Gay Patriot Header Image

Hyperventilating on Gay Marriage, Part One*

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:48 am - June 29, 2011.
Filed under: Blogging,Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage,Writing

I had not expected my last blog post to be as long as it was.  I had merely planned to conclude with the anecdote of the lesbian mother I saw at Traintown, but then, well, as I wrote about her, other thoughts came to mind.

I had intended that post to focus on the debate on gay marriage, how, as I wrote the day after the New York legislature voted to recognize same-sex marriages, “the rhetoric [was] regularly exaggerated,” with the debate lacking “the type of civil discussion of the importance and meaning of marriage that would have helped strengthen the institution“.

Echoing my point “about the lack of meaningful/useful/informative discourse in the public square over the past two weeks” our reader Richard Bell confessed, in the comments section that he’s “still reeling from the hyperbole and hate of both sides.”  I found the debate so annoying with hyperbole on each side that I simply stopped following it.

What Richard saw as “hate,” I saw as hyperventilating;  advocates of the bill assured us that opponents hated gay people and wanted to deprive them of their “rights” while opponents warned of the imminent demise of traditional marriage (if the bill passed).

Give me a break.  Marriage has survived as an institution for as long as human beings have recorded the details of our lives.  It has survived challenges throughout history, most recently the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. Despite those challenges and active efforts to undermine it, marriage remains a defining cultural institution.  Individuals who once rejected it in their youth, embrace it in early middle age and celebrate it in their golden years.

Traditional marriage will survive state recognition of same-sex marriage — and may even emerge stronger than it was when the debate over gay relationships began.

In the long history of marriage, state recognition is a relatively new notion.  Long before civil authorities beginning issuing marriage licenses (or their equivalent), religious authorities set the standards for the institution.  The New York law will not prevent the various churches, synagogues and other houses of worship in the Empire State from defining marriage for their respective flocks.

If traditional marriage is truly the resilient and beneficial institution its defenders claim, it will survive the recent events in the Empire State.  I mean, heck, it endured for centuries, millennia even, without civil authorities granting marriage licenses.  And it will endure now that the elected legislature there has expanded the type of couples eligible for such licenses.

*Somehow I think there’s a better title for this post related to civil and religious marriage, but it’s nearly 1 AM PST and bed beckons.

Share

35 Comments

  1. Ah, Gay marriage, it seems to instill fear in heteros because they seem to know something about themselves we gay folks can’t grasp — they are afraid they will become gay. We gays seem to be rock solid in our contention we are gay — and so many heteros seem to be tenuous in their belief that they are straight. And that only by denigrating gay folks, and preventing recognition of our unions by any name will stop the world from going all gay and no kids born. It’s weird to read their fear of becoming gay, as if they are going to rush to the local gay bar the minute gay unions are recognized and find a guy to kiss (and it is the guys whom seem most worried.) It’s weird that heteros think heterosexuality must be taught, and that gays are undermining this teaching — when we seem to be quite sure no teaching is required for what comes natural for us — or them.

    I keep asking many a website: “we are gay, you are not — what is your fear?” They have no answer.

    Comment by Jim Hlavac — June 29, 2011 @ 6:24 am - June 29, 2011

  2. Wow Jim…

    That’s so detached from reality, I don’t know where to begin a reply.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 29, 2011 @ 8:12 am - June 29, 2011

  3. I found the debate so annoying with hyperbole on each side that I simply stopped following it.

    And thus Dan became another drop in the ocean of American voters sick of the 24-hour talking heads. :-)

    Kidding aside, this has pretty much become my standard response. I research at election time, but otherwise, I’m kind of sick of all the “debate”. No matter the topic: taxes, gay marriage, health care, GWOT, the list goes on. But alas, that’s just my particular grump this morning.

    Comment by Neptune — June 29, 2011 @ 9:09 am - June 29, 2011

  4. I did read Frum’s piece, as well as the piece in NRO. I got a slightly different insight from it. If you look at the decline of the value of traditional marriage from the 60′s to the present, both NRO and Frum seem to indicate that the increase in acceptance of SSM is a symptom of the attack on traditional marriage, not the conclusion. Akin to blaming the cough for making you sick, not the flu bug causing the cough, nausea, fever, and vomiting.

    (Countdown to lib trolls trying to claim I’m calling being gay a disease in 3… 2… 1…)

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 29, 2011 @ 9:20 am - June 29, 2011

  5. Jim,

    Let me understand your comments in terms my str8 self.

    1.) I fear homosexuality because I am afraid of becoming homosexual.

    2.) This fear is something that a homosexual can not grasp. (Are you homosexual? If so, how did you grasp it?)

    3.) Gays are rock solid in their homosexuality which rattles heterosexuals who are uncertain of their own sexuality.

    4.) Heterosexuals fight gay tendencies and being gay out of fear that the species with exterminate itself. In clearer words, we are all gay, but some go ahead and to the procreation thing out of pride for the species, or something.

    5.) Mostly, “heterosexuals” find kissing the same sex to be icky, so they conquer their inner drive and feed their fears.

    6.) Heterosexuals think male/female plumbing connection must be taught while homosexuals just follow instinct. That is to say, homosexuals don’t breed naturally, but heterosexuals breed after instructions and testing.

    I keep asking many a website: “we are gay, you are not — what is your fear?” They have no answer.

    My anwers:

    “We are gay-you are not”: Answer: Oh.

    “What is your fear?”: Answer: That you understand the above.

    Jim, I am glad you are super comfortable in your skin. Believe it or not, I am super comfortable in my skin. I am glad you love homosexuality and all the carnal pleasure it brings you. I have never gone to the park and winked at one of the studs outside the men’s room who would like to get it on with me. I know where they are and I know what they want. I know what I don’t want. But, Jim, I have never seen that as fear, insecurity, or prejudice. I just don’t swing that way, Jim.

    Others tell us that your rock-solid gays do a lot of hanging of themselves as teens. Is this “coming out” fragility just a huge myth? Why don’t gays and lesbians hook up and divvy up the children in order to perpetuate the species? Jane and Joyce can hook up with Bill and Joe and do some four ways with Jane and Joyce keeping two and Bill and Joe keeping two. It shouldn’t be all that “icky” to get the job done. They can even do it by syringe. You could make a gay game of it.

    There. Now critique my answers, please.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 29, 2011 @ 9:25 am - June 29, 2011

  6. I commented on Dan’s “On blogging & the gay marriage conversation” which immediately precedes this post. I am adding those comments here as I think they speak to this post as well.

    Dan,

    I think that lesbians or gays are as good parents as any others and potentially as insufficient parents as any others. People succeed and people fail.

    Honestly, I have a squirrelly mind problem when I see two guys pushing a stroller with a tot. I wonder about the tot as “different” in the school setting.

    So, then I immediately ask myself why this “bothers” me. And I realize that I have accepted gay relationships, but not gay couples as co-equal partners in the grand scheme of things.

    I was “radicalized” by Heather Has Two Mommies and Jocelyn Elders masturbation training goofiness. I don’t “want” the details of sex or gay sex as chit chat at the water cooler or a general breezy topic. I am outraged when a person on a cell phone has a graphic conversation of any type in the midst of strangers. We have the right to our privacy from other’s “stuff.”

    Keeping your private business private is probably as far as my “tolerance” extends.

    Gays that promote their gaydom in obvious ways are not trying to join the society so much as to get acceptance, however grudgingly it may be given. But, then, I have to struggle with a same sex couple with a child and realize that I am pre-judging the situation simply on my prejudices. I am particularly hard pressed to be open-minded when one of these arrangements falls apart. After all, lots of kids get victimized by bad parenting in the heterosexual world.

    My continued resistance to gay marriage is because it does not occur as the next step after civil unions. I accept the logic of civil unions because the states have made laws that deny gay couples the benefits accorded heterosexuals.

    The marriage issue, in my view, is something more in the minds of gays and lesbians than clearing up the next of kin, tax categories, etc. I believe it is all psychological and aimed at some false assumption of achieving acceptance and respect.

    If Hitler had been able to kill all the gay and lesbian people in the world, he would only have caused a small blip. Each generation of gays and lesbians more or less exterminates themselves with no help from a Hitler. But we seem to always have about the same small percent of gays and lesbians.

    The theory is that there is a genetic marker hidden somewhere that sets the course toward sexuality. Over the years, I have attempted to prod people into how they would deal with this “knowledge” if they could control the outcome of genetic testing.

    I mention this, because I am confused as to how comfortable gays and lesbians are in their own skins and how much of any discomfort they feel is caused by a hostile society.

    It has been a long time on this site since I have been called a homophobe. I wonder if I have changed or if others have understood me better or if I am an incurable homophobe and to call me one is a waste of breath.

    Hopefully, others will accept these comments not as “all about me” and understand that the general “divide” between homosexuals and heterosexuals needs some serious airing.

    What continues to astound me is the rabid insistence that religion is the culprit.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 29, 2011 @ 8:46 am – June 29, 2011

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 29, 2011 @ 9:33 am - June 29, 2011

  7. Heliotrope, I enjoyed your post. I totally get what you are saying and agree with most of what you say.

    I’m not sure what you mean, though, when you say gays promote their gaydom in obvious ways. If you are referring to pride parades, I get that. I’m not a fan of them either, and especially the participants that are perhaps promoting their gaydom in obvious and publicly inappropriate ways. For too long, many gay persons had to hide a significant part of their identity, and for some, this is their way of making up for lost time. For others, they would do this no matter what, just like we see straight persons do in Jersey Shore or Girls Gone Wild. (No, I’m not using this to justify inappropriate behavior, only pointing out that this is not unique to gay persons.)

    I know that we have made it when pride parades fade into the background. When a gay couple can walk their child in a stroller taken for granted as it is for a straight couple. When two adults kiss of any gender, it brings the same reaction no matter the gender. When one can talk about his partner at work the same way a colleague can talk about his wife, etc. We’re getting there.

    Hitler references are always risky, but I get your point. Procreation is obviously important for maintaining our species, but we are a lot more than that. In fact, we rightfully frown upon people procreating indiscriminantly. But I look as gay people in a similar way to infertile persons. They are a small percentage as well, and if gay persons stick with persons of the same gender, then we won’t be procreating either. But we don’t look at infertile persons with disdain, and we encourage and applaud when they do get married (even if the person they marry is fertile and could marry another fertile person).

    I mention this, because I am confused as to how comfortable gays and lesbians are in their own skins and how much of any discomfort they feel is caused by a hostile society.

    That’s a tough question. I feel very comfortable in my own skin now, but I can’t say that was always the case. I had to grow up a little. And it helped when societal acceptance grew, and more importantly, support of family and friends. And when I got to the point that I wouldn’t have it any other way, it became an epiphany.

    What continues to astound me is the rabid insistence that religion is the culprit.

    It’s hard to quantify how much (or if at all) religion is to blame in all this. Yes, we are all sinners. But even when a gay person acts on their sexuality in a responsible way, it is still considered sinful by many religions today. So what does a gay person who is (or was) a member of that religion do? Or what does the gay person of a child of parents, who because of their religion shun, chastise, not accept, etc., do? It’s hard not to see religion as the main culprit.

    On the other hand, we live in a fairly free Western society now. We are no longer bound by law with severe penalties for failing to adhere (or make believe to adhere) to a state-imposed religion. We can now choose which religion, if any, to adhere to. And maybe this gets into moral relativity, or another discussion about moral codes, but one can freely decide whether or not to accept homosexuality, or even if one regards it as sinful, that others may not.

    Sorry if the above is convoluted, and I don’t have the time to write what I mean to say. But basically, I personally believe that we are getting to the point where we can no longer blame religion. If a person is anti-gay, then that is the person’s choice. For example, while the NY Senate was deciding on same sex marriage, New York’s Archbishop Dolan lobbied against the bill. I don’t hold Roman Catholicism for this, I hold Dolan for his choice. If the word “marriage” is the problem, fine. But if I recall correctly, he is opposed to civil unions for non-Catholics as well. Another example. The mayor of my city (a Democrat btw) no longer performs wedding ceremonies, because by law, he would also have to perform civil unions. At first I blamed the bishop of the diocese. But it was the mayor’s choice to follow the bishop’s demand. We ended up getting our civil union performed by a Republican in a neighboring county.

    A significant minority, or perhaps even a majority of Catholics support civil unions. So it’s clearly possible to support civil unions even if religious dogma states otherwise.

    Anyway, Heliotrope, I appreciate your thoughts.

    Comment by Pat — June 29, 2011 @ 12:38 pm - June 29, 2011

  8. This is interesting, if you can’t debate your oponents lie about them.

    It doesn’t help your cause when you have to do crap like this.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 29, 2011 @ 1:13 pm - June 29, 2011

  9. “But we don’t look at infertile persons with disdain, and we encourage and applaud when they do get married (even if the person they marry is fertile and could marry another fertile person).”

    The problem I see is the modern feminized world has imposed infertility as the norm with abortion, birth control, and the delay of marriage. There is no disdain of choices that encourage the lack of procreation.

    Some see gay marriage as the culmination of the eventual destruction of America. I can’t disagree. White liberal society will be overwhelmed with the coming demographic change where they are the minority. Enjoy the wins while you still can.

    Comment by anon23532 — June 29, 2011 @ 1:13 pm - June 29, 2011

  10. But I look as gay people in a similar way to infertile persons.

    But they are not the same or similar.

    Gays and lesbians can procreate, as shown by gay and lesbian hero Jim McGreevey. Their inability to do so is solely based on their own choice.

    Infertile people, on the other hand, cannot procreate and have no choice in the matter.

    Again, Pat, it is your choice to follow your sexual attractions. Will you please state that your distaste for a person’s sexual attractions should never under any circumstances be codified into law, and that the government must treat all sexual attractions equally and provide equal benefits, freedoms, and liberty regardless of sexual attraction?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 29, 2011 @ 1:16 pm - June 29, 2011

  11. NDT, I will be happy to respond as soon as you apologize. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — June 29, 2011 @ 1:22 pm - June 29, 2011

  12. Pat @ 7:

    A significant minority, or perhaps even a majority of Catholics support civil unions. So it’s clearly possible to support civil unions even if religious dogma states otherwise.

    Speaking as a celibate, gay Roman Catholic I must point out that those [Catholics] who support civil unions are in error, and are in danger of excommunication. They are in just as much of a state of error as so-called Catholics who believe abortion is just fine.

    Staying chaste isn’t a picnic, and I have days where it’s just about all I can do to stay sane, but it’s a pretty small price to pay in the grand scheme of things in order to be worthy of the promises of Christ.

    Let the anti-Catholic bigotry begin…..3……2……1

    Comment by bastiat fan — June 29, 2011 @ 1:47 pm - June 29, 2011

  13. NDT, I will be happy to respond as soon as you apologize. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — June 29, 2011 @ 1:22 pm – June 29, 2011

    That’s odd, Pat, because I haven’t demanded apology as the price of responding to you and your fellow board liberals for anything that you’ve said about me.

    Isn’t that unusual? I don’t have a problem answering you, no matter what sort of nasty things I think you’ve said about me, nor am I coercing an apology out of you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 29, 2011 @ 1:49 pm - June 29, 2011

  14. Speaking as a celibate, gay Roman Catholic I must point out that those [Catholics] who support civil unions are in error, and are in danger of excommunication. They are in just as much of a state of error as so-called Catholics who believe abortion is just fine.

    This reminds me why I’m a self described Lutheran Heritic

    I don’t agree with several stands of my church, so I left. Organized religion isn’t a menu. You can’t say “I accept dogma A, B, C but not D” and say you’re a faithful member of the church.

    Re:Celebacy. I understand your commitment bastiat fan, and admire you for being able to keep to it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 29, 2011 @ 1:52 pm - June 29, 2011

  15. @the_livewire — I am hardly divorced from reality — I merely have a much different take on the subject, which differs from the usual gay take, and the usual straight take — but hey, I’m just going by what I see and hear day in and day out on dozens of political blogs – I could have gone down this 10% say this, 25% say this, etc, route and have dissected the thousands of comments I see — but that would be a book. So I went for the gusto. We ain’t thespians for nothing, you know. But fear not, I save some 95% of all the comments I see on the subject — and have a quite a stash of them, for one day, perhaps soon, there shall be a nice “gay guy’s romp through the political blogs book.” I suppose it makes a difference on how many blogs one goes to and of what sort. But it is rather astounding. I can’t help it thought that I have never towed the standard line on anything. But divorced from reality is hardly it my dear genderless sir or madam.

    @heliotrope — this is the problem — we’re supposedly “confused” because we need to “come out” — and heteros don’t need to “come out” but merely discover the opposite sex. But the “coming out” process is more akin to testing how any given hetero around us deals with the gayness, not the worry of whether or not we’re gay. I was never in, I was pushy. And to answer each and every scenario you put forth would require more space than a blog response would truly allow — so I think I might take the whole thing you wrote and bring it on over to my blog, to have fun with. You’ll just have to come over to the daily mush to see if I bothered. For who has time for this constant dissecting of the gay existence in this nation?

    Comment by Jim Hlavac — June 29, 2011 @ 1:53 pm - June 29, 2011

  16. Speaking as a celibate, gay Roman Catholic I must point out that those [Catholics] who support civil unions are in error, and are in danger of excommunication.

    Bastiat fan, I respect your decision to be celibate, and your belief to be a good Catholic and to be worthy of the promises of Jesus. Others believe differently. Besides the fact that we no longer have to shake in our boots under threat of excommunication of any religion, the Church is going to have to do a lot of paperwork if they do, in fact, excommunicate all such Catholics who support same sex marriage/civil unions, are pro-choice, use or support the use of birth control, etc.

    I’m sort of a fallen Catholic, but many who are strong adherents to the Church or other Christian faiths, strongly believe that Christ accepts them and their sexuality when used responsibly. Since there is such a deep division, I don’t think we’ll know for sure what Christ’s thoughts are on homosexuality. As a side note, I was talking to a nun yesterday, and apparently, there is deep division where Jesus is even buried. Go figure.

    Staying chaste isn’t a picnic, and I have days where it’s just about all I can do to stay sane, but it’s a pretty small price to pay in the grand scheme of things in order to be worthy of the promises of Christ.

    I don’t know what to say here. I can’t believe that Jesus would want you to be in a position “where it’s just about all I can do to stay sane,” regardles of how small or large the price is. But it is your choice. I wish you the best of luck, as I’m sure you wish me.

    Comment by Pat — June 29, 2011 @ 1:57 pm - June 29, 2011

  17. Isn’t that unusual? I don’t have a problem answering you, no matter what sort of nasty things I think you’ve said about me, nor am I coercing an apology out of you.

    NDT, others have called for you to apologize as well. You don’t see how you were wrong, that’s fine. We won’t have anything to discuss until you see otherwise. Since, as your response to my earlier post shows that you continue to misinterpret my posts (unusual that you seem to be the only one that consistently does), I respectfully request that you do not respond to my posts. Obviously, that’s your choice, as it will be my choice to ignore any response you have to my posts. Have a blessed day!

    Comment by Pat — June 29, 2011 @ 2:07 pm - June 29, 2011

  18. I can’t believe that Jesus would want you to be in a position “where it’s just about all I can do to stay sane,” regardles of how small or large the price is.

    Yes, because, as we know, Jesus said life would be sunshine and lollipops 24/7 for those who followed Him. (rolls eyes).

    This is pretty typical, though; as we see from leaders and spokespersons for the gays and lesbian community like Dan Savage, since things like monogamy, fidelity, and commitment are difficult, they must be wrong and hurtful, lack social value, and just be an attempt to control other peoples’ behavior.

    Why society should extend marriage to a group of people who have demonstrated and proven nothing but disdain for its core principles is completely and totally beyond me. It makes even less sense when you see how gays and lesbians, rather than seriously and honestly evaluating their priorities during the AIDS epidemic, screamed and cried about how Reagan and conservatives were forcing them to have promiscuous bareback sex. To think that such people who are so wedded to promiscuity and irresponsibility that they would continue to carry it out in the face of near-certain death, disability, and injury would respect the virtues enshrined in a marriage license is ludicrous.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 29, 2011 @ 2:33 pm - June 29, 2011

  19. You’re a piece of work, NDT. Okay, have it your way.

    Comment by Pat — June 29, 2011 @ 2:53 pm - June 29, 2011

  20. I don’t agree with several stands of my church, so I left. Organized religion isn’t a menu. You can’t say “I accept dogma A, B, C but not D” and say you’re a faithful member of the church.

    Livewire, perhaps things are more clear cut in the Lutheran church. But it doesn’t appear to be that way in the Catholic Church. My understanding is that in addition to people who don’t follow some of what is apparently dogma in the Church, others disagree what the dogma is.

    Comment by Pat — June 29, 2011 @ 2:56 pm - June 29, 2011

  21. Pat,

    Actually it’s my understanding it’s a bit easier, since (semi-sarcasm alert!) “The Pope says so.” Some things are pretty clear though. When the church says, “Abortion/Contraception is bad.” Saying ‘no it isn’t’ isn’t agreeing with the church.

    I’m one of those people who enjoy Dogma because it pokes fun at the problems of failable creatures (us) interpreting the word of the Divine. I enjoy Life of Brian for the same reason.

    I just wish Kevin Smith could lay off the swearing.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 29, 2011 @ 3:22 pm - June 29, 2011

  22. It has been a long time on this site since I have been called a homophobe.

    Homophobe. ;-)

    NDT, others have called for you to apologize as well.

    I missed that. When was this?

    Comment by TGC — June 29, 2011 @ 4:12 pm - June 29, 2011

  23. TGC,

    Thanks! I was feeling unloved.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 29, 2011 @ 6:10 pm - June 29, 2011

  24. Daniel,
    “Traditional marriage will survive state recognition of same-sex marriage — and may even emerge stronger than it was when the debate over gay relationships began.”

    I’m encouraged by your optimism, Daniel. However, I’m otherwise vastly depressed over the aftermath of this legislation here in NYS.

    It is now being reported that the process leading up to passage was extremely convoluted and unconventional. We now have a movement afoot* to recall the 7 republicans that made passage possible.
    If that’s not depressing enough many of the hetero’s who supported the legislation now feel they were lied to when they were told that “it was just about two people who love each other” and nothing was going to change for the religious orgs after passage. Thanks to “Gay Inc” continuing to pressure the president to rescind workplace carve outs it looks like just a matter of time before all Catholic** adoption agencies/hospitals in this state will close. As a volunteer at the SA soup kitchen I can tell you we already get enough grief from “Gay Inc”.
    I’m hoping it’s all just a bad dream that I haven’t awoken from.

    *(http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.ksJQKZPCJnH/b.4430065/)
    **(For the record, I’m not Catholic.)

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 29, 2011 @ 6:55 pm - June 29, 2011

  25. My personal favorite is the commentary that insists that SSM signals THE END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION. To which all I can think is, “My God, how do these people get up in the morning?” Such intense feelings of despair cannot be healthy for these individuals.

    @18
    It’s nice to know, NDT, that homosexuality automatically precludes monogamy, fidelity, and commitment. I mean, I’ve been committed to my girlfriend for four years and I’ve never been happier. But according to your statement, we must immediately drown ourselves in open relationships and meaningless sex to be true-blue homosexuals. I’ll get on the horn and tell her that, as soon as I stop puking in horror at the thought.

    (Tell me if I’m not being obvious enough. I wouldn’t want my point to fly over your head.)

    Comment by Luipaard — June 29, 2011 @ 8:05 pm - June 29, 2011

  26. Luipaard,
    “that homosexuality automatically precludes monogamy, fidelity, and commitment. I mean, I’ve been committed to my girlfriend for four years and I’ve never been happier.”

    It would be helpful if this was the narative but it’s not.

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 29, 2011 @ 8:15 pm - June 29, 2011

  27. I’ll get on the horn and tell her that, as soon as I stop puking in horror at the thought.

    Doubtful, since you didn’t puke in horror when gay and lesbian community leader Dan Savage said it in the first place, or when the gay and lesbian community openly demanded sibling and plural marriages and said that to do otherwise was antigay.

    It’s always so funny. The gay and lesbian community swears up and down that it hates pedophilia, then gets flustered and can’t explain why NAMBLA was an esteemed member of the gay and lesbian community for years.

    Why, it’s almost as if they have two sets of principles – one for PR, one that actually governs their behavior.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 29, 2011 @ 8:51 pm - June 29, 2011

  28. Oh, by the way, the gay and lesbian community just made it obvious.

    They threw a shit fit and demanded that a civil unions bill be vetoed because it doesn’t allow them to attack and punish religious organizations and churches.

    Add to that the latest call from the gay and lesbian community to punish churches and religious organizations that don’t recognize or perform gay-sex marriages.

    So again, the gay and lesbian community doesn’t care about benefits or protections or respect; all they care about is being able to attack and punish religious people.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 29, 2011 @ 9:08 pm - June 29, 2011

  29. Doubtful, since you didn’t puke in horror when gay and lesbian community leader Dan Savage said it in the first place

    This statement seems to imply that you know every thought and word I have ever had or said about Dan Savage. Tragically, this is not the case, NDT — you are not psychic. It might have been better if you were, because then you would know that I despise Dan Savage and everything he stands for. You would also know that the “gay community” is not a hive mind. In fact, you should know that already, seeing as how you regularly participate in comments on this blog, the participants of which regularly show the lie of your statements.

    For you information, I not only despise Dan Savage but NAMBLA as well. I despise child rape and molestation, as well as incest. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse, no matter how many sick fucks try to dress it up as something else. These measures that you cite should be prosecuted if possible, as they actively seek to codify simple rape into law. I also care very deeply about my church, about the religious community that surrounds it. Those who attack the rights of religious organizations for the sake of “equality” are as deeply bigoted as those they claim to fight.

    I find it deeply tragic that I have to spell these things out for you, NDT. You don’t need to be heterosexual to realize that crimes such as incest and pedophilia are wrong: you simply need to be a decent human being.

    So again, the gay and lesbian community doesn’t care about benefits or protections or respect; all they care about is being able to attack and punish religious people.

    I care about benefits and protections and respect. The Church is the Bride of Christ and deserves love and respect. Is there any room in your little box for one such as I?

    Comment by Luipaard — June 29, 2011 @ 10:27 pm - June 29, 2011

  30. I am thoroughly disgusted whenever I hear gay people or organizations unwilling to compromise. They demand nothing short of full endorsement of their marriage, and to hell what anyone else thinks. These gay people must be really stupid if they think that will actually accomplish something. I mean, try showing mainstream society that you are a moral person and have respect for the rest of society. To assume that everyone who isn’t completely comfortable with homosexuality is a hateful, moronic, backwards bigot while parading around in a brightly-colored speedo covered in grease is the epitome of stupidity and bigotry itself. What the gay community is doing is just absolutely pathetic and I refuse to be associated in any way with these people. And, if you are gay and don’t condone that overly sexual behaviour then condemn it. Shut the f*ck up about discrimination and equal rights until you condemn other gay people for being promiscuous and irresponsible.

    Comment by Naamloos — June 29, 2011 @ 10:28 pm - June 29, 2011

  31. Bah. Ignore my double post, Mr. Blatt.

    Comment by Luipaard — June 29, 2011 @ 10:30 pm - June 29, 2011

  32. To clarify what I just said, when I say “discrimination and equal rights” I mean fake discrimination that gay people imagine and special rights that gay rights activists demand.

    Comment by Naamloos — June 29, 2011 @ 10:33 pm - June 29, 2011

  33. Civil unions for all and marriage as a religious institution would end most of the divisiveness on this issue.

    Comment by davinci — June 29, 2011 @ 11:14 pm - June 29, 2011

  34. Such intense feelings of despair cannot be healthy for these individuals.

    I should think liberals would be used to it as it seems to be a prerequisite.

    Comment by TGC — June 30, 2011 @ 1:12 am - June 30, 2011

  35. Civil unions for all and marriage as a religious institution would end most of the divisiveness on this issue.

    Then get right out there and start working on getting that legislation passed.

    The ‘face of the GBLT’ movement seems to be saying that it’s not about the ‘perks of marriage’, which Rhode Island wants, it’s about fundamentally transforming the institution of marriage.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 30, 2011 @ 7:42 am - June 30, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.