GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/12/29/gays-embracing-the-bourgeois-value-of-marriage/trackback/

  1. I think the problem happened when gay activist leaders rejected civil unions or domestic partnerships and became obsessed with having the exact same word. I am 100% behind civil unions or some kind of partnership for same-sex couples with all the equal rights of marriage, including immigration rights, etc. I don’t think fighting for “marriage” was the right move because it asks people to pretend that there are no differences between opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Maybe the problem started, at least in NY, when straight men who didn’t want to marry their girlfriends went out and got domestic partnerships for the sake of benefits, and then there was an absurd situation where straights could do anything gays could do, but not vice versa.

    As a bisexual, I do not perceive same-sex and heterosexual relationships as entirely equivalent. There are major challenges in heterosexual relationships because men and women are socialized differently and dealing with a spouse of the opposite sex means going outside your comfort zone and trying to understand another world. There are major challenges in homosexual relationships because you have to contend against prejudice and chances are, both people in the relationship struggled to accept themselves and often take out their frustrations within their relationship. Between men there is the added challenge of two people with a lot of sexual energy and too many options for infidelity, since gay males can find sex very easily after storming out of the apartment in the midst of a fight.

    These are generalizations but then so are the terms gay and straight and marriage and monogamy. So I don’t support the application of the exact same word to describe relationships that are very different and face extremely different problems in building a shared life.

    The problem with the conservative argument against gay marriage is that, like the argument against repealing DADT, it came from right-wing quarters that simply don’t like gay people and like to vent their anger at gays through political talking points. A lot of them oppose gay marriage because they simply do not want gays to get something they are asking for; they are not interested in proposing solutions to the problems gays are trying to solve. As a result they argue against gay marriage based on foolish presumptions about children, religion, and normalcy.

    Comment by RO Lopez — December 29, 2010 @ 1:15 pm - December 29, 2010

  2. Contrary to popular belief, the group most excited about the possibility of ‘Gay Marriage’ is not the gay community.

    It’s the divorce lawyers that really want this to happen.
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — December 29, 2010 @ 2:05 pm - December 29, 2010

  3. Have you ever actually thought your way through to a real position on anything, Daniel?

    Mrs Goldberg’s son is right in some respects. What he misses on is that the gays are not a bunch of lemmings that suddenly, en masse, turned toward the center and adopted Ward & June’s family values. I see the drive for parity in marriage and employment, etc as expanding our options – not limiting them.

    If you think the right is doing a better job at monogamy, meet the C Street Gang.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25139.html

    Comment by Auntie Dogma — December 29, 2010 @ 2:30 pm - December 29, 2010

  4. gays are not a bunch of lemmings

    Really, Dogpile? Really?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 29, 2010 @ 2:36 pm - December 29, 2010

  5. Perhaps, if the advocates talked more about the meaning of the institution and the reality of (many) gay relationships, they might find (some) social conservatives more willing to embrace state-recognized gay marriage — or at least civil unions.

    If wishes and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a wonderful Christmas?

    Sure, if the gay community embraced traditional marriage values they would find more sympathy for gay marriage. But they dont. Even in states where gay marriage is legal there has been only a teeny tiny minority of gays availing themselves of it.

    The “gay community” has shown it has no intention of conforming to traditional marriage, they expect marriage to conform to them — just one part of why gay marriage should be rejected.

    Another is that it redefines marriage in ways that necessarily destroy all other restrictions on who can marry. I’d like to know how you square this story with your support for gay marriage?

    Switzerland is considering repealing its incest laws because they are “obsolete”

    Switzerland has legally recognized civil unions if not gay marriage.

    Its not that gay marriage harms society, or harms marriage, its that the only reason we are even considering gay marriage is because the institution has been so liberalized already. The solution to an institution that has been harmed by liberalization is not more liberalization. And Switzerland shows exactly why.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 29, 2010 @ 3:44 pm - December 29, 2010

  6. I always come back to this but I think its worth repeating. I grew up in rural NC and had no clue that there was another gay person on the planet until my very late teens. The word “gay” wasn’t even part of my vocabulary. That just should not happen. That was the 80′s, so things have gotten much better, but to me, the whole point of the gay rights movement is to make sure that kids and teenagers who understand that they are gay, as I did at a very early age, have the support they need to deal with it. Too many commit suicide, which crossed my mind many times at the ages of 14 -about 18. My teenage years were a complete loss. That’s unacceptable and the only way to change that for every gay pre-teen and teenager is to create a world where no one gives a rats ass if you’re gay or straight or bisexual. And the best way to do that is to make those 3 things equal in every way possible, because they are equal. Not the SAME, just equal. Allowing gays in the military and gay marriage, in my mind, solves the problem once and for all. Not immediately, but in generations to come we will get there. Any other arguments for or against gay marriage are meaningless in my opinon when weighed against the rationale I just presented…thoughts?

    Comment by Eddie — December 29, 2010 @ 7:59 pm - December 29, 2010

  7. does this author and the other posters here have sh$t for brains?

    disconnect between the “the meaning of the institution and the reality of (many) gay relationships,”?

    WTF? did a mule kick in your head?

    The “meaning” of any relationship that two people have is up to them, not some jackwad wanna-be-writer or political pundit. You have ZERO right to attempt to even define that you self-loathing limp wick.

    And on top of that to get “social conservatives” to talk about it? who gives a F@$K, all social conservatives want to talk about is how others are destroying THEIR reality. They have done this for centuries and on every possible issue. Guess what? Most social conservatives in the U.S. are old white men and women (who are dying off.) and pseudo-Christians who don’t even understand the tenets of their own belief much less practice them.

    at the beginning of this piece of trip the scribbler writes “I’ve long observed that there is a disconnect between how gay marriage advocates talk about the institution they promote and how my gay friends (particularly lesbians) live said relationships. ”

    There is NO connection between someone advocating for what is right to YOUR opinion of those advocates lives.

    Just because an advocate of gay marriage does not wish to be married does not mean we are not entitled to being treated equally under the law and have that right available if and WHEN we choose to. So you and the rest of your turd-friends over in the hater party just need to STFU and lick your wounds. You have lost in your decades long attempt to keep gays marginalized and your self loathing is apparent as your losses compound.

    Comment by mikenola — December 29, 2010 @ 8:21 pm - December 29, 2010

  8. Poor Mike, you must have had a very bad day.

    Guess that’s why you feel you have to respond to us not with arguments but with insults. Do hope your venting has helped you feel better and that you have a better day tomorrow.

    And when you feel better, you can tell us precisely why you find us self-loathing, though I expect that when you feel better you’ll regret your intemperate language.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 29, 2010 @ 8:48 pm - December 29, 2010

  9. GayPatriot » Gays embracing the “bourgeois” value of marriage?…

    Here at World Spinner we are debating the same thing……

    Trackback by World Spinner — December 29, 2010 @ 9:02 pm - December 29, 2010

  10. “Perhaps, if the advocates talked more about the meaning of the institution and the reality of (many) gay relationships, they might find (some) social conservatives more willing to embrace state-recognized gay marriage — or at least civil unions.”

    But B. Daniel, I thought there was this big truce in the culture war. So why are you still obsessed with getting social conservatives to support an official endorsement of homosexuality? Why are you still working for gay marriage? Isn’t that a direct contradiction of the whole idea of a truce?

    You write in the post above about a disconnect. There is one, alright. There’s a disconnect between your support for that fictitious truce and your ongoing efforts to stigmatize traditionalists and legitimize homosexuality.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 29, 2010 @ 11:45 pm - December 29, 2010

  11. I don’t know about that statistic about Repub/Demos and “Modern Family.” Most of my friend are liberals and most of them love “Modern Family.” But, I live in L.A. So that might be why.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 29, 2010 @ 11:47 pm - December 29, 2010

  12. A marginalized contingent of the population (gays) is oppressed for centuries.

    Not until the last few decades have they (gay) made strides to live their lives sans the shame that has been ingrained in our society.

    One would think that their attraction to an institution such as marriage won’t happen overnight.

    One would think.

    Rome wasn’t built in a day, I think the saying goes.

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — December 29, 2010 @ 11:52 pm - December 29, 2010

  13. But B. Daniel, I thought there was this big truce in the culture war. So why are you still obsessed with getting social conservatives to support an official endorsement of homosexuality? Why are you still working for gay marriage? Isn’t that a direct contradiction of the whole idea of a truce?

    Ouch.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 30, 2010 @ 1:31 am - December 30, 2010

  14. Kind of puts that whole GOProud letter asking Republicans to ignore social issues into perspective. “You guys unilaterally disarm, while we continue right on trying to advance our social issues”.

    Reminds me of a Hezbollah cease fire. They only call for a cease fire so they can have time to rearm themselves.

    And, I dont mind pointing out, it shows I was right about that letter all along. A dishonest tactic from the start.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 30, 2010 @ 1:40 am - December 30, 2010

  15. RE: Adults-first libertarians

    I oppose “gay marriage” in part because I’m against blessing and enabling more fatherless families. Surely, there are enough fatherless boys in America? The prison system says it all.

    But I’m also opposed to “gay marriage” because it blesses motherless family units. To purposefully deny babies bonding time with their mothers and breast milk, strikes me as cruel. Do we really need to “sanctify” these arrangements?

    And, how many psychobiological studies must we ignore? Sure. I understand that some rich men on the gay left can and are comfortable with farming women out like cows (aka sexism) – but is this ethical?

    In short, I guess what I’m saying is this: Let’s remember biology, thousands of years of tradition, and how even “good” social experiments can harm children.

    Comment by Ben — December 30, 2010 @ 5:46 am - December 30, 2010

  16. Wanted to add, Jonah followed up here Interesting his views are similar to mine, and we’re of the same age.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 7:15 am - December 30, 2010

  17. He’s right. Social conservatives do (occasionally) make some solid arguments against gay marriage; these arguments are not always rooted in animosity. But, he does miss something here. Opposition to gay marriage is not entirely absurd. Some social conservatives oppose state recognition of gay marriage because they hear the rhetoric of many gay marriage advocates without seeing the example of many gay couples.

    And what are those solid arguments? Of course Goldberg doesn’t have the balls to tell us in the article, and neither do you!

    And as I noted above there is a disconnect between that rhetoric and that example.

    Perhaps, if the advocates talked more about the meaning of the institution and the reality of (many) gay relationships, they might find (some) social conservatives more willing to embrace state-recognized gay marriage — or at least civil unions.

    But, I’ve said this before. On more than one occasion.

    You’re just making stuff up. This disconnect you’re so concerned with doesn’t exist. Who are you to tell someone that they don’t properly appreciate the institution of marriage? You don’t think they say the word monogamy enough? What?

    Dan, you’re demonstrably more interested in defending the Republican party’s archaic mentality towards homosexuals than you are in seeing gay social issues resolved. These kinds of posts, where you excoriate gay marriage advocates for not being convincing enough to persuade opponents, are pretty much all I ever see from you. You’ll go on and on how about how reasonable the social conservatives are and how justified their position is, and you’ll rip apart gay advocates because of these completely silly notions that the gay left doesn’t value monogamy.

    Clearly, your motivation is to defend the party first. There are not solid arguments against gay marriage (again, neither you nor Goldberg provided any) and there are not solid arguments for DADT. These are inherently unreasonable, arbitrary, and needlessly mean political positions that are influenced almost entirely by religious indoctrination for which their is no excuse. But hey, this is a big part of the conservative voting constituency, without which you’d have almost no representation in government, so you don’t mind betraying the cause to make excuses for them.

    Finally, Goldberg…. is just an idiot. This article and its thesis based on who likes Modern Family more is humiliating.

    Comment by Levi — December 30, 2010 @ 10:34 am - December 30, 2010

  18. Levi, if you want me to believe you’re making serious arguments rather than just using the forum we provide you to attack us in particular and conservatives in general, you’d do well not to call folks like Goldberg idiots.

    Meanwhile, you continually misrepresent what I’ve said as well as what conservatives advocates and what social conservatives believe.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 30, 2010 @ 10:43 am - December 30, 2010

  19. Its not that gay marriage harms society, or harms marriage, its that the only reason we are even considering gay marriage is because the institution has been so liberalized already. The solution to an institution that has been harmed by liberalization is not more liberalization. And Switzerland shows exactly why.

    So all of our decisions should be based on what those on the extreme margins may seek to do? That would make things very interesting. Do some Googling and you’ll see that the incest proposal in Switzerland is coming from 1 member of the National Council, the Swiss upper house of their parliament. The Greens hold 2 seats out of 46 in the National Council and I’m willing to bet that this proposal by one member is highly controversial among rank-and-file Greens no matter how “center-left” they may be.

    Comment by John — December 30, 2010 @ 10:44 am - December 30, 2010

  20. 14: If you’re trying to endear GOProud to me, you’re on the right track. Throw in the CPAC nonsense for the 2nd year in a row and I must say that they’re growing on me.

    Comment by John — December 30, 2010 @ 10:51 am - December 30, 2010

  21. More bile from LeeLie,

    You’re just making stuff up. This disconnect you’re so concerned with doesn’t exist. Who are you to tell someone that they don’t properly appreciate the institution of marriage? You don’t think they say the word monogamy enough? What?

    Who is LeeLie to tell someone they can only amend their government if HE feels it’s a good reason.

    Who is Levi to determine that some parts of the Constitution aremore important than others?

    Who is LeeLie that he beleives Courts should make law? Unless he thinks it should be ignored.

    And of course, Levi doesn’t mind making stuff up when it suits him. Do I really need to link to his lies on Iraq, global warming, torture, or the other lies he’s made? How about where he argues the Scientific Method is to build consensus? Or where he says that the supreme court is to determine if a law is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ Or his boast of ‘several successful socialist countries’

    Dan, you’re demonstrably more interested in defending the Republican party’s archaic mentality towards homosexuals than you are in seeing gay social issues resolved.

    Pop Quiz Levi, who passed DOMA? Who passed DADT? Who supports traditional marriage? Heck, who Filibustered the civil rights laws (not that you’d care about the laws, since you feel a court should ignore laws it doesn’t like) and had a Klansman as the ‘conscience of the senate’?

    Clearly, your motivation is to defend the party first. There are not solid arguments against gay marriage (again, neither you nor Goldberg provided any) and there are not solid arguments for DADT.

    More lies where LeeLie tries to argue as fact.

    Now watch LeeLie ignore this post, like he does any post that confronts him with his own words. LeeLie’s more than a liar, he’s a coward, who can’t even confront his own facts.

    You’re a coward and a child LeeLie. Hush, adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 10:53 am - December 30, 2010

  22. Sorry, more LeeLie shredding caught in the filter. Not that the coward can handle when his own words are used against him.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 10:54 am - December 30, 2010

  23. Wanted to add, Jonah followed up here Interesting his views are similar to mine, and we’re of the same age.

    I can agree with much of this. If anything, it’s interesting to see this discussion become more widespread among conservatives beyond just the usual and mostly religious objections.

    Comment by John — December 30, 2010 @ 10:56 am - December 30, 2010

  24. 15: As heterosexuals have shown us amply, as well as the growing number of gay parents nowadays, one doesn’t need to be legally married in order to have children. I personally think that not having same-sex marriage or civil unions would create far more problems when it comes to kids than if we did have them.

    This aside, I did find one thing we can probably agree on:

    http://tinyurl.com/33ff8gj

    Sir John certainly isn’t the first celebrity to have kids because they make “pretty baubles”. There’s something wrong with folks in their 60s intentionally having children regardless of whether they are gay or straight. I couldn’t do that myself knowing I wouldn’t be around for much of their lives.

    Comment by John — December 30, 2010 @ 11:03 am - December 30, 2010

  25. Agreed John. Hells I’m pushing 40 and the possibility of not ‘being there’ for and potential grandkids (if I had kids) saddens me.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 11:13 am - December 30, 2010

  26. So all of our decisions should be based on what those on the extreme margins may seek to do?

    Why not? You’re demanding that the entire definition of marriage be rewritten to accomodate a tiny fraction of the population.

    Also, John, I believe the argument of the gay-sex left is that the Constitution explicitly prohibits “majority rule” and that laws that prevent anyone from marrying whatever sexual partner they want or whomever they “love” are a violation of “equal protection” and are thus unconstitutional and wrong. Indeed, I believe the argument of the gay-sex left’s latest heroes are that societal disapproval is not grounds for a law and is in fact proof of “animus” against the minority group in question, rendering all laws that would restrict said minority group unconstitutional.

    This is why you have been being told the same thing for the past five to six years. You are undercutting society’s ability to regulate and manage marriage at all. There is no legitimate reason to deny incestuous marriages when you have argued that family structures and procreation don’t matter. There is no legitimate reason to deny child marriage when you and your fellow gay liberals have argued that children under the age of consent can consent to sexual activity and have abortions to get rid of the end product of it. And in the broader sense, since you insist the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right of marriage to anyone covered by it, you must allow child, plural, incestuous, and other forms of marriage, since the Fourteenth Amendment carries no limitations about applying only on the basis of age, number, and blood relationship.

    Why should incest practitioners be denied the right to marry the person they love, John? Why do you hold animus towards them? Don’t you realize that makes you a bigot and a hater?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 11:31 am - December 30, 2010

  27. Levi, if you want me to believe you’re making serious arguments rather than just using the forum we provide you to attack us in particular and conservatives in general, you’d do well not to call folks like Goldberg idiots.

    Meanwhile, you continually misrepresent what I’ve said as well as what conservatives advocates and what social conservatives believe.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 30, 2010 @ 10:43 am

    Dan, with all due respect, why should Levi or anyone even attempt to make serious arguments when that is the surest way to get you to ignore them? It is the name-calling lowball arguments that are the only ones you ever respond to. (This thread is a perfect example) If anyone ever brings up a serious challenge you deliberately ignore them, particularly if they are demonstrably right — or you only concede the point in private emails.

    You are no more serious about debate than Levi. Just like you he scatters when his points are challenged or demonstrated to be false. You just want to preach and propagandize, you dont want to be seriously challenged.

    If you want your readers to believe you are making serious arguments, then defend them when people make serious challenges to them.

    Sorry, but it has to be said.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 30, 2010 @ 11:44 am - December 30, 2010

  28. A little less confrontational NDT,

    Certain posters (LeeLie is a good example) have tried to argue that the people do not have the right to self government. When you have a minority trying to override the will of the governed, you will get pushback. What they fail to accept (I don’t think we can say they refuse to ‘see’) is that the arguments they advance protect no one from the whims of the minority making new ‘rights’.

    (This, by the way, is why I support ‘Fred’ and accept the rule of states like Connecticut. While I may not agree with the results, the methods are correct).

    A republic protects us from the Tyrany of the Majority, true. (To use a contentious example, look to Presidents Tyler and Bush) But the rule of law protects us from the tyrany of the minority too, whether it be the loon in the Verizon store yelling that people he deems inferior should be dragged kicking and screaming to the future, or the judge in black robes who argues the people can’t modify their own constitution.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 11:46 am - December 30, 2010

  29. One quick thought, Levi, if you’ve been paying any attention to the political philosophy undergirding my posts — and the actual words I use to express it, you would know that I believe the best resolution to gay social issues will happen when the government steps back and leaves individuals (and the associations we voluntary form) alone to sort these things out on our own.

    If you don’t get that by now, then it seems we exist to you as nothing more than a target on which to vent your spleen.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 30, 2010 @ 1:30 pm - December 30, 2010

  30. Why not? You’re demanding that the entire definition of marriage be rewritten to accomodate a tiny fraction of the population.

    I love how folks like you say things like “tiny fraction of the population” as if that has means anything. You argue on the one hand that SSM is wrong because it violates tradition or will bring some unspeakable horror, but at the same time raise the number of gays as if it doesn’t matter anyways because they are such a small portion so who cares? That doesn’t leave your argument on very solid standing because I can easily think of a whole host of evils against a number of minority groups that one could ignore for the very same reason. You are better off sticking to your main argument because if same-sex marriage is right or wrong it doesn’t matter squat the number gays there are.

    Now having said this, I haven’t “demanded” any such thing. For starters the government lacks the competence to do so and the Constitution guarantees you and I and everyone else to believe as you please on matters such as marriage. Instead what I have demanded is an end to violations of my equal protection rights as AFER has thus far successfully argued in Perry v. Schwarzenegger as has GLAD in Gill v. OPM. You are free to consider anyone not married according to the tenets of your religious faith to be living in sin or what-have-you as much as you please.

    There is no legitimate reason to deny child marriage when you and your fellow gay liberals have argued that children under the age of consent can consent to sexual activity and have abortions to get rid of the end product of it.

    I made this argument? Really? Please do show me where, or is it that once again you are lying and imparting the beliefs of some onto those you disagree with. I know which one I’d put my money on…

    Comment by John — December 30, 2010 @ 4:09 pm - December 30, 2010

  31. Instead what I have demanded is an end to violations of my equal protection rights as AFER has thus far successfully argued in Perry v. Schwarzenegger as has GLAD in Gill v. OPM.

    Oh really?

    Let’s break this down.

    1) You are arguing that preventing you from marrying what you want to marry is a violation of “equal protection”.

    2) “Equal protection” is spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is as follows.

    Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Therefore, you are stating that denying anyone marriage for any reason other than that specifically spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment is a denial of “equal protection” and is thus unconstitutional.

    Now, can you point to where in the Fourteenth Amendment it says that marriage may be restricted by age, number of partners, blood relationship, or species, just to name a few things?

    The language seems very clear: “ALL persons”, “ANY persons”. Indeed, your reading of the Fourteenth Amendment makes it clear that it applies to ALL people and that ANY restriction of marriage is a violation of “due process’ and “equal protection”.

    Furthermore, John, you have stated that amending a constitution or passing laws to restrict marriage is in fact unconstitutional. Therefore, all laws restricting marriage or preventing marriage of any type by anyone is unconstitutional.

    So basically put, John, you’ve created precedent in constitutional law that brands any attempt to restrict marriage as a violation of “equal protection”, you’ve insisted that the state must grant marriage to any group who demands it despite society’s disapproval, and you’ve created precedent stating that youvoting on and passing laws and constitutional amendments that restrict marriage is a violation of “due process”.

    Furthermore, as a nice aside, since you’ve disconnected procreation and family structure from the purpose of marriage, there is no reason whatsoever to bar incestuous ones.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2010 @ 4:59 pm - December 30, 2010

  32. since you’ve disconnected procreation and family structure from the purpose of marriage, there is no reason whatsoever to bar incestuous ones.

    Having already approved gay marriage, Europe has already moved on to normalizing incest.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 30, 2010 @ 5:10 pm - December 30, 2010

  33. As has the Huffington Post apparently.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 30, 2010 @ 5:12 pm - December 30, 2010

  34. So basically put, John, you’ve created precedent in constitutional law that brands any attempt to restrict marriage as a violation of “equal protection”, you’ve insisted that the state must grant marriage to any group who demands it despite society’s disapproval, and you’ve created precedent stating that youvoting on and passing laws and constitutional amendments that restrict marriage is a violation of “due process”.

    Huh. Tell you what, how about we save time and you post what “my” answer to this is. After all, you’ve already spun quite a tale in constructing “my” argument for me so why stop there? You’ve gone from imparting false motives and lying about what others actually have said or believe, to constructing whole dialogues for them. Quite an “accomplishment” I suppose, but other than mild curiosity at the spectacle you create not something worthy of much else.

    Comment by John — December 30, 2010 @ 5:37 pm - December 30, 2010

  35. 32: Cute, but no it hasn’t.

    Comment by John — December 30, 2010 @ 5:38 pm - December 30, 2010

  36. 32: Cute, but no it hasn’t.

    Comment by John — December 30, 2010 @ 5:38 pm – December 30, 2010

    The hell it hasn’t:

    Switzerland is considering repealing its incest laws because they are “obsolete”.

    The upper house of the Swiss parliament has drafted a law decriminalising sex between consenting family members which must now be considered by the government.

    …Daniel Vischer, a Green party MP, said he saw nothing wrong with two consenting adults having sex, even if they were related. [more]

    Comment by American Elephant — December 30, 2010 @ 6:38 pm - December 30, 2010

  37. The hell it hasn’t

    The hell it has. Switzerland isn’t Europe. Daniel Vischer is one of 2 Greens out of 46 MPs in the National Council. As I said earlier, I’m willing to bet that even the Greens rank-and-file are appalled at this despite how “center-left” they may think they are. So this is 1 MP of a very minority party from 1 country that isn’t even a member of the EU. That’s hardly “Europe has moved on to normalizing incest” as you claimed. Heck, most of our nutjobs come from major political parties, whether they are on the Left or the Right, and therefore have more potential to do damage than this Vischer fellow.

    Comment by John — December 30, 2010 @ 9:33 pm - December 30, 2010

  38. John,

    Using your standard, America isn’t normalizing SSM either, since MA isn’t the US. You’re parsing words here.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2010 @ 10:07 pm - December 30, 2010

  39. oops mad this comment in another post. whoopsy.

    29.Yeah LW, an opening to bring in my favorite graph from Nate Silver.

    and I think 5 states have the option of SSM recognition. Along with the ever increasing ‘tolerance’ and DP and Civil Union bene’s in other areas, well, I find it kind a hard to see John parsing anything.

    Now if you were look at loony planks in the Texas GOP. . .well,

    http://www.towleroad.com/2010/08/nate-silver-acceptance-of-gay-marriage-accelerates.html

    Comment by rusty — December 30, 2010 @ 11:52 pm - December 30, 2010

  40. Using your standard, America isn’t normalizing SSM either, since MA isn’t the US. You’re parsing words here.

    Are you serious? Saying that Europe Switzerland is supposedly normalizing incest because 1 nutjob in their parliament from a very minority party has proposed the idea is in no way equivalent to this. As I said OUR nutjobs (hi Maxine Waters, I’m looking at you babe) have a better chance of causing mischief with their crazy ideas since they are members of major parties unlike this Vischer fellow. Now if one of Switzerland’s cantons legalizes incestuous relationships, your comparison might hold some water but that’s not the case here.

    Comment by John — December 31, 2010 @ 8:59 am - December 31, 2010

  41. John,

    Then, using your standards and Rusty’s (thank you, BTW rusty, I’d lost count, though I disagree with Judicial Fiat as a valid measure) We don’t need to worry about the loons in Texas wanting to make homosexuality a crime.

    Or say 5 loons in black robes setting law for the people of Iowa. Oops.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 31, 2010 @ 9:45 am - December 31, 2010

  42. One quick thought, Levi, if you’ve been paying any attention to the political philosophy undergirding my posts — and the actual words I use to express it, you would know that I believe the best resolution to gay social issues will happen when the government steps back and leaves individuals (and the associations we voluntary form) alone to sort these things out on our own.

    If you don’t get that by now, then it seems we exist to you as nothing more than a target on which to vent your spleen.

    Yes, I know that this is your position on issues like gay marriage. What I am telling you is that this is no resolution at all; your position effectively excludes the possibility that there is any movement on gay issues. It makes absolutely no sense to recommend that the government steps back – as if the government is in the way in some sense, and as if these aren’t issues that relate directly to the government in the first place (the government hands out the marriage licenses, for example). If you want action and development on these issues, the government is going to play a central role.

    Which should be fairly obvious, and the only reasonable conclusion that I can make when you advocate for the government stepping back, is that you don’t really want action and development on gay issues. I know you’d prefer that gay marriage became a reality through a ballot process or through the legislature, and that you would be disappointed for it to be the result of a judicial decision. But again, these positions of yours are completely arbitrary and without reasonable justification. Gay marriage is an issue that seems tailor-made to be decided by the courts. Similar debates have been resolved by courts, a court decision would result in the quickest action, and depending on how high the court ruling is, the result would be universally applicable to every gay American.

    Alternatively, we could wait decades for each and every state legislature to pass gay marriage, which I understand to be your favored course of action. Why you would prefer it to be this way when considering the obvious advantages of using the court system is the question that I would ask. The reasons you give are just incoherent – take your reaction to Goldberg’s article here, wherein you reveal your suspicion that gay marriage advocates don’t really value or respect marriage – they’re just going for a political win that would stick it to conservatives. I’ve never seen any such argument made, and to go to such great lengths to focus on something that you never hear anyone say, while on this very forum we have gay marriage opponents who warn of the inevitable consequences like beastiality and child-marriage, is very revealing. I supsect you do this because your side needs those social conservatives to win elections, so you’ll excuse and ignore their insane motivations and arguments and spend all your time inventing false motivations and arguments for your ideological adversaries. Time and again, you’ve proven that your party and their image is more important than any actual issue. What you’re doing is ignoring the best tools in your toolbox for doing the job, and deciding to take the least efficient path available. It’s like using toenail clippers to mow the lawn instead of using the lawnmower. The only possible explanation, as I see it, for such absurd irrationality is that you’re flakking for the ugly, but necessary, constituency in the Republican Party that literally makes its living by stoking homophobic and anti-gay sentiment among social conservatives.

    Comment by Levi — December 31, 2010 @ 1:24 pm - December 31, 2010

  43. “Alternatively, we could wait decades for each and every state legislature to pass gay marriage, which I understand to be your favored course of action. Why you would prefer it to be this way when considering the obvious advantages of using the court system is the question that I would ask. ”

    Shorter Levi:

    Why should people bother to pass laws and follow the rule of the republic when you can have men in black robes do it for them.

    Also note how I called it, Leelie doesn’t dare try to address the inconsistencies in his rant, because the little fascist can’t deal with his own words showing how much of a liar he is.

    By the way Leelie, since it’s now Doctor Blatt, you need to shut up and accept he’s right. After all, he’s proved that he’s smarter than you, so, by your own standard, He has an obligation to drag you kicking and screaming into the future. If you really believed in anything besides your own self proclaimed superiority, you’d shut up and accept it.

    So shut up Levi, and let him.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 31, 2010 @ 1:57 pm - December 31, 2010

  44. Then, using your standards and Rusty’s (thank you, BTW rusty, I’d lost count, though I disagree with Judicial Fiat as a valid measure) We don’t need to worry about the loons in Texas wanting to make homosexuality a crime.

    Despite my disagreeing with you on occasion in the past, I refuse to believe you are this dense Livewire. You are making a false equivalency between “judicial fiat” of a state high court to the actions of 1 nutjob Swiss legislator from a very minority party. Now if you want to speak about the problems of judicial activisim and say that the Goodridge decision (or whatever it’s called in Iowa) can lead to all kinds of evils, like say [example of Swiss court striking down incest laws], you would have a point. One could argue about how valid your point is but at least it would be a consistent and cogent one. What you are attempting to do right now isn’t anywhere near that. As I said before we have all kinds of nutjob legislators from both sides that have a far better chance of getting their lunacy enacted than this Vischer fellow.

    Comment by John — December 31, 2010 @ 2:38 pm - December 31, 2010

  45. Now if one of Switzerland’s cantons legalizes incestuous relationships, your comparison might hold some water but that’s not the case here.

    Comment by John — December 31, 2010 @ 8:59 am – December 31, 2010

    1st, while I freely claim ignorance to Swiss parliamentary procedures, if it is anything like our congress “one” man cannot even get a bill considered, it must be cosigned, it must pass committee vote, etc. (See “Schoolhouse Rocks”)

    And 2) You are the one making the false comparison here, as if the normalization of homosexuality came overnight on the back of one bill. The fact remains that the bill is even being considered means that the Swiss left is already using victories on gay marriage to push wider acceptance of incest. While the French are protecting a child-molesting pervert director from extradition to be brought to justice for his child-rape.

    and 3) You must learn that a great deal of support for the gay agenda that comes from straights (not a majority by any means I hope, but a significant portion) comes NOT because they believe homosexuality is not different, but because they know it IS different, and because they want to broaden the definitions of what is considered acceptable. People like Bill Maher, a 50-60 some year old pervert who approves of gay marriage because HE likes to get high and f*ck girls young enough to be his GRANDdaughter at the playboy mansion. Or from the incestuous bloggers at HuffPo. “Furries”, Etc, etc.

    They are not on the side of gay marriage because they believe gay marriage is equivalent to heterosexual marriage, but because they want to broaden the definitions of what is acceptable to include their own abhorrent perversions. And this bill in Switzerland shows they are already moving to do so.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 31, 2010 @ 3:48 pm - December 31, 2010

  46. First of all a correction: the upper house of the Swiss Federal Assembly is the Council of States, not the National Council which instead is the lower house.

    1st, while I freely claim ignorance to Swiss parliamentary procedures, if it is anything like our congress “one” man cannot even get a bill considered, it must be cosigned, it must pass committee vote, etc. (See “Schoolhouse Rocks”)

    Then why even bring up Schoolhouse Rocks? As much as I enjoyed those cartoons while growing up they taught about the American style of government which is nothing like the parliamentary system in Switzerland. You are grasping at straws.

    And 2) You are the one making the false comparison here, as if the normalization of homosexuality came overnight on the back of one bill.

    Of course I never said any such thing. What comparison did I make that you are claiming is false?

    The fact remains that the bill is even being considered means that the Swiss left is already using victories on gay marriage to push wider acceptance of incest.

    Really? The entire “Swiss left”? That would be news to them since the parties usually considered to be on the “Swiss left” aren’t just the Greens. I trust you have statements of support for Vischer from the Social Democratic Party, Green Liberal Party, Christian Social Party and the Party of Labour, all of whom would be considered part of the “Swiss left”. I doubt that even the Green Party has sounded it supports Vischer in this. This appears to be nothing more than the BS one expects from nutjob legislators like Maxine Waters or Louie Gohmert, who again as members of major parties have more of a chance of enacting their lunacy than Vischer does.

    3) You must learn that a great deal of support for the gay agenda that comes from straights (not a majority by any means I hope, but a significant portion) comes NOT because they believe homosexuality is not different, but because they know it IS different, and because they want to broaden the definitions of what is considered acceptable. People like Bill Maher, a 50-60 some year old pervert who approves of gay marriage because HE likes to get high and f*ck girls young enough to be his GRANDdaughter at the playboy mansion. Or from the incestuous bloggers at HuffPo. “Furries”, Etc, etc.

    I’m aware of all this, though it has nothing to do with your previously-stated claim about Europe Switzerland seeking to “normalize” incest.

    And this bill in Switzerland shows they are already moving to do so.

    Really. So Bill Maher has joined hands with Daniel Vischer and is pushing for the legalization of incest in Switzerland?

    Comment by John — December 31, 2010 @ 5:08 pm - December 31, 2010

  47. John,

    Actually I think you are dealing with a blind spot, whether you see it or not. We have 5 judges in Iowa who made up a ‘right’ where none existed. We have ONE judge in California who ignored the legal precident he’s bound to consider, and invalidated part of the state’s constitution. We now have One Judge who plans to rule again, despite ample evidence he should recuse himself. His reasons for not doing so, he’s refused to elaborate, despite his claims that they are ‘obvious’.

    So to say that it is a false analogy would be incorrect. To quote Knight Rider, “One man can make a difference.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 31, 2010 @ 6:47 pm - December 31, 2010

  48. You are grasping at straws.

    No, actually it’s you grasping at straws, trying to pretend that members of parliament, each elected to represent thousands dont represent anyone but themselves. And that the introduction of a law is therefore meaningless.

    You hold up Maxine Waters as a comparison, yet Maxine Waters, as wacky as she is has been returned to congress over and over again precisely BECAUSE the people she represents AGREE with her fringe politics.

    You simply dont GET to represent tens or hundreds of thousands of people in a congressional or parliamentary position if a majority of your constituents dont agree with your world views — try as you might to evade that simple fact, it remains patently true.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 31, 2010 @ 11:14 pm - December 31, 2010

  49. Ok, three things:

    1) Hoping not to seem impatient, but I emailed Bruce Carroll Jr some days ago about how your site might have contacted the author Bruce Bawer a few years ago when he answered “six questions,” and am still awaiting a reply.

    2) This essay http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html and a very similar one from author Dan Simmons in his Hot Button Issues section on the Forums on his website (“A Tough Season For Believers” it’s titled; you may have to register with the site to view, but it’s free) present cogent arguments for opposition to homosexuality. I know The Gay Patriot acknowledges opposition to acceptance of homosexuals in general (is conscientious enough not to blithely dismiss them even), but how would TGP respond to these specific essays?

    3) While I’m baffled that TGP hasn’t responded to American Elephant’s pugnacious indictment of its stance on this issue, yet calling out gay rights supporters for being crass and short-sighted (let’s recognize that a lack of profanity and invectives is truly no more civil; euphemized or not, an insult is still an insult), he does bring up a very important question: How CAN–or WILL–you reconcile homosexuality and its acceptance with an ideology (right wing) that, for the most part, condemns it?

    Comment by greyfoot — January 3, 2011 @ 8:39 pm - January 3, 2011

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.291 Powered by Wordpress