GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/01/20/marriage-rights-and-motives/trackback/

  1. servative Fires Back at Gingrich for ‘Stupid’ Gay Marriage Remark

    By Audrey Barrick | Christian Post Reporter
    A conservative supporter of traditional marriage denounced Newt Gingrich’s recent remarks that same-sex marriage is essentially inevitable.
    “Newt Gingrich has provided valuable public service to America,” said Frank Schubert, national political director for National Organization for Marriage. “But sometimes good men say stupid things, and this is one of those times.”
    Gingrich still believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman but he told The Huffington Post last week that he’s accepting the “reality” that same-sex marriage will be legal in more states.
    “It is in every family. It is in every community. The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to … accommodate and deal with reality,” the former House speaker and GOP presidential candidate said. “And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states — and it will be more after 2014 — gay relationships will be legal, period.”

    Comment by rusty — January 20, 2013 @ 6:13 pm - January 20, 2013

  2. http://m.christianpost.com/news/conservative-fires-back-at-gingrich-for-stupid-gay-marriage-remark–87186/

    Comment by rusty — January 20, 2013 @ 6:15 pm - January 20, 2013

  3. Nice article thanks for posting this.

    Gingrich is right. Its going to happen and its just a matter of time. The momentum is clearly on the side of “Gay marriage” folks and in 30 years folks will look back at this and say “did people really care about this?”

    Regarding Sullivan, I think you are too quick to dismiss him here. Sure he is a over-the-top. However what you see as a quest for validation, for me is for the same thing that folks did when gay folks first started to come out of the closet. He is making a “right / wrong” argument and using an emotional first person appeal to highlight it. In effect, he has said “screw the arguments, I will become a symbol.” And in my opinion, it takes visible symbols for homosexuality to be recognized as a regular part of society. Without the trailblazers of folks who came out in the past, the progress that gay folks have had in being accepted in daily life would not have happened.

    We have had a lot of progress in recent years. And in my opinion its because of the folks who stoop up and said “your dislike of gays personally effects me.” Generally when you put a face on homosexuality the issue starts to move forward – Daniel Choi for an example. This is basically what Sully is doing – however w/o the risks that the first folks did as he does comfortably from his east coast apartment.

    Comment by mike — January 20, 2013 @ 10:51 pm - January 20, 2013

  4. Rusty–That’s interesting about Gingrich. I had missed that story.
    Mike–Thanks for your response. You’re right to describe Sullivan’s argument as “an emotional first person appeal,” but I’d still disagree about its efficacy in this context. The first person appeal works well when one’s essential humanity is questioned, but I see it as overkill here. He is saying that only having the state call gay marriage by the word “marriage” will make up for his own past feelings of self-doubt or inadequacy, which seems to be expecting a lot from government.

    Comment by Kurt — January 21, 2013 @ 12:01 am - January 21, 2013

  5. Any discussion of motives on the gay left is incomplete without acknowledging that many are motivated to “win” the gay marriage argument as a vulgar display of power and an “In Yer Face” to the Christian Right. This is why civil unions — conveying identical benefits — are not acceptable. The gay left are like spoiled two year olds shrieking “I don’t what that toy, I want *his* toy.”

    And, frankly, some of us find the whole idea that one needs to be “validated” via Government approval pathetic and offensive. Buying a book doesn’t make you an intellectual. Buying a jockstrap doesn’t make you an athlete. And having a piece of paper signed by a bureaucrat doesn’t make your existence meaningful. And that so many are willing to embrace national bankruptcy to get that piece of paper, just for the illusion of validation, is our national tragedy.

    As for Andrew Sullivan, his Quixotic quest for validation from the Government has led him to become a hateful, deranged conspiracy theorist who can’t hold a job. There’s a moral lesson in that, to those who are willing to hear it.

    Comment by V the K — January 21, 2013 @ 8:49 am - January 21, 2013

  6. I put it very simply.

    When one compares sites like Focus on the Family to gay-sex marriage websites, one notes something very stark.

    Focus on the Family, in addition to its position on gay-sex marriage, has sections on the importance of pre-marital counseling, divorce avoidance, how to build better relationships, and the need for respect and communication within marriage.

    The gay-sex marriage sites have nothing but anti-religious, anti-Republican, and anti-conservative ranting, along with screams about how they “deserve” marriage.

    The former focuses on the importance of marriage as an institution and the values and virtues necessary to maintain marriage; the latter says nothing about marriage itself and focuses on demeaning and bashing Republicans, conservatives, and religious beliefs.

    The leaders of the pro-family movement speak out against divorce and infidelity and in favor of communication and commitment; the leaders of the gay-sex marriage movement like Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan push promiscuity and insist that monogamy and commitment are “hurtful” and “fake”.

    Which really demonstrates V the K’s point; gay-sex marriage is nothing but anti-religious bigotry and hatred.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 21, 2013 @ 10:54 am - January 21, 2013

  7. [Comment deleted at the request of the commenter.]

    Comment by heliotrope — January 21, 2013 @ 11:29 am - January 21, 2013

  8. Oh, now, NDT, you know honest comparison and contrasting is unauthorized. People are only supposed to believe the “victim’s” side.

    Comment by Douglas — January 21, 2013 @ 11:30 am - January 21, 2013

  9. There is no law… and no effort to create a law… preventing same sex couples from committing to relationships, or from holding ceremonies to celebrate those relationships. The longevity and commitment of those relationships is what “validates” them; not a piece of paper signed by a bureaucrat.

    Comment by V the K — January 21, 2013 @ 11:34 am - January 21, 2013

  10. I’ve long felt that if the movement were really about gay rights and not about leftist dogma, the leaders of gay groups would recognize that gay conservatives are a necessary part of their “rainbow.”

    Just as leftists have embraced oppression while preaching toleration, this comes close to expressing the search for an improper validation many of us abhor.

    Comment by Ignatius — January 21, 2013 @ 11:46 am - January 21, 2013

  11. That’s a good critique, Ignatius, but my aim in making the point is not to seek validation, but to point out one of the key ironies of the gay establishment’s alliance with the left.

    Comment by Kurt — January 21, 2013 @ 12:20 pm - January 21, 2013

  12. With GOProud’s growth, its leaders have now sought to begin work on the state and local level. According to GOProud Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia, this shift in focus is what led the group to put its support behind same-sex marriage campaigns.

    “This decision came about as a result of our growth,” LaSalvia told Metro Weekly. “We have this demand from folks across the country to build state and local chapters and that made it necessary to state what our principles are when it comes to marriage, since that is an issue decided at the local level.”

    Comment by rusty — January 21, 2013 @ 12:21 pm - January 21, 2013

  13. http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2013/01/goproud-endorses-same-sex-marriage-efforts.html

    Comment by rusty — January 21, 2013 @ 12:21 pm - January 21, 2013

  14. The longevity and commitment of those relationships is what “validates” them; not a piece of paper signed by a bureaucrat.

    No! It’s the free stuff, dammit! And the right to be lazy in our personal affairs. Who needs a freaking will when a marriage license will suffice? [After all, isn't the state supposed to take care of you and all your needs?] Who needs complex documents like medical powers of attorney and living wills and other documents expressing one’s desires and wishes when they are not able to express them when a silly little paper signed by a lower level bureaucrat will do?

    Part of me can’t wait when the much-vaunted sacred (the non-religious context, of course) and holy (again, the non-religious context) institution of marriage is finally available to every Tom, Dick, and Harriet regardless of gender and those who have wailed and screamed to be allowed to enter into that arrangement eventually discover that it doesn’t offer what they think it offers, and indeed, becomes an albatross around their necks in many respects.

    Comment by RSG — January 21, 2013 @ 7:37 pm - January 21, 2013

  15. Good article.

    I will chime in that perhaps the best and most persuasive argument here is just the one for the benefits of marriage.

    Marriage itself is an institution representing a public vow to be faithful and committed to the person you love. It represents a maturation of the individual who now is no longer just a selfish person living and acting exclusively in their own interests. In essence it’s a growing up of the individual from the “Peter Pan” youth (gay men? hello!) and playing to the adult phase where you make better decisions and don’t make every decision selfishly.

    Dennis Prager, oddly enough, makes this argument and case for marriage in one of his “Youtube University” videos.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPJ3IalMRV4
    His argument is that there are many benefits and joys to sharing your life with someone else instead of going through it alone. Additionally, one could market this to straight people as less chance of STD’s (thus less public health money going to things like how to use condoms/HIV) less money going to mental health, more economic benefits as people acquire wealth, etc.

    Prager is actually arguing to society in general, and men, specifically, about the benefits of marriage. Considering how many people these days don’t get married purely because of the huge economic costs and marriage is now largely becoming a socioeconomic marker of the more wealthy, it’s interesting he’s now having to make the case as a religious guy to society in general about why it’s a good thing. But we should realize his arguments are equally good for gay folk.

    Hopefully in the future we can argue the case for gay marriage in more personal and sharing terms instead of shouting and bullying, as it’s currently done.

    Comment by Tim in MT — January 21, 2013 @ 10:03 pm - January 21, 2013

  16. I believe that the push for gay marriage comes partly from two different places philosophically: one is the desire by gay couples to have the same sorts of legal and financial privileges as straight, married couples, which is a consequence of having written laws and policies designed to provide special status to married couples; but the second place it comes from is what has been called “the politics of recognition,” i.e., the desire of gay people to have their worth recognized or validated in some sense through public policy. The second push comes more from a psychological need which might be emotionally appealing, but which doesn’t necessarily qualify it as good policy. The first comes from a more legitimate grievance against a government with an interest in deciding which sorts of relationships are “more equal than others.” (The first motive–and kind of argument–is also, incidentally, key to winning over more conservative and libertarian kinds of voters.) The two different strands of the argument can exist together in a kind of symbiosis, but separated, they are potentially at odds with each other.

    The first argument is the one that matters, and the second one is almost completely imaginary. Gays were up until very recently a heavily-vilified minority. When the government appears to be endorsing that vilification by discriminating against gays, the stupider among us are more liable to make negative assumptions about gay people. People see the government doing it and they think that gives them cover. It’s wise strategy then, to try to get government to stop discriminating against gays, because that takes away one of the avenues for someone to justify their homophobia.

    It’s a deliberate misinterpretation to pretend that this means that gays are looking for validation from the government. Gays aren’t looking to be validated, they’re looking to be treated like everyone else. Gays aren’t asking the government to give them special privileges, they’re asking the government to stop make specific rules that only apply to them. They’re not lobbying for special treatment from the government, they’re actually lobbying to stop the government from giving them special treatment. They’re certainly not asking anyone to pass judgment on their lifestyle, so where does this nonsense about validation come from?

    People are frequently accused of projecting in their political arguments, and I think that most definitely applies here. In reality, it’s the Christians who are looking for the government to validate them, because they want the definition of marriage in this country to be based on Christian history and Christian traditions and Christian morality. Christians who oppose gay marriage think their religion is very special, and want government to recognize just how special by making their religious preferences the law of the land. This is, quite demonstrably, an effort on the part of Christians to receive validation from the government, is it not? As the years go by, Christianity is having a harder and harder time in the marketplace of ideas, so they are looking for other ways to get credibility. One of those ways involves getting the secular United States government to force everyone to live according to the Christian Right’s religious rules.

    So yes, you’re very much projecting when you start talking about ‘the politics of recognition.’ The gays are ascendant. They’re all over the place, and people just don’t care. The opposite is true of the religious right – they are not popular and they keep losing elections. Now, generally speaking, is a popular group that is doing well more or less likely to be seeking government validation compared to an unpopular group that isn’t doing well?

    Comment by Levi — January 22, 2013 @ 10:42 am - January 22, 2013

  17. Kurt,

    I don’t see a difference between self-appointed gay spokesmen and leftist dogma except in details. Thus, I see no irony but then I’m a gay rights atheist — they don’t exist.

    Comment by Ignatius — January 22, 2013 @ 11:19 am - January 22, 2013

  18. So… according to Levi, Left-handed people should have special ‘rights’ too? After all, without government programs for lefties who “were up until very recently a heavily-vilified minority.” Lefties will never amount to anything…

    Gays aren’t looking to be validated, they’re looking to be treated like everyone else.

    And how are they not treated like ‘everyone else’, Levi?
    Oh, and welcome back Levi, for another beating. I thought heliotrope had cured your masochistic nature.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 22, 2013 @ 12:43 pm - January 22, 2013

  19. And Levi proves the point: he pushes gay-sex marriage because he sees it as a convenient way of using governmental power to punish Christians, who he hates.

    Levi is an anti-religious bigot, and he proves nicely that gay-sex marriage is only a means of validating his own anti religious hate. He needs the government to punish Christians because then he can defend his irrational hate.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 22, 2013 @ 12:47 pm - January 22, 2013

  20. Marriage itself is an institution representing a public vow to be faithful and committed to the person you love. It represents a maturation of the individual who now is no longer just a selfish person living and acting exclusively in their own interests.

    One could extend that argument into saying it’s also about fostering a sense of community, both in the context of how the marriage is performed (eg, within a religious environment) and the larger community of which that couple resides. However, that’s often not how it goes.

    A lesbian friend of mine who is a pastor in a nearby community recalls that when she was pastor of a church in Iowa after that state made same-gender marriage legal, she was approached by a number of couples who wanted to be married in the church.

    After all was vowed and done and said couples were on their way to becoming ecstatically and eternally betrothed, she would approach them about becoming involved in the church and part of the faith community who provided the building for them to have their celebration of equality. Oh no, no, no…we don’t want any part of that foolishness. We just want the wedding of our dreams.

    Needless to say, she found it quite disheartening.

    Comment by RSG — January 22, 2013 @ 1:25 pm - January 22, 2013

  21. After all was vowed and done and said couples were on their way to becoming ecstatically and eternally betrothed, she would approach them about becoming involved in the church and part of the faith community who provided the building for them to have their celebration of equality. Oh no, no, no…we don’t want any part of that foolishness. We just want the wedding of our dreams.

    That is sad. It’s kind of doubly sad, since it reads (to me) as a “We want to use your stuff (church, ceremonies, etc) but not follow your rules.”

    A very dishearening attitude, and frightenly common.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 22, 2013 @ 1:44 pm - January 22, 2013

  22. One could extend that argument into saying it’s also about fostering a sense of community, both in the context of how the marriage is performed (eg, within a religious environment) and the larger community of which that couple resides. However, that’s often not how it goes.

    A lesbian friend of mine who is a pastor in a nearby community recalls that when she was pastor of a church in Iowa after that state made same-gender marriage legal, she was approached by a number of couples who wanted to be married in the church.

    After all was vowed and done and said couples were on their way to becoming ecstatically and eternally betrothed, she would approach them about becoming involved in the church and part of the faith community who provided the building for them to have their celebration of equality. Oh no, no, no…we don’t want any part of that foolishness. We just want the wedding of our dreams.

    Needless to say, she found it quite disheartening.

    It makes no difference why marriage appeals to people. For some people, it’s about community, no doubt. For others, it’s about commitment. It’s a good first step if your plan is to start a family. Some people just want to have their turn in the spotlight and throw a big party. Who is to say marriage is about one of those things more than any other? It means different things to different people, so why should anyone be concerned about the opinion of you or your lesbian pastor friend?

    Comment by Levi — January 22, 2013 @ 1:47 pm - January 22, 2013

  23. I can imagine very little that is more pathetic than getting married as a political statement.

    Comment by V the K — January 22, 2013 @ 1:57 pm - January 22, 2013

  24. It makes no difference why marriage appeals to people. For some people, it’s about community, no doubt. For others, it’s about commitment. It’s a good first step if your plan is to start a family. Some people just want to have their turn in the spotlight and throw a big party. Who is to say marriage is about one of those things more than any other? It means different things to different people, so why should anyone be concerned about the opinion of you or your lesbian pastor friend?

    Comment by Levi — January 22, 2013 @ 1:47 pm – January 22, 2013

    And once again, the screaming antireligious bigot and liar Levi makes it clear that marriage has no value to the left other than as an attack on religion and religious belief.

    It’s amazing what a lying coward and bigot Levi is. Notice how Levi screams that a lesbian’s viewpoint doesn’t matter, that her beliefs are worthless, when they don’t agree with Levi’s. It shows that Levi is nothing more than a homophobe who is trying to use gay people as an excuse to push his hate agenda.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 22, 2013 @ 2:43 pm - January 22, 2013

  25. I can imagine very little that is more pathetic than getting married as a political statement.

    Who cares what you think? Maybe someone thinks your reasons for getting married are pathetic. You don’t think we should be making laws based on subjective opinions about how pathetic somebody is, do you?

    Comment by Levi — January 22, 2013 @ 2:47 pm - January 22, 2013

  26. Who cares what you think? Maybe someone thinks your reasons for getting married are pathetic. You don’t think we should be making laws based on subjective opinions about how pathetic somebody is, do you?

    Comment by Levi — January 22, 2013 @ 2:47 pm – January 22, 2013

    We know you do, Levi.

    If you’re an idiot, and you’re trying to help some other idiot get into a position of power to drag down civilization with your collective idiocy, the smarter among your countrymen are going to have some harsh words for you. I’m smarter than most conservatives, this is beyond any doubt. I’m also a better person – you guys have given up any claim to that argument with your morally decrepit positions on torture and wars. If that sounds condescending, it’s because it is. And you should probably spend more of your time teaching yourself things and thinking, rather than complain about the mean people that make fun off you for not being very smart.

    People like you need people like me to drag you kicking and screaming into the future. The entire scope of human history has been a march of liberalism, and this jingoistic, laissez-faire, God-fearing path you fools are prescribing is only knocking us off the right track.

    Comment by Levi — February 8, 2010 @ 11:22 pm – February 8, 2010

    Once again, piss your pants and run away, little boy. Everyone here gets to laugh at you as you get caught in your own words and lies.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 22, 2013 @ 3:24 pm - January 22, 2013

  27. the whole marriage “license” [permit] thing is a waste of time and an anachronistic hypocrisy.

    Another way to put this is that the “marriage license” derives from an era when fornication was actually stigmatized.

    If we lived in a society where “living in sin” WERE stigmatized for everybody, then same-sex couples would have a stronger moral case that the absence of formal legal recognition unfairly leaves them with no alternative but to be fornicators. (Which wouldn’t in itself be a case for “marriage equality,” but would simply be a case against the government’s failure to offer some form of “relationship license” for same-sex couples.)

    Comment by Throbert McGee — January 22, 2013 @ 7:31 pm - January 22, 2013

  28. [Comment deleted at the request of the commenter.]

    Comment by heliotrope — January 22, 2013 @ 8:31 pm - January 22, 2013

  29. Note how Levi is so afraid, he can’t even answer a simple question posted to him.

    You come here with all the finesse of a pile driver in overdrive.

    “A MAN DOESN’T LIVE WHO CAN CALL A PILEDIRVER AN UPSTART.
    THE MAYFLOWER WAS FULL OF PILEDRIVERS… AND A FEW SLAVEDRIVERS TOO.

    THE PILEDRIVERS WERE ON THE UPPER DECK…
    AND THE SLAVEDRIVERS WERE ON THE PILEDRIVERS.

    With appologies to Groucho, Harpo, Chico, Gummo, and Zeppo (Who also wouldn’t have a place in Levi’s world.)

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 23, 2013 @ 8:09 am - January 23, 2013

  30. I can’t resist throwing my two cents in, useless as it undoubtedly will be.

    The fundamental problem with ‘gay marriage’ is that every religion of which I’m aware, marriage is a religious sacrament. The decision as to whether two people can be ‘married’ is made by their priest, rabbi or imam. For there to be a political mandate for ‘gay marriage’ the state is dictating the actions of the religious in violation of their religious beliefs.

    First, I, as an American Orthodox Christian, am totally in favor of civil unions with all the legal and tax benefits and obligations of tradition marriage for gay, lesbian and straight people who wish the legal benefits but without the religion.

    Second, a gay/lesbian couple who wish to be ‘married’, need to talk to their priest, rabbi or imam. I know that within Reformed Judaism there are rabbis who will marry same sex people under the same guidelines as different sex people. I know this because I have attended such a ceremony. I believe there are also Christian denominations that will do the same. When I think of Islam all I visualize are pictures of the poor bastards hanging from construction cranes in public squares – ie I’m not so sure about the future of ‘gay marriage’ within the Islamic sphere regardless of the popularity of gay pedophile rape in places like Afghanistan.

    At least some of the ‘gay marriage activists’ are not agitating for ‘equal rights’, they are agitating for the legal right to attack others who for religious reasons disagree with they ‘lifestyle’. In some European countries, priests have to carry hate speech liability insurance to read sections of the bible and priests have been sued for refusing to ‘marry’ gay couples. I think I have read of similar problems in the US military recently.

    Progressive Liberals blather on about civility, but never seem to be able to practice it themselves. I interact with my gay and lesbian friends as friends and as people, I have no interest in what goes on in their bedroom any more than I do with my straight friends. It would be helpful if some of the adults in the gay and lesbian community would tell some of their wilder colleagues to shut up and grow up.

    Comment by Akmatov — January 23, 2013 @ 8:19 pm - January 23, 2013

  31. It’s really disappointing to see regulars like NDK and others unable to actually engage in respectful dialogue. Any point or argument you may have is completely overshadowed by your completely disrespectful tactics of name-calling and condescension. There’s an adult behind that keyboard, isn’t there? Prove it.

    Comment by Tim in MT — January 24, 2013 @ 1:46 am - January 24, 2013

  32. [Comment deleted at the request of the commenter.]

    Comment by heliotrope — January 24, 2013 @ 11:22 am - January 24, 2013

  33. It’s really disappointing to see regulars like NDK and others unable to actually engage in respectful dialogue. Any point or argument you may have is completely overshadowed by your completely disrespectful tactics of name-calling and condescension. There’s an adult behind that keyboard, isn’t there? Prove it.

    Comment by Tim in MT — January 24, 2013 @ 1:46 am – January 24, 2013

    Ah, the hilarity.

    If you’re an idiot, and you’re trying to help some other idiot get into a position of power to drag down civilization with your collective idiocy, the smarter among your countrymen are going to have some harsh words for you. I’m smarter than most conservatives, this is beyond any doubt. I’m also a better person – you guys have given up any claim to that argument with your morally decrepit positions on torture and wars. If that sounds condescending, it’s because it is. And you should probably spend more of your time teaching yourself things and thinking, rather than complain about the mean people that make fun off you for not being very smart.

    People like you need people like me to drag you kicking and screaming into the future. The entire scope of human history has been a march of liberalism, and this jingoistic, laissez-faire, God-fearing path you fools are prescribing is only knocking us off the right track.

    Comment by Levi — February 8, 2010 @ 11:22 pm – February 8, 2010

    Since you’re not questioning Levi’s adulthood or berating his behavior, Tim, it’s pretty obvious that you just really don’t care.

    And since you just really don’t care, why should I?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2013 @ 4:02 pm - January 24, 2013

  34. [Comment deleted at the request of the commenter.]

    Comment by heliotrope — January 25, 2013 @ 2:05 pm - January 25, 2013

  35. [Comment deleted as a violation of our Community TOS.]

    Comment by Levi — January 25, 2013 @ 3:05 pm - January 25, 2013

  36. Oh, that’s easy, Levi.

    For example, as we see, you don’t think there’s anything wrong with raping and getting teenagers drunk and having unprotected sex with them, any more than paying too much for coffee or watching bad reality TV.

    Getting too drunk or forgetting your condoms or allowing yourself to be pressured into it by your horny boyfriend or the kind of everyday, run-of-the-mill bad decisions we all make, like spending 6 dollars on coffee or watching Jersey Shore.

    Comment by Levi — September 24, 2012 @ 1:57 pm – September 24, 2012

    It gets better when you add how you think women are sex-addled and dumb:

    Women, specifically teenage girls, get a lot of pressure from their boyfriends to have sex without condoms. And while it would be great to hope that these girls should be strong and resolute and could always explain to their guys why it’s important to be responsible and careful, that’s an unrealistic expectation and you know it. Men have a tendency to not plan ahead and be indulgent and can be very good at manipulating the emotions of the women they’re trying to sleep with…..

    and continuing with how liberal men like yourself refuse to use or wear condoms because you don’t want to compromise with women:

    The pill is almost 100% effective and requires absolutely no effort or compromise on the part of the man, whereas condoms are less effective for about a half dozen reasons, including user error and the aforementioned reluctance of many men to use them at all.

    Comment by Levi — November 11, 2012 @ 12:55 pm – November 11, 2012

    [Comment edited as a violation of our Community TOS.]

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 25, 2013 @ 3:41 pm - January 25, 2013

  37. [Comment deleted due to violation of Community TOS.]

    Comment by heliotrope — January 25, 2013 @ 4:31 pm - January 25, 2013

  38. In reviewing my comments above, I believe they could be offensive in some way to someone. Please delete the following comments on this thread: #7, #28, #32 and #33.

    Thank you.

    Heliotrope

    [Comments deleted, as noted above.]

    Comment by heliotrope — January 26, 2013 @ 10:00 am - January 26, 2013

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.

0.209 Powered by Wordpress