GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2011/06/07/on-anthony-weiner-marriage/trackback/

  1. If Weiner wasn’t willing to give up his sexual flirtations with other women, why then did he get married?

    Hypothesis: because self-indulgent, self-righteous lying is a way of life for him, and he didn’t expect to get caught?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 7, 2011 @ 6:46 pm - June 7, 2011

  2. “In our conversation in ’07, several years after he and his beloved exchanged their vows, he confessed that he wished he had experimented more in his single days.”

    LOL: Who talks like that? What a cruel thing to say.

    I know married heterosexual couples who didn’t have sex before marriage and don’t have any regrets: that’s true love.

    Comment by Ben — June 7, 2011 @ 7:20 pm - June 7, 2011

  3. It’s very partisan of you to have a Democrat scandal prompt these thoughts. There’s been plenty (on both sides) for years now. It’s just now occurring to you that marriage (gay or straight) s a commitment where actions speak louder than words?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 7, 2011 @ 8:52 pm - June 7, 2011

  4. What’s really funny is how the lefty blogs like Good As You, Pam’s House Blend, Box Turtle Bulletin, Truth Wins Out — you know, the first that start shrieking for heads with any type of Republican anything — are saying NOTHING. Clammed up.

    Odd, when you considered how much they used Weiner as an example of gay-sex marriage supporters and their values before.

    But fortunately, the leaders of the gay and lesbian community who own them are making it clear that Weiner did nothing wrong and that anyone who disagrees is just an uptight and stupid prude.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 7, 2011 @ 9:51 pm - June 7, 2011

  5. Vinci, go back and read my posts on marriage and you’ll see I’ve been offering similar thoughts for as long as I’ve been blogging about marriage!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 7, 2011 @ 9:52 pm - June 7, 2011

  6. Vinci, you may be new here, but you really should be aware that Mr. Blatt has been one of the loudest, if not the only, blog voice in the gay and lesbian blogosphere talking about the importance of commitment, fidelity, responsibility, and monogamy in relationships.

    Dan Savage and his “monogamy is hurtful, commitment is irrelevant” viewpoint speaks for the vast and overwhelming majority of the gay and lesbian community. Mr. Blatt is a loud and powerful outlier, and has in fact been excoriated by the gay and lesbian community for being willing to stand up and say that marriage should actually carry responsibility and values with it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 7, 2011 @ 9:54 pm - June 7, 2011

  7. Ben, FYI, I’ve been trying to contact the friend referenced above, but his old e-mail address no longer works and I can’t locate him on Facebook; I do want to check with him to see if my recollection of the conversation matches his. Do recall that he was adamant about remaining faithful to his husband.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 7, 2011 @ 10:13 pm - June 7, 2011

  8. From a piece I posted on July 15, 2005:

    Support for gay marriage would only be conservative if we could be sure that by granting the same benefits to same-sex couples who choose marriage as we do to those who elect traditional marriage that those couples agree to the same responsibilities, including the commitment to monogamy.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 7, 2011 @ 10:31 pm - June 7, 2011

  9. This is odd. I wish I hadn’t experimented and let myself be treated like an object. I wish I could, when I do find the right person, be sharing that first intimate experience in a loving way. Weiner not only cheapened his marriage but cheapened himself.

    Comment by Az Mo in NYC — June 7, 2011 @ 10:33 pm - June 7, 2011

  10. I’ll be blunt.

    Men don’t have husbands and women don’t have wives. WOMEN have husbands and MEN have wives. B. Daniel, I don’t care what kind of vows your friend exchanged with his “beloved”, he doesn’t have a husband. He has a male sexual partner whom he also happens to live with. Sound harsh? Well, answer me this. Do you think Kody Brown of the reality show “Sister Wives” has four wives just because he exchanged vows with four women? That’s not a rhetorical question.

    B. Daniel, I really want to know–since I can’t get an answer from anyone else here–what gives a gay man who wants to fundamentally redefine marriage the right or, more accurately, the moral credibility, to uphold monogamy as an ideal? What universally binding moral tradition, legal code, religious doctrine, or cultural norm is the basis of your defense of monogamy? And if that tradition, code, doctrine, or norm has always held that “monogamy” is one MAN being faithful to one WOMAN, then on what grounds do you claim that the “faithful” part is still valid but the “one man, one woman” part isn’t?

    B.Daniel, you seem to be trying to say that if gays believe that marriage is a union of two, and only two, people who are expected to be faithful to each other, then allowing same-sex marriage isn’t a fundamental change to marriage. Wrong. If the gender of the people in marriage should no longer matter, then the number of the people involved (and what they do when away from their partner(s)) is equally moot. Please explain why that isn’t so.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 7, 2011 @ 10:54 pm - June 7, 2011

  11. That’s all well and good, Blatt, but you render yourself redundant. Like I said, the post is a partisan knee-jerk reaction. And as far as ND30 is concerned, of course they’re silent on the left right now, just like the right is silent when it happens to one of their guys. It’s just now occurring to you? And the lies you spread about Dan Savage are inappropriate and misleading, especially when you place those words in quotations. But, does anyone on the right ever call you out on it? No, they enable you and let it continue. Just like if someone on the left were to say New Gingrich believes in monogamy and fidelity. Oopps. Wait, I guess that isn’t a lie. And actions speak louder than words. Or do you disagree?

    I don’t always agree with Dan Savage’s words or tone and I have called him out on it. I believe Blatt can attest to this. Attack him for those things, but to continually make up lies about him is, again, inappropriate and misleading.

    And, no, I’m not new. I’m Vince in WeHo.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 7, 2011 @ 11:18 pm - June 7, 2011

  12. Reformed Jews are not straight, they are homosexual/bisexual. Nice try, Dan. “Straight” means exclusively heterosexual, bisexual by no means is straight.

    Comment by rjligier — June 7, 2011 @ 11:20 pm - June 7, 2011

  13. Kiss my butt Seane-Anna. I am a man and for the last 26 years I am proud to have a man to call husband! A husband I continually thank God for. Indeed, I believe with every fiber of my being that God put us together. While it is true we have no legal standing, in our hearts and minds, we are wed to each other and what you believe has zero impact on our relationship with each other nor our relationship with God.

    Comment by David in N.O. — June 7, 2011 @ 11:21 pm - June 7, 2011

  14. Vinci, since you know me, you can use my name. Don’t see why you need to be so rude by addressing me by my last name nor how this post is a partisan knee-jerk reaction.

    Over the past week, I have discussed this story with many of my gay friends and all share a view similar to my own vis à vis Mr. Weiner. And most of those friends are Democrats — or at least vote that way.

    Indeed, not once in the post did I mention Mr. Weiner’s partisan affiliation. And I did that on purpose — so as to focus on the argument I was making — on how marriage changes things. And how one gay man gets that. And a straight man doesn’t.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 7, 2011 @ 11:27 pm - June 7, 2011

  15. And if the straight man were a Republican, Dan (sorry if you took the earlier address as rude, as that was not my intention) we wouldn’t be seeing this post. But, let me give you the benefit of the doubt … oh wait, Arnold was exposed for doing something rather gross recently that was very similar (but involved very physical and intimate actions vs. an action of another perhaps less deplorable, but DEPLORABLE NONE THE LESS) and, IMO, much more disgusting (having a child as a result right underneath your wife’s nose). And, yet, it’s the Democrat’s scandal you use to prompt your post on gay/straight examples of fidelity. That’s the point I’m making.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 7, 2011 @ 11:32 pm - June 7, 2011

  16. Az Mo, a true story which buttresses your point: the last woman I dated (at a time when I was still a virgin myself) confessed that she (who had slept around quite a bit) she wished she were a virgin for me.

    I often wondered how I’ll feel should I ever find a life-partner when I have to open up about my past “experimentation”. Or how I’ll respond to his stories about his past.

    Your comment invites much thought.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 7, 2011 @ 11:32 pm - June 7, 2011

  17. Seane-Anna, basic human values and decency not derived from a book seem to be lost on you. But, if you believe the worst in people, it makes sense.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 7, 2011 @ 11:35 pm - June 7, 2011

  18. Vince, it’s a fair criticism you offer. I would rather not touch these stories. But, what made this one interesting was not Mr. Weiner’s indiscreet act, but his dishonesty. Please note my first post on the matter: Nothing to Weinergate save Weiner’s (Alleged) Dishonesty.

    Arnold behaved very badly, but, to my knowledge, he never lied about his infidelity or blamed the stories on hostile sources in the media.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 7, 2011 @ 11:37 pm - June 7, 2011

  19. David, I’ll pass on kissing your butt. And as for your relationship with God, well, I’m too tired right now to argue with someone who’s deluded himself into believing that God approves of behavior He calls sin. I will say this, though. Your apparent conviction that God has showered His blessing on your “man lying with man” relationship reminds me of a married former co-worker who adamantly believed that her married lover–a preacher, no less!–was sent to her by God. I didn’t argue with her, either. Quoting the seventh commandment to her would’ve been as useless against her strong delusion as quoting Leviticus 18:22 would be against yours.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 7, 2011 @ 11:52 pm - June 7, 2011

  20. Wow, Seane-Anna, you may be pretty seriously deluded yourself and all, but I’ll give you credit for “committing to the bit”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 7, 2011 @ 11:59 pm - June 7, 2011

  21. S.A., I have absolutely no intentions of engaging in any argument, debate or conversation with you. I don’t have that kind of time to waste. I simply wished to say my peace where you are concerned. Please do not respond; I am finished with you.

    Comment by David in N.O. — June 8, 2011 @ 12:07 am - June 8, 2011

  22. Dan, Arnold lied about not having affairs in the run-up to the race for governor. Most of the politicians who have been caught with their pants down so to speak (on both sides of the fence) lie initially. Again, there’s nothing special about this case other than the politician using technology to expose himself literally and figuratively and providing a new and easy way of being caught.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 8, 2011 @ 12:21 am - June 8, 2011

  23. But, Vince, the point of this post is a point about marriage — and that Weiner doesn’t get it. Nor does Arnold.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 8, 2011 @ 12:45 am - June 8, 2011

  24. And the lies you spread about Dan Savage are inappropriate and misleading, especially when you place those words in quotations.

    Translation: They make the gay and lesbian community’s support and defense of promiscuity and cheating on your partners obvious.

    Dan, Arnold lied about not having affairs in the run-up to the race for governor.

    So did Weiner, who didn’t tell people that he was taking pictures of himself and sending them to underage minors and then lied about the fact.

    You see, Vince, this is the way the game will be played. Your trying to insist that Obama Party members cannot be hypocrites when they cheat on their partners simply demonstrates that Obama Party members have no morals or values, no commitment whatsoever to marriage, and fully support and endorse cheating on partners and breaking their marriage vows.

    Why don’t you be honest and state that? The reason Obama Party members like Weiner and the gay and lesbian community cannot be hypocrites in regard to cheating, promiscuity, and infidelity is because they believe that none of those things are wrong. They pay lip service to wedding vows and consider commitment and honesty to be harmful and hurtful.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2011 @ 12:53 am - June 8, 2011

  25. I don’t disagree your point, Dan. My point is that if Weiner were a Republican (well, Republicans are mostly weiners … I kid, I kid ;)), this post would not exist. Arnold was a very recent opportunity for you to be so reflective, and you weren’t. I’m not accusing you of anything, I’m merely pointing something out for you to consider. And, if you don’t want to consider it, that’s okay.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 8, 2011 @ 12:58 am - June 8, 2011

  26. RE: “the game will be played.” I’m not playing a game, ND30. I’m asking you, if you’re going to be making your points (as valid as they may be–I’m not disagreeing with you on your points/intent, ND30), I would appreciate it if you would make them without using lies. That is all.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 8, 2011 @ 1:00 am - June 8, 2011

  27. Incidentally, Zombie absolutely nails this argument today: when Obamabots like Vince shriek about Republican hypocrisy as an excuse for Obama Party behavior, they are acknowledging that Obama Party politicians are completely and totally amoral.

    This shouldn’t surprise anyone; after all, Obama’s supporters are openly stating that they will assassinate Sarah Palin if she is elected. Liberals and Obama Party members will sanction and support political assassination to get their way.

    You could not find a better example of Obama Party amorality than that. Weiner is just the tip, if you will, of the iceberg.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2011 @ 1:01 am - June 8, 2011

  28. Vince, first, unlike CNN or CBS, I don’t hide my partisanship.

    The Arnold story did not invite the kind of commentary the Weiner one did. Arnold did not go on a media tour to deceive the public. And please note that I did not blog about the story until at least 2 days after it broke. I had read about it, but didn’t find it blog-worthy until I read Jennifer Rubin’s piece in the post linked in comment #18 above.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 8, 2011 @ 1:01 am - June 8, 2011

  29. B. Daniel, I really want to know–since I can’t get an answer from anyone else here–what gives a gay man who wants to fundamentally redefine marriage the right or, more accurately, the moral credibility, to uphold monogamy as an ideal?

    I uphold monogamy as an ideal, and I expect it of people who are married, be that religiously or civilly.

    What’s your point?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2011 @ 1:02 am - June 8, 2011

  30. NDXXX, I know Vince. He’s not on Obamabot nor is he making excuses for the Democrats. And he has, as per the above, criticized Dan Savage in personal conversations with me.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 8, 2011 @ 1:03 am - June 8, 2011

  31. Daniel, Arnold went on a media tour to become governor, the affair denials were part of that circus. Again, Daniel, my observation for you is something to consider. That is all.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 8, 2011 @ 1:05 am - June 8, 2011

  32. Arnold was a very recent opportunity for you to be so reflective, and you weren’t. I’m not accusing you of anything, I’m merely pointing something out for you to consider. And, if you don’t want to consider it, that’s okay.

    So you’re acknowledging that Obama Party members are amoral and have no standards, since you certainly aren’t holding Weiner accountable for his behavior.

    That’s what this is really about, Vince. Why don’t you be honest and state that Obama Party members like yourself openly endorse and support Weiner’s infidelity and behaviors? After all, we have the example of John Edwards, the Obama Party vice-presidential and Presidential candidate, as an example of how Obama Party politicians father children, lie repeatedly about it to the media, cheat on their wives and families, and so forth, and we don’t see any reflection from the Obama Party members that supported him.

    It’s because this behavior is normal, expected, and completely acceptable to Obama Party members. That’s all it is. They do not believe in marital fidelity, commitment, or monogamy, they treat marriage vows as being meaningless, and they see women as sexual objects for them to use and discard. That’s why you NEVER see this sort of hand-wringing from Vince and his ilk over Weiner, Edwards, and other such politicians. Obama Party members have no moral values, so they can never be hypocrites.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2011 @ 1:07 am - June 8, 2011

  33. Thank you for backing me up, Daniel.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 8, 2011 @ 1:07 am - June 8, 2011

  34. Again, ND30, I don’t disagree with your points/intent. I only ask that you don’t support your views (some of which I agree with) with misinformation (RE: your comment about Dan Savage in this thread). That is all.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 8, 2011 @ 1:09 am - June 8, 2011

  35. Seriously, I am loving Zombie’s point.

    You can only be a hypocrite if you actually have moral values and ideals.

    Since Obama Party members like Weiner and Edwards are, according to their supporters, not hypocrites, they and the party that support them clearly have no moral values or ideals.

    Why won’t Obama Party members be honest about this? No one should expect Weiner to be anything other than a cheating pervert because Obama Party members have no problem whatsoever with cheating and being perverts. In fact, their leaders like Bill Clinton and John Edwards openly endorse and support cheating, breaking marriage vows, and lying about it, and no one in the Obama Party even bats an eye.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2011 @ 1:10 am - June 8, 2011

  36. Vinci at 17, “basic human values and decency not derived from a book” aren’t lost on me. What’s lost on me is what authority do such ex nihilo values and decency have? Why should I submit to them or to laws based on them? Why shoud I believe that “decency” means “gays will benefit from it”? If “values and decency” don’t come from God then aren’t they just someone’s opinion, no matter how passionately or eloquently defended? That is really the crux of the issue.

    I suspect you believe that legalizing SSM is decent; however, I also suspect you believe that ONLY because you stand to benefit from it. And I think that’s true of most gays who are demanding official recognition of their relationships. What’s so often portrayed as a battle of human rights and dignity vs. intolerance and bigotry is really fueled by nothing but self-interest.

    Gays have zero interest in defending “principles” like “everyone should be free to marry whomever they love” when said defense doesn’t benefit them. However, when arguing for state approval of their sexuality, gays act like “everyone should be free to marry whomever they love” were a transcendent moral precept which a society MUST adhere to in order to be civilized and decent. No other fringe sex groups, though, are allowed to use this principle to mandate acceptance of their aberrant proclivities. By some mechanism which no one ever identifies, the principle is applicable only to gays. But it’s all about “basic human values and decency”. Yeah, right.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 8, 2011 @ 1:14 am - June 8, 2011

  37. S-A: My values come from my parents and just adhering to basic human decency. I don’t need a book to define it. I know it when I see it. Apparently, you don’t.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 8, 2011 @ 1:23 am - June 8, 2011

  38. ND30 at 29, you may uphold monogamy as an ideal but, as far as I know, you aren’t demanding the redefinition of marriage. The point I made to Dan is just what I said in my comment: if the gender of people in marriage should no longer matter (as Dan wants to see) then the number of people in marriage is also irrelevant. In other words, those who are demanding that marriage be fundamentally redefined have no moral authority to tell anyone else what marriage should entail.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 8, 2011 @ 1:27 am - June 8, 2011

  39. Vinci, are you really saying that your definition of “basic human decency” is not based on the self-serving principle of “if gays benefit it’s decent, if they don’t, it’s not”?

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 8, 2011 @ 1:31 am - June 8, 2011

  40. Yes, I am saying that.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 8, 2011 @ 1:36 am - June 8, 2011

  41. the affair denials were part of that circus.

    If I’m not mistaken, the issue was whether or not he had groped women at campaign appearances. I don’t remember anything about an affair.

    And so what if Dan didn’t attach this post to the Schwarzenegger kerfuffle? He wrote about it here. Get the stick out of your ass and quit beating the dead horse.

    Comment by TGC — June 8, 2011 @ 3:55 am - June 8, 2011

  42. “Yes, I am saying that.

    Comment by Vinci S.”

    Well, Vinci, at least you’re an honest self-interested gay.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 8, 2011 @ 6:31 am - June 8, 2011

  43. Ah the things that go on while I’m asleep…

    “I’ll be blunt.”

    I don’t think you could be anything else Seane-Anna ;-)

    Vince,

    While I don’t find any posts where the topic is the Fornicator, I do find posts on Larry Craig and Mark Foley, condemning their actions.

    As to the ‘husband’ thing. Keep in mind, I’ve not thought titles through on what you’d call people who are ‘fredded’ “I now pronounce you two dudes kissing” doesn’t sound right either. I just use the term ‘partner’. And in fairness, I referred to Donna as my partner, we weren’t married.
    :P

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 8, 2011 @ 7:45 am - June 8, 2011

  44. ITs really funny you guys are trashing weiner yet remain quite when republicans continually have these scandals.

    Lets recap, these women were willing participants, were not sex workers,and were not men. Weiner does not go around preaching family values and calling gays evil.

    On the other hands Republicans call gays evil while engaging in gay sex, preach the bible while banging hookers, and fight tooth and nail to deny it

    Comment by Dooms — June 8, 2011 @ 8:31 am - June 8, 2011

  45. And our other resident racist speaks up…

    And is pre-emptively shot down by my post made 45 minutes before his.

    Sorry dooms, you fail reading comprehension.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 8, 2011 @ 8:40 am - June 8, 2011

  46. Excuse me, how exactly am I racist?

    Comment by Dooms — June 8, 2011 @ 8:42 am - June 8, 2011

  47. It’s one thing for a guy in his twenties to have a problem keeping his nads in his pants; but one would expect a man in his late forties to have more self-discipline.

    And the forum idiots claim there is a double-standard for Republican sex scandals. There sure is. Chris Lee resigned within hours of being caught sending one shirtless picture to one woman. Weiner has apparently been doing this — and lying about it — for years. Any calls for his resignation from the Democrat leadership? Nope. Also, the entire Mainstream Media and all the lefty blogs (but I repeat myself) eagerly promoted and supported Weiner’s claim that he had been “hacked” or “pranked” right up until the moment he couldn’t deny it anymore and was forced to admit it.

    Yes, there is a double-standard for Democrats and Republcans in sex scandals. No doubt about it.

    Comment by V the K — June 8, 2011 @ 9:14 am - June 8, 2011

  48. I think NDT summed it up best when Dooms decided that race was the sole reason behind the ‘birther’ movement. (as always, Dooms ignored facts, or he thinks Goldwater and McCain were black)

    Yes Dooms, that makes *you* a racist. A racist is: someone obsessed with race. Someone who can’t have a thought, without it involving race. That’s you.

    Or how Dooms thinks that the GZM opposition was based on ‘race’ (which is funny in and of itself, since Islam isn’t a race.)

    Or this quote

    Find me one black person who has not felt the sting of bigotry and I will show you a man ignorant of the world around him.

    In Dooms world everything comes down to race.

    He believes in a world where black men and women hold or have held the reigns of power, that they don’t exist because of ‘white privlege.

    Poor little racist.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 8, 2011 @ 9:31 am - June 8, 2011

  49. Lulz, the ignorant never cease to amaze me.

    Comment by Dooms — June 8, 2011 @ 9:57 am - June 8, 2011

  50. V th K, one has to have standards in order for there to be a double one, and as Dooms makes clear, Obama Party members like Weiner don’t.

    One has to remember how liberals like Dooms view marriage, though. Dooms and the other members of the liberal community regularly lie and cheat on their spouses. Look at Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Or Dooms’s own John Edwards. Dooms does not believe, nor does any Obama Party member believe, what these people did was wrong. Marriage, fidelity, and commitment are meaningless to the Obama Party, and the Obama Party platform opposes them and promotes promiscuity and lying.

    When one sees the behavior that Dooms and his ilk justify in regard to marriage, one can easily see why liberal gays are patently unfit for it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2011 @ 10:01 am - June 8, 2011

  51. Notice also how Dooms ignores Weiner’s wife in all of this.

    Or more precisely, how Dooms insists that his wife is responsible for Weiner’s behavior and how the Obama Party standard is that cheating on your wife is completely supported.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2011 @ 10:03 am - June 8, 2011

  52. Kaine just announced his call for Weiner’s resignation. . .

    but not so long ago. . .we had Ensign

    Ensign announced in June 2009 that he had an extramarital affair with Cynthia Hampton, a former member of his campaign staff. Amid the scandal, his parents provided the Hamptons with $96,000, described as a gift, and Ensign helped find Doug Hampton, the husband, a lobbying job.

    Doug Hampton has been indicted for illegally lobbying the senator’s staff. Federal law prohibits a former senior Senate aide from lobbying the Senate for one year after terminating employment.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2011 @ 10:24 am - June 8, 2011

  53. B. Daniel, I really want to know–since I can’t get an answer from anyone else here–what gives a gay man who wants to fundamentally redefine marriage the right or, more accurately, the moral credibility, to uphold monogamy as an ideal?

    Seane-Anna, I think it’s called freedom. It’s the same right that allows you to hold monogamy as an ideal, if that’s what you choose to hold as an ideal. Also, anyone, gay or straight, can hold monogamy as an ideal, regardless of whether one supports same sex marriage or not. I fail to see the problem here.

    Men don’t have husbands and women don’t have wives. WOMEN have husbands and MEN have wives. B. Daniel, I don’t care what kind of vows your friend exchanged with his “beloved”, he doesn’t have a husband. He has a male sexual partner whom he also happens to live with.

    You are certainly entitled to use whatever term you want for Dan’s friend’s husband. In fact, so do Dan and his friend. Whether any of us like it or not, the English language changes continuously. So fast, they it’s hard to keep up with updating the OED. And whether we like it or not, the definition of marriage and husband/wife is changing to reflect the fact that same sex marriage is now legal in several states and nations.

    And as for your relationship with God, well, I’m too tired right now to argue with someone who’s deluded himself into believing that God approves of behavior He calls sin.

    This is the crux of the problem. We all have beliefs of what God calls sin, and do the best with it. For all you know, you could be doing something that I believe God would call sin. Would you stop doing so, simply because that’s what I believe? Probably not. Same for the reverse. The only difference as you see it, is that you believe that your version of what God calls sin is valid, and someone else’s isn’t. No wonder why our Founding Father’s put an end to what could have been some God awful tyranny.

    The point I made to Dan is just what I said in my comment: if the gender of people in marriage should no longer matter (as Dan wants to see) then the number of people in marriage is also irrelevant.

    No, two different things. In fact, when polygamy was allowed, same sex marriage wasn’t.

    In other words, those who are demanding that marriage be fundamentally redefined have no moral authority to tell anyone else what marriage should entail.

    Not by a long shot. We all have the same moral authority that you do when you demand that marriage suits your definition of marriage. By the way, you can claim all you want that your definition is God’s definition. We all can do that.

    Why should I submit to them or to laws based on them?

    But that’s exactly what you want us to do with your beliefs. You can claim all you want that this is God’s belief, but you don’t know that any more than the rest of us do.

    The one nice thing about this country is freedom of religious beliefs. If you want to uphold your Christian beliefs and live your life that way, you certainly can. But even there, you are waging a losing battle. Most Christian sects are becoming more accepting of homosexuality. Many Christians when they read Leviticus or other passages are seeing them as written by people who believed what God was calling sin at that time, and that maybe they were wrong. People do make mistakes sometimes.

    Comment by Pat — June 8, 2011 @ 10:31 am - June 8, 2011

  54. Dooms speaks the truth:

    Lets recap, these women were willing participants, were not sex workers,and were not men. Weiner does not go around preaching family values and calling gays evil.

    Dooms clearly accepts moral relativity or amorality or licentious behavior as OK if you are a Democrat. It is clearly not OK with Dooms if you are a Republican who holds to some form of standards, because Republicans are the enemy.

    Being a Democrat means you never have to account for yourself or say you are sorry unless it becomes politically expedient and helps you get on with being a Democrat.

    Ann Coulter has a brand new book in which she explains Dooms and his crownd quite nicely:

    By contrast, liberals thrive on jargon as a substitute for thought. According to Le Bon, the more dramatic and devoid of logic a chant is, the better it works to rile up a mob: “Given to exaggeration in its feelings, a crowd is only impressed by excessive sentiments. An orator wishing to move a crowd must make an abusive use of violent affirmations. To exaggerate, to affirm, to resort to repetitions, and never to attempt to prove anything by reasoning are methods of argument well known to speakers at public meetings.”

    Liberals love slogans because the “laws of logic have no action on crowds.” Mobs,” Le Bon says, “are not to be influenced by reasoning, and can only comprehend rough-and-ready associations of ideas.” [He could be describing the New York Times and other journals of elite opinion when he describes periodicals that "manufacture opinions for their readers and supply them with ready- made phrases which dispense them of the trouble of reasoning."]

    You will see all the techniques for inspiring mobs in liberal behavior.

    Dooms is repeating what the Democrat mob believes. He does not dare to drag down Weiner by Republican standards of morality, family values, decency, honesty, respect, courage, reverence, kindness and obedience to the constitution and republic.

    Dooms is strictly a member of the mob which thrives on “excessive sentiments” and never lets logic stand in his way. Weiner is a first class demagogue and he “speaks” to Doom’s extraordinarily shallow soul.

    As a red meat kind of guy always itching to be organized into the latest mob flash, Dooms can forgive anything his people do or stand for. He is the ideal liberal useful idiot. He will wave any flag, worship Che or stomp in hobnailed boots when the slogans stir him. He is the prototype Democrat.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 8, 2011 @ 10:35 am - June 8, 2011

  55. Dooms and the other members of the liberal community regularly lie and cheat on their spouses. Look at Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Or Dooms’s own John Edwards. Dooms does not believe, nor does any Obama Party member believe, what these people did was wrong. Marriage, fidelity, and commitment are meaningless to the Obama Party, and the Obama Party platform opposes them and promotes promiscuity and lying.

    So, it would seem.

    Comment by V the K — June 8, 2011 @ 10:42 am - June 8, 2011

  56. Dan, with regard to the point of your post, I fully agree. Just as your friend made his decision about what to do while he single, and perhaps wish he could go back in time, he did make the decision to marry his husband, and wants to honor it regardless. Good for him.

    Weiner was also single for a long time, and I guess, unlike your friend, had “experimented” plenty. But then he decided to get married, and I assume, with the expectation from his wife that he would no longer be tweeting lewd photos of himself to other women. Too bad for his wife.

    As for him not getting caught, how could he think that? Or did Breitbart really had to pull strings to somehow find out about all this?

    Yes, there is a double-standard for Democrats and Republcans in sex scandals. No doubt about it.

    V the K, maybe so, but it’s not a slam dunk. Vitter and Gingrich come to mind on the Republican side. Yes, I get the point that you cannot be a hypocrite on an issue, if you have not taken a public stand on an issue. And I suppose Weiner never took a “family values” stand. But others have. And if one is going to be espousing certain values that we all should have, then they better damn well uphold it for themselves. I am just as pissed when I see Gore living in luxury with his energy wasting house, etc., and Kerry going on about the environment while owning 3 SUVs.

    I think voters, in general, still maintain “family values” but believe other issues are more important, and don’t always care if their elected representatives uphold the same values personally. On the other hand, I think people do get pissed when someone is preaching family values, while at the same time sleeping away with persons who are not his spouse. Hypocrisy, yes, but we see it as something even more egregious.

    Comment by Pat — June 8, 2011 @ 10:48 am - June 8, 2011

  57. Since Tim Kaine is running for senate in Virginia, I think it’s a safe assumption his call for Weiner to resign has more to do with political opportunism than moral conviction. The other Dems are still focus-grouping this to see if the number of moderates they would please by calling for his resignation outnumbers the people in the base such a call would offend.

    Comment by V the K — June 8, 2011 @ 11:01 am - June 8, 2011

  58. Pat,

    You sure have a strange and elastic version of “freedom.”

    Seane-Anna, I think it’s called freedom. It’s the same right that allows you to hold monogamy as an ideal, if that’s what you choose to hold as an ideal.

    You might just as well have written: “It’s the same right that allows you to hold molesting children as and ideal, if that’s what you hold as an ideal.”

    Seane-Anna has struck a nerve.

    Gays can not reproduce unless they use their biological equipment properly, but “outside” of the “marriage.” Gays have no reason to be monogamous unless they want to avoid STD’s and the possibility of psychological trauma.

    Why would a gay “marriage” pick up specific terminology like “husband” and “wife” instead of creating some new terminology to fit the new “marriage?” You might as well say “cow-gay” and “bull-gay” if you are going to corrupt terminology. Perhaps you could say “he-man” and “she-man” or “male mate” or “my man” or whatever.

    This nomenclature issue strikes at the heart of some on-going confusion about the gay “agenda” and whether gays are promoting themselves as a third gender classification.

    The third gender classification makes perfect, logical sense for pursuing civil rights. Since civil rights are accorded only to humans, the gay can then deny that he has the same civil rights that male humans have.

    Your previous attempts to liken being gay with being black or left-handed are muddied by the question of whether being gay is an “orientation” or a biological imperative. If it is a biological imperative, then a case can be made for creating a special gender categories for gays, lesbians, and the transgendered. We would have M, F, G, L ant T. I omit bisexual, because some heavy duty logic will have to be employed to explain why “choice” is not at play rather than a biological imperative in switch-hitting.

    Gays are both caught in a tangled web of societal tradition and weaving an even more tangled web for themselves.

    When one talks about gay fidelity and monogamy, one is immediately speaking of having a single partner. The Ten Commandments decree that. If the Ten Commandments are not applicable to gays because the Bible is hostile to gays, then throw out religion and create your own rules of morality.

    Whatever the case of how gays weave themselves into the prevailing moral code, it is up to the gays to figure out their likenesses and differences with the general population and find their own avenues for “fitting in” to society as a whole.

    This can not be by fiat. Gays lack the numbers and the public square is not free if it is controlled by government sanctions and restrictions.

    You might spend some time thinking more deeply about the concept of freedom. It is not possible for everyone to be totally free on his own terms. That is anarchy and anarchy is chaos.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 8, 2011 @ 11:17 am - June 8, 2011

  59. but not so long ago. . .we had Ensign

    And if Ensign had been an Obama Party member, what he did was perfectly OK, since as Weiner, Edwards, Jackson, Clinton, and others show, cheating on your wife is perfectly OK, bribing others to keep their mouths shut about it is completely OK, breaking laws to cover your tracks is perfectly OK, and giving special favors to those who assist you is perfectly OK.

    The more you bring this up, rusty, the more obvious you make it that you and your fellow Barack Obama Party members have exactly zero moral standards. You don’t care about breaking the law, you don’t care about cheating on your spouses, and you don’t care about lying to and bribing people to keep it covered up. This is all normal, perfectly-expected, and perfectly-acceptable behavior for Obama Party members.

    And gays and lesbians. Since gays and lesbians overwhelmingly support Obama Party members, it should be obvious that their view of marriage is that it is meaningless, that you can cheat at will, lie about it, and cover it up, and that you should not be in any way ashamed of or criticized for the fact.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2011 @ 11:25 am - June 8, 2011

  60. Gays have no reason to be monogamous unless they want to avoid STD’s and the possibility of psychological trauma.

    And as we see with Weiner and the gay and lesbian community’s defense of him, if you are “psychologically traumatized” by your spouse cheating on you, it is YOUR fault. YOU are to blame, not your cheating spouse, since you should have known that your spouse would cheat and that, as Dan Savage says, it is “unnatural” and quite impossible for humans to be monogamous.

    Once you see how the Obama Party treats marriage, you can understand why gays and lesbians like Pat truly don’t see the problem. To them, cheating on your spouse, promiscuity outside of marriage, lying about it, and all these other things are normal. Marriage is a lip-service ceremony, an excuse to throw the party that has zero meaning beyond that and is certainly no reason for you to stop barebacking, sexting, and sleeping around with whomever you please. Indeed, gays and lesbians, as we see here with Dooms, insist that such “family values” as monogamy, commitment, and responsibility are inherently homophobic, and that Obama Party members are “pro-gay” because they support, endorse, and practice adulterous and promiscuous behaviors.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2011 @ 11:34 am - June 8, 2011

  61. A racist is: someone obsessed with race. Someone who can’t have a thought, without it involving race.

    I’m going to claim that quote, proudly. (Do not worry about it TL, blog attribution mistakes are easy and unimportant, I’m only fussing.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 8, 2011 @ 11:41 am - June 8, 2011

  62. You sure have a strange and elastic version of “freedom.”

    Pat’s definition of “freedom”, Heliotrope, is that he and his fellow gay-sex liberals will never be criticized or held responsible/accountable for their behavior.

    This is a basic and fundamental misunderstanding in the liberal psyche. When conservatives talk about “freedom”, we are referring to one’s freedom to choose or make decisions without governmental interference in that process. When Pat and his fellow liberals talk about “freedom”, they are referring to freedom from the responsibility for and consequences of the decisions they make.

    For example, liberals talk about the “freedom to choose” when demanding their pet right of abortion. This is incomprehensible to conservatives, because pregnancy is hardly spontanteous and can be avoided by choosing to abstain from sex or abstain from unprotected sex. To conservatives, the choice has already been made; the question now is in whether one should have the right to kill another human being to eliminate the consequences of and responsibility for the choice made.

    Gay-sex marriage is another example. If Pat wants the benefits of marriage, he can meet the conditions. He, like Anthony Weiner, doesn’t want to meet the conditions; he wants the conditions to be changed to accomodate his own choices, and insists that any refusal to do so is out of “animus” towards him.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2011 @ 11:42 am - June 8, 2011

  63. Damnit.

    I will worry about it, I pride my self on my attribution.

    :-(

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 8, 2011 @ 11:49 am - June 8, 2011

  64. You might just as well have written: “It’s the same right that allows you to hold molesting children as and ideal, if that’s what you hold as an ideal.”

    Heliotrope, if you or anyone else wants to hold that as an ideal, go for it. Personally, I think that’s a terrible ideal.

    Seane-Anna has struck a nerve.

    No, I don’t think so, but let’s see why you think so.

    Gays can not reproduce unless they use their biological equipment properly, but “outside” of the “marriage.”

    Okay, no kidding. I knew that for quite a long time now.

    Gays have no reason to be monogamous unless they want to avoid STD’s and the possibility of psychological trauma.

    Okay, Heliotrope, you’ve got me here. Are you saying that infertile or postmenopausal have no reason to be monogamous either? Is the possibility of reproduction the only thing that keeps straight people in line? I can’t honestly believe you think that.

    Why would a gay “marriage” pick up specific terminology like “husband” and “wife” instead of creating some new terminology to fit the new “marriage?”

    Why not? What’s the big deal here?

    If it is a biological imperative, then a case can be made for creating a special gender categories for gays, lesbians, and the transgendered. We would have M, F, G, L ant T. I omit bisexual, because some heavy duty logic will have to be employed to explain why “choice” is not at play rather than a biological imperative in switch-hitting.

    ???

    Gays are both caught in a tangled web of societal tradition and weaving an even more tangled web for themselves.

    Only if we live in a world of extremes.

    When one talks about gay fidelity and monogamy, one is immediately speaking of having a single partner. The Ten Commandments decree that. If the Ten Commandments are not applicable to gays because the Bible is hostile to gays, then throw out religion and create your own rules of morality.

    Because if one thing is wrong, we have to throw everything else out? Throw out the baby with the bath water. Yes, many gay persons are hostile to religion. Many people like me, can question and criticize some aspects of religion, while upholding much of the good that has come from it.

    You might spend some time thinking more deeply about the concept of freedom. It is not possible for everyone to be totally free on his own terms. That is anarchy and anarchy is chaos.

    I’m not sure what set you off, but this all started when Seane-Anna questioned how gay people have the moral authority to uphold the ideal of monogamy. It seems to me that the freedom for gay people to hold monogamy as an ideal would lead to less anarchy and chaos.

    There’s an underlying point that you’re trying to make here, and I’m not sure what it is. It’s almost as if you are saying, “well, you are gay and acting on it. So you might as well go for promiscuity, since you are going to hell anyway.” Or perhaps your point is that monogamy doesn’t mean anything regarding homosexuality, that any person, gay or straight, can have all the same sex partners he wants until he gets married, and that maybe a married person really isn’t cheating if he has sex with someone of the same sex.

    Comment by Pat — June 8, 2011 @ 12:00 pm - June 8, 2011

  65. “Gays have no reason to be monogamous unless they want to avoid STD’s and the possibility of psychological trauma.”

    Helio, what do you mean by this? Taken on its face, I see this disrespectful and, to me anyway, hurtful, which I am sure (I hope) you don’t mean.

    Comment by David in N.O. — June 8, 2011 @ 12:20 pm - June 8, 2011

  66. “Gays have no reason to be monogamous unless they want to avoid STD’s and the possibility of psychological trauma.”

    True in the same sense that it would be true to say: “Straights have no reason to be monogamous unless they want to avoid STD’s, bastard children, and the possibility of psychological trauma.”

    But not true in the sense that both orientations have very compelling reasons to be monogamous if they want to rise above their animal nature, and if they want to experience the unique level of intimacy that comes from loyalty to a committed partner.

    As I said previously, the main reason I hold sexual scandals against Weiner and other middle-aged politicians is because they strongly indicate the immaturity, irresponsibility, and lack of self-restraint that one ought to expect of grown men. We should not want to be governed by selfish, irresponsible adolescents.

    Comment by V the K — June 8, 2011 @ 12:27 pm - June 8, 2011

  67. @ Pat & David,

    I don’t presume to read Heliotrope’s mind, but I think that he’s saying the normal result of heterosexual couplings run the ‘risk’ of producing a child. (I put risk in quotes, because well, that’s what it’s designed to do). My mom and her partner don’t have that issue. It’s even possible in people defined as ‘infertile’ by modern science. something same sex couples don’t have to worry about.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 8, 2011 @ 12:35 pm - June 8, 2011

  68. True in the same sense that it would be true to say: “Straights have no reason to be monogamous unless they want to avoid STD’s, bastard children, and the possibility of psychological trauma.”

    This brings up a great point, though.

    Absent the welfare state, gay and lesbian promiscuity and irresponsibility really has no impact upon people other than those who are engaging in the promiscuous and irresponsible behavior. In that context, if gays and lesbians want to play musical beds, they’re not hurting anyone but themselves and those who choose to involve themselves with them.

    However, when heterosexuals do that, they produce children — which means their actions are having a direct impact on other peoples’ innocent lives, and those other people have no choice in the matter. This is why society created and codified marriage — to put in place a legal structure that provided benefits for being responsible towards those innocent lives you created/affected and penalizing you for not doing so.

    Society recognizes no benefits from gay-sex marriage. Furthermore, given the demonstrations of how gays and lesbians support and endorse marital cheats like Weiner, Edwards, Clinton, Jackson, McGreevey, and the like, gay-sex marriage would actually be codifying the amorality of the Obama Party and the gay and lesbian community, which insists that monogamy is hurtful and unnatural, that cheating on your spouse is normal, and that wedding vows of fidelity and responsibility are meaningless.

    The reaction of the gay and lesbian community to Weiner, insisting that he did nothing wrong and that his behavior is perfectly acceptable, demonstrates that they truly do not see marriage as having any sort of requirement of responsibility or restriction of behavior. Marriage to them is nothing more than a public affirmation, no more valuable or binding than a resolution declaring today National Amish Unpasturized Milk Salesfarmer Day.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2011 @ 12:52 pm - June 8, 2011

  69. Livewire, maybe so, and perhaps Heliotrope can clarify. Anyway, I echo V the K’s response above.

    Comment by Pat — June 8, 2011 @ 12:53 pm - June 8, 2011

  70. 65.“Gays have no reason to be monogamous unless they want to avoid STD’s and the possibility of psychological trauma.”

    and then we have AAhrnold, Johnny E, Ensign, Mr Appalacian Trail, Spitzer, etc. etc. etc.

    Some ended up with offspring, others already had offspring,

    Gay folk can maintain monogamy or not just like the rest of the folk!

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2011 @ 12:55 pm - June 8, 2011

  71. Pat,

    I will clear up your confusion expressed in your last paragraph of #64.

    Marriage (in Western culture) is for the purpose of legitimizing the propagation of the species. One man and one woman are recognized by religious and temporal law to reproduce their genes and pass along their blood lines.

    Marriage (the Western culture model) is of no purpose to gays. By marrying, gays “choose” to end their blood lines. Thus, they are dead-enders.

    Heteros who are infertile can divorce on those grounds. That is how powerful the marriage tradition (Western culture) is. Heteros who choose not to reproduce are also the exception to the (Western culture) marriage tradition. They are dead-enders.

    Weiner is married and childless. His “playing around” is viewed by liberals in general as his private business in the same way Bill Clinton’s fooling around was OK because Hillary was beyond child bearing age. When you choose to strike a pose of this nature of moral relevancy, there is no reason under the sun for gays to be sexually monogamous.

    I totally reject the argument that Weiner is not guilty of a lot of sins. Ditto, Clinton. But, when we are supposed to consider gay “marriage” seriously, why not talk about the whole concept of “freedom” and “open” marriage?

    I merely argued your silly liberal views for you and you end up confused.

    Please scrub the reference to Hell. I do not damn people. God did not make me an avenger angel and I will leave damnation in His capable hands. Take it up with Him.

    I fully oppose gay “marriage” and have said so numerous times. You must know that by now. You want a redefinition of marriage to work in your personal favor. I support civil unions, because it clears up some serious flaws in temporal law. I can not “fix” the parts of the Bible and religion which annoy you. You have to get God to do that.

    Being liberal, your motivation is to get the courts to over-rule God. Being a Christian, I find that arrogant, illogical and a mockery of the meaning of marriage. So there we are. I agree to disagree with you, but do you do the same?

    Finally, I think gay “marriage” separates you from society, where civil unions help you blend with society. Not all of society is religious in the traditions of Western culture. Therefore, marriage is not dominated by religion. The state has established its own rules for marriage and they apply to the church marriages and marriages performed outside of the church.

    When redefining the rule of one man and one woman, it would end up as state sanctioned, but not necessarily church sanctioned. Churches could refuse such marriages. This creates the tension of an “enlightened” state in contrast to an “unenlightened” church. That is a great source of tension within the society.

    On the other hand, civil unions achieve the goals of most or the issues involving gay “marriage” while leaving the religious aspects of marriage out of the equation. Civil union does not force society to look upon the couple as being no different from the rest of society. Civil union preserves marriage as something different from a civil union. Civil unions serve the legal purposes of the state while the church is permitted to keep its religious beliefs.

    However, for liberals, it seems that the word “marriage” is a mountain to be leveled for some grand purpose. It is here I humbly ask why overturning the “one man and one woman” rule does not apply equally to those who want to marry many or minors or another species.

    The ball is in your court. Try to make sense of your case.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 8, 2011 @ 12:59 pm - June 8, 2011

  72. Society recognizes no benefits from gay-sex marriage.

    For that matter, society recognizes no benefit from heterosexual marriage unless it is committed and monogamous. Social contracts, like all contracts, should have obligations on both sides; which is the root of my opposition to the current same-sex marriage advocacy. The proponents want all the benefits, but don’t want any of the obligation.

    Comment by V the K — June 8, 2011 @ 1:04 pm - June 8, 2011

  73. However, for liberals, it seems that the word “marriage” is a mountain to be leveled for some grand purpose.

    Heliotrope, I think you have hit on the primary point here.

    Weiner is being desperately and viciously defended by liberals and gay-sex marriage supporters as having done nothing wrong because Weiner, as an Obama Party member, does not espouse “family values”.

    But what Weiner did strikes fundamentally at the heart of marriage as expressed by the vast majority of Americans who, as Mr. Blatt pointed out last week, overwhelmingly find infidelity morally wrong.

    In short, the Obama Party and the gay and lesbian community do not believe there is anything wrong with infidelity. Their screaming that Weiner is not a hypocrite demonstrates convincingly that Obama Party members, including the gay and lesbian community, do not believe that marriage is a commitment or that it carries any responsibility for fidelity or management of one’s behavior. They see it as merely a public ceremony of no substance or value.

    That is fundamentally the issue. Liberals do not see any value to marriage, so they see no problem with extending it to irrelevant couplings. If you put value on marriage, if you think it actually requires any standards or anything of the sort, you are a Puritan, intolerant prude. Marriage to them is a meaningless excuse to throw a public party. That’s it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2011 @ 1:21 pm - June 8, 2011

  74. #65 David,

    I sincerely apologize for any hurtful thing I have written and I assure you it is not intended.

    I have dear friends who are long time partners and I assume monogamous. They are great assets to the community and I have come to love them both. We never have had a conversation in 40+ years about the differences in our sexual orientation. I very much desire they have the legal protections a civil union would provide. Our state is on record as opposing civil unions, but I see day light.

    Philosophically speaking, if I were a social liberal for whom all combinations are possible, I would not tie gay couples to monogamy. No one is going to get pregnant and possibly burden the state with cast off or neglected children. Social liberals can justify just about any hedonistic act and much of “gay culture” seems more directed toward hedonism than dull, old monogamous same sex marriage.

    My wife and I are fast approaching the 50 year mark. Our marriage became much more than sex long ago. We have no need to be monogamous now, yet we are. Why? True love is far more than playing with your crotch.

    Marriages crumble all around us because people don’t work at keeping them wholesome, alive, sharing, and relevant. I believe that a gay couple is absolutely capable of having as fulfilling a marriage as a straight couple. However, in the grand scheme of things, people who let their libido outpace their common sense are usually lousy at marriage.

    Since gays do not run the risk of unwanted children, they are much more “free” to answer the call of libido. I have attempted to call out the socially liberal gay and ask what is so darned important to him about marriage.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 8, 2011 @ 1:21 pm - June 8, 2011

  75. I merely argued your silly liberal views for you and you end up confused.

    Heliotrope, is that what you tried to do? So that whole post was a farce. Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. How silly of you. ;-)

    Please scrub the reference to Hell. I do not damn people. God did not make me an avenger angel and I will leave damnation in His capable hands. Take it up with Him.

    Good. Glad you feel that way. Now that I know the post was a farce based on what you believe my silly liberal views are, no problem.

    I fully oppose gay “marriage” and have said so numerous times. You must know that by now. You want a redefinition of marriage to work in your personal favor. I support civil unions, because it clears up some serious flaws in temporal law.

    I get all that. Except my support for same sex marriage is to not work in my personal favor, any more than your opposition to same sex marriage works in your personal favor. I’ll be just fine if it doesn’t happen. But don’t assume that my views are any more selfish than yours, if we’re going to start lecturing on arrogance, which I hope you’re not.

    Being liberal, your motivation is to get the courts to over-rule God. Being a Christian, I find that arrogant, illogical and a mockery of the meaning of marriage. So there we are. I agree to disagree with you, but do you do the same?

    Okay, careful here. I may be liberal, left-leaning, or whatever you want to call me. But I have also stated on many occasions that I believe that same sex marriage should happen in the legislatures or referenda.


    I can not “fix” the parts of the Bible and religion which annoy you. You have to get God to do that.

    If you don’t want to fix the parts of the Bible and religion that annoy you, don’t bother. God’s not going to do it for us. He left us to do that work for Him, and hope we do the best. We’ve already have through the years, some things for the better, and some things for the worse. I guess this is going to have to be something we agree to disagree on.

    It is here I humbly ask why overturning the “one man and one woman” rule does not apply equally to those who want to marry many or minors or another species.
    The ball is in your court. Try to make sense of your case.

    A few of us have many times already. And I did so in the last thread we communicated. I imagine you don’t believe I made the case. I get the crux of your argument. And for the most part, it’s logical, and makes sense. So we can agree to disagree again.

    Anyway, just to be clear on your original point that I responded. That you really do believe gay people like anyone else does have the moral authority to hold monogamy as an ideal.

    Comment by Pat — June 8, 2011 @ 1:37 pm - June 8, 2011

  76. While I was typing…..

    The_Livewire, V the K, North Dallas Thirty all made my words and thoughts clearer.

    I will add that whether the marriage offender is Republican, Independent, Democrat, Jewish, atheist, Christian, Black, White, liberal, moderate, conservative, frocked, defrocked, half-frocked or whatever….the offender is a weasel, a cad, a slime, a sinner and a dirty birdy.

    If your fiance, your steady, your partner, your spouse, you true love cheats on you there will be a permanent hole left in your heart.

    If your fiance, your steady, your partner, your spouse, you true love cheats on you with your permission there will be a permanent hole in your head.

    Let’s not kid about the human psyche, std’s and “playing the field.” You don’t see any octogenarians lying around with Hugh Hefner for a very simple reason. Hefner’s , social consciousness, morality and utility are all wrapped up in his decaying libido and pathetic “philosophy.”

    Liberalism is too shallow to support deep convictions. Everything is about “feelings” and conquering repression. Let’s have a conversation about the utility of gay “marriage.” But let’s also be honest about defines gay culture and what motivates gay activism.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 8, 2011 @ 1:41 pm - June 8, 2011

  77. polygamy – I have nothing against it. If a woman or man 18 or older wants to marry someone else who is already married, more power to them.

    minors – we have rules when it comes to kids when it comes to drinking, voting, enlisting in the armed forces, driving, etc. There isn’t any reason why marriage should not be included in those rules. The presumption on these rules is that there is a certain age where the general population becomes old enough to take responsibility for their actions and participate in certain activities. Marriage would be no different. Your minors argument holds no water, so I suggest you stop using it.

    species – Show me an animal that communicates s/he wants to be in a relationship with a human (and that human’s feelings are mutual) and has demonstrated they are able to take on the responsibilities of making productive contributions to society and I’ll show you another reason to expand the definition of marriage.

    Does the last one sound stupid? So does the idea that the reason for marriage in this day and age is to solely propagate the species when we live in a time where there are multiple ways of producing children outside of missionary position sex and there are tons of kids who need loving parents to help guide and shape them.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 8, 2011 @ 1:42 pm - June 8, 2011

  78. Saw Anthony’s “X-rated” Weiner. Or, to be precise, didn’t see it and I can say that with certitude.

    Comment by TGC — June 8, 2011 @ 1:44 pm - June 8, 2011

  79. if anyone wants to respond to my post I will be away from my computer until the end of the day, as I have a job that requires me to go out and pound the pavement.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 8, 2011 @ 1:45 pm - June 8, 2011

  80. I have attempted to call out the socially liberal gay and ask what is so darned important to him about marriage.

    Heliotrope, I’m not sure if you directed this to me or not, but permit me to respond.

    First of all, I think you said it best here.

    Marriages crumble all around us because people don’t work at keeping them wholesome, alive, sharing, and relevant. I believe that a gay couple is absolutely capable of having as fulfilling a marriage as a straight couple. However, in the grand scheme of things, people who let their libido outpace their common sense are usually lousy at marriage.

    I couldn’t agree more. So perhaps we are more on the same page than originally thought.

    Please don’t tie me to what your perception of a socially liberal gay is. I do not support or endorse promsicuity and extra-marital affairs. My values regarding sex and marriage are quite similar to yours. So marriage, or civil unions, are as important to me as it is to you.

    Comment by Pat — June 8, 2011 @ 1:45 pm - June 8, 2011

  81. Liberalism is too shallow to support deep convictions. Everything is about “feelings” and conquering repression. Let’s have a conversation about the utility of gay “marriage.” But let’s also be honest about defines gay culture and what motivates gay activism.

    At its core, Heliotrope, gay culture and gay activism are about freedom from consequences and responsibility.

    Gays and lesbians do not want to be responsible for or have any consequences for their actions. Period. You bareback and have sex with multiple partners? Society owes you free health care, fat welfare checks, and rent control.

    You sexually harass your coworkers? Society owes you an apology for firing you and should punish the business that did.

    You put classified secrets online? Society forced you to do it and is torturing you by requiring you to be held prisoner under conditions you do not like.

    You commit suicide? Society’s fault, especially those evil religious people.

    Just that is bad enough. But what becomes truly pathological is where gay culture and activism is now — namely, it’s not enough that you are given a free pass from responsibility or consequence, but society now must affirm and confirm how wonderful your behavior is.

    Bullying? Not enough to say that you shouldn’t; you must now affirm and push gay-sex “sensitivity” that pounds into your head that gay people are all wonderful and that if you or your parents don’t approve, you are homophobic bigots.

    Religious beliefs? Quashed, suppressed, shoved back into dark corners, publicly ridiculed, and thrown out.

    Sexual responsibility? Hater. Homophobe. Prude.

    Parents disapprove of homosexuality? Strip them of rights, put them in jail.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2011 @ 1:54 pm - June 8, 2011

  82. This almost becomes too easy.

    Show me an animal that communicates s/he wants to be in a relationship with a human (and that human’s feelings are mutual) and has demonstrated they are able to take on the responsibilities of making productive contributions to society and I’ll show you another reason to expand the definition of marriage.

    Sorry, Vince, but you’ve already stated that no one else has the right to judge other peoples’ feelings, readiness, or production to society, and they CERTAINLY don’t have the right to put their own “moral beliefs” like you’re espousing into law.

    Besides, how does it hurt your relationship if other people are allowed to marry animals? Does that affect your relationship? After all, you’ve stated that no one has any right to object to anyone else’s relationship unless you can demonstrate how it can harm your own.

    Same with children. What do you care if children are marrying? If you don’t like child marriage, don’t marry one. Who are you to impose your own moral beliefs about whether or not a child is “ready” onto society? Why do you cling to outdated “traditional” views when science shows that children are becoming capable of sexual activity at an earlier and earlier age, and that children in fact can derive pleasure from sexual activity at a very young age? Laws already state that minors don’t need parental consent to have sex and get abortions, and the Obama Party even funds and supports centers that ignore the notification and consent laws that already exist.

    Come on, Vince. Apply some of your own logic and reasoning here.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2011 @ 2:00 pm - June 8, 2011

  83. Besides, how does it hurt your relationship if other people are allowed to marry animals?

    Ouch… Good one!

    Comment by V the K — June 8, 2011 @ 2:15 pm - June 8, 2011

  84. ITs really funny you guys are trashing weiner yet remain quite when republicans continually have these scandals.

    It’s really f*king sad when you trash us as “racists” but not your liberal masters who keep the black illegitimacy and poverty rates high. Where’s Anthony’s Weiner on that one?

    Comment by TGC — June 8, 2011 @ 2:16 pm - June 8, 2011

  85. Pat,

    I’m not calling you out other than to insist that you apply your moral relevancy equally.

    I have always assumed your relationship is close to my ideal of a committed union. But I do question your elastic guardrails from time to time. I really value logic and considered reason over “feelings.” I suspect you do too.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 8, 2011 @ 2:56 pm - June 8, 2011

  86. Vinci S. @ #77:

    species – Show me an animal that communicates s/he wants to be in a relationship with a human (and that human’s feelings are mutual) and has demonstrated they are able to take on the responsibilities of making productive contributions to society and I’ll show you another reason to expand the definition of marriage.

    Does the last one sound stupid? So does the idea that the reason for marriage in this day and age is to solely propagate the species when we live in a time where there are multiple ways of producing children outside of missionary position sex and there are tons of kids who need loving parents to help guide and shape them.

    OK, then why is this not illegal?

    http://www.topix.com/forum/world/lesotho/T5P98GDII6ASFIT60

    Could it be that libido over common sense is just another matter of “choice” in the cookie sheet deep liberal world of common decency?

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 8, 2011 @ 3:06 pm - June 8, 2011

  87. I’m not calling you out other than to insist that you apply your moral relevancy equally.

    My moral relevancy? Equally? What had I said that you perceive as moral relevancy?

    But I do question your elastic guardrails from time to time.

    If that’s what you see, fine? Point it out when it occurs, and I’ll try to address it. I value logic as well. But I’m sure there are times where I say something that seems, or in fact, is inconsistent.

    Comment by Pat — June 8, 2011 @ 3:08 pm - June 8, 2011

  88. Vince, for when you get back.

    minors – we have rules when it comes to kids when it comes to drinking, voting, enlisting in the armed forces, driving, etc. There isn’t any reason why marriage should not be included in those rules. The presumption on these rules is that there is a certain age where the general population becomes old enough to take responsibility for their actions and participate in certain activities. Marriage would be no different. Your minors argument holds no water, so I suggest you stop using it.

    We ‘have rules’ defining marriage and recognizing them. The presumption is that these rules aid in a society recognizing and encouraging procreation. What force makes the rules on age more involate than the rules on gender?

    The answer… none.

    Morality? Well for a plurality of people in the US, morality requires marriage to be between a man and a woman.

    Consent? We pass laws to allow minors to consent to a risky ‘medical procedure’ that definately ends one life, and can end two.

    Every argument that can be applied to same sex marriage can be applied to any other relationship.

    While Pat and I disagree on the Ends (he for SSM, me for Fred) we agree on the Means (throguh legislative means, not Judicial fiat). You may find the ‘NAMBLA offence’ offensive, but that doesn’t change that it’s true.

    What would stop it would be a moral stand, not a ‘rights’ stand. And if you choose to argue society has changed to allow SSM, you argue that in the legislature, not the courts.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 8, 2011 @ 3:15 pm - June 8, 2011

  89. 87.I’m not calling you out other than to insist that you apply your moral relevancy equally.

    My moral relevancy? Equally? What had I said that you perceive as moral relevancy?

    Heliotrope. Forget this part. I think I read this incorrectly. My apologies.

    Comment by Pat — June 8, 2011 @ 3:19 pm - June 8, 2011

  90. Vinci S. @ #77 – part 2:

    there are multiple ways of producing children outside of missionary position sex

    I know there are many ways to get the outdoor plumbing connected with the indoor plumbing, but so what? Are there multiple ways for producing children outside of connecting the outdoor plumbing with the indoor plumbing? Beyond test tube babies and AI, what are you referencing?

    there are tons of kids who need loving parents to help guide and shape them.

    Which leads us to what? Any port in a storm? A promiscuous couple is better than no couple? Orphan trains? Half serious foster parents? Wards of the state encampments?

    If you are going to wave the bloody shirt of kids who need loving parents, how long do we have to wait around before you take off after the Amish or the MOVE “murders?” I have a decidedly liberal link for you on the MOVE incident for your rumination:

    http://libcom.org/library/move-bombing-1985

    Liberals are great at sloganeering and really, really bored and dense when it comes to the nitty gritty.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 8, 2011 @ 3:23 pm - June 8, 2011

  91. Pat,

    You must sense that I respect you while having differences with you. You do a great job of demonstrating how to talk across “the divide.” If I offend, let me know.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 8, 2011 @ 3:27 pm - June 8, 2011

  92. If you are going to wave the bloody shirt of kids who need loving parents, how long do we have to wait around before you take off after the Amish or the MOVE “murders?”

    I find it hard to believe that gays and lesbians care about children who need loving parents, given their constant abuse of Trig Palin, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Bachmann (who has already fostered 23 kids).

    Any community that would endorse and support this statement about Trig Palin, as the gay and lesbian community did, and claim that criticism of it is “homophobic”, as the gay and lesbian community did, should not be allowed anywhere near children, much less try to argue that they care about them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2011 @ 3:31 pm - June 8, 2011

  93. You must sense that I respect you while having differences with you. You do a great job of demonstrating how to talk across “the divide.” If I offend, let me know.

    Thanks, Heliotrope. Same here. Sometimes I like to flesh out the differences, because many times, I find that I am in more agreement than originally thought. Or sometimes, I even find an argument compelling enough that I change my mind.

    Comment by Pat — June 8, 2011 @ 3:39 pm - June 8, 2011

  94. Heliotrope and Pat :)

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2011 @ 3:47 pm - June 8, 2011

  95. But if you think about the SSM status, it is no longer just the gay liberal – gay sex marriage thang (aka Miss Rita Beads)

    Folk like Chris Barron of GoPROUD, Kenny Mehlman and friends, and other folk on the right of center who are pushing for SSM, in addition to Civil Unions. So, I like the direction that things are going.

    And then you have folk like Miss Rita Beads who likes to stir the pot. But hey, she gets off on it.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2011 @ 3:52 pm - June 8, 2011

  96. Just chimed in to be the 96th coommenter.

    Is this the longest GayPatriot thread ever? I just always wanted to be a part of something bigger than myself.*

    * – No, I am not into Bears. Just sayin…

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 8, 2011 @ 3:56 pm - June 8, 2011

  97. Helio, thanks for #74 & #76. I especially agree with this:

    “If your fiance, your steady, your partner, your spouse, you true love cheats on you there will be a permanent hole left in your heart.”

    “If your fiance, your steady, your partner, your spouse, you true love cheats on you with your permission there will be a permanent hole in your head”

    V da K, I am in total agreement with your comment at #66, but in #72 you left me somewhat confused when you wrote:

    “…..which is the root of my opposition to the current same-sex marriage advocacy. The proponents want all the benefits, but don’t want any of the obligation.”

    To what SSM advocacy are you referring? I’m not member of any kind advocacy group, other than GOProud, but I am aquainted with people who are and I really doubt they would not agree with that statement at all.

    I know there are those who are, as you suggest, not down for the responsibilities, etc, but surely they are not the majority.

    Comment by David in N.O. — June 8, 2011 @ 4:43 pm - June 8, 2011

  98. Egads…should be …….I really doubt they would agree…..

    Comment by David in N.O. — June 8, 2011 @ 4:44 pm - June 8, 2011

  99. Rusty,

    I am certain there are many conservative gays who favor gay marriage. There are a growing number of straight conservatives who don’t oppose gay marriage and some who are arguing for it. That is the usual case when “moderation” is on the move.

    NDT is clear about the sector of the gay “community” that is well to the left of the Victorians.

    What per cent of the gay population would you say is in the “liberal to libertine” cohort?

    I always think of gay “culture” and gay “community” in terms of social conservatism and social liberalism. We spend considerable time in Key West and there is a clear divide between the business establishment gay “community” and the raucous vacationing gay “community.” My neighbors and fellow property owners who are gay are genuinely more conservative about the “public square” than even I am at times. They are far more ecumenical about making the entire community viable than they are about promoting a gay fantasy land. To those ends, they seem to me to be tougher on some gays than any straight businessman would ever consider.

    There are hotels and B & B’s that cater to a gay clientele and everyone in town is indifferent to their business plan so long as over the top stuff does not spill out into the streets and infect the whole tourist community at large.

    I can point you to places where certain gays overwhelm the public square with activities that push the envelope.

    In reference to NDT, I think his comments are not only apt, but they keep the conversation honest.

    One can be a black man and avoid the black ghetto like the plague. One can be a black man and hate being scolded about how you don’t cure stupid blacks of their deficiencies. One can be a black man and hate being tied to the myriad pathologies of other blacks. One can also be a black man and chose to deny the state of the blacks who send chills up the spines of decent blacks and many white people and Asians who have every reason to fear them.

    I think gay solidarity has the same issues.

    Once more: what per cent of the gay population would you say is in the “liberal to libertine” cohort?

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 8, 2011 @ 4:49 pm - June 8, 2011

  100. To what SSM advocacy are you referring?

    Whenever a SSM makes his case, it is invariably presented in terms of the benefits and recognition they feel entitled to. And there is a link NDT has cited in the past where gay marriage advocates claim that extramarital sex is, and should be, part of the norm, for same sex marriages.

    Comment by V the K — June 8, 2011 @ 6:01 pm - June 8, 2011

  101. Thanks. I better understand your point.

    Recognition is a good thing I think. Last year, my brothers and sister hosted a huge party for our 25th aniversary and we were both overwhelmed by the number of friends and family that came to offer their congratulations and support. What brought me to tears however was a young cater-waiter who came to us and said, simply, we were an inspiration to him- that he had not met many committed long term couples. Luckily there were quite a few such same sex couples at the party and we made sure he met them all. My point is that there are many of us out here (committed long term couples) and and maybe recognition would be a good thing for the example they set. I would hope anyway.

    As for benefits, I can see that argument as well, though we took care of many of those issues by spending a good deal of time and money with an attorney. Despite that, there are still problems and concerns. Think gift tax issues.

    For the record, I am on board for civil unions. I thinks that is probably our best shot and seems to have the broadest support.

    BTW, any marriage supporter who says extra-marital trysting is ok is no supporter of marriage of any kind.

    Comment by David in N.O. — June 8, 2011 @ 6:36 pm - June 8, 2011

  102. I think that is…..not thinks!

    Comment by David in N.O. — June 8, 2011 @ 6:38 pm - June 8, 2011

  103. David in N.O.:

    You da man!

    And many more happy years together.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 8, 2011 @ 7:10 pm - June 8, 2011

  104. “Every argument that can be applied to same sex marriage can be applied to any other relationship.”

    That’s exactly the point I’ve been trying to make for ages on this blog, Livewire. And I believe people like Pat, Lori, Dan, and most others here know that point is true but will never admit it because to do so would threaten their feverish quest for legislated self-esteem. So, as NDT so aptly put it, most gays are totally committed to getting legalized SSM at any cost, even at the cost of setting “dangerous and foolish legal [and social] precedents”. And while setting those precedents they emphatically deny they’re doing any such thing and feign ignorance of how anyone could think they are.

    I have no idea how to halt the move toward accepting gay marriage. I do know, though, how I’ll respond to the first lawsuit demanding state recognition of polygamous, pedophilic, or incestuous marriage, a lawsuit that will ground itself in gays’ successful legal challenges to defining marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. I will look with sadness at all those shocked gay marriage activists and I’ll just say, “I told you so.”

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 8, 2011 @ 8:00 pm - June 8, 2011

  105. Helio>> I asked the question, “does that last one sound stupid?” And then I said, “So does … ” and went on to describe something I disagreed with. It wasn’t clear to you I was equating the two as “stupid.”

    TLW>> You brought up a good point about consent and I was excited to respond, but then you brought up NAMBLA and I lost all interest in responding. Sorry.

    Helio >> I used the word multiple, which generally means three or more, so we agree. I don’t think of sexually promiscuous couples and half-serious foster parents when it comes to gays any more than straights. I also don’t think Christian-principled people corner the market on morality either. Those relying on biblical text accuse the opposition of possessing an inferior morality, because it’s “fluid” and not based on any text that’s time-tested. The Bible’s morality has been reinterpreted over centuries. And that’s not my example of consistency.

    “I believe people like” Sean-Anne and some “others here know that point is true but will never admit it because to do so would threaten their feverish quest” to defend the mistruth that the morality derived from the bible is not fluid.

    Helio (cont)>>
    You bring up a very interesting point in your post #99, though. I think it’s a good one, but it also seems very exclusive to me. I used to be embarrassed by a lot of gays, because I feared that people would associate me with them. But, then I stopped caring, because it didn’t matter either way. However, I will agree with you (you didn’t say this, but it kind of follows what you were saying) that the greater representation of the gay marriage movement can be just as obstinate as their extreme opposition. And those that act obnoxious in their behaviors or beliefs don’t do the movement any favors.

    ND30>> I won’t respond to your posts until you actually address what I say, but when you mentioned Michelle Bachmann, my eyes immediately darted up to Helio using the phrase “any port in a storm.” Knee-jerk reaction, I guess.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 8, 2011 @ 9:06 pm - June 8, 2011

  106. Vinci, the Bible’s morality isn’t fluid; people’s willingness to actually follow it is. I’ll again us my old co-worker as an example. She was married and claimed to be a Christian yet she asserted with firm conviction that God sent her a lover, a married lover. As I said in my earlier comment, it would’ve been useless to quote the seventh commandment to that woman. And the seventh commandment wasn’t then and isn’t now fluid. What was fluid was my friend’s desire to obey the commandment. She wanted to violate the commandment while still claiming the label Christian. She did that by convincing herself and trying to convince others that God not only approved of her infidelity, He engineered the whole thing!

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 8, 2011 @ 10:09 pm - June 8, 2011

  107. If it’s not fluid, to you still subscribe to ALL of its rules?

    Comment by Vince in WeHo — June 8, 2011 @ 10:23 pm - June 8, 2011

  108. That last comment was from me. Whoops.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 8, 2011 @ 10:24 pm - June 8, 2011

  109. That last comment was from me, but that goes without saying. Whoops!

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 8, 2011 @ 10:25 pm - June 8, 2011

  110. It wasn’t clear to you I was equating the two as “stupid.”

    Au contraire, it was as subtle as the neck on a giraffe.

    I used the word multiple, which generally means three or more

    Actually, it means more than one, but generally means numerous, implying far more than a few.

    Those relying on biblical text accuse the opposition of possessing an inferior morality, because it’s “fluid” and not based on any text that’s time-tested.

    Hello? The time-tested parallel source of morality is what? And Biblical text reinterpretation has altered the Ten Commandments in what ways?

    Lets not play games. Gay marriage is based on what the gay “wants” to be accorded to him because of his orientation, not because of his sex. He possesses the marriage right already, but not to another man.

    You and I may call it stupid if a person falls madly in love with the goat that drills him and seems to enjoy the drilling, but the connection is no less tenuous since it is based on what the drillee wants accorded to him according to his wants.

    Obviously, lines have to be drawn. I draw the line at the civil union. The law draws the line at a trust fund for old ladies who die and leave millions to the cat.

    It appears you want to argue in the particular, but representative democracy argues in the general good. We can trifle over definitions and how you have annotated the traditional moral code, but in the final analysis you have to defeat the opposition to gay marriage through force or the power of logic. Liberals believe that if they whine and carp enough, people will just give in to shut them up. It is not as if that tactic never works. Unfortunately, the mob can be roused by tenuous rhetoric such as “hope and change” and create an incredible mess for itself.

    It is impossible to unscramble eggs and once the “one man, one woman” code has been broken, the other possible combinations will have gained a strong foothold.

    As a non-procreating gay, why should you be barred from marrying your brother, father or son from a previous marriage? I refer you to your moral code, because mine does not cover the possibility.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 8, 2011 @ 11:00 pm - June 8, 2011

  111. Helio, it is interesting to consider that with the increasing number of supporters for SSM, we should also think about the fact that the static number of SS folk aka the gheys(both Male and Female) and being joined by an ever increasing number of straight folk who support SSM.

    Even the conservatives who echo their support from podiums and internet blogs send out support to those who would like to see SSM a realty.

    Granted not everyone will sit quietly as this change happens. We still have folk with their panties in the twist that women are wearing trousers and that folk of color actually own homes in their neighborhoods and work side by side.

    Comment by rusty — June 8, 2011 @ 11:19 pm - June 8, 2011

  112. Please, Helio, spare me. If you could see the neck on the giraffe than the MOVE link was unnecessary.

    I get what your saying, Helio. You just have a much darker view of humanity than I do, as you assume the worst–”other possible combinations will have gained a strong foothold”–as if this new precedent will one day be exploited by the more heathen and nefarious of our society. I just don’t know see that happening. But only time will tell which one of us ends up being right. There are always going to be all kinds of exceptions in society (including the guy who likes to get drilled by the goat and the man who wants to marry his father). But, instinctually, the general populace is attracted to either someone of the opposite or same sex, as in, the phrase that has now been hijacked by a pop singer, they born that way. Most cases of someone having attractions to someone within their family (whatever relation it may be… their child, parent, sibling, grandmother) is a result of sexual abuse. You can talk about your moral code all you want, but no where in the Bible does it say to NOT molest children. In fact, there are passages that suggest the opposite. Does that make it right? It’s in the very book you derive your moral code from. Does that make me superior to you, because I instinctually know that sexual abuse is wrong and I don’t need to rely on any text that does or does not tell me so? No. Because we can both agree that OUR MORAL CODE does not permit sexual abuse.

    While I agree with most everything you’re saying (though it may seem like I don’t), the arguments in the general good are the growing examples of same-sex couples raising healthy families and their exposure in the mainstream.

    You brought up The Ten Commandments. I was speaking of The Bible. As in the fluidity of The Bible.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 8, 2011 @ 11:46 pm - June 8, 2011

  113. … which reminds me, Seane-Anna hasn’t yet answered my question, which is fine. I’d rather carry on a conversation with Helio or ILC anyhow, because they employ logic.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 8, 2011 @ 11:50 pm - June 8, 2011

  114. Granted not everyone will sit quietly as this change happens. We still have folk with their panties in the twist that women are wearing trousers and that folk of color actually own homes in their neighborhoods and work side by side.”

    So, Rusty, in order to avoid being a bigoted, intolerant Neanderthal you’ll be the first one shouting your heartfelt support for the polygamists/pedophiles/incest folk when they demand the right to marry the one(s) they love under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, right? I mean, you wouldn’t want to be one of those folks whose panties are still in a twist because “teh gheys” can marry, now would you?

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 8, 2011 @ 11:56 pm - June 8, 2011

  115. Wow, Seane-Anna, you make it really hard to avoid responding to your posts. Do you live in the L.A. area? Because I would really *love* to meet you.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 12:03 am - June 9, 2011

  116. Vinci, I’m answering your question but you’re confusing something. You’re confusing following the Bible’s moral teachings with changing, or trying to change, it in order to be comfortable with one’s inability or unwillingness to follow it.

    Do I follow all of the Bible’s moral teachings? No, because I’m a sinner. I “miss the mark”, as the Bible puts it, every day. What I don’t do, though, is what my former co-worker did: deny the Bible’s clear moral teaching in order to rationalize my disobedience. That’s what I mean by “fluid”.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 9, 2011 @ 12:28 am - June 9, 2011

  117. No, Vinci, I don’t live in the LA area. I don’t live in California, fortunately.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 9, 2011 @ 12:30 am - June 9, 2011

  118. “You just have a much darker view of humanity than I do, as you assume the worst–”other possible combinations will have gained a strong foothold”–as if this new precedent will one day be exploited by the more heathen and nefarious of our society. I just don’t know see that happening.”

    Vinci, your refusal to concede the obvious, that other sex groups can and almost certainly will use gay marriage as a springboard for their own “liberation”, has nothing to do with having an enlightened view of humanity. You admitted, Vinci, that you define what is or isn’t decent based on whether or not gays will benefit from it. In other words, you admitted that your “morality” was anchored in self-interest. You just don’t see “this new precedent [being] exploited by” other fringe sex groups because to acknowledge that likelihood doesn’t benefit gays.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 9, 2011 @ 12:46 am - June 9, 2011

  119. “Wow, Seane-Anna, you make it really hard to avoid responding to your posts.” Thanks for the compliment, Vinci.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 9, 2011 @ 12:48 am - June 9, 2011

  120. We’re having two different discussions on the concept of fluidity.

    I’m sorry you have such a bad impression of California. I love this state, fortunately.

    And nowhere am I acting in self-interest. I am not in a relationship with a man, nor to intend to be in any capacity. I have as much to gain from gay-marriage as you have to lose from it: nothing. And I would appreciate it if you didn’t randomly assume what my beliefs are so it fits your argument. My morality is anchored in my instincts as a human being. Sorry, but I was born to parents who taught me right from wrong. My mistake I didn’t derive my morality from the Bible. Please read post #112 for further clarification.

    I apologize for the snark in post #113.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 1:03 am - June 9, 2011

  121. 112. “that suggest the opposite” should read “that suggest its permissibility.”

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 1:55 am - June 9, 2011

  122. That’s exactly the point I’ve been trying to make for ages on this blog, Livewire. And I believe people like Pat, Lori, Dan, and most others here know that point is true but will never admit it because to do so would threaten their feverish quest for legislated self-esteem.

    Seane-Anna, first of all I’m glad to see that you included non-liberals with me with those who support same sex marriage, instead of lumping me with only liberals, as if it is only liberals that support same sex marriage.

    I suppose I somewhat agree with Livewire’s statement that you referred to. When he said “any other relationship,” I suppose he could have meant opposite sex, consenting, non-related adults. In other words, the slippery slope you worried about could very well have started a long time ago. It could have started when persons of different social classes were allowed to marry, or when persons of different races were allowed to marry, or when persons chose for themselves who to marry instead of relying on having their marriage arranged by others, when we encouraged and applauded those who could not or did not want to have children marry (so that marriage was no longer solely about procreation), when marriage was recognized as a union between those who loved each other above anything else marriage was originally intended, or when women who didn’t marry were no longer considered no better than some pathetic spinster. So perhaps marriage needs to go back to what “traditional” marriage really was to stop this onslaught you are so afraid of. If that’s the case, I think you are alone in that fight. I don’t know ANYONE, straight or gay, who wants “traditional” marriage.

    I’ve outlined why I believed same sex relationships are different and inherently better than pedophilia, bestiality, incest, and polyamory. The last one isn’t so bad provided that the partners are equal and there is no coercion, but, in my opinion, still less than ideal. As such, I believe we should not codify these types of relationships to marriage. I believe that a same sex relationship is no better and no worse than an opposite sex relationship where there is no ability or no intent to have children. As such, I believe it makes sense to have marriage for both types of relationships. We should be encouraging our children to have healthy relationships when they get older, and not have gay persons get married to persons of the opposite sex (an obviously, potentially unhealthy relationship), just as it wouldn’t make sense for a straight person to marry someone of the same sex.

    Now, this is where I agree with Livewire’s point. We all have different opinions to what I wrote above. In fact, Seane-Anna, you’ve made it clear that you lump homosexuality with pedophilia, incest, etc. So, it comes down to legislation or referendum to see if same sex marriage is going to happen vs. marriage between a human and a dog or plant, etc.

    I can’t speak for Dan and Lori, but I can tell you it’s not self-esteem at my part. Not at my age at least. Same sex marriage will not help my self-esteem as opposing same sex marriage helps your self-esteem (at least I am assuming it doesn’t help your self-esteem).

    most gays are totally committed to getting legalized SSM at any cost, even at the cost of setting “dangerous and foolish legal [and social] precedents”.

    I don’t pretend to know or demonize what most gays are totally committed to, but I can tell that you for me, it’s not at any cost.

    I do know, though, how I’ll respond to the first lawsuit demanding state recognition of polygamous, pedophilic, or incestuous marriage, a lawsuit that will ground itself in gays’ successful legal challenges to defining marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. I will look with sadness at all those shocked gay marriage activists and I’ll just say, “I told you so.”

    Unfortunately, Seane-Anna, I’ve seen plenty of asinine lawsuits reported on the news, so my reaction will simply be, “What else is new?”

    106.Vinci, the Bible’s morality isn’t fluid

    You’re self-esteem won’t allow you to admit the falsehood of that statement. ;-)

    Comment by Pat — June 9, 2011 @ 6:57 am - June 9, 2011

  123. As a non-procreating gay, why should you be barred from marrying your brother, father or son from a previous marriage? I refer you to your moral code, because mine does not cover the possibility.

    Heliotrope, I know this is response to Vinci, but just wanted to say that my moral code doesn’t cover that possibility either.

    Comment by Pat — June 9, 2011 @ 6:59 am - June 9, 2011

  124. TLW>> You brought up a good point about consent and I was excited to respond, but then you brought up NAMBLA and I lost all interest in responding. Sorry.

    Shorter Vince: Damn I can’t refute that, so I’ll ignore it.

    *pats Vince on the head* It’s ok Vince, I didn’t realize you were sock puppeting.

    Seane-Anna, my point is the only thing stopping us going down the ‘slippery slope’ is a combination of our legal system and the people’s moral centre.

    I don’t have faith in either. All I can do is teach me and mine what *I* believe and act accordingly.

    Aside on rights. This is part of the reason I’m supportive of businesses having the right to choose their customers, as much as I feel customers should be able to choose the businesses they patronize. I lived in an apartment owned by Mormons. In the lease there was a ‘no alcohol on the property’ rule. That’s fine by me. A conservative Christian property owner should be able to say, ‘no same sex couples’ a Gay owner should be able to say “No straights” etc.

    And before our trolls demonstrate their ignorance of history, that’s not Jim Crow. Jim Crow was the government saying to private businesses “You can’t serve blacks with whites.”

    Ironically kind of like saying now “You can’t serve only gay men.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 9, 2011 @ 7:56 am - June 9, 2011

  125. Vinci S @ #77:

    polygamy – I have nothing against it. If a woman or man 18 or older wants to marry someone else who is already married, more power to them.

    So, Vinci, when the US court system has to decide whether to incorporate the Sharia customs (law) of dealing with managing the harem, where will you stand then? And when the Sharia customs (law) permit marriage to the developing adolescent, will you be siding with the separation of church and state? And when a group starts stoning a known gay, you will stand back and advise that gays should not go where stones are thrown?

    I know that I have gone off track in the organized world of your mind. But I suggest you open your eyes to the internal conflict growing within this nation between our inheritance of English Common Law and the growing undercurrent of Sharia. You might begin by studying either England or Canada which are much farther along in trying to meld the two and are beginning to fight more and more battles.

    English Common Law is created in a republican manner. Sharia is created entirely in the minds of the religious elite. How do you create a theocratic republic? I suppose you have liberal benevolent dictators as a start.

    Our traditions are our culture. When you break the “one man, one woman” code in marriage, you open a very wide door to other possibilities. Amazingly, Sharia has far more history and standing than any gay “marriage” tradition you can offer up. Clearly, polygamy and Sharia have the far more compelling case for breaking the tradition.

    The age for marriage has changed throughout our history. It is not nearly so writ in stone and the “one man, one woman” code. You may not think that NAMBLA has a case, but liberals can be persuaded to take just about everyone under their big tent if it means power and avoiding the taint of hypocrisy.

    I asked you this question twice in #99:

    Once more: what per cent of the gay population would you say is in the “liberal to libertine” cohort?

    I can imagine that one might not want to answer such a question if a disproportionately high number of gays fall into the “liberal to libertine” cohort. That would mean that the gay agenda puts far more pressure on the societal norms than mere “marriage.”

    Furthermore, we need to clarify what constitutes “gay” as a class of humans different from other classes. In doing so, we need to openly decide if what differentiates “gays” as a class is harmful, neutral or beneficial to society as a whole. We could compare and contrast gays as a class with child lovers as a class. What are their similarities and what are their differences in contrast to society in general. Here is a link that might enlighten:

    http://www.thecpac.com/gl.html

    Since incest is not a biological problem affecting the offspring of gays, why should any gays be prohibited from marrying who they want within their close kinship? Again, we should way incest among gays in terms of being harmful, neutral or beneficial to society as a whole.

    That might be more than enough tweaking of your liberal mind for one round. I always enjoy a good exposition of how moral relevancy can wrap its arms around everything from razor blades to jello.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 9, 2011 @ 9:51 am - June 9, 2011

  126. Wow, it’s no wonder that polls show ever-increasing public support for SSM. When the opposition’s best arguments rely on religious superstition and faux slippery-slope fears of men marrying goats, you know the question is no longer IF, but exactly how soon same-sex marriage will be legal in all fifty states.

    Comment by Richard R — June 9, 2011 @ 9:52 am - June 9, 2011

  127. @ rusty

    “Granted not everyone will sit quietly as this change happens. We still have folk with their panties in the twist that women are wearing trousers and that folk of color actually own homes in their neighborhoods and work side by side.”

    Hey, I’m a 1950′s kind of guy :P

    And I think that’s the issue. I want the freedom to find a woman who does the June Cleaver thing, while I’m doing the Ward Cleaver thing and working to support my home. If Dooms is upset that a white couple have moved into his neighborhood, he has the right to move to someplace more to his liking. if Bill and Ted want to engage in a private contract of commitment, more power to them.

    The issue becomes when does the government draw the line? The Government doesn’t force Dooms to suffer the indignity of having ‘those people’ in his neighborhood. It doesn’t force the hypothetical ‘June Livewire’ to stay at home, nor does it force her to work outside the home. Our choices would determine that.

    The issue of SSM/Fred/Cats and Dogs living together isn’t if it happens, clearly it does. The issue (to me) is that our government is set up to be adaptable. Yes, eventually SSM might win in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ and become legally recognized by the government. Or Fred might. Or none will. That won’t stop Bill and Ted from honouring their commitment (and taking advantage of other legal remidies to benefit them) to each other (and to the Divine, if they recognize Him in their commitment.) The law shouldn’t say that Bill and Ted can’t live together in bliss. Hell the law shouldn’t say they can’t call it ‘marriage’ ‘fred’ or whatever they want. Whether the law should recognize it is the issue.

    Likewise, nothing, except the legislative process and the morality of the people will keep hot 40 year old on 15 year old action from being legal. Even if such a thing comes to pass, I should still be allowed to teach my (theroitical) kids and grandkids that it’s icky, wrong, and they should run the other way as fast as they can.

    Part of civil society’s rules is that we must agree to function in them or accept the consequences. IIRC MLK went to jail peacefully in his protests. We can (legally) petition for those laws to change. That’s the right exercised by the people of Connecticut, and the people of California on the SSM issue. OTOH, even if my efforts to lobby for allowing the killing of someone who molested my godkids failed, I’d still gleefully dismember the SOB and accept the consequences of my actions. My freedom is something I’m willing to give up for my Godkids.

    Wow, that was long.

    Shorter Livewire: Yes we do have those kind of people. As long as they don’t take the law into their own hands, we should celebrate that we can have the freedom to have those kind of people in our midst.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 9, 2011 @ 9:57 am - June 9, 2011

  128. Thanks TL

    Comment by rusty — June 9, 2011 @ 10:13 am - June 9, 2011

  129. the opposition’s best arguments rely on religious superstition and faux slippery-slope fears of men marrying goats, you know the question is no longer IF, but exactly how soon same-sex marriage will be legal in all fifty states.

    Richard R., if you think you have characterized your opposition accurately, I advise that you alternate thumbs as you suck away to avoid damaging your hide.

    “Religious superstition” is a dead give away of the bigot who entirely misjudges his power of reasoning. “Man and goat” is an obvious attempt to sloganeer against the underlying truths of the door which is opened by breaking the “one man, one woman” marriage code.

    You are obviously not intellectually equipped to take on the issue. So, you pee and run.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 9, 2011 @ 11:26 am - June 9, 2011

  130. RE: 125: Helio.
    Religious law does not trump the law of the land. Marrying a minor is no more acceptable to me than a Christian Scientist withholding necessary medical treatment for their child. In either case, it’s called child abuse.

    I’m not a Muslim-conspiracy theorist as you are in regards to your second paragraph.

    “Liberals can be persuaded to take just about everyone under their big tent if it means power and avoiding the taint of hypocrisy.” Can you cite comparable examples? And can you please refer me to a website that actively recruits conservatives, but refuses to include people who think homosexuality is a disease and parent their children accordingly? (Read: another form of child abuse. And how do you think a gay child is going to grow up raised by parents who think s/he’s diseased? Do you think that just, MAYBE, that child stands a chance of being a little screwed up in the head?)

    You are mistaken. You did not address me, you addressed Rusty in your libertine question from 99. But, no, I can’t answer your question, because I don’t take surveys for a living. Do you? If so, please share your results. I have no idea any more than I have ideas about what percentage of straight fathers molest their children. It’s so easy for you to lump the libertine word with liberal, because they sound alike and sum up your perceptions of liberals. You believe there’s a greater percentage of sickos in the gey populace verses the strict-Christian sect, because somehow the assertion of a moral standard trumps the actions of a morally-principled person who doesn’t claim to be part of such a group, but lives an integral life. I beg to differ. “the lady doth protest too much me thinks” isn’t just a line from Hamlet. It’s a way of life. The chaste one is the one who isn’t having sex, not the one who says they aren’t/won’t.

    “Since incest is not a biological problem affecting the offspring of gays.” A parent performing sex on their child is incest, regardless of whether or not the parent is gay or straight. Incest is incest. Why would you suggest otherwise?

    As far as your link, have you signed the guestbook yet?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 11:36 am - June 9, 2011

  131. “Liberals can be persuaded to take just about everyone under their big tent if it means power and avoiding the taint of hypocrisy.” Can you cite comparable examples?

    Gerry Studds
    Ted Kennedy
    Bill Ayers
    Bill “Every one gets one free grope” Clinton.
    Harry Hay

    *yawn* Least you can do is make it easy.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 9, 2011 @ 11:53 am - June 9, 2011

  132. Apparently, it wasn’t easy, TLW, because you failed to answer the question that followed it. (it was a two-parter)

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 12:12 pm - June 9, 2011

  133. Just as you failed to answer my comments prior.

    I was answering your request for examples to support Heliotrope’s assertion. Please try to keep up.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 9, 2011 @ 12:19 pm - June 9, 2011

  134. No, you were cherry-picking. And quit with the insults (RE: try to keep up).

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 12:36 pm - June 9, 2011

  135. There are those on these threads who complain about “the far left’s” (a group which I am not aligned with) tactics. Yet, it’s perfectly acceptable for some of you on here to hurl insults at someone who does not employ those tactics.

    Can you please explain, Live_Wire?

    I welcome you guys picking holes in my logic. That’s partly what I’m here for. I’ll admit, sometimes I take part in debates that I have little to no expertise in. But, I stick my neck out, because part of the way I learn is throwing out what I believe in order to refine my argument. It’s another way for me to question what I believe and why.

    I don’t welcome the sometimes inappropriate style in which you do it. It’s not that I’m not immune to slipping either, but at least take responsibility and try to do better.

    Earlier last year, someone on here (I don’t remember who) said, “You have to earn my respect.” So, in the meantime, I have to endure your abuse? I don’t think so.

    Treating someone with dignity does not mean you relent to their beliefs.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 12:50 pm - June 9, 2011

  136. And vince still can’t refute my argument. Then tries to read my mind. Then accuses me of insulting him?

    Sorry Vince, you had a reply, and I was excited to reply but then you start whining so I lost all interest in treating you with respect.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 9, 2011 @ 1:21 pm - June 9, 2011

  137. What was I mind-reading and what part did I get wrong of said mind-reading, Live_Wire?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 1:25 pm - June 9, 2011

  138. And, no, I’m not going to have a conservation with you about NAMBLA. I’ve done it in the past. You believe they reflect on the true nature of the geys. I believe they’re a fringe-group who bear no more bearing on the geys than underage polygamy bears on Mormons. What is there left to discuss?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 1:29 pm - June 9, 2011

  139. okay, no pun whatsoever intended: “bear no more bearing on the geys.”

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 1:31 pm - June 9, 2011

  140. Live_Wire

    Post #88. Legally defining marriage between one man and one woman is a recent phenomena in our country. For the greater part, it’s been an unofficial custom, a customer of which that, as you pointed out is supported by a plurality. There is a comparable if not greater plurality that now supports gender-blind marriage. “What force makes the rules on age more involate than the rules on gender?” We as a society decide what those rules are. Do you think our country is headed in a direction where a plurality is going to endorse marriage between a 12 and a 36-year-old?

    And the courts are there to interpret the laws and the constitutionality thereof.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 1:56 pm - June 9, 2011

  141. “What was I mind-reading and what part did I get wrong of said mind-reading, Live_Wire?”

    “No, you were cherry-picking.”

    This despite that I’d already explained. Though now you’re doing it again…

    “You believe they reflect on the true nature of the geys.”

    Of course this isn’t true, as I’m sure Dan (*gasp* and my mom) can well attest the former having met me, and the later, well, knowing me.

    I understand this might be difficult, but you might try debating people. You’ll find it more educational than straw men. Though apparently you can’t keep up with real people.

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

  142. Live_Wire, I accused you of cherry-picking the questions in paragraph 3 of post #130. You did. You answered one question, without answering the one that followed right after it. No mind-reading going on there.

    I substituted “the geys” for the gay movement. I made a mistake. Please explain how your association between NAMBLA and marriage-equality crusaders is different than associating under-age polygamy with Mormons.

    Again, quit with the insults. “try debating people” “keep up with real people.” I won’t tolerate it.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 2:31 pm - June 9, 2011

  143. Not insulting, mearly pointing out facts. They’re different from the Strawmen, they don’t burn nearly as easily. Try to keep up. I told you what I was doing. You disagreed. So apparently you a) are, bald, in a wheelchair and live in Salem Center New York, or b) are saying I was lying.

    Clearly you can’t argue on the merits, so you have to resort to straw men.

    It’s ok Vince, there’s no harm in admitting when you’re outclassed on a topic. I’ve done it myself. It’s part of being, well, you know, human

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 9, 2011 @ 2:40 pm - June 9, 2011

  144. Please explain how your association between NAMBLA and marriage-equality crusaders is different than associating under-age polygamy with Mormons.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 2:41 pm - June 9, 2011

  145. Please explain how your association between NAMBLA and marriage-equality crusaders is different than associating under-age polygamy with Mormons.

    The gay and lesbian community freely does the latter while rejecting the former.

    Don’t believe me? Look at any of the anti-Mormon rhetoric that the No on 8 crowd was using during and after the Proposition 8 campaign. I can find example after example of them talking about Mormons being polygamists with unnatural attractions to underage children, stating that all Mormons supported groups like the FLDS, and so forth. Bring in the Catholics, and you can find even more examples of such attacks.

    Have you seen HRC, NGLTF, GLAAD, any of the major gay and lesbian blogs, etc. repudiate these beliefs? No.

    Once again, we see the gay and lesbian community, which is dressing up four-year-olds as sex slaves and taking them to sex fairs as an “educational experience”, and is screaming “homophobe” at anyone who dares investigate them for molesting children, insisting on applying rules to everyone EXCEPT themselves.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 9, 2011 @ 2:47 pm - June 9, 2011

  146. Do you think our country is headed in a direction where a plurality is going to endorse marriage between a 12 and a 36-year-old?

    Plurality doesn’t matter any more, Vinci. California passed Proposition 8 with a majority indicating that they do NOT support gay-sex marriage, but gays and lesbians just ran screaming to the courts and are now bragging about how they will impose their will on the populace whether they like it or not.

    It takes a singular lack of imagination to think that other people cannot do the same, especially when one considers that the arguments being used are that the state has no right to judge or impose any type of moral argument.

    Come to think of it, Vinci, I don’t think you ever answered my question. How does allowing children, incestuous, polygamist, or bestialist arrangements to marry affect you or your relationship? After all, your gay-sex marriage judge just stated that that’s the litmus test, and that unless you can prove how you will be personally affected, any objection on your part is just based on “animus” towards the people in question.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 9, 2011 @ 2:53 pm - June 9, 2011

  147. You’re making my argument for me ND30. I’m asserting that NAMBLA has nothing to do with Marriage-Equality just as I am asserting that underage polygamy has nothing to do with modern LDS.

    Will Live_Wire make the same assertion? Or will he explain what the difference is?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 2:57 pm - June 9, 2011

  148. ND30, when you provide proof that Dan Savage believes no one should practice monogamy, then I will address all of your questions. Gladly.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 3:07 pm - June 9, 2011

  149. You can start your research here.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 3:10 pm - June 9, 2011

  150. Thanks for bringing up that example, Vinci, because it demonstrates my point.

    You see, when homosexuality is called “unnatural”, people like Savage have shrieking fits about how saying that is antigay and homophobic.

    Furthermore, Savage makes it clear that he considers monogamy unnatural, harmful, too difficult, and unrealistic.

    So it’s quite clear from your example that Savage wants to bash, trash, and tear down monogamy as being unnatural, hurtful, harmful, too difficult, and unrealistic.

    Also what I think is interesting is how Savage neatly illustrates the Obama Party mindset — that cheating and promiscuity are natural and that anyone who doesn’t believe that people should follow their basest instincts are prudes.

    Glad you illuminated that. It’s not surprising — after all, Savage’s attitude of promiscuity is why the gay community has HIV at over 40 times the rate of the population at large. It also puts a point on Savage’s “It Gets Better” campaign, since he states in this that gay men are incapable of sexually controlling themselves and that you should never expect any sort of permanent or meaningful monogamous relationship.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 9, 2011 @ 3:25 pm - June 9, 2011

  151. More Strawmen from Vince. Shame he can’t hold a real debate.

    He accuses me of this:

    Please explain how your association between NAMBLA and marriage-equality crusaders is different than associating under-age polygamy with Mormons.

    What I said was this.

    Every argument that can be applied to same sex marriage can be applied to any other relationship.

    While Pat and I disagree on the Ends (he for SSM, me for Fred) we agree on the Means (throguh legislative means, not Judicial fiat). You may find the ‘NAMBLA offence’ offensive, but that doesn’t change that it’s true.

    So let’s recap. Vince has admitted that he can’t refute my argument so he ignores it. When called out on it, he engages insults. When called out on that, he attempts to misrepresent what was said.

    I can understand being out of one’s element (insert ex-wife joke here) but it’s best to admit that and walk away.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 9, 2011 @ 3:26 pm - June 9, 2011

  152. And actually, Vinci, you didn’t even get my quote right.

    Dan Savage and his “monogamy is hurtful, commitment is irrelevant” viewpoint speaks for the vast and overwhelming majority of the gay and lesbian community. Mr. Blatt is a loud and powerful outlier, and has in fact been excoriated by the gay and lesbian community for being willing to stand up and say that marriage should actually carry responsibility and values with it.

    You turned that into a strawman, indeed. Fortunately, you were foolish enough to post where Dan Savage states straight-up that gay men are biologically incapable of commitment (“hard-wired”) and thus cannot realistically be expected to practice monogamy or commitment.

    Don’t waste your effort defending Savage. Savage is a pervert and a promiscuous idiot, and it’s stupidity like his that continues to put hundreds of thousands of people in the ground annually. Savage is the classic example of how liberals who don’t want to follow the rules start by claiming that the rules are bad.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 9, 2011 @ 3:29 pm - June 9, 2011

  153. Post #148: ND30 please provide proof that Dan Savage believes no one should practice monogamy.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 3:29 pm - June 9, 2011

  154. I’m assert that NAMBLA has nothing to do with Marriage-Equality just as I am assert that underage polygamy has nothing to do with modern LDS.

    Do you agree or disagree, Live_Wire?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 3:31 pm - June 9, 2011

  155. And then the funny part, Livewire, is that he can’t even answer what you would consider to be a basic question.

    How does allowing children, incestuous, polygamist, or bestialist arrangements to marry affect you or your relationship? After all, your gay-sex marriage judge just stated that that’s the litmus test, and that unless you can prove how you will be personally affected, any objection on your part is just based on “animus” towards the people in question.

    I mean, seriously. Certainly he must have SOME proof of how allowing children to marry negatively affects his relationships, since he’s supposedly so adamantly against it. It couldn’t be based on his own dislike of pedophilia or his own moral beliefs about appropriate ages. After all, he prides himself on being a tolerant fellow; why wouldn’t he also support “age-blind” or “species-blind” or “blood relationship-blind” marriages?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 9, 2011 @ 3:32 pm - June 9, 2011

  156. The reason I didn’t initially respond to you Live_Wire was because of your mention of NAMBLA. So, I’m asking you a simple question. Agree or disagree?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 3:34 pm - June 9, 2011

  157. ND30, I’m asking you to provide proof, not dodge the subject. Belly up, dude.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 3:35 pm - June 9, 2011

  158. This is why I don’t want to interact with you ND30. The very first thing we interacted on in this thread was about Dan Savage. You’ve been dodging me on my very specific requests and question ever since.

    Even when the MODERATOR OF THIS WEBSITE came to my defense and called you on your accusations, you wouldn’t take responsibility for yourself.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 3:40 pm - June 9, 2011

  159. And here’s another great example of how Savage disses on monogamy.

    Who are you, DWBAH? You’re a slut. (I mean that in the sex-positive sense! I’m a slut, too!). And what are you really into? Variety. And don’t feel bad: You didn’t fail monogamy, DWBAH, monogamy failed you—as it has failed so many others (Clinton, Edwards, Spitzer, Vitter, Ensign, et al.), and will continue to, because monogamy is unrealistic and—this is not a word I toss around lightly—unnatural.

    Get it, folks?

    If you cheat and are promiscuous, according to the gay and lesbian community, it’s not YOUR fault — it’s everyone else’s fault! You should never expect to be monogamous because it’s “unnatural”. People who believe in monogamy are “unrealistic”.

    Oh, and it gets SO much better. Marital problems? Cheat.

    In other words, WSWH, ask yourself what’s more important: staying married or staying monogamous?

    “If you can find a way to take the pressure off both of you, you might find a deeper intimacy with each other and a return of your libido,” says Ryan.

    Gay and lesbian community dogma right there. There’s the value of marriage for gay and lesbian people — only if you feel like being responsible, otherwise blame your biology and claim you’re “hard-wired” to be promiscuous.

    Like I said, Vince, don’t bother defending Savage. In fact, you’d probably do much more for the cause if you called him out as an irresponsible pervert who’s using his sexual orientation as an excuse for childish and immature behavior.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 9, 2011 @ 3:43 pm - June 9, 2011

  160. And Vince *still* won’t answer the question, attempting to deflect from being called out on his straw men.

    “I won’t answer you because you’ve a point I can’t lie away or bury in a ton of straw men! Now answer mine Damnit!”

    Apparently he really can’t debate anything not stuffed with straw.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 9, 2011 @ 3:47 pm - June 9, 2011

  161. Vinci @ #130:

    “Since incest is not a biological problem affecting the offspring of gays.” A parent performing sex on their child is incest, regardless of whether or not the parent is gay or straight. Incest is incest. Why would you suggest otherwise?

    Wikipedia: Incest is sexual intercourse between close relatives[1][2] that is illegal in the jurisdiction where it takes place and/or is socially taboo. The type of sexual activity and the nature of the relationship between people that constitutes a breach of law or social taboo vary with culture and jurisdiction. Some societies consider incest to include only those who live in the same household, or who belong to the same clan or lineage; other societies consider it to include “blood relatives”; other societies further include those related by adoption or marriage.[3]

    Wikipedia: Sexual intercourse, also known as copulation or coitus, commonly refers to the act in which the male reproductive organ enters the female reproductive tract.[1][2] The two entities may be of opposite sexes, or they may be hermaphroditic, as is the case with snails. The definition may additionally include penetrative sexual acts between same-sex pairings, such oral intercourse, anal intercourse, and fingering, which are also commonly practiced by heterosexual couples.[2]

    I suppose you are taking the liberal view of incest, which includes gays. But this from Wikipedia (google: incest) serves to muddy the waters: In Slate Magazine, William Saletan drew a legal connection between gay sex and incest between consenting adults.[44] As he described in his article, in 2003, U.S. Senator Rick Santorum publicly derided the theory of the Supreme Court ruling to allow private consensual sex in the home (primarily as a matter of Constitutional rights to Privacy and Equal Protection under the Law). He stated: “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.”[44] However, David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign professed outrage that Santorum placed being gay on the same moral and legal level as someone engaging in incest. Saletan argued that, legally and morally, there is essentially no difference between the two, and went on to support incest between consenting adults being covered by a legal right to privacy.[44] UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has made similar arguments.[45]

    I merely suggest that “incest” between gays does not bring about the concerns of inbreeding, because gays choose not to breed. If you think snuggling with your brother or uncle is icky, fine by me. It you want to swap bodily fluids, fine by me. I don’t require you to abide by religious strictures.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 9, 2011 @ 3:48 pm - June 9, 2011

  162. Live_Wire, Your “if SSM okay, then why not here” argument doesn’t work.

    If it did, than there’s the presumption that every marriage allowed between one man and one woman must involve procreation or it’s not a legitimate marriage.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 3:49 pm - June 9, 2011

  163. oopss. I used brackets and part of my post disappeared. 162 should read “insert slippery slope here” instead of just “here” on the first line.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 3:50 pm - June 9, 2011

  164. Actually, Vinci, I’ve been trying to be nice, but I’m just going to call you a liar right now.

    This was my original statement:

    Dan Savage and his “monogamy is hurtful, commitment is irrelevant” viewpoint speaks for the vast and overwhelming majority of the gay and lesbian community.

    And what did you attempt to turn that into?

    148.ND30, when you provide proof that Dan Savage believes no one should practice monogamy, then I will address all of your questions. Gladly.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 3:07 pm – June 9, 2011

    Right there in black and white, you misrepresented my statement and you lied about what I said.

    And you know what that makes you? A hypocrite.

    It also speaks volumes about how willing you are to diss Dan Savage in private — but in public, you’ll outright lie to defend and support him.

    That also rather brings pause to your argument that you would oppose other twisted things being thrown into marriage. The only thing you’ve shown now is how quickly you’ll cave and go all in for perverts like Dan Savage who bash monogamy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 9, 2011 @ 3:53 pm - June 9, 2011

  165. Also note how since he’s been called out on making up things and attributing them to me “your association between NAMBLA and marriage-equality”

    He changes his tune again, while not answering my point.

    Sad really.

    Since it’s been 72 (virgin?) posts and he’s still dodging it, let me repeat:

    We ‘have rules’ defining marriage and recognizing them. The presumption is that these rules aid in a society recognizing and encouraging procreation. What force makes the rules on age more involate than the rules on gender?

    Vince has already accepted that society can put limitations on Government recognition of marriage. (“There isn’t any reason why marriage should not be included in those rules”) He just feels that he should be allowed to ignore the ones he doesn’t like.

    So he goes for Mormon bashing instead.

    I really feel sorry for Vince, it must be hard to deal with being actually challenged and held accountable. Actually hitting my point here.

    (Yes, self linking is a bit egotistical, but I find it funny that after I post about accepting the consequences for your actions, Vince is trying to get me to admit to doing things that clearly only happened in his imagination)

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 9, 2011 @ 3:55 pm - June 9, 2011

  166. when did I bash Mormons? I was bashing underage polygamy and NAMBLA.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 4:04 pm - June 9, 2011

  167. and post 162 disappeared and was replaced by a correction.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 4:06 pm - June 9, 2011

  168. well, nope, now it’s back.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 4:06 pm - June 9, 2011

  169. If you want to call me a liar and a hypocrite, fine, ND30. You’ve already mistakenly called mean Obamabot and haven’t taken responsibility for your words. What’s one or two more names?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 4:10 pm - June 9, 2011

  170. “called me an” not mean

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 4:10 pm - June 9, 2011

  171. Vinci @ #130:

    I’m not a Muslim-conspiracy theorist as you are in regards to your second paragraph.

    Fine. How about some solid facts?

    http://shariahinamericancourts.com/

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 9, 2011 @ 4:14 pm - June 9, 2011

  172. Vinci @ #130:

    I’m not a Muslim-conspiracy theorist as you are in regards to your second paragraph.

    Fine. How about some solid facts?

    http://shariahinamericancourts.com/

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 9, 2011 @ 4:15 pm - June 9, 2011

  173. Helio>> Out of everything I wrote in Post #130, the incest comment is what you choose to respond to?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 4:16 pm - June 9, 2011

  174. LOL. 45 minutes later you had something else.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 4:18 pm - June 9, 2011

  175. How is Sharia Law going to legalize underage marriage anymore than any other polygamy sect?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 4:20 pm - June 9, 2011

  176. If all I had to offer was Straw Men, Live_Wire, it would be obvious, and you wouldn’t be needing to point it out. I don’t cherry pick your comments anymore than you or N30 cherry pick mine.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 4:30 pm - June 9, 2011

  177. ND30 #6

    Dan Savage and his “monogamy is hurtful, commitment is irrelevant” viewpoint speaks for the vast and overwhelming majority of the gay and lesbian community. Mr. Blatt is a loud and powerful outlier, and has in fact been excoriated by the gay and lesbian community

    I’m trying to reconcile your above comment with Daniel’s post on ALL of his gay Angeleno friends and their rather traditional view of marriage in this post.

    If Savage’s “viewpoint speaks for the … majority of … gay[s]” than are ALL of Dan’s friends part of this tiny minority? Have you met them all? Just wondering. Like I said, I’m trying to reconcile the two.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 4:38 pm - June 9, 2011

  178. Here is the post

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 4:39 pm - June 9, 2011

  179. Live_Wire, you’ve alluded that I don’t know how to debate. Fine. If that’s your theory, it must be coming from someone who knows how. You’re asserting you know how, please feel to rip apart every point I’ve made on this thread, as you’ve only chosen to address a select few. Please.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 4:47 pm - June 9, 2011

  180. “your ‘slippery slope arument doesn’t work.”

    What a stunning rebuttal. Hey everyone, Vince’s argument is it won’t work because Vince says so!

    Using that logic, I should have lost weight by eating donuts, becase I said so!

    A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.

    I said:

    We ‘have rules’ defining marriage and recognizing them. The presumption is that these rules aid in a society recognizing and encouraging procreation. What force makes the rules on age more involate than the rules on gender?

    Vince argued against:

    your association between NAMBLA and marriage-equality crusaders

    When Vince can answer my actual question, with more than “I said so.” maybe he’ll stop beating the stuffing out of poor straw men.

    (aside, I don’t see any relation between Nambla and Seane-Anna’s position that everyone is equally able to marry one person of the opposite sex. See, Seane-Anna’s position is ‘marriage equality’) :P

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 9, 2011 @ 4:49 pm - June 9, 2011

  181. The NAMBLA argument cannot be applied to the SSM argument, because we have laws against child abuse. Why did you even bring up NAMBLA in the first place?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 4:55 pm - June 9, 2011

  182. RE: 165 Live_Wire “He just feels that he should be allowed to ignore the ones he doesn’t like.” For the record (speaking of mind-reading), I DO NOT LIKE polygamy of any kind, but if it involves adults, who am I to say it shouldn’t be legal?

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 5:01 pm - June 9, 2011

  183. Even though I wouldn’t mind if Prop 8 was overturned through the courts based on its unconstitutionality (where in the California constitution did it say a marriage should be between one man and one woman up until 11 years ago?), I agree with you Live_Wire, it should be overturned legislatively or by the voters. At least, that way, gay marriage in california would carry more credibility.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 5:05 pm - June 9, 2011

  184. And stop being so condescending. It’s rude.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 5:06 pm - June 9, 2011

  185. OK, Vinci S. I will handle your confusing mess at #130 as best I am able.

    1. Religious law does not trump the law of the land. Check out my link already provided. I agree with your blanket statement in theory, but it obviously is not true in fact, thanks to liberals on the court.

    2. “Liberals can be persuaded to take just about everyone under their big tent if it means power and avoiding the taint of hypocrisy.” Can you cite comparable examples? Sorry, I do not know what you are asking here. It is not an exactly coherent question.

    3. And can you please refer me to a website that actively recruits conservatives, but refuses to include people who think homosexuality is a disease and parent their children accordingly? Ditto. Huh?

    4. And how do you think a gay child is going to grow up raised by parents who think s/he’s diseased? Do you think that just, MAYBE, that child stands a chance of being a little screwed up in the head? That would be a real problem for the child. It is a real problem for a child when parents do drugs instead of child care. There are far too many mal-parenting practices to list. What are you really asking? Some sort of state gestapo that takes gay babies away from politically incorrect parents? You excoriated me for directing you to the MOVE mess, but I see a direct parallel between that situation and one you pose. You nanny staters can’t have it both ways. Bumper sticker slogans always fail when reality rears its ugly head. Try thinking your “feelings” through and try a little logic in your rants.

    5. Sorry for my mistake about the directing the question to Rusty at you.

    6. It’s so easy for you to lump the libertine word with liberal, because they sound alike and sum up your perceptions of liberals. I’m sorry, but you have reading comprehension problems here. I asked for the range that runs from liberal to libertine. That is the same as asking for the range that runs from conservative to reactionary. You sure do run away from “libertine” though. Libertine gays must get you lathered up.

    7. You believe there’s a greater percentage of sickos in the gey populace verses the strict-Christian sect, because somehow the assertion of a moral standard trumps the actions of a morally-principled person who doesn’t claim to be part of such a group, but lives an integral life. Project much? Nothing I have stated anywhere can lead to this assessment of my belief system, even though I have no I have no idea what “but lives an integral life” means.

    But let me help you out. I have been led to believe that the gay population of liberals and Democrats is significantly larger than the gay population of conservatives and Republicans. I surmise that the gay liberal to libertine group outnumbers the gay conservative to reactionary group. I further surmise that gays who choose their candidates based on the single issue of gay rights outnumber the gays who choose their candidates on fundamental policies of fiscal conservatism without any regard to gay rights.

    I am sorry to leave religion out of this comment, but I can not deal with your demons in any meaningful way. The Judeo-Christian ethic and its effect on Western civilization and our moral code and our ethic is not of my making. You are the one trying to evade it through the elastic foundation of moral relevancy and its convenient escape hatches.

    8. “the lady doth protest too much me thinks” isn’t just a line from Hamlet. It’s a way of life. The chaste one is the one who isn’t having sex, not the one who says they aren’t/won’t. Thanks for the information. Unfortunately, I don’t have a clue about what you are trying to communicate.

    9. The incest thing I answered.

    Have I given you the attention you desire?

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 9, 2011 @ 5:07 pm - June 9, 2011

  186. If you’re going to poke holes in my arguments, that’s fair. But keep your pointed finger away from me. Thank you.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 5:08 pm - June 9, 2011

  187. Thanks for the details, Helio. But, I was making a joke that the first thing you addressed was making an irrelevant distinction between nastiness of gay incent vs. straight incest. And the demons and lathered up comments were unnecessary. Not sure where you were fishing around with those.

    1. I’m not sure how child abuse is going to be endorsed because of religious law. Guess we’ll see.

    4. I’m not endorsing a nanny-state. I was making a point that I obviously didn’t articulate very well. (as well as with 2, 3 and 8)

    5. Not a problem.

    7. The Judeo-Christian ethic and its effect on Western civilization is where you’ll find elasticity.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 5:26 pm - June 9, 2011

  188. Vince *still* can’t address my point.

    181.The NAMBLA argument cannot be applied to the SSM argument, because we have laws against child abuse.

    We have laws against two men or two women marrying. Congratulation Vince, you now oppose same sex marriage.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 9, 2011 @ 5:47 pm - June 9, 2011

  189. Religious law does not trump the law of the land. Marrying a minor is no more acceptable to me than a Christian Scientist withholding necessary medical treatment for their child.

    This keeps coming up. Years ago, I learned in EMT class that you CAN NOT treat anybody without consent, especially a minor. The only way you can treat somebody is if they are incapable of giving that consent, or in the case of a minor, the parents aren’t available and you assume they would want their child treated. This is called Implied Consent. Any person has the right to deny treatment for themselves and/or their children. They can even change their minds if you want to. The only thing you can do is explain what might happen if they don’t get that treatment.

    And that IS the law of the land. Your personal feelings don’t trump that.

    Comment by TGC — June 9, 2011 @ 5:49 pm - June 9, 2011

  190. They can even change their minds if you want to.

    Should have been They can even change their minds mid-treatment if they want to.

    Comment by TGC — June 9, 2011 @ 5:50 pm - June 9, 2011

  191. 188. Live_Wire. No, all you’ve shown is I favor legislative over judicial action as far as overturning it. I think gay marriage is for the betterment of society vs. child abuse which is towards the detriment.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 6:00 pm - June 9, 2011

  192. I stand corrected. Thank you, TGC.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 6:01 pm - June 9, 2011

  193. Vince,

    I can not decipher your meaning. Sorry, but you write in some sort of shorthand that befuddles me.

    Are we dealing with your personal concept of incest or the traditional legal definitions? I tried Wikipedia on you because their entries are pretty darn good on both incest and sexual intercourse.

    However, if you have your own patented definition of incest, then I quit the field.

    As to the Judeo-Christian ethic being elastic in comparison with moral relevancy, I guess you will have to explain that bit of discovered wisdom. Do you have an identifiable moral base or have cobbled something together that is mostly convenient from day to day? In other words, where does one go to read up on Vinci S. moral code and standard of ethics?

    Perhaps you can find a way to make clear, reasoned, definite statements. The sort of statements that delineate your belief system which serves you over a period of time longer than a momentary whim.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 9, 2011 @ 6:03 pm - June 9, 2011

  194. I think gay marriage is for the betterment of society vs. child abuse which is towards the detriment.

    One would have to wonder how gay marriage vs. child abuse becomes a topic of sensible debate.

    Any ideas what is going on here?

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 9, 2011 @ 6:06 pm - June 9, 2011

  195. Fine, Helio, have it your way. Have your distinction between gay and straight incest, if it matters to you. To me, a gay or straight parent molesting a child is a gay or straight parent molesting a child. Either way, it’s a violation of the parent/child bond. Apparently, to you, it’s important to make a distinction.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 6:09 pm - June 9, 2011

  196. Helio, I’m not the one who introduced child abuse into the discussion. But, if you want to make a point out of me using gay marriage and child abuse in the same sentence, like it means something, go ahead.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 6:10 pm - June 9, 2011

  197. Sorry Helio, I didn’t realize that the “Judeo-Christian ethic” has remained unchanged over the last 2000 years. That are social relationships have remain static. My mistake.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 6:13 pm - June 9, 2011

  198. So far we have
    “I can’t argue against your point, so I’ll ignore it.”
    “I can’t argue your point, so I’ll argue against this point that isn’t yours and claim victory!”
    “That would *never* happen! i said so!”
    And now we have “There are laws against that! Unlike the laws I want repealed, no one would ever ever repeal those laws.”

    Have I hit the varios points of Vince’s ever evolving answer to “What force makes the rules on age more involate than the rules on gender?”

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 9, 2011 @ 6:24 pm - June 9, 2011

  199. I’ve already relented, Live_Wire. Keep up with the conversation.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 6:34 pm - June 9, 2011

  200. Yeah, that too. Child-protective laws aren’t immune to social engineering. Okay, you won.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 6:36 pm - June 9, 2011

  201. 194.I think gay marriage is for the betterment of society vs. child abuse which is towards the detriment.

    Really?

    You still haven’t told us how sex with and marriage to underage children negatively affects your relationships.

    Why can’t you mind your own business and keep out of other peoples’ bedrooms, Vinci? What gives you the right to legislate your morality? The Greeks and Romans engaged in child sex and marriage. Several historical figures of note were pedophiles. Science has demonstrated that sexual attraction to children is significantly biologically-based and is difficult to change; why do you force pedophiles to closet themselves and never be allowed to marry or show commitment to that which they love?

    Clearly, Vinci, if you don’t support child marriage and age-blind relationships, you’re just a hater who supports Jim Crow laws and wants Loving v. Virginia to be overturned. Don’t you realize how much marriage has changed? Your views don’t even make historical or consistent sense.

    Now watch as Vinci decides not to answer these questions either — which are exactly the same ones he and his fellow gay-sex marriage supporters are using in favor of THEIR pet cause.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 9, 2011 @ 7:06 pm - June 9, 2011

  202. Now watch as Vinci decides not to answer these questions either

    “Really?” “Why can’t you mind your own business and keep out of other peoples’ bedrooms … What gives you the right to legislate your morality? … why do you force pedophiles to closet themselves and never be allowed to marry or show commitment to that which they love?” You’ve convinced me ND30. We do have the right. SSM is wrong.

    “Don’t you realize how much marriage has changed?” You’re right. Breaking from history will open the floodgates, slippery slope, etc.

    “Science has demonstrated that sexual attraction to children is significantly biologically-based and is difficult to change” It has? Sorry, I didn’t get the memo.

    I think that should cover it. If there are any questions I missed, please bring them to my attention, as I want to make sure that I answer them all.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 9, 2011 @ 7:18 pm - June 9, 2011

  203. Vince,

    While not the most unbiased source, Wikipedia talks about the biologic possible hardwiring.

    I know it’s one of the things that put me in ‘kill mode’ because there is nothing more wonderful than a child’s innocence, and for it to be ripped away in any fashion is bad enough. For it to be destroyed for the gratifaction of another… makes my blood boil. (see above for ‘if anyone hurt my kids’)

    There may be a mental or biological component. I don’t care. I’m a heterosexual male, I don’t go jumping anything female.

    To steal a line from Hammer’s Slammers “A razorblade in a watermellon isn’t evil. It is simply too dangerous to be allowed to exist.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 9, 2011 @ 7:32 pm - June 9, 2011

  204. Wow! This post has really generated the comment! I’ll add only one thing more and that’s a comment on Vinci’s love of instinct.

    Vinci boasted several comments back that his moral code is based on human instinct, as if human instinct were infallible. Apparently, Vinci thinks it is and that human instinct is the great stopping mechanism that will block the slippery slope and ensure that, once gays get the marriage franchise, social change will come to a screeching halt.

    Human instinct, Vinci believes, is what tells us that pedophilia is wrong, incest is wrong, and polygamy is wrong. The only problem is that human instinct apparently doesn’t work the same in everyone. For example, it didn’t tell the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Vikings, nor the modern day Pathans, Lepchas, and Trobriand Islanders, to name a few, that adult/child sex is wrong. I guess Vinci would consider these peoples to be biologically defective. And Harry Hay, too. You know, the great gay hero whose human instinct didn’t stop him from supporting NAMBLA.

    Hmmmmm. Human instinct is starting not to look so good. I think I’ll take my chances with “religious superstition”.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 9, 2011 @ 11:04 pm - June 9, 2011

  205. Seane-Anna, your moral code comes from religion, which is fine. But we have a lot of different moral codes out there that people use, many of them also from religion. The Greeks, Romans, and Vikings had religion as well (but I guess they were really only superstitions so that doesn’t count?). All the people I know, religious or otherwise, believe that pedophilia is wrong.

    Human instinct is starting not to look so good. I think I’ll take my chances with “religious superstition”.

    I’m going to let you in on a little secret. The moral code based on your religion (and everyone else’s) was also developed through human instinct. Since you are Christian, these are based on things that were written between 1900 and 3000 years ago. And there is not complete agreement what the moral code is. Perhaps you know the passage that you believe that says that God says pedophilia is bad. Ironically, I had heard that the Leviticus verse that states that God says that homosexuality is naughty was a mistranslation, and what God really is attributed to saying is that pedophilia is bad. Go figure.

    Regardless, a lot of religious people today, follow much of the tenets of the religion, but no longer believe that homosexuality is wrong. Just like 1900 years ago, a lot of people no longer believed that eating a cheeseburger was sinful.

    Comment by Pat — June 10, 2011 @ 6:28 am - June 10, 2011

  206. Two things Pat,

    I’m going to let you in on a little secret. The moral code based on your religion (and everyone else’s) was also developed through human instinct.

    Only if we’re wrong :P Though it seems to me, that most moral codes are build around rising above human instinct.

    Ironically, I had heard that the Leviticus verse that states that God says that homosexuality is naughty was a mistranslation, and what God really is attributed to saying is that pedophilia is bad. Go figure.

    I’ve recently become interested in annotated translations of the Torah discussing the variences and the like. As I told my sister “Yes, I’m a Chrstian, but when dealing with the old Testiment, I prefer primary sources. Heritic, remember?”

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 10, 2011 @ 9:25 am - June 10, 2011

  207. From #204:

    “The only problem is that human instinct apparently doesn’t work the same in everyone.”

    Nor does religion. Everyone still has to pick and choose a religion that suits their particular human instinct, or more likely, they just mindlessly adopt the religion of their parents or social environment.

    “Human instinct is starting not to look so good. I think I’ll take my chances with “religious superstition”.”

    My anecdotal observations indicate relatively high levels of human decency/morality among agnostics and atheists, whereas increasing levels of religiosity correlate with decreasing levels of human decency/morality.

    I find it incredible that so many people still look for moral guidance in an ancient holy book that manages to discuss the subject of slavery without condemning it. And then we must remember that the Southern Baptist Convention was established expressly to promote the legitimacy of slavery.

    The reality is that the secular world continues to lead the way toward increasing human decency, while the religious world drags it’s feet kicking and screaming every step of the way. And then years later the religionists have the audacity to take credit for it. We can always count on religion to seize credit for all human deeds deemed positive in hindsight, while deflecting responsibility for all human deeds deemed negative.

    Comment by Richard R — June 10, 2011 @ 10:06 am - June 10, 2011

  208. “The reality is that the secular world continues to lead the way toward increasing human decency, while the religious world drags it’s feet kicking and screaming every step of the way.”

    Millions of Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, and North Koreans were unavailable for comment.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 10, 2011 @ 10:27 am - June 10, 2011

  209. Pat,

    With all due respect, you miss the point. Western culture is flat out based on the Judeo-Christian ethic and the Bible.

    Islam believes that the Torah and the Gospels were dictated by God, but got distorted in translation and interpretation. God sent Gabriel to Muhammad who recited God’s words to him in Arabic. Qur’an means “recitation” in Arabic. Muhammad recited the words through his teaching and his scribes wrote them down. Technically, Islam can only be understood in the original Arabic which keeps it from being mistranslated. It is the literal word of God, which neither the Torah nor the Gospels are, to the Islamic world.

    There are huge differences between what God said in the Torah and Gospels and the Qur’an. Muslims believe that God perfected his message and gave his final word in the Qur’an. Obviously, this sets up a three-way contest between Jews, Christians and Muslims.

    The problem with people who kiss religion away, is that they fail to understand the ethic and moral codes being established in each of the foundational teachings.

    We have had “Bible stories” since long before the birth of Christ that gave people a code by which to live. These “Bible stories” are the “myths” and “superstitions” that the Levi’s of the world mock and deride with abandoned glee. You may take them as “creation myths” or total fact, but you can not deny their cohesive, underlying message for society.

    You may chose to draw your ethic or morality from elsewhere, but you can not act on that choice, because the Judea-Christian ethic is intertwined with every aspect of our culture.

    Now, if you permit Sharia to rear its head, you have a real culture game changer. That is because Sharia is based on the “final, complete, perfect” word of God. You can not retreat from it. There is no room for moral relevancy.

    Moral relevancy is picking and choosing what stirs you to defend or castigate. It is armchair ethics where you are the highest power and in control of right and wrong. You concede certain things for the convenience of smooth interaction in the public square, but you always reserve the right to be offended.

    English Common Law learned early on that moral relevancy is no way to conduct an orderly society. So, conduct was codified on the basis of the Judeo-Christian ethic and it grew from there.

    If you wish to be truly free of the Judeo-Christian ethic, you try to do what so many others have tried and form a commune somewhere. There you act on your communal “instincts” which eventually become rules and lead to desertion, expulsion or collapse. Is there a commune that has survived for centuries without adapting to the outside world?

    Short story: show me your basic non-Judeo-Christian ethic from which you operate. You can’t. It doesn’t exist. Better yet, show me the library of scholarly works that parallels the love and devotion spent on revealing the Judeo-Christian ethic.

    But what about all those Asians and others who are not part of Western Culture? Well, first you have to study the British Empire and see how much Judeo-Christian ethic was laid on the people around the world where the Judeo-Christian ethic was pushed aside for some other cultural foundation. Good luck.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 10, 2011 @ 10:37 am - June 10, 2011

  210. Richars R,

    You demand perfection as a reason for not striving to be perfect.

    Slavery was an abomination. The Inquisition was an abomination. Crucifixion was an abomination. Cannibalism is an abomination. Child molesting is an abomination. And …. so …. forth.

    Religion is a community gathering where people bring their “instincts” together and divide the good ones from the bad ones. Then rules occur and punishments are meted out. Maybe you get buried to your neck and stoned to death. Maybe you get thoroughly thrashed. Maybe you are placed in the stocks. Maybe you are banished. Maybe you lose your citizenship. Maybe you acknowledge your sin and atone and seek forgiveness.

    The religious community looks to a higher power and it learns from each other and from within. Eventually, the community understands, shares and extols a religious code of ethics and morality.

    The state can do all of this. Read Marx. The question always comes down to who is the enduring, lasting, highest authority? Castro? The line of monarchs? The Constitutional succession?

    When men and women sit around puzzle our morality and ethics the room is always full of Pelosi’s, Weiners, Trumps, Maddows, Bidens, Phelps, Palins, Chavez, Che’s and others.

    “Organized” religion deals with central messages that affect how people behave and encourages positive “instincts” and discourages negative “instincts” all for the purpose of peace and justice in the public square.

    Some individual parts and pieces in the goulash of “organized” religion take things too far or let important stuff slide. That is why you get to pick and choose your religion and even your congregation.

    My anecdotal observations indicate relatively high levels of human decency/morality among agnostics and atheists, whereas increasing levels of religiosity correlate with decreasing levels of human decency/morality.

    This is just stupid. Show me the intellectual gathering of agnostics and atheists who have studied out morality and ethics in great detail and built great libraries of their collected wisdom based on their instincts.

    Now show me the increasing degeneracy in morality and decency among those of “religiosity.”

    Fie on you, and your bumper sticker mobster mentality.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 10, 2011 @ 11:06 am - June 10, 2011

  211. Only if we’re wrong Though it seems to me, that most moral codes are build around rising above human instinct.

    I don’t think I’m wrong, but it wouldn’t be the first time, or the last, that I was wrong. However, I do think that the humans who built the moral code as found in the Bible were trying to rise above human instinct. It took off, and everybody made more of it than it really was, and we got Western Civilization. All good, but there’s always room for improvement. As I pointed out (and Heliotrope as well), changes have been made, even in the Bible itself. But I can’t stop the belief that Bible is humans making rules of what they believed God’s rules are, and I can’t make myself believe otherwise. That may make me a heretic as well, and God may damn me to hell, but I’m working with the brain God gave me.

    With all due respect, you miss the point. Western culture is flat out based on the Judeo-Christian ethic and the Bible.

    Heliotrope. I didn’t miss that point at all. I completely agree.

    There are huge differences between what God said in the Torah and Gospels and the Qur’an. Muslims believe that God perfected his message and gave his final word in the Qur’an. Obviously, this sets up a three-way contest between Jews, Christians and Muslims.

    It seems more like a 50 or so-way contest, with the various sects of each religion. And some with additional holy books. So even if you believe the Bible and/or Koran is the word of God, we’ve got a problem. We have many beliefs of what that word is. The only thing I disagree with you is that the Bible was the word of what humans thought what God’s word is, and that we have many interpretations of what that is.

    Now, if you permit Sharia to rear its head, you have a real culture game changer. That is because Sharia is based on the “final, complete, perfect” word of God. You can not retreat from it. There is no room for moral relevancy.

    Yes, the tyranny of believing that their truth is the only truth is quite dangerous indeed. One that I will not ever subscribe to. When powerful Christians, other religious, and non-religious (see Livewire’s examples) subscribed to that type of view, it wasn’t pretty.

    If you wish to be truly free of the Judeo-Christian ethic

    Something I don’t wish or plan to do.

    But what about all those Asians and others who are not part of Western Culture? Well, first you have to study the British Empire and see how much Judeo-Christian ethic was laid on the people around the world where the Judeo-Christian ethic was pushed aside for some other cultural foundation. Good luck.

    Thanks, but I won’t attempt it. But I imagine that many Buddhists, Hindus, etc. would take that challenge.

    Short story: show me your basic non-Judeo-Christian ethic from which you operate. You can’t. It doesn’t exist. Better yet, show me the library of scholarly works that parallels the love and devotion spent on revealing the Judeo-Christian ethic.

    Agreed again. I couldn’t even if I wanted to (which I don’t). But I can’t help treating religion like most of us treat just about everything else. We are taught certain things, and as we adults we accept those we find correct and modify or throw out what we believe is incorrect. Even those of us who’ve had wonderful parents don’t become clones of their parents thoughts and beliefs.

    Comment by Pat — June 10, 2011 @ 11:14 am - June 10, 2011

  212. A few months ago, in the heat of the tragic teen suicides that came about from intolerance of homosexuality, I saw a man on television who was apologizing for wishing death on gays from his facebook page. This member of an Arkansas school board was contrite for the violence in his words, but maintained that his values pertaining to homosexuality would remain, as he felt homosexuality was condemned in the bible. This concept, while foreign to me, is interesting, as it used to justify so much judgement and separation in our society. When my daughter came home from school one day saying that a classmate had two mommies, my response was, ‘Two mommies? How lucky is she?!’ What does it actually say in the bible that will cause some people to be upset by my line of thinking? Happy pride.” – Oscar-winning actress Gwyneth Paltrow, writing on her personal blog. via jmg

    Comment by rusty — June 10, 2011 @ 11:46 am - June 10, 2011

  213. Pat, if I may add one difference between the Talmud/Bible and the Koran.

    Most of my brothers in Chr_st admit that the Bible was the word of G_d written by men, and as such can be interpreted differently. One of the tennants of Islam, as listed above, is that it is the literal word of Allah, and as such isn’t subject to revelations. It makes it much less likely a ‘Muslim Martin Luther’ would be able to emerge in the Muslim enclaves.

    BTW, we had another Somali Muslim picked up for supporting terror groups… In Westerville Ohio.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 10, 2011 @ 12:08 pm - June 10, 2011

  214. @rusty,

    Anthing can be used to “used to justify so much judgement” To single religion out as one is a false flag.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 10, 2011 @ 12:10 pm - June 10, 2011

  215. Where Biblical testimony is internally inconsistent (and even Jesus experienced it this way!), I am bound to honor Jesus as my final court of appeal. And thus, the bottom line must inescapably be that nowhere does Jesus condemn homosexuality, and certainly nowhere does he wish harm upon anyone, even those whom the religious culture is so quick to condemn as sinners. priest and author Cynthia Bourgeault

    Read More http://www.ivillage.com/gwyneth-paltrows-goop-newsletter-sparks-homosexuality-debate/1-a-356956#ixzz1OtHcGR1t
    Sign up for iVillage Special Offers

    Comment by rusty — June 10, 2011 @ 12:20 pm - June 10, 2011

  216. From #214:

    “Anthing can be used to “used to justify so much judgement” To single religion out as one is a false flag.”

    Yes, lots of things can be used, but I don’t just think religion is merely one of them, I think it is number one on the list: There is absolutely nothing that consistently provides people with more certainty that their deeds are righteous than believing a god is on their side.

    Comment by Richard R — June 10, 2011 @ 12:35 pm - June 10, 2011

  217. LW this just popped up on my FB from a dear friend
    “You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say.” – Martin Luther

    I responded Silence is Deafening
    In the end, we won’t remember the words of our enemies, but we will remember the silence of our friends. -Martin Luther King, Jr

    Comment by rusty — June 10, 2011 @ 12:42 pm - June 10, 2011

  218. Thank you Rusty,

    Now I went to wikiquote and found a new quote to annoy my sister with about the ELCA:
    “When we are inclined to boast of our position [as Christians] we should remember that we are but Gentiles, while the Jews are of the lineage of Christ. We are aliens and in-laws; they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord. Therefore, if one is to boast of flesh and blood the Jews are actually nearer to Christ than we are. ”

    Thought I think we an all agree worring about what I don’t say is the least of my problems ;-)

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 10, 2011 @ 12:51 pm - June 10, 2011

  219. Most of my brothers in Chr_st admit that the Bible was the word of G_d written by men, and as such can be interpreted differently. One of the tennants of Islam, as listed above, is that it is the literal word of Allah, and as such isn’t subject to revelations. It makes it much less likely a ‘Muslim Martin Luther’ would be able to emerge in the Muslim enclaves.

    Ironically enough, there are two major branches of Islam that apparently have the same philosophy, but they of course, differ on what the truth is. So they’re not always crazy about each other either.

    I don’t come into contact with too many Muslims. I have a neighbor across the street, and some students. So far, any contact with them has been no worse than neutral. I just imagine that plenty, and would like to think most, globally, don’t subscribe to “my way of the highway” philosophy. So I do think there will be an equilvalent (or something similar) version of a Martin Luther in Islam. But that will be a lifetime or two away at the very least. In the meantime, we have to defend ourselves as best we can to those who not only have such attitudes, but make it as bloody as possible.

    Comment by Pat — June 10, 2011 @ 12:57 pm - June 10, 2011

  220. This has been a wonderful exchange! I wish were able to participate, but I don’t believe I am intellectually equal to the task.

    It has been great reading though and for the last 20 or so comments I’ve been reminded of something my father (a brilliant man) told me a few years before his death; “God’s revelation is not complete”. And then he reminded me of Christ’s admonition to love.

    Comment by David in N.O. — June 10, 2011 @ 3:06 pm - June 10, 2011

  221. I don’t believe I am intellectually equal to the task.

    Horsehockey. Especially where the discussion of the Judeo-Christian ethic is concerned. No one has to delve into deep scholarship to be ethical or moral.

    The moral relevancy crowd is too certain of their enlightened “instincts” to be seriously curious, but it never hurts anyone to explore with an open mind.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 10, 2011 @ 7:00 pm - June 10, 2011

  222. “The reality is that the secular world continues to lead the way toward increasing human decency, while the religious world drags it’s feet kicking and screaming every step of the way.”

    Where “decency” is defined as killing inconvenient babies and encouraging people to engage in behavior that spreads disease and heartache.

    Comment by V the K — June 10, 2011 @ 7:59 pm - June 10, 2011

  223. I don’t know Helio, there are some very intelligent people commenting here, such as yourself, but I’m afraid I can’t keep up. It’s still a good experience to read through.

    Comment by David in N.O. — June 10, 2011 @ 8:33 pm - June 10, 2011

  224. Ah, rusty, such an interesting statement.

    Where Biblical testimony is internally inconsistent (and even Jesus experienced it this way!),

    That is an impossible statement, inasmuch as Jesus is God, and if the Bible is in fact God’s divinely inspired Word, it would not be contradictory to Him.

    Logic fail one on your part.

    I am bound to honor Jesus as my final court of appeal.

    Whose words are recorded in the Bible, which you have just stated is inconsistent and thus is not accurate.

    Logic fail two on your part. But do go on.

    And thus, the bottom line must inescapably be that nowhere does Jesus condemn homosexuality

    Nor does he condemn rape, incest, or child molestation. Therefore, by your impeccable logic, all must be endorsed and allowable.

    and certainly nowhere does he wish harm upon anyone, even those whom the religious culture is so quick to condemn as sinners

    Oh, Jesus makes quite clear the consequences of sin and, as we see in examples such as the moneylenders in the temple, He had no problem harming people when necessary.

    Indeed, Jesus was quite good at harming people — if you interpret harm, as this “priest” does, in not accepting and promoting adultery, abortion, and all the other things that the modern left holds up as sacraments.

    In short, rusty, you just quoted a priest whose logic and Scriptural veracity have more holes than Swiss cheese. But of course, she supports the leftist dogma, so she becomes an authority.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 11, 2011 @ 1:20 am - June 11, 2011

  225. My anecdotal observations indicate relatively high levels of human decency/morality among agnostics and atheists, whereas increasing levels of religiosity correlate with decreasing levels of human decency/morality.

    Funny, actual science and facts seem to differ.

    Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

    Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

    “Actually, the truth is that they’re giving to more than their churches,” he says. “The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities.”

    And even more interesting:

    “You find that people who believe it’s the government’s job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away,” Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, “The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can’t take care of themselves,” are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

    Liberals like Richard R invariably try this line; what it really means is that they support using the government to take other peoples’ money, and since liberals are overwhelmingly more likely to cheat on taxes — as we see from noted liberal tax cheats like John Kerry, Charles Rangel, Tim Geithner, Hilda Solis, and Kathleen Sebelius, all of whom are considered highly decent and moral human beings by liberals — they don’t actually have to follow through.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 11, 2011 @ 1:28 am - June 11, 2011

  226. #125 “Furthermore, we need to clarify what constitutes “gay” as a class of humans different from other classes. In doing so, we need to openly decide if what differentiates “gays” as a class is harmful, neutral or beneficial to society as a whole. We could compare and contrast gays as a class with child lovers as a class. What are their similarities and what are their differences in contrast to society in general.”

    Gays shouldn’t be a class that is different from other classes. Nor should race. Biological factors should not constitute a class.

    #198 “What force makes the rules on age more involate than the rules on gender?”

    Homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia. Obviously, pedophilia is wrong under all circumstances. Children are not generally capable of making a rational decision as an adult would be.

    #201 “Science has demonstrated that sexual attraction to children is significantly biologically-based and is difficult to change; why do you force pedophiles to closet themselves and never be allowed to marry or show commitment to that which they love?”

    No it hasn’t. (http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia?tab=Causes)

    #204 “Human instinct, Vinci believes, is what tells us that pedophilia is wrong, incest is wrong, and polygamy is wrong. The only problem is that human instinct apparently doesn’t work the same in everyone. For example, it didn’t tell the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Vikings, nor the modern day Pathans, Lepchas, and Trobriand Islanders, to name a few, that adult/child sex is wrong. I guess Vinci would consider these peoples to be biologically defective. And Harry Hay, too. You know, the great gay hero whose human instinct didn’t stop him from supporting NAMBLA.”

    That pedophilia, incest, and polygamy are wrong is a construct of Western civilization. Homosexuality, per se, is not wrong because it is caused by biology and cannot be changed. Pedophilia may be caused by biology, but it is still wrong (see above). Someone engaging in incest or polygamy does not do so because of biology. Both of these things are considered immoral in Western civilization, and cannot be supported on the basis of biology.

    “Hmmmmm. Human instinct is starting not to look so good. I think I’ll take my chances with “religious superstition”.”

    That religion may be considered superstition does not necessarily mean that the values it entails are misguided. One does not need to be religious in order to follow its value system and base his or her morals on it.

    Comment by Naamloos — June 11, 2011 @ 2:15 am - June 11, 2011

  227. NDT, your mistake is in assuming that conservatives and liberals define decency the same way. To the conservative, decency means treating others kindly, and giving of yourself to charitable causes. To the liberal, it means mouthing the approved politically correct platitudes and demanding that other people’s money be spent on your pet causes.

    This is why Anthony Weiner epitomizes liberal decency. His actions were those of a pig; but when it came to mouthing the platitudes and taking other people’s money, he was a liberal saint.

    Comment by V the K — June 11, 2011 @ 10:34 am - June 11, 2011

  228. David, despite any of us sounding certain about any of this discussion, no one can claim to be an expert, and no one knows the truth for sure.

    One question I have is, can homosexuality and having a homosexual lifestyle be compatible with the Judeo-Christian ethic and moral code? And if so, what are the parameters that are consistent with this moral code?

    1. Must homosexuals be celibate, or if not, work towards celibacy, just like we should work at eliminating sin and other shortcomings in our life?

    2. What status should our relationships take? Should we keep it quiet and sweep it under the rug? Should we and our relationships (even committed, monogamous relationships) be considered inferior to our heterosexual betters. Or can we proud of ourselves and our relationships just like straight persons?

    3. How should we treat our children who are gay? Should we treat them and/or their sexuality like pariahs while still loving them. Or do we instill them with the same confidence and self-esteem, and encourage them to date and marry/Fred an appropriate partner as we do with our straight children? Or is there a middle ground here?

    Comment by Pat — June 11, 2011 @ 2:15 pm - June 11, 2011

  229. V the K at @227, you hit it out of the ballpark.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 11, 2011 @ 2:32 pm - June 11, 2011

  230. Pat, I am really going to miss this thread when it moves to page two and becomes forgotten. As to your basic question, my belief is yes. There are plenty of people who won’t agree with me, but that really doesn’t matter. What anyone else believes doesn’t really impact my own spirital journey or my relationship with God. As for the parameters and moral codes, I just try do the best I can. I will always fall short, but I never stop trying. I do know I feel the presence of God in my life.

    As for your other questions:

    1. I don’t believe so, but I have several friends who do and I support their choice. As I have said before, I have been in a monogamous relationship for nearly 26 years. We are now near 50 years old and are as much in love as ever. He is my rock and the source of all my happiness. We have had a very blessed life together. Which brings me to…..

    2. I believe it is important for same sex couple in stable committed monogamous relationships to be examples for younger gays and to our hetero friends and neighbors. By presenting a different face of gays other than images of pride parades, etc. can only be a positive in my estimation.

    3. This is a tough one and I don’t have a clue as to what should or should not be done. Ideally I believe all parents should be completely accepting of their gay children, but we both know that is not going to be the case. I am going to give you a very abbreviated account of what happened to me as a teenager. I was outed to my parents by the headmaster of my school. I was sent away to a very expensive “conversion center” ran by a religious group. It was physically and mentally (mostly) abusive. Someone there actually tried to kill themself and my grandmother found out and she and my mother had me removed and brought home. I was there about 3 weeks. I hope the bastards that ran that place are in hell. Here’s the kicker – my parents, at that time anyway, were not particularly religious (Episcopal), so it was not so much worry for my soul, but concern that I could not possibly be happy as a homosexual. My parents wanted me to be happy because they loved me. Unfortunately they took some bad advice (the headmaster again) and off I went. It took some years, but we worked through it. By the time I met Doc, (oddly enough, they met him at the same time) our relationship was close and he was accepted into my family with no reservations or hesitancy.

    The point to all that is I believe most parents desire happiness for their children because they love them and this is just my opinion, but I fear that because of things such as AIDS, negative images seen in the media etc, cause parents to worry. As far as the parents who disown, treat like pariahs etc because of religious beliefs, I don’t know what the answer is. I cringe when I think about it because of my experience with the fanatics at the conversion camp, but ultimately I can’t advocate against parental control of their children.

    We are now living in a time where it is impossible not to know someone who is openly gay. I am thinking of all our nieces and nephews who love their FABULOUS uncles and causes me to have hope that the things rightfully concern in your 3rd question will resolve themselves. Maybe that is simplistic of me, but there you are.

    I always enjoy in reading your comments.

    David

    Comment by David in N.O. — June 11, 2011 @ 7:35 pm - June 11, 2011

  231. #198 “What force makes the rules on age more involate than the rules on gender?”

    Homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia. Obviously, pedophilia is wrong under all circumstances. Children are not generally capable of making a rational decision as an adult would be.

    And Homosexuality used to be considered a ‘mental illness’ and since the mentally ill ” are not generally capable of making a rational decision…”

    And children used to be allowed to be married, and in some cultures still are.

    Again, the argument of “No one would ever change those laws” is hollow.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 11, 2011 @ 10:41 pm - June 11, 2011

  232. #231

    You are right. The fact that pedophilia is wrong because children are not rational enough to made decisions on relationships, sex, marriage et cetera does not necessarily make age of consent laws inviolate. But, unlike homosexuality, I can’t possibly justify pedophilia for any reason (even if it were to be no longer classified as a mental illness). I agree with your sentiment that “there is nothing more wonderful than a child’s innocence, and for it to be ripped away in any fashion is bad enough. For it to be destroyed for the gratifaction of another… makes my blood boil.” It would take a hell of a paradigm shift for pedophilia to become accepted in (Western) society. Maybe the same thing was being said about homosexuality 60 years ago, I don’t know. But its seems to me as though society is moving towards acceptance of homosexuality and away from acceptance of having sex with children.

    And to be clear, I am not supporting gay marriage. I believe that, since it so highly regarded as an institution by some people, that it would be disrespectful to fundamentally alter its definition in the name of political correctness (especially when civil unions or some other alternative would suffice). But the argument against gay marriage that compares homosexuality to pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality is hollow because those things are not comparable.

    Comment by Naamloos — June 12, 2011 @ 2:22 am - June 12, 2011

  233. If you want to be technical about it, the DSM does not classify paedophilia as a mental illness unless the paedophile feels “distress” about it. i.e. According to the psychological community, if you are a pedo and you’re happy about it, you’re not mentall ill.

    Comment by V the K — June 12, 2011 @ 8:18 am - June 12, 2011

  234. David, thanks for your answers. I enjoy reading them myself.

    1. I don’t know of any persons who are gay and celibate (or intend to be), but I would support their choice if they were. Heck, that would also be true for straight persons.

    2. Couldn’t agree more.

    3. I’m sorry to hear what you had to endure as a teen and young adult. That was very trying, and glad you were able to overcome it with flying colors. Even though I never had to endure, I also cringe when I hear stories about parents who can’t get themselves to accept their gay children, and worse yet, make it horrible for them. I heard a story once of a mother of a gay son who wished her son was a drug addict instead. I understand parents being taken aback when they first find out their child is gay. And I can understand some of the reasons they wouldn’t want their child to be gay: AIDS, perception that all gays are promscuous, drug users, etc. But there are plenty of examples of people like us in which that is simply not true. They may even see their child as an adult act responsibly, but that is still not good enough, and that’s just shameful, in my opinion.

    I don’t advocate for parental control by the government either, unless, of course, it turns to neglect or abuse (which is covered by most state laws). But like any other bad behaviors, I don’t want it to be considered acceptable either. As time goes on, it appears that is more the case. So that’s a good sign.

    Comment by Pat — June 12, 2011 @ 8:44 am - June 12, 2011

  235. “believe that, since it so highly regarded as an institution by some people”

    That should be: “believe that, since marriage is so…”

    Comment by Naamloos — June 12, 2011 @ 6:01 pm - June 12, 2011

  236. Thank you for the clarification, Naamloos.

    Yes, it would take a ‘fundamental paradigm shift’. For better or worse, we’ve seen a great number of those in the past 250 years. Most have been ‘better’ to our 21st century thinking, some have not (I’d prefer public duels to still be legal for example :P)

    My concern with the court route (besides it being the wrong route) is that it lays out a precident for others to take the same path. Look at the court cases we had to get to Roe v. Wade. We went from “Married couples can’t be barred from contraception” to “No one can be barred contraception.” to “Hey, abortion is legal!” (simplified to be certain.)

    Likewise, look at the path Lawrence v. Texas started, complete with the Justices in the majority arguing “No one would ever use this ruling that way!”

    (for the Record, I think the courts got Lawrence wrong. Yes it’s a damn stupid and bad law. Despite what Levi thinks, “Bad Laws” can pass Constitutional muster. And good laws can be Unconstitutional. Sodomy laws need(ed) to be repealed in the legislature, not overturned by bipolar courts ignoring precident.)

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 13, 2011 @ 8:31 am - June 13, 2011

  237. Ed Whelan’s discussion about Griswold to Roe

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 13, 2011 @ 1:05 pm - June 13, 2011

  238. [...] we provide to conduct serious discussions of the issue of the day, most recently in my post on Anthony Weiner and marriage, all too often the tone of the comments drives away some of our critics — as well as some of [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Of Comments & Civility, iv — June 15, 2011 @ 4:23 pm - June 15, 2011

  239. I find it sad that anyone of God’s green earth can’t set their political beliefs aside to agree that pedophilia is wrong.

    Comment by Vinci S. — June 19, 2011 @ 4:50 am - June 19, 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.

0.795 Powered by Wordpress