whomever they want and marry whomever they want without restriction, since doing otherwise is preventing their constitutional right to be full and equal participants in society based on their behaviors and sexual preferences.

    And your finding their sexual behavior icky is mere bigotry on your part, and in factdemonstrates that laws you pass against such things are solely based on your personal animus against them. Unless you can specifically demonstrate how their relationship affects you, you have no grounds to object. Furthermore, no one is forcing you to marry a child, sibling, or multiple partners, so why would you object?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 4, 2011 @ 12:22 pm - June 4, 2011

  87. And let’s build on this more:

    My current employment has zero to do with sex. Yet, I would not be able to have that job unless I was in the closet, and it never got out that I was sexually attracted to children/my siblings/multiple partners.

    So there you go, Pat. Explain why, when your job has zero to do with sex, you would support and endorse firing, denying housing to, or denying hospital visitation to someone who is sexually attracted to and/or has sex with children, their blood relatives, or multiple partners.

    You can try arguing that these things are “against the law”, but fifty years ago, so was homosexuality. Furthermore, you’ve established as precedent — see Lawrence v. Texas — that the state has zero right to do anything related to private sexual conduct.

    You can also try arguing that these people should suppress and not act on their natural sexual attractions, but you’ve already stated that forcing people to “closet” themselves and not act on their sexual attractions is wrong.

    In short, you’ve undercut and destroyed both the legal and social arguments against pedophilia, incest, and plural relationships. Why, it’s almost as if the gay and lesbian community and the promiscuity left WANTED all of these things and were just using gay-sex marriage as a cover.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 4, 2011 @ 3:03 pm - June 4, 2011

  88. Pat,

    You demand that your orientation be accorded civil rights status. I read your comments closely and no matter how you slice it or dice it, you are arguing for males and females of all color and ethnic heritage to be accorded civil rights based on their orientation.

    NDT has clearly shown that this argument of yours is far more comprehensive than the rather narrow “gay” orientation. Humans are accorded civil rights. You are a human. You have every civil right I have. You want to take your human civil rights and add an orientation civil right to your pile. You want your “special” orientation to be accorded “special” civil rights.

    I do not comprehend how you think you are denied any civil right.

    This all boils down to restrictions on marriage. If you are successful in overturning the marriage laws, will your “special” orientation then cease to exist in the civil rights arena as you see it? If so, how do you confront the issues NDT raises?

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 4, 2011 @ 10:29 pm - June 4, 2011

  89. Pat, I’m glad I was able to explain to you what you’d seen as a “glaring contradiction” in my thinking on the subject at hand. I noticed that your “post-explanation” comment to me lacked the animus toward me that emanated from virtually all of your other responses to me. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that that’s a good sign. I have a feeling, though, that we’ll be back at each other’s throats soon enough. But for now I’ll bask in the detente. Have a good day, Pat.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 5, 2011 @ 2:40 am - June 5, 2011

  90. Seane-Anna, I’ll do my best to keep animus out of my future posts. But you’ll have to forgive me that I sometimes take it personally when I am basically labeled a sexual aberrant lumped with pedophiles (at least, that’s the way I saw it), etc., I see that as animus directed towards me, and sometimes I respond in kind. I don’t mean to break the detente (and apologize if I did), but I wanted to explain the animus in my previous posts. Have a good day as well.

    Comment by Pat — June 5, 2011 @ 7:10 am - June 5, 2011

  91. Heliotrope, at this point I ignore NDT’s posts, and will do so until I receive an apology and his behavior improves. So I will not address his posts point by point, but only generally.

    NDT has clearly shown that this argument of yours is far more comprehensive than the rather narrow “gay” orientation.

    Obviously, we disagree. I’ve made a point that there is nothing about sexual orientation to persons of the opposite sex or same sex that should prevent persons from participating fully and equally. I do not believe that this is the case for pedophilia or incest. The fact that some straight (and apparently even gay) people equate or lump homosexuality with pedophilia does not change my belief. Yet, I fully recognize that it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans until a majority of persons feel this way, and that appears to be the case right now, as the original point of Dan’s post indicates.

    Do I have the same civil rights as you today? Pretty much. But I think I indicated that wasn’t the case 50 years ago. Now maybe this is semantics at this point, but let’s get back to my hypothetical situation, where you were not allowed to marry your wife, and you risked losing your job, being cast as a pervert for cohabiting with the woman who couldn’t marry, etc. Would you say that you have been afforded the same civil rights as those who were able to marry the partner of their choice? If your answer is yes, then I accept your answer, and agree to disagree.

    But getting back to today, I do feel that I am afforded about every civil right as you. And I’m not just talking about government granted rights, but how I am treated by others. I have parents (who just celebrated their golden anniversary, which was pretty cool), who accept me like they do their other children. Yes, there was no question about my partner going to the party and being listed as a host along with me, my siblings and their spouses. No sneering from any of the guests towards me and my partner, and another gay couple (my mother’s godson/cousin and his partner) that attended the party. The fact this is not a given for many gay persons means that we’re not quite there yet.

    So for me, the only thing that’s missing, is that the relationship with my partner cannot have the state and federal recognition of marriage. Is that a big deal? No, for a couple of reasons. My partner and I are in a state recognized union, so things have improved as I stated. And there never was same sex marriage anywhere until recently. On the other hand, if you were told that you can only have a civil union with the woman who is your wife, while all your siblings, friends, etc., were able to marry the person of your choice, you’d get by, I’m sure, but I don’t believe that you think you were afforded full civil rights. And that if you then were allowed to marry your wife, then it would be considered “special” rights. If I’m wrong, correct me.

    You want your “special” orientation to be accorded “special” civil rights.

    Right now, only straight people have the “special” orientation with “special” civil rights. If and when gay people can marry a person of the same sex, then, in terms of marriage, neither gay nor straight will be considered “special” with respect to each other. You would be able to marry a man or a woman, just like you already have. So would I. I don’t see how that would make me more “special” than you. It seems to me that we would be on equal footing here. But I guess you might say that straight and gay would be “special” orientations, because pedophiles couldn’t marry children, or persons who are sexually attracted to animals couldn’t marry an animal, or a person who is sexually attracted to close relatives couldn’t marry a close relative. Fine by me. Can we agree that the above kinds of marriages shouldn’t be legalized and with good reason?


    If you are successful in overturning the marriage laws, will your “special” orientation then cease to exist in the civil rights arena as you see it?

    For me, pretty much. But as I said, things are pretty good for me. However, even though there has been much improvement over the past 50 years, things still could be better for many gay persons. We still have parents who can’t accept their children’s sexuality if they are gay. (Can you imagine if a parent couldn’t accept a child, because they were female, black, left-handed, etc., we would all find that deplorable). Many children are bullied because they are gay.

    Civil rights and equal rights for women did not happen overnight. It was a work in progress. The same is true regarding gay rights.

    If you want me to address any other points that I missed, let me know.

    Comment by Pat — June 5, 2011 @ 8:11 am - June 5, 2011

  92. (Can you imagine if a parent couldn’t accept a child, because they were female, black, left-handed, etc., we would all find that deplorable).

    This has nothing to do with civil rights.

    So, let’s just take it at the “U.S. Perceived Moral Acceptability of Behaviors and Social Policies” level which is what the Gallup Poll is called.

    I find it passing strange that the poll is about “behaviors” which implies that the issue (Abortion, Cloning, etc.) is entirely voluntary and a matter of choice. From what I have read here over the past few years is that homosexuality is not strictly a behavior. It is an orientation. It is genetic. In your own example above, you speak of genetically driven outcomes.

    The poll finds that society accepts “gay or lesbian relations” morally acceptable at 56% and morally wrong at 39%. The poll is not gauging civil rights; it is measuring societal acceptance.

    But the argument for gay marriage is immediately based on the 14th Amendment protection of the laws civil rights language.

    You have full 14th amendment civil rights protections. Your “behavior” does not. There are many “behaviors” you could engage in which would not be so high on this Gallup Poll on Values and Beliefs.

    But, once again, I am fairly certain you want to argue that “gay or lesbian” is an orientation and go right back to the whole civil rights theme.

    Logically, you are burdening your argument the claim that “gay” and “lesbian” are equal to and separate from the standard version of “male” and “female.”

    I grant that acceptance has greatly changed over the past 50 years. That is not a civil rights issue, it is a societal issue. I repeat again: civil rights are applied to the human, not the behavior.

    Ultimately, society sees “gay” or “lesbian” as different from the norm, but not a threat to society. The civil rights issue says that society must accept the difference under the threat of law.

    You earn acceptance.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 5, 2011 @ 8:48 am - June 5, 2011

  93. This has nothing to do with civil rights.

    Heliotrope, maybe not. But it’s all related.

    From what I have read here over the past few years is that homosexuality is not strictly a behavior. It is an orientation. It is genetic. In your own example above, you speak of genetically driven outcomes.

    Same as heterosexuality.

    Logically, you are burdening your argument the claim that “gay” and “lesbian” are equal to and separate from the standard version of “male” and “female.”

    No, I’m arguing that there is no logical reason to discriminate against my partner from marrying me, because he is a male and not a female.

    You earn acceptance.

    Except that you had to do very little, if anything at all, for your sexual orientation to be accepted. Fine, that’s the way the ball bounces some times. You were able to take for granted that you could act on your sexuality, and not wait for years of societal acceptance to marry your wife.

    You have full 14th amendment civil rights protections. Your “behavior” does not.

    Yet you have always enjoyed the civil rights protections of your orientation. Gay people haven’t had that luxury.

    If you would, reread the hypothetical situation that I posted above. Would you feel that you were given full civil rights. If you believe you were, then perhaps this is just an issue of semantics.

    Regardless of our difference of opinion here, I know that we both agree that same sex marriage, or Livewire’s “Fred” requires societal acceptance and approval.

    Comment by Pat — June 5, 2011 @ 10:35 am - June 5, 2011

  94. One of the reasons I occasionally read GayPatriot is to see the contortions that commenters will go through to justify their viscerally derived animus, and make themselves appear intellectually principled. This thread has been a goldmine.

    Comment by Richard R — June 5, 2011 @ 10:50 am - June 5, 2011

  95. I do not believe that this is the case for pedophilia or incest.

    Your personal beliefs on whether or not something is “icky” don’t matter, Pat. Remember?

    What I am seeking is for most in society to say something like, “I may not like homosexuality, because I’m straight, and that type of sex seems icky, but there is no earthly reason why such persons should not be able to full and equal members in society.”

    You have still not provided any reason for why pedophiles, incest practitioners, and plural marriage providers should not be “full and equal members” in society based on your own rules — the government cannot regulate “love”, that everyone must be allowed to marry whom they “love”, that no one should have to “closet” themselves or receive criticism from society because of whom they “love”, and that you have no right to pass judgment on relationships that don’t affect your own.

    Again, Heliotrope makes the point utterly clear: you are confusing societal acceptance with “civil rights”. It is not a “civil right” for your behavior to be accepted by society, and you are trying to force society to accept you at gunpoint.

    Next up:

    Except that you had to do very little, if anything at all, for your sexual orientation to be accepted. Fine, that’s the way the ball bounces some times. You were able to take for granted that you could act on your sexuality, and not wait for years of societal acceptance to marry your wife.

    And there’s a reason for that — which oddly enough, you cited.

    I have mentioned before that live next to a small city where there is a high percentage of mostly straight people who are promiscuous, and having out of children wedlock all over the place (and guess who’s paying for these children?)

    So as we see from that, heterosexual marriage has a very real and very powerful positive effect for society — and promiscuity and disrespect for marriage among heterosexuals create real and crippling social problems

    The problem is, Pat, that you and your fellow gay-sex liberals cannot accept that basic fact, because it would indicate that gay-sex couplings and heterosexual couplings have different societal impacts — and thus would justify the government treating them differently.

    So you go into this hilarious denial of the value of childraising and procreation to society. You and your fellow gay-sex liberals really reach the delusional stage in your envy and jealousy towards heterosexuals, as we see in this statement from Richard R:

    Heterosexuality is clearly more harmful to society – unless you believe that what the earth desperately needs is a lot more people.

    This is how beyond the bend gay-sex marriage supporters are. Pat and his ilk are so desperate to force society to accept their behavior that they openly state that procreation and childrearing are harmful to society and should be suppressed in favor of gay-sex marriage.

    This is the most selfish, narcissistic, and short-sighted view imaginable. Who is going to take care of Pat and his gay-sex partners as they age? Who is going to raise the food they need, provide the medical care they must have, and pay the taxes that fund the social net they demand? Even as other advanced societies that have embraced their view of hostility towards procreation and heterosexual marriage panic and desperately try to reverse the negative trend, they sit here and insist that gay-sex marriage is better for society than heterosexual marriage.

    But I think we must recognize that the motivations of gay-sex marriage supporters are not based on facts and logic, but are in fact completely irrational, based on using the legal system forcing people to accept them, getting revenge on those who they feel wronged them, and a deep and visceral antireligious bigotry and hatred. Gay-sex marriage is to them the same as pissing on an altar, screaming at their parents, and throwing tantrums in a grocery store aisle, and that’s why they support and endorse it. It is their way of being spoiled brats.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 5, 2011 @ 12:34 pm - June 5, 2011

  96. RE #94: I rest my case.

    Comment by Richard R — June 5, 2011 @ 1:52 pm - June 5, 2011

  97. Seems like NDT’s alter Miss Rita Beads is just on a complete rant this weekend. But hey, that you go Miss Beads.

    But there are other viewpoints out there to counter Miss Beads.

    Not all Republicans supported the action to ban
    ‘gay-sex marriage’ however, with Rep. John Kriesel (R-Cottage Grove) telling the state House that a near fatal experience during his military service changed his mind on gay marriage.

    During his testimony, Kriesel said that being injured “woke” him up and changed him, adding: “Because of that, it’s made me think about this issue. And say, ‘You know what, what would I do without my wife?’ She makes me happy. Life is hard. We’re in a really tough time in our history. Happiness is so, so hard to find for people. So they find it, they find someone that makes them happy, and we want to take that person away. We want to say, ‘Oh no, you can be together, you can love that person, but you can’t marry them.’ You can’t marry them. That’s wrong.”

    #9 I don’t know how to reverse ignorance and intolerance. But I do know this: They don’t go away just because we ignore them.

    #45 “Through Iowa Republicans for Freedom, we will begin a conversation about whether our party and our state will stand for true conservative values, or whether we will allow ourselves to get lost in senseless debates that do nothing but demean our neighbors and threaten the rights of our fellow Iowans.”

    Comment by rusty — June 5, 2011 @ 2:40 pm - June 5, 2011

  98. Oh, I see, rusty.

    Well, that’s easy to fix.

    During his testimony, Kriesel said that being injured “woke” him up and changed him, adding: “Because of that, it’s made me think about this issue. And say, ‘You know what, what would I do without my wife?’ She makes me happy. Life is hard. We’re in a really tough time in our history. Happiness is so, so hard to find for people. So they find it, they find someone that makes them happy, and we want to take that person away. We want to say, ‘Oh no, you can be together, you can love that person, but you can’t marry them.’ You can’t marry them. That’s wrong.”

    So Kriesel says it’s wrong for the government to say that people can’t marry whomever makes them happy.

    Well, children make pedophiles happy, blood relatives make incest practitioners happy, animals make bestialists happy, and multiple partners make plural marriage practitioners happy.

    So by Kriesel’s logic, bans on any one of those are “wrong” since they stop people from marrying whomever makes them “happy”.

    I should go see Kriesel and ask him why he supports child marriage, since he wouldn’t want to make pedophiles unhappy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 5, 2011 @ 3:51 pm - June 5, 2011

  99. Not all Republicans supported the action to ban
    ‘gay-sex marriage’ however, with Rep. John Kriesel (R-Cottage Grove) telling the state House that a near fatal experience during his military service changed his mind on gay marriage.

    Rusty, it’s good to get support from both sides of the aisle locally and nationally. Good for John, and the rest of us.

    We want to say, ‘Oh no, you can be together, you can love that person, but you can’t marry them.’ You can’t marry them. That’s wrong.”

    Uh oh. This may be a feeding trough for those who need statements about marriage to have the obvious quantifiers everytime it is spoken about, and feel the need to demonize those who support same sex marriage. To your knowledge, has Kreisel ever supported pedophilia, incest, bestiality, or marrying plants or rocks?

    Comment by Pat — June 5, 2011 @ 4:10 pm - June 5, 2011

  100. Oops. Make that qualifiers, not quantifiers.

    Comment by Pat — June 5, 2011 @ 4:14 pm - June 5, 2011

  101. To your knowledge, has Kreisel ever supported pedophilia, incest, bestiality, or marrying plants or rocks?

    Yes. He states that:

    Life is hard. We’re in a really tough time in our history. Happiness is so, so hard to find for people. So they find it, they find someone that makes them happy, and we want to take that person away. We want to say, ‘Oh no, you can be together, you can love that person, but you can’t marry them.’ You can’t marry them. That’s wrong.”

    Kriesel clearly says it’s wrong for the government to say that people can’t marry whomever makes them happy.

    And as has already been stated, children make pedophiles happy, blood relatives make incest practitioners happy, animals make bestialists happy, and multiple partners make plural marriage practitioners happy.

    So Kriesel has clearly stated that he supports pedophilia, incest, bestiality, plural marriage, etc. because those things make people “happy”, and he puts the “happiness” of people ahead of everything else.

    Furthermore, Kriesel, as he makes clear, is in complete opposition to the government imposing ANY type of rule that would prevent people from marrying whomever makes them “happy”. Therefore, he opposes laws banning sex and marriage to underage children, animals, multiple partners, etc., since all of those prevent people from marrying whomever makes them “happy”.

    You insisted that being allowed to marry whomever makes you happy is a “civil right”, Pat, and you have stated that this is fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment. Since there are no restrictions based on age, gender, species, previous marriage, or the like in the Fourteenth Amendment, you must then allow those people to marry as well or be in unconstitutional violation of “equal protection”.

    In short, Pat, both you and Kriesel are making lazy arguments.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 5, 2011 @ 4:33 pm - June 5, 2011

  102. Also, Pat, before you start complaining about “obvious” things in quotes and whatnot, let me remind you: gay-sex liberals like yourself regularly quote Supreme Court marriage cases, such as Loving, to “prove” that gay-sex marriage is a “civil right” — without ever once having a concern about whether or not those justices were actually even thinking about gay-sex marriage.

    Since you pull words without context or allowing for the “obvious”, the same can be done to you. Unless Kriesel specifically repudiates his stances and states that it is OK for the government to prevent people from marrying who makes them “happy” based on societal morals and values, his words are being taken at face value.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 5, 2011 @ 4:44 pm - June 5, 2011

  103. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WyYRA4aZSI

    I think Kreisel was only addresses SSM but it’s up to your analysis of the video.

    Hope you have ‘happy’ PRIDE month Miss BEADS.

    Comment by rusty — June 5, 2011 @ 9:59 pm - June 5, 2011

  104. Rusty, I found no evidence that Kreisel supports pedophilia, incest, etc. The only change that SSM made in Iowa was to change “one man and one woman” to “two adults.” None of the other restrictions (close relatives, age, must both be human) has changed, and that’s what Kreisel voted on. It’s a stretch to believe otherwise, unless one needs to shriek a partisan and/or ideological agenda.

    Comment by Pat — June 6, 2011 @ 7:01 am - June 6, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.