I missed a somewhat interesting post on New Majority a couple days ago (probably because I only glance at it on my googlereader feed about once a week). The piece, “Dick Cheney’s Child and Mine”, is written by a woman named Elise Cooper and it makes a somewhat atypical call for gay marriage. Her son, like Dick Cheney’s daughter, is gay and her plea is as much personal as political. In arguments of morality, where premises are difficult to agree on and facts are often interminable, personal pleas can go a long way. Elise writes, in part:
Why do I believe in gay marriage? On a personal note, as a mother, I want my son to find someone who he can spend the rest of his days with in a loving, long lasting relationship. After informing some of my Republican friends about my support of gay marriage, I got the gamut of reactions from “so what” to “gay marriage is simply not right.” There were numerous reasons given by my Republican friends for being against gay marriage which I hope to counter in this article.
Some Republicans believe that civil unions should reinforce the rights of gay and lesbian couples. They told me “if a person got sick, they should be allowed to have visitors close to them.” Some went further, stating “there are those who should be allowed to make health care decisions for each other or be allowed to be put on each other’s insurance policy.” My response to them was that by accepting civil unions you are recognizing gay couples (except if you happen to live in Iran.) By being in support of civil unions there is the undeniable recognition of domestic partnerships. Therefore, civil unions promote “gay families.” Then why not call it marriage?
These aren’t bad arguments and conservatives need to (and in most cases have) come to grips with them. Unfortunately, much of the rest of the argument doesn’t stand up to any intellectual or moral scrutiny. Later:
Other Republicans pointed out that the Bible prohibits homosexual activity and does not accept it as a lifestyle. I cannot accept that premise considering the fact that the Bible talks about other archaic practices such as stoning and polygamy. It seems to me that people choose to follow certain parts of the Bible while ignoring others. I want my son to continue to be a part of our religion and not to be turned away because of his beliefs or lifestyle. For me, the reality of religions is that everyone chooses to pick what they will follow from the Sacred Text.
Let’s leave aside, for the moment, that there are later parts of the Christian Bible (particularly the New Testament) which seem to take serious issue with the “archaic practices” Elise mentions. Let’s even accept that, like Scalia’s faint-hearted originalist, some of us are faint-hearted Christians. Even after all that, there’s still nothing remotely coherent about the bolded text. How can someone be “part of a religion” if they don’t let it affect their beliefs or lifestyle? Even the vaguest, watery spirtualism makes claims about proper lifestyle and right belief. Imagine this reformulation: “I want my son to be a Vegan and not be turned away because he happens to like meat”. Such a statement would strike even the most hardened cynic as incredible, but we barely notice the more consequential religious version.
I don’t claim to know how central the doctrines on homosexuality are to Christianity (though I’m pretty sure it’s somewhere between Jerry Falwell Christianity and Elise Cooper Christianity). Still, I think it’s troubling that we now take our diets more seriously than our religion. Christianity has become, for the Elise Cooper’s of the world, a cultural artifact like Republicanism was for mid-20th century Northeasterners- divorced from the doctrinal background which made it a force to be reckoned with. If the gay marriage crusade- wherever you come down on the issue individually- leads to a world where more people feel that religion shouldn’t interfere with your beliefs or lifestyle, then we’ll all lose out.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I think you’re intrepertating her statement wrong. It’s not like she wants hom to be an atheist Christian, she wants him to be able to be a gay Christian. IDK
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Yeah I don’t see any problem with the bold-faced statement she makes. She’s saying that just because he deviates from one section of the bible (as does everyone else with other sections of the bible, as she explains in the sentence following the bold-faced one) that shouldn’t keep him out of his chosen religion. Makes perfect sense to me. Who among us follows every single line or commandment our respective religions demand? Who gets to decide which religious tenets are acceptable to break while remaining a Christian and which ones banish you from the kingdom? She’s not saying that Christianity must accept her son’s lifestyle. She’s just asking that Christianity accept him, flaws and all. What’s wrong with that? I thought Christianity preached “love the sinner, hate the sin.”
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I just think it would be great to separate this BS from all politics. Just be glad you are free to have a relationship at all, what more is needed? A stupid document? You really need a piece of paper to make your life complete?
The hospital visits thing is a copout, who gets married for the purpose of hospital vists?
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Nate. . .no one gets married for the hospital visits, but married people get them and gay couples don’t. Same with other marriage benefits. And if a marriage license is a stupid document, why do married couples need them?
These aren’t copouts, Nate. These are basic rights that gay couples in loving committed relationships feel they should receive the same way heterosexual couples in loving committed relationships do. If you disagree with that, fine. But don’t diminish them by calling their requests “BS” and “copouts.”
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
“Just be glad you are free to have a relationship at all, what more is needed?”
Wow. Let’s also tell Blacks “Just be glad you’re not slaves anymore. What more is needed?”
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
wedge issue. move along.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
my religious beliefs are foundational to my life. why would anyone tell me to ignore it in politics?
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I agree with asparagus. When we have battles every week over gay marriage and abortion, we play right into the lefts desire for us to remain divided.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
#4
if a marriage license is a stupid document, why do married couples need them?
Answer: they don’t.
How many THOUSANDS of years have humans survived without some type of civil paperwork? You have some cultural ceremony, done deal. That’s how it’s been for millennia.
Hell paper wasn’t even invented until 100 BC.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Here’s a thought. Why doesn’t everyone in the GOP just shut up about the gay issue ? Don’t talk about it. Don’t argue about it. Obama isn’t pushing gay marriage because he knows the politics and, at least for the next few years, they don’t favor gay marriage.
There’s no way in hell that Republicans are ever going to be just aching to push this before the Democrats do. Let the Democrats battle among themselves over it. The gay activists vote Democrat anyway. Let them bloody each other up. Let the gay left push Obama to actually take a stand and then he can whither on the vine if he caves too quickly.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Sanford Didn’t Improperly Use Public Funds, Official Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/us/03sanford.html?hp
Sanford Didn’t Misuse Public Funds, Investigators Say
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124656673185488189.html#printMode
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
If this were a third world country, gay marriage and the subsequent raising of children with an emphasis on “sexual freedoms” would be OK. The USA has typically been an experiment in freedom where excellence is the goal. The best case scenario, a committed mom and dad as the nucleus for families, communities, the nation, and civilization as a whole, is THE fundamental recipe for success in this country, and all other civilizations that ever had a real chance. This country got off to a miraculously good start with god-fearing, moral, religious founders. When the country adopts inferior cultural values meant to placate vocal minorities, such as replacing traditional families with couples that for some personal sexual reason omit one entire gender from the basic building block of society, the culture fails, civilization falls. That is the outcome. Study history. What great society thrived based on same-gender families? I’ll give you time to think. That’s right. IT is a recipe for extinction, to really sum it up. And the argument of “but they’re in love” and “how can it be wrong when it feels so right” is just not that compelling, anyone been seeing how Sanford has been selling his story? No one is buying that. ANY sexual deviation practiced for personal, selfish reasons, should not become institutionalized if you want the society to survive. I am also not crazy about men or women being used for body parts or pieces to create offspring for same-sex couples. I’m kind of a “love the whole person” type.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I am not even making an argument pro or con gay marriage. Just let the Democrats pay the price for coming out in favor of it. Watch Obama squirm as GLAAD and company demand concessions. Then the GOP can say something like,
“With ten percent unemployment and 460,000 jobs being lost each month the DEMOCRATS care more about raising your taxes, raising your energy bill in a futile attempt to save the planet, and engineering social policy. Is THIS the Hope and Change you expected???”
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
#4 Hospitals have changed. You can fill out a form and designate who can know your medical information and who is allowed in the room. You do not have to be married for these rights. In fact just because you are married you no longer have the right to make medical decisions unless you have been given those rights on paper.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
And no I don’t believe gay “marriage” and traditional marriage can peacefully co-exist, and it’s NOT because of the traditionalists. It’s because of the aggressiveness of the sexual deviance. You’ve seen it, the anthrax scares, anger, hating, vulgar threats, Perez Hilton type stuff. That type of sexual aggression has to be seriously contained or we all become victims.
Nor do I believe they SHOULD peacefully co-exist. Marriage, by the way, is a pretty sophisticated, advanced concept. It is fundamental, but crafted by God. Men, left to their own devices, would likely be acting out sexually indiscriminately on any number of genders, age groups, species. There has to be a really compelling reason to restrict state-sanctioned sexual unions to being between one man and one woman – think about it. And messing with the definition to allow deviancy and self-serving behaviors to enter in will ultimate destroy the delicate thing marriage is supposed to be. Adultery, incest, homesexual activity, I can’t name every type of deviant behavior but they are all family killers. To institutionalize them and encourage those behaviors, is insane. There SHOULD be social taboos against all of those activities…unless we want the hedonistic rush into a fallen civilization that we read about in our history books….
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Sorry but the term gay marriage is an insult to those who truly understand marriage and respect the human body.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
And withhold red meat from the rabid, fag-hating Christianists who threaten to not man the phone banks or knock on doors if we do?
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Excellent article, as usual, Matthew.
It reminds me of one of my favorite quips:
Ted Kennedy is so private about his religion, he won’t even impose it on himself.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Aron,
One needn’t be a “rabid, fag-hating Christianist” to believe the Bible.
Or, we could turn it around. Does one have to be a “Christ-hating fag” to support gay marriage?
Let’s not fight de-humanizing caricatures.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
17,
But opposition to abortion will work just as well. It’s MUCH better for the GOP to be on the correct side of the roughly nationally 60/40 opposition to gay marriage. Let the Dems fight it out. We can just get out of the way. Just like the Dems did on the immigration/amnesty issue in 2007.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Liberalism goes hand in hand with this practice. Any practice that is not self-supporting can only be entertained where the majority of the people are producing conservatives. If EVERYONE did what the liberals espouse, society would collapse. THerefore, liberalism only serves the elite few, and the masses must necessarily become penned in farm animals only allowed to produce but not consume, because the work of their labors must go to entertain and expand the power base of the liberal elites. On the other hand, conservatives are self-sustaining. They (in it’s pure form) don’t consume more than they produce. The conservative philosophy can support any number of people and allows the same amount of personal freedom to all, each prospers in accordance with their ability to produce. Liberalism primarily attracts those that do not care to produce. They consume. And they need to dupe others to provide them with the means of living the lifestyle to which they aspire. Liberals are not cheap. They are like a cancer. They will consume everything until they kill the host! Tax and spend, tax and spend, and not even spending on useful stuff! Big lavish vacations for themselves, that’s where our tax dollars are going! AAAARGHHHHHH….and now they want gay marriages tooooooo!!!!!
Now I’m freaking myself out.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
keep going liz….ther’s more in you.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:22 pm
It’s MUCH better for the GOP to be on the correct side of the roughly nationally
60/4065/35 support for civil unions, and let the Dems fight it out amongst themselves over same-sex marriage.July 2nd, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Don’t encourage me, I just deleted about a three-pager on how abortion on a large scale is also unsustainable self-defeating liberal behavior that in reality can only be practiced by the few liberal elites, because if it were practiced as the rule rather than the exception…..THE HORROR OF IT! All they would find decades from now would be the top of the Statue of Liberty, buried in the sand…like on the original Planet of the Apes. My husband loves that show as much as I am embarrassed that he likes it. He wanted to name our some Galen. Why not Cornelius I said? Good grief.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
our SON I mean
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Liz, you are making a logical fallacy. Not all liberals are hedonists. Not all hedonists are liberals. See Mark Sanford.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:25 pm
At first I didn’t want to read this article, but I forced myself too. I am glad I did, it was very good. Thanks Matthew.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
As to the argument that gays are being denied rights that married couples share, wouldn’t power of attorney take care of all that. And don’t tell me that it is expensive. It is a whole lot cheaper than a divorce. Besides, I bet that something like that could be drawn up for a few hundred dollars by a traditional attorney and even less by an online legal company.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Yup so that gay marriage frenzy is a big NO as far as I am concerned, and I am one of the few that really likes Dick Cheney too, but sexual deviance needs to stay in the closet. Everyone like Sanford parading his inner fantasies around? Think that’s helpful for society? SHould he move Maria and her ex and her other boyfriend into the governor’s mansion with Jenny and the kids? Be proud? Come out of the closet? Honestly, the man has no shame. And he should have some. There should be shame associated with sexual deviance. This country generously allows you to practice sexual deviance with no real penalty and very little social stigma if any, but let’s not institutionalize and celebrate it now. That’s kills the society.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Aron,
That’s fine by me. But again, let the Dems battle on the gay marriage front and then when any of our candidates get asked about it they can simply say, “I support civil unions”.
But it would be a gift from above if Obama were to “come out” in favor of gay marriage in his first term. He’ll lose 5 points from moderates just for opening his mouth in support of it. He’ll lose enthusiasm and support for organization in 2012 from liberals if he doesn’t push for it. It’s win-win for the GOP.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
I mean really, along with the governor’s mansion they should build a lesser but flashier mistress’ quarters. Or gay lover’s quarters. Eh? The white house, and the little rainbow house in the background, right there on the dollar bill. Would’ve been helpful for Giuliani, Clinton, now Sanford – is that where you all want society going? Or who was that one that had the office affair with a gay lover? Why not just put that guy’s name on the official government stationery with the wife and guv’s name? Be proud! I’m personally peeved the homo movement stole the rainbow to use to promote their ideas. Rainbows belong to kids! Take back the rainbow! We need to look out for the kids!!! SOOO sick of this stuff. I mean, we been laid off since Christmas, our savings are gone, tons of little kids, and all we get is this Obama nightmare and liberal tripe. The country is derailed! The economy is collapsing! The amount of taxes we’re gonna be paying, Obama oughtta at least distribute free valium. We can’t pray anymore, there went the opium of the people. Pass out something to take away this awful, liberal inflicted pain. Gasp. Now I know how Micheal Jackson felt in his last moments. Must’ve been just like this. Do it for Micheal. Do it for the rest of us. VOTE THE BUGGERS OUT IN 2010!!! GIVE us another CHAAAAAANNNCCEE…..
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Liz. . . What should society do with all the heterosexual deviants out there? There’s a lot more of them than the gay ones.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I need some cookies and warm milk
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
32 Jake I’m so glad you asked. Is that a rhetorical question? I mean, do you already know the answer or are you genuinely searching?
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I just want to hear your opinion.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
My answer and yours will be 180 degrees off anyway. I don’t think homosexuality is deviant.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I personally believe in restoring societal stigmas. First taking sexual deviance back out of the rights listed in the Constitution. No right to adultery, no right to sodomy, besti-whatever elsery.
If that alone doesn’t do the trick, take a look at tightening up the no-fault divorce laws on the books. Make marriage a contract again, with consequences for breaking it. That would encourage folks to consider it a little more carefully before entering into it.
I’ve got more ideas to bring back a moral culture. But I am probably boring you…
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Liz. . . Doesn’t all that invite the government right into everyone’s bedroom? How is that a good thing for society?
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Liz I think most people just want to be free. That’s a value both sides can respect. And the left is not respecting that value right now. We should be making inroads to people with different values than us who value freedom. Those are the people who will deliver the next election to our side. Because if we don’t get our freedoms back, it won’t matter which side of the sexual deviancy argument you were on.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Liz,
You’re ultra conservative. You’re going to have to accept that what you seek is never going to come to pass.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Have a very refined first lady that talks up modesty. I saw Michelle Obama in that little lacy longerie thing on the cover of some magazine and I was embarrassed for her. Then I felt sorry for myself, because I guess that is acceptable atire now for the first lady. When men run around with their undies sticking out of their shorts, skinny chests bared, and women wear their undies on the outside or mini skirts and such, they start to lust and prey upon each other. I would like to see a decent dress standard expected once again in our official government hallways. Hollywood should be regulated a bit as far as children are concerned so they don’t expect to be able to run around half naked and act out sexually upon each other in grade school. I am open to any suggestions you might have.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Adam, we’re in agreement. Actually, according to the Fox News survey conducted in mid-May, 66% of registered voters believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to either get married or enter a legal partnership similar to but not called marriage, including 51% of Republicans. My snarky question in #17 alludes to the 45% of GOPers (the “rabid, fag-hating Christianists”) who oppose any legal recognition being given to gay and lesbian relationships; an intolerant position held by just 29 percent of the electorate at large.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Speaking of Foxnews, Huckabee is filling in for O’Reilly tonight and will be hosting the O’Reilly show. Should be good!!
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:50 pm
38 Jake, it is a sliding scale. I don’t think it invites the government into our bedrooms, but that is no worse than everyone’s bedroom running our government. Did Maria factor into South Carolina policy decisions? Was Clinton philandering on my tax nickel? Where’s the justice and freedom in that? Was Barney Franks’ prostitution ring drowning out my pleas for fiscal sanity in government? Frank still isn’t doing his real job in my view. You see what I’m saying? I used to have rights. You let all this deviance out on the streets and arm it and dress it with Supreme Court approval, and I have to hide with my kids in my bedroom and not turn on the TV to avoid the blatant exhibition of all the new government sanctioned and paid for rights. And the people brandishing these sexual “rights” have not been tolerant, compassionate, accomodating, friendly, or even paying their own way. Nope.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Liz. . . You won’t like my suggestions. I say, if two consenting adults want to do things to each other behind closed doors, let them. If two men or two women love each other the way heterosexual couples do, and they want to marry like heterosexuals do, let them. If people want to walk around with their underwear showing, let them. If Michele Obama wants to wear lacy things, and I for one am very glad she does, let her.
Basically, get the government out of the job of moralizing for the rest of us. And if you don’t like what I’m doing inside my own home, that’s your problem, not mine. Get over it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:53 pm
I think the best compomise is just about where the Constitution originally put it – if it’s deviant, keep it in the closet. If it’s productive for the society, government should sanction and protect it. So simple, it’s appealing in a way. Come on, admit it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
45 That’s great, Jake. But there is a downside. As long as you are willing to accept the consequences we bear as a society. If Michelle and others walk around with their undies showing, the freedom of where I can take my kids safely is curbed. So that’s why I weigh in on it. While I still have the right to.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:59 pm
I must have missed that clause in reading the US constitution — perhaps it’s the Iranian constitution you have in mind.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:01 pm
“I think the best compomise is just about where the Constitution originally put it – if it’s deviant, keep it in the closet. If it’s productive for the society, government should sanction and protect it. So simple, it’s appealing in a way. Come on, admit it.”
Who decides what’s constitutionally deviant? And which amendment addresses that one?
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:06 pm
From the original article: “By being in support of civil unions there is the undeniable recognition of domestic partnerships. Therefore, civil unions promote “gay families.” Then why not call it marriage?”
This thread shows why not — there are a lot of people willing to support civil unions who get really upset over the word “marriage”.
Therefore it makes sense to settle for the substantive things and leave the symbolism for later.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
I quite agree. Religion should drive your beliefs & values. If you truly believe that the Bible is from God, shouldn’t you act on what it commands? If not, what do you believe?
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
#45 Alaska – Basically, get the government out of the job of moralizing for the rest of us. And if you don’t like what I’m doing inside my own home, that’s your problem, not mine. Get over it.
As one who really doesn’t get riled up regarding the social issues I have to ask, do you really think this stays in the home? If it just stayed in the home, this wouldn’t be much of an issue, now would it?
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:16 pm
If you go back to the original post, the woman Matthew quotes isn’t asking people to accept her son’s lifestyle, just accept him. He is breaking one of the bible’s commandments, according to Christians, but she asserts everyone else breaks at least some of the bible’s other “archaic” commandments (stoning and polygamy, for example) and they aren’t condemned the way her son is. As she says, “For me, the reality of religions is that everyone chooses to pick what they will follow from the Sacred Text.” She just wants her son to be accepted as a Christian – not a gay Christian, just a Christian.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Liz lacks this bit of critical thinking:
The reason people move forward, progressively, on social issues is because there were consequences in society DUE TO THEM NOT BEING THERE.
“As long as you are willing to accept the consequences we bear as a society.”
Gay kids committing suicide, thrown out of their houses, rejected by society — all because they were born to be aroused by a person who is of the same gender.
THAT was the consequence that we as a society were dealing with until gay rights progressed.
People like Liz don’t understand that while not every bit of social emancipation is necessary, social liberties are not a sliding scale down, they are a step FORWARD.
“the freedom of where I can take my kids safely is curbed.”
This is utterly ridiculous thinking used by people who are too afraid of the world and people around them. It’s the same bogus notion against legalizing same-sex marriage, that “if they are free, it’s offensive to my religious beliefs”.
Your religious beliefs are not grounds for putting harm in any form or fashion on someone else, whether physically, emotionally, or through the law.
Fortunately, people like Liz are a dying breed. The biggest proprietor? The internet. Thanks Liz for contributing to what is the biggest perpetrator to the social progress you’re so afraid to confront.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:20 pm
52. . . If two gay people are having sex on a street corner, they of course should be arrested – just like two straight people should be. But holding hands, kissing, or any other publicly acceptable form of affection permitted to heterosexuals should also be granted to homosexuals. The actual homosexual acts (sexually-speaking) do stay within the home. What people are talking about is keeping homosexuals from being themselves outside the home (non-sexually speaking). I cannot agree with that.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
54 You probably think that people with retardation should be given a medical degree and a scalpel so they don’t feel bad and commit suicide. If you’re not into reality, there should be no restrictions on one’s behavior. For the rest of us, we don’t want to clean up after you. Capiche? Good thing I’m a dying breed, I can’t stand the idiocy much longer.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
This is an important conversation, believe it or not. The argument that this “doesn’t matter” is belied by the extremely strong feelings and opinions people have on these matters. For those of us living in reality I mean. These are important issues for those of us that are reality based.
Peace and kumbaya to the rest of yas
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:39 pm
#55
I don’t think people have a problem with hospital visits from loved ones or estate execution etc.
I think people are talking about the influences that are found in the schools and what is taught or that they are called bigots, haters etc. if they don’t agree with their lifestyle. These are the instances “outside” the home that cause people to argue.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:41 pm
“If you’re not into reality,”
The only people that deny reality are people like you.
There have always been gay people.
There always will be gay people.
You know why fighting gay rights is a losing battle? Because gay people will never go away.
The reason? Even if you have trouble believing it, people are born gay.
People like you cannot see the hypocrisy of using their majority stance to impose their moralizing on a minority even when it causes them very real harm, yet are the first to cry foul when your rights, or rather, the rights of unborn fetuses you have no connection to, are supposedly “at risk”.
It is people like you that give religion a bad name, not the overall good sense of self and purpose that religion ideally strives to instill in people.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
“I think people are talking about the influences that are found in the schools and what is taught or that they are called bigots, haters etc”
The problem is that if any of the supposed “influences” you’re apparently in favor “shielding” people from were about gender or race, even the little tiny things, it’d be rightly thoroughly denounced.
Soon people will understand that will apply to gay people too, and only then will people see the lunacy and pure heartlessness of trying to block school protection from LGBT students, among other things.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
#60 RMB
I think you would have to read earlier posts as I said that this doesn’t rile me but I was responding to others about what stays “inside” the home.
I don’t know what school protection you are talking about but I think we should protect all students, regardless of their race or sexual preference. However if in our pursuit of equality we denegrate and go after those who do not believe in our ideas, we are displaying the same behavior that we claim to despise.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:58 pm
WTF is a Christianist?
and
Isn’t that what South Florida is for?
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Liz:
You still haven’t told us where in the constitution the Deviancy Clause can be found.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
“However if in our pursuit of equality we denegrate and go after those who do not believe in our ideas”
This is ignoring the reality of the situation. It is a cop out.
First off, “go after those who do not believe in our ideas” — I’m sorry, so you realize you’re talking about *rights* and *equality*?
People shouldn’t properly call out those who are against *rights* and *equality*?
People who go after those who express prejudicial views are not attacking their right to think whatever backwards thing they want, but these biased people are often OBSTRUCTING the path towards rights and equality.
People that don’t want their religious views of supposed “immoral lifestyle choices” condemned live in some perfect world where everyone is treated equally and has the exact same rights as everyone else, because they cannot see the role their public views — and often the actions such people take — play on the fight for equality and civil rights.
There are so many people who try and block hate crime protections for LGBT people from being passed, because they feel it will (falsely) impugn upon their ability to condemn such people. Hate crimes protections for LGBT people are NEEDED because people are being KILLED and BEATEN just for who they are — yet some schmuk on a pulpit feels such things aren’t needed because he doesn’t like it becoming increasing unacceptable to preach intolerance?
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Since the murder of gays is illegal under existing statutes, I don’t see why that point makes an argument for hate crimes legislation.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:25 pm
“Since the murder of gays is illegal under existing statutes, I don’t see why that point makes an argument for hate crimes legislation.”
Hate crime protection for LGBTs needs to be there where ever there is current hate crime protection. I don’t agree with states like Wyoming that have no hate crime protections (especially in the wake of Matthew Shepherd), but at least they are being consistent.
Where there are protections for race, gender, religion, ethnicity, class, etc., they need to be there for sexual orientation and gender identity too.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:31 pm
I’m in agreement with you — all hate crimes laws should be repealed.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:34 pm
No, that’s not my position. I don’t agree that there shouldn’t be hate crime laws. I think they are needed because of message a hate crime tries to send to society, and it is the law’s way of responding back.
Nevertheless, I’m not derailing the topic of gay rights, which I think need to be spoken more about on conservative blogs like this one (I’ve followed this one since the primaries, I really like it). If you want to talk about the validity of hate crimes, choose another topic.
Me, I’ll choose to speak up against people like Liz and in favor of equality and, yes, calling out intolerance for what it is.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:35 pm
RMB, well said. It’s amazing how backwards and ignorant some of the people who have written on this post really are. I doubt they’ll ever realize they’re on the wrong side of history . Fortunately, the vast majority of our great nation disagree, and grow less afraid of gay/lesbians all the time. My marriage isn’t threatened in the least by allowing my friends and co-workers to have the same rights under the law.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:44 pm
#64
I think they should be called out but “called out” can take many forms. MLK had the best approach. I think in time you are right that many things will change and be accepted. However, the current marketing director for the gay community is doing a poor job.
Condemnation isn’t the concern or the fear. We live in America and expression of different views is celebrated.
Hate crime legislation is a whole other topic but I would say that regardless of how someone thinks we should not tolerate one similar crime over another all other things being equal.
There are people being killed because the colors they are wear, the shoes they wear or the neighborhood they are in. Life, in general, has been marginalized and as and unfortunate result many people are losing their lives over things that either they can’t control or seem innocuous. All of these reasons should rise to the level of demanding the full measure of the law.
If the murderer of your son received a lighter sentence, because he killed for your son’s shoes, than the murderer of another kid because a “slur” was used during the crime, would you feel that was justice?
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Keep talking rmb. You are exactly the type of person who forces Christians and others who believe in a traditional family to draw a line in the sand. It isn’t about “gay marriage” for you types at all. It is about forcing the rest of us to approve of your lifestyle.
When you make it a choice between totally opposing gay marriage and giving up what people believe in, well you aren’t going to convince too many.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:53 pm
“It’s amazing how backwards and ignorant some of the people who have written on this post really are.”
Well, Liz was startling even for a conservative blog, but I think this site is actually a pretty good one for gay rights when it comes to conservative blogs. It’s one of the reasons I keep reading her even though the election is long over.
It’s just a shame, to me, that opponents of gay rights are unwilling to do even some of the simplest self-examination and fact checking to open themselves up to the possibility of being wrong.
Where are the religious Republicans who, upon having it drilled into them that children are “best raised by a mother and a father”, discovered that research has shown there really is no difference whatsoever?
Where are the religious Republicans who, upon constant preaching for religious freedom yet try and prevent equality through law due to their religious rationale, do not realize that it is only their majority stance that would prevent them from becoming victims?
Even more absurd — now that they are beginning to realize they are in the minority, they claim victim, yet they refuse to have basic empathy when it comes to recognizing that gay people are also victims to a majority’s imposition?
It’s just outrageous.
This stuff is basic critical thinking, common sense, and empathy.
It’s such a shame, and a scary thought, that there are tens of millions of people in this country, who feel like proven facts are a threat to their religious beliefs, when no one but the individual (and possibly their religious community) is telling them that the facts of the world have to be incompatible with their beliefs.
Believing in God and that the Earth’s creatures were made in God’s image does mean you have to discount the proven facts of evolution.
Believing in God and religious texts does not mean you have to ignore the sheer facts that the Bible cannot possibly literally be applied to our society because it is incompatible with modern life found anywhere outside Iran and Saudi Arabia. Yet they still ignore the fact that they HAVE to pick and choose parts of the Bible to enforce and believe in, so they can order some mass condemnation of living human beings who seek them no harm?
Where are these mainstream religious Republicans?
There are not enough of them.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:56 pm
“It isn’t about “gay marriage” for you types at all. It is about forcing the rest of us to approve of your lifestyle.”
This is what I’m talking about.
Where is the basic critical thinking by this poster?
Why is this person incapable of going “Ya know, my religion is a total choice, and really affects my everyday life. You could totally consider that a lifestyle. I demand my freedoms to be fully upheld and protected by the law, so I recognize that other people who have different lifestyles will want the same thing.”
Being gay isn’t a lifestyle. But even if it was, why is this person incapable of such basic critical thinking?
It just confounds me.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:56 pm
I think it’s just silly to deny that the best environment for a child is in a stable loving home with a father and a mother who are married. It’s not always possible, but every child certainly deserves it because it is the best possible foundation. The family is the basic unit of society. We need to shore it up, not open the floodgates against it. The family is under attack – we know that many societal problems stem from broken families and single parenthood.
Gay marriage is not the best alternative for children – fair or not.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:05 pm
“I think it’s just silly to deny that the best environment for a child is in a stable loving home with a father and a mother who are married.”
In the federal Prop 8 case that was just taken up, this is going to have to be proven in a court of law.
I’m gonna give you a hint: It’s not going to be possible.
Why?
Because it’s not true. There is countless, unbiased research that shows this.
If there really was a danger to children, it wouldn’t be legal in as many areas as it is today — and that is growing.
Furthermore, just because you personally think the “best” environment is with a man and a woman, does this mean single people shouldn’t be able to adopt?
According to you, that’s a lower common denominator than “the best alternative for children”.
Divorce, that’s another thing that’s not great for children. Should we outlaw divorce? Parents divorcing is not “the best alternative for children”.
But what about those cases where divorce *IS* the best alternative to children?
What then?
You cannot make a broad generalization about what is or isn’t the best family type for a child, when there is no fact to it, and then make widespread law enforcing it.
It’s wrong, and it’s why it’s being dismantled in this country as we speak, as more and more loving families, gay or straight, are able to adopt and marry.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:07 pm
#73,
A gay person in the USA has all the same rights and privileges that I have. Marriage between the sexes predates any known legal document and really writing itself. The impetus is on you to change that.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:11 pm
I’d like to add, why is this poster Martha incapable of doing some basic research on the matter of same-sex parenting, where she will certainly find from many mainstream, unbiased institutions that have done extensive research on it that same-gendered parents has absolutely no different effect on a child?
Is she THAT afraid of being wrong? Is her belief system that shaky that she shields herself from the facts of the world that anything that might challenge her conventional thoughts must be shielded from her?
I’d like to add that there are many legislators around this country who are exactly like Martha: ignoring proven evidence, and trying to enact obstacles for children to be adopted by loving, stable, protected families.
THAT is why this stuff needs to be called out and exposed for what it is: wrong.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
#75 RMB – Which studies are you talking about? There might be but the only unbiased studies that I have seen that seem to address your point is that same sex couples do not pose a detriment to raising a child.
However, I haven’t seen any studies that suggest that a child being raised by a mother and father is on par with any other type of arrangement as you suggest.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:16 pm
“A gay person in the USA has all the same rights and privileges that I have. Marriage between the sexes predates any known legal document and really writing itself. The impetus is on you to change that.”
First off:
1) In Loving vs. Virginia, you do realize the Supreme Court struck this type of thinking down, right?
Back then, the argument was “people are free to marry whoever they want, as long as it is someone of their own race”.
2) “Marriage between the sexes predates any known legal document and really writing itself.”
I have a question: Are you in favor of polygamy?
It always strikes me as amusing that the religious right says that legalizing gay marriage will lead to polygamy. The problem is that I have a secular argument against polygamy and it has nothing to do with religion at all. I don’t believe it is possible to remedy the legal problems that would be caused by legalizing polygamy, though in theory if it were possible I wouldn’t really care.
Yet my point is, polygamy is right there in the Bible. Why do YOU oppose it?
3) Families and family types have always changed and evolved.
I think you misunderstand everything: the impetus is on you to educate yourself about the realities of the history of the world.
Why do you think so many sociologists who have studied the history of the family are in favor of legalizing gay marriage? Because they understand that this “traditional nuclear family” thing is bullshit that only goes back to around the 1950s.
4) You never answered my question: Why are you incapable of going: “Ya know, my religion is a total choice, and really affects my everyday life. You could totally consider that a lifestyle. I demand my freedoms to be fully upheld and protected by the law, so I recognize that other people who have different lifestyles will want the same thing.”
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Mcon, do you believe that homosexuality is a choice?
A) If so: you are wrong.
B) If not: What sort of life would you ask me to live, romantically?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:19 pm
It would be nice if all kids had a mother and father.
However, not all kids do.
There are kids who could be very, very lucky — kids who are waiting to be adopted — to get into a loving same-sex coupled home. There’d be more of such loving parents if so-called pro-family religionists would stop stigmatizing something completely normal.
You can’t “incentivize” or “encourage” homosexuality. It’s like trying to stop someone from having blue eyes.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
#78 BJWitts, I’m not really understanding you. We agree. Studies have shown that same-gendered parents poses absolutely no detriment to the raising of a child. That was my point.
That’s all you can ask for in a study. There’s no detriment. That’s what matters in the law.
What one considers the “best” for a child is entirely subjective and obviously cannot be proven. But you certainly cannot claim a mother and father is the best for a child AS IN same gendered parents aren’t ALSO perfectly fine — because that would be wrong.
But for example, if you think that children are best raised in an environment where the parents are divorced, and you’re willing to put up with infidelity or domestic violence in order to support your notion, that’s your prerogative. But you can’t outlaw divorce based on that.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:23 pm
American,
“It’s amazing how backwards and ignorant some of the people who have written on this post really are. I doubt they’ll ever realize they’re on the wrong side of history ….. marriage isn’t threatened in the least by allowing my friends and co-workers to have the same rights under the law.”
You know, that got me thinking. We Christians have been on the “wrong side of history” about a lot of things these past 40 years. Drugs. Pornography. Adultery. No fault divorce. Teen pregnancy. All of them have steamed along despite the protestations of Christians.
In a sense, gay marriage could be the crowning achievement for everything liberals have done for the family these past 40 years.
Of course, NONE OF THEM have threatening “MY MARRIAGE,” and since life is all about me, what’s to worry? Right?
Right?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Btw, sorry, I meant an environment where the parents are NOT divorced, as an example.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Alex,
“if so-called pro-family religionists would stop stigmatizing something completely normal.”
Sodomy is normal?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
83 – Do you want to make pornography, adultery, and no-fault divorce illegal?
By the way, there are very sound secular arguments against such things, all of which are choices.
There is literally no sound secular argument against homosexuality.
Stop trying to legislate your precious mythology.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Alex,
Whether you want to admit it or not, my “precious mythology” was probably the single biggest ingredient in building western civilization, which you claim to love.
You can’t remove the organ and demand the function, as CS Lewis would say.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:31 pm
#83 MWS, let me point something out to you:
“You know, that got me thinking. We Christians have been on the “wrong side of history” about a lot of things these past 40 years. Drugs. Pornography. Adultery. No fault divorce. Teen pregnancy. All of them have steamed along despite the protestations of Christians.”
All of these were happening regardless of what the Christian church said.
What the law did was recognize the REALITY of this, and figure out ways to LEGALLY DEAL WITH THE REALITY OF THESE THINGS.
1) People always take drugs, Christian or not. I’m not Christian, and I’ve never done drugs. Nations in Asia that have the strictest laws against drugs, nations like Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia…they aren’t Christian nations. There’s no correlation.
2) Pornography. Uh, people want to see others having sex. This is a capitalism issue. The market is there. That has nothing to do with religion. But if you want to talk about the moral aspect of it, I think pornography allows people to explore their desires sexually in a healthier way than they would if it wasn’t around. I mean if these people don’t want to experiment with their spouse, and porn wasn’t around, a society that is sexually pent up and frustrated is not good, because people act out. Porn is an outlet. A healthier outlet than if it wasn’t there.
3) Adultery. Uh, always happens. You know this.
I saw an interesting article on Politico yesterday.
It said that the Republican Congressional Class of 1994, with Newt Gingrich — that came to power on FAMILY VALUES — has been devastated by divorce and sex scandal like no other.
4) No fault divorce. The law recognizes the need for such instances. It is better than how things were before, where people were penalized even though they might have HAD to get out of a marriage.
5) Teen pregnancy. Happens because, another Christian standpoint, that young people are not educated enough about the realities of sex as to PREVENT pregnancy and disease. So they act out, and act without caution.
You’re right, the Christian religion has indeed been on the wrong side of history on many things.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
79,
1) If so gay marriage would already be legal.
2) Unfortunately, my opposition, or lack thereof, to polygamy isn’t germane to the conversation. I said “marriage between the sexes” and I do believe you can read. Perhaps you can learn to read more carefully.
3) #2 applies to some degree here as well. I’ll just say that my knowledge of history is probably a bit more extensive that yours.
4) This isn’t Iran and being a homosexual or engaging in private homosexual isn’t criminal activity. Gays have all the same rights and privileges that I have. Marriage by its very definition is a union between the sexes. I fully support homosexuals having all the same rights which I currently enjoy.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
In Cuba a woman can walk in to a government office and have a divorce processed in 30 minutes.
They have high divorce rates in Cuba.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
“Sodomy is normal?”
Yes. Do you know how many heterosexual couples engage in it?
I mean, I’m sorry if the notion that sodomy is normal blows your mind of something, but that’s the truth of it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:34 pm
#91, alright buddy…no need to go there.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:34 pm
RMB,
“All of these were happening regardless of what the Christian church said.
What the law did was recognize the REALITY of this, and figure out ways to LEGALLY DEAL WITH THE REALITY OF THESE THINGS.”
Yes, adultery has been around as long as marriage. But it is when liberals starting lovingly embracing these concepts, celebrating them in popular culture, and shouting down those who would still shame them that they REALLY got going.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Sodomy is normal?
Yeah.
If you’ve ever had oral sex, you’re a sodomite, too, buddy.
Sex is fun! Get into some sodomy, kinks, and games. There’s more than the pro-creating missionary position. (Keep it safe and legal, though!)
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Whether you want to admit it or not, my “precious mythology” was probably the single biggest ingredient in building western civilization, which you claim to love. You can’t remove the organ and demand the function, as CS Lewis would say.
Christianity isn’t “the organ” of the United States. Liberty is. You’d have been amongst the several religionists who blasted the US Constitution at the time it was crafted — because it fails to recognize God or Jesus.
And yet, somehow, we’ve gotten by.
Capitalism is the organ. Liberty is the organ. Freedom is the organ. Reason is the organ.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:36 pm
RMB,
So what makes the anus so special? Or is it normal to ejaculate in ANY ol’ random opening that can be found in the universe?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:36 pm
My Problem with Christianism
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1191826,00.html
The Right and Religion
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/the-right-and-r.html
Isms and Phobias
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/magazine/15ONLANGUAGE.html?pagewanted=print
“Christianist”
http://www.theatlantic.com/fs/esearch.php?sort=time&source=sullivan&words=christianist&x=12&y=8
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:37 pm
“1) If so gay marriage would already be legal.”
What kind of silly argument is this?
Social change happens over time and needs to be fought for. So because it isn’t ALREADY legal means there’s no reason for it?
Ridiculous.
“I’ll just say that my knowledge of history is probably a bit more extensive that yours.”
I don’t believe you.
Because you’re incapable of basic critical thinking like this:
The Puritans, who are responsible for settling this country, for which our beliefs as a nation are ultimately derived from, fled RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION FROM THE MAJORITY.
That persecution from the majority WAS the building block to this nation.
2) “I said “marriage between the sexes” and I do believe you can read.”
There are plenty of documented tribes and cultures where agreements between people of the same sex were permitted.
You again lack basic critical thinking:
Gay people have always been around. What do you think they were doing back then, all those thousands of years?
“4) This isn’t Iran and being a homosexual or engaging in private homosexual isn’t criminal activity”
Do you realize being gay was a criminal offense (albeit rarely enforced) in many states UNTIL 2003?!
And no, you’re wrong. You can be fired for being gay. I can’t fire you because you have backwards religious beliefs, however.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:39 pm
“#91, alright buddy…no need to go there.”
Why? Go where?
He asked if sodomy was normal, as if it was something rare and deviant and an unheard of practice by “moral people”.
I said it is, and practiced by every type of person, and that I was sorry if the truth of that was disconcerting to him.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Alex,
Do you think it was an accident that capitalism started and grew in protestant countries? Do you think it’s coincidence that liberty only seemed to grow in Christian countries?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:39 pm
96 – Because the a*n*u*s — unlike, say, the ear or the nose — has sensitive parts that are particularly conducive to stimulation. You know that.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:39 pm
#98, since when it is legal to fire someone for being gay?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:40 pm
100 – Not at all. Just as it was not an accident that Christianity evolved out of Judaism. But we removed Judaism. Nobody follows a damn word of the books of the Torah anymore.
Yes, yes, there’s the whole lying-cheating-stealing thing, but those are universal values found independent of the Torah and Bible. No culture on Earth allows murder, etc. They are part of the ‘Tao,’ as Lewis would say.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:41 pm
“So what makes the anus so special? Or is it normal to ejaculate in ANY ol’ random opening that can be found in the universe?”
Uh…..
Yes.
If it’s not for you, it’s not for you.
But people do it.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge the realities of the world? You really think PLENTY of heterosexual men don’t like anal sex with women?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Speaking of gay,
Aron, what is with your recent love affair with the ultra-liberal, Obama supporter, Andrew, Bareback Sullivan?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
#104,
RMB, maybe we could focus the argument back on to civil liberties?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
“#98, since when it is legal to fire someone for being gay?”
Can I ask you something:
Are you being sarcastic, or are you really, genuinely asking this?
There are immense amounts of stories of people in states without employment protection for gay people being fired for it. I’m more than happy to get you them if you’re willing to open your mind a little it. I really am. I want to educate every person I can about what gay people have to endure in this country. You can be fired for being gay in the MAJORITY OF STATES IN THIS COUNTRY.
But if you’re just interested in denying whatever I show you no matter what, could you kindly let me know in advance so I don’t waste my time?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
106 – Noooo. This is a good argument. It’s one that the Puritans can’t win.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Alex,
“And yet, somehow, we’ve gotten by.”
Yeah, because this has always been a Christian nation, more or less, even if its tenets are not enshrined in law. But over the past 40-60 years, we’ve steadily become a post-Christian nation. And as our social bonds break, our crime rises, our civility wastes away, our culture debases, and we lurch increasingly towards rule of the mob, what will you replace Christianity with? Capitalism? Enlightened selfishness? Don’t make me laugh!
You want to see what happens to a society where its spirit is killed? Look at Russia, where men live to be about 55 on average thanks to pandemic alcoholism.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:46 pm
109 – I honestly think that there is a solid argument for the utility of religion, based mostly upon my misanthropy: man can be self-sufficient and rational, but he refuses to be, and unfortunately, my ass has to pay the price for everyone else’s stupidity.
In the meantime, people want some kind of father figure. When God steps out, the State steps in.
I’d rather have an equilibrium of religionism and the state. That way, I am left alone by fools to the best degree. I just want to be left alone to live my life. Socialism doesn’t allow that; neither does religion.
Minarchism is ideal, but impossible.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:46 pm
RMB, it is illegal to hire someone based on sexual orientation.
But;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:46 pm
“#106 RMB, maybe we could focus the argument back on to civil liberties?”
Oh I totally hear you, Kristofer.
The problem is that due to certain people having some fear, loathing, or “moral” opposition to the way same gendered couples consummate their love, they USE it TO deny people civil liberties.
The reason it’s ridiculous and hypocritical is because anal sex is a fairly common practice amongst heterosexual couples everywhere.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
As for me, yes, capitalism and enlightened self-interest will do just fine.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
illegal to fire* (111)
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
112 – Roughly 1/5 of heterosexual couples have tried it.
A lot more would, if it weren’t for the “gay” stigma it carries.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
The rising rate of divorce, adultery, child pornography, teenage sex and pregnancy, abortion, polygamy etc….has meant positive
inroads for the gay community. The more people become disillusioned with marriage, the more likely they are to support gay
marriage. Why do you think so many young people support gay marriage? Because most of their parents are divorced duh! So gay
advocates need to champion the breakdown of the family and encourage spouses to cheat, teenagers to have sex, people to cohabitate
and parents to divorce so that more people can give up on marriage as between a man and a woman for the benefit of children
and realize its no big deal, children don’t need two parents and, and extend it to anyone crazy enough to do it. Becauselets face it. If it doesn’t work out, you can just get a divorce!
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
As a Christian I really don’t feel welcome in America anymore. That is a great thing because it reminds me I am a citizen of the City of God and not the City of Man (as Augustine put it).
All these anti-Christian laws may be useful in reminding Christians that America is not our home and we should not place our hope or trust in this or any nation.
In some sense liberals may do Christians good by separating us drastically from mainstream America’s increasing anti_christian culture.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Alex,
“Yes, yes, there’s the whole lying-cheating-stealing thing, but those are universal values found independent of the Torah and Bible. No culture on Earth allows murder, etc.”
Not true. In fact, throughout history it has been quite commonly acceptable in non-Christian cultures for members of one social group to murder members of another.
Those are not universal values. What constitutes lying, stealing, murder, etc… is determined within a cultural context. Heck, we can’t even agree that intentionally killing an unborn child is murder.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Have you been to Dubai?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Kristofer, I’m not understanding your point.
Yes, gay sex was a crime until 2003. Sad and shocking as that is.
“RMB, it is illegal to hire someone based on sexual orientation.”
Uh, I’m not following what you’re trying to say.
I’m talking about employment being terminated because of ssexual orientation.
Employees who are working, and then come out of the closet sometime during their job, or are even SUSPECTED of being gay, can be fired because of it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:50 pm
116 – Lol no.
It’s because young people realize it’s not a choice.
There is no better indicator of a person’s support for equal rights for gays than whether they believe it’s a choice.
I was flipping through a book by that religionist Kennedy hack the other day and he’s like — “It’s not enough that the sodomites choose to live an unnatural lifestyle, but…”
And I’m like — uhh –
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Doug,
We are already there.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:51 pm
102,
Apparently in RMB’s wonderful land of persecution they don’t have workplace laws.
Unfortunately, he doesn’t understand that no one is persecuting him. It seems all he is capable of doing is creating straw men in 1,2 and 4 while changing the subject and ignoring my points.
While I’m at it…permitting same sex relationships and agreements isn’t the same as having the state approve of those relationships. I permit those relationships because it isn’t any of my business what contract or agreement two law abiding people engage in. At the same time I’m certainly going to fight to keep the government from changing the definition of marriage to give official approval to those private contracts.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:51 pm
“All these anti-Christian laws may be useful in reminding Christians that America is not our home and we should not place our hope or trust in this or any nation.
In some sense liberals may do Christians good by separating us drastically from mainstream America’s increasing anti_christian culture.”
I totally agree Doug.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:53 pm
#120,
NO, THAT IS ILLEGAL, UNLESS YOU ARE IN THE MILITARY.
Anyone who has proof they were terminated based on sexual orientation will win compensation in the court of law.
http://employment.findlaw.com/employment/employment-employee-discrimination-harassment/employment-employee-gay-lesbian-discrimination/
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Holy cow, I don’t have a wheelbarrow big enough to cart all the crap unloaded on common sense here. At any rate, was the argument that Christianity is wrong because adultery and pornography and stuff still happens in spite of it, or Christianity causes all that bad stuff, or I am a Christian and thankfully people like me are a dying breed, or gay is the newfangled way so love it or shove it, or gay is as old as the oldest profession and therefore needs to be legalized at least in Las Vegas? I want to thank Martha and the few others who stepped in to absorb some of the body blows intended for me, and I want to thank Ms. California and let her know I can fully empathize with her now. I have officially been Perez Hiltonized. Being gay has gotta be easier than this. Pity me.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:53 pm
As a Christian I really don’t feel welcome in America anymore.
Then gtfo.
Not true. In fact, throughout history it has been quite commonly acceptable in non-Christian cultures for members of one social group to murder members of another.
…Um, that’s utter nonsense and you know it.
Those are not universal values. What constitutes lying, stealing, murder, etc… is determined within a cultural context. Heck, we can’t even agree that intentionally killing an unborn child is murder.
Oh, no. I completely agree that killing an unborn child is a murder.
Our difference in opinion comes over the definition of a child.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:54 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States.svg
There’s your map, Kristofer.
“While I’m at it…permitting same sex relationships and agreements isn’t the same as having the state approve of those relationships.”
Why shouldn’t the state recognize relationships that are already taking place and will ALWAYS take place, that are perfectly healthy and loving, because YOU don’t like it?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:54 pm
or gay is the newfangled way so love it or shove it
No, no, it’s pretty old-fangled.
or gay is as old as the oldest profession and therefore needs to be legalized
Older.
And it already is legalized.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
#122 Perhaps we Christians are just realizing America isn’t a nation we can be comfortable with. Honestly it was a serious mistake to ever get too cozy to America and act as if America was our nation instead of belonging to the non-Christian majority.
My people can never feel like a nation is ours. We obviously are in the wrong if we fit in too well or too comfortably.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
While I’m at it…permitting same sex relationships and agreements isn’t the same as having the state approve of those relationships. I permit those relationships because it isn’t any of my business what contract or agreement two law abiding people engage in. At the same time I’m certainly going to fight to keep the government from changing the definition of marriage to give official approval to those private contracts.
I don’t want the state in marriage, but if it’s going to get involved, it ought to grant the same rights to different sexual orientations.
Pre-emptive attack: There are only two sexual orientations. Homosexual and heterosexual.
Polygamy is not an orientation.
Bisexuals would have to choose an orientation, as multiple wives/husbands is indeed changing the definition of marriage to a polygamous one.
Marriage equality means expanding/updating the definition of marriage to fit with modern psychology — and truth.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
“#120,
NO, THAT IS ILLEGAL, UNLESS YOU ARE IN THE MILITARY. ”
It isn’t illegal.
I’m genuinely saying to you: a company can fire you for any reason they like, including disapproval of sexual orientation, in those states on the map.
Now, if you feel there shouldn’t be employment discrimination protection of ANY KIND, that’s one thing. (Of course it ignores the very real reasons it is needed, but alas.)
But every argument in favor of employment discrimination protection for race, class, gender, religion, ethnicity, etc., needs to be there for sexual orientation and gender identity or THE PROTECTIONS ARE NOT THERE. DUH.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Taylor,
#116. Basically what you are describing is the cause of the cultural Marxists, and Alex is waving his flag in their parade. One of their godfathers (his name escapes me know) said about 80 years ago that Germany would never be communist as long as it was Christian. He argued for communism to succeed, Christianity must be destroyed. So he an many others went the route of attacking the Christian culture, including the ways you describe.
They pretty much run academia and popular culture now.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
RMB,
The natural course of evolution is repidly providing gay cizitens with equal rights…
Just give it a little more time.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
#122 Perhaps we Christians are just realizing America isn’t a nation we can be comfortable with. Honestly it was a serious mistake to ever get too cozy to America and act as if America was our nation instead of belonging to the non-Christian majority.
My people can never feel like a nation is ours. We obviously are in the wrong if we fit in too well or too comfortably.
Then go away. Go hide with Adam Graham in Idaho or something. Leave modernity and reason to us.
(Your boy Martin Luther said that Reason is a Whore. And modernity isn’t very conducive to Jesus.)
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
#116. Basically what you are describing is the cause of the cultural Marxists, and Alex is waving his flag in their parade. One of their godfathers (his name escapes me know) said about 80 years ago that Germany would never be communist as long as it was Christian.
Duh. Communism is atheistic.
That doesn’t mean atheism is communistic. But Communism is atheistic.
He argued for communism to succeed, Christianity must be destroyed.
DUH. Anyone who knows anything about Communism would know why that is.
So he an many others went the route of attacking the Christian culture, including the ways you describe. They pretty much run academia and popular culture now.
I hate academia and most popular culture.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:00 pm
I probably hate Marxism more than MWS does. I’m a diehard individualist capitalist.
Marx hated capitalism a lot more than religion.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:00 pm
MWS is incapable of seeing the total narcissism of those beliefs. The sheer self-righteousness of his beliefs.
“If only everyone were Christian, we’d all be better for it.”
People like you are the reason less people identify as Christians. Not because they don’t want to be good, moral people.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:00 pm
#132, state and federal laws protest gay Americans from workplace discrimination.
Not all laws use the term “gay”, but instead refer to;
-intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress
-harassment
-assault
-battery
-invasion of privacy
-defamation
-interference with an employment contract, and
wrongful termination.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
If everyone were rational, capitalistic, and pro-evidence (rather than pro-faith), we’d all be better for it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:02 pm
“RMB,
The natural course of evolution is repidly providing gay cizitens with equal rights…
Just give it a little more time.”
I’m perfectly aware of this, but I’m not at all understanding your overall point in relation to what we’d been discussing.
In viewing that map, are you now aware that despite areas like race, class, gender, religion, etc. being federally protected in employment, housing, and public service discrimination, that sexual orientation and gender identity is NOT, and therefore people ARE discriminated against for those reasons?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:02 pm
RMB – DOMA has changed that.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:03 pm
RMB and Alex,
You are blaming the wrong crowd. Progress has not been restricted by Christian’s, but by liberals, who believe in the almighty federal goverment. Liberals created the monster we now have, which can restrict civil liberties. Christian conservatives did not create the monster, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson and Carter did.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:03 pm
141 – Gender identity is not, but sexual orientation is.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:03 pm
128,
If homosexual relationship are already taking place then certainly the state doesn’t need to approve it. Contract laws are a wonderful thing and homosexuals are just as capable at making use of them. The state seal of approval on your relationship will not make any difference. Like I said before this really has nothing to do with gay marriage. You want to force people to approve of a behavior and force them to consider it a “normal” and “healthy” thing. Thankfully, there still quite a few of us who think otherwise.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
#135 If you can make your points in a serious adult manner I will respond.
I’m not going to stoop to the level of childish insults and the intellectual equivalent of self-stimulation.
Perhaps you can not engage in thought above the profane, superficial or childish level.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
143 – Progress has been restricted by both liberals and Christians. You’re erecting a false dichotomy.
Christians believe in the almighty federal government when it suits their interests — abortion, marriage, social engineering, “faith-based” initiatives, evolution, etc.
They’re just a little less malicious than liberals.
It wasn’t Christians who gave us Social Security. But it wasn’t liberals who gave us segregation.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
“Not all laws use the term “gay”, but instead refer to;”
Well but this is the crux of the argument then.
Every other area you listed gets AROUND the main point: sexual orientation. People who are not harassed at the workplace, assaulted, battered, have their privacy invaded, defamed, can still be fired if an employer believes that someone, just for merely being gay, interferes with the work environment (or has some personal disapproval with it) and can therefore fire someone.
That’s the whole point of ENDA, which was just introduced in the house. People need protection.
You can say it’s illegal and not right all you want, but it happens.
THAT’S THE REALITY. That’s why protections are needed.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Alex, sexual orientation employment protection (SONDA) was passed by the House, but the Senate took no action, so no, it still isn’t there on a federal level.
ENDA, which includes both gender identity and sexual orientation, was introduced into the House again a week ago, and is on track to pass.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 pm
If homosexual relationship are already taking place then certainly the state doesn’t need to approve it. Contract laws are a wonderful thing and homosexuals are just as capable at making use of them.
Contract laws for me but not for thee!
The state seal of approval on your relationship will not make any difference.
If they make no difference, then why do you give a shit about it? They make a difference to us.
Maybe if you didn’t take them for granted, they’d make a difference to you, too.
force them to consider it a “normal” and “healthy” thing.
You’re allowed to consider it whatever you want. You’re allowed to think the sky is red if you want. But we teach our children that the sky is blue.
Homosexuality is normal just as sure as the sky is blue.
If you think otherwise, you are simply objectively wrong.
Thankfully, there still quite a few of us who think otherwise.
Sky-is-red.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 pm
#147, to a point I agree. But who created the monster in the first place? Liberals.
Christian’s became threatened…as prior they were happy persecuting communists…
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
ENDA, which includes both gender identity and sexual orientation, was introduced into the House again a week ago, and is on track to pass.
Oops, I said DOMA instead of ENDA.
Oh, I thought ENDA had passed. Double oops.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
151 – Became threatened? Are you kidding? Threatened by what? Are you justifying their anti-abortion, anti-gay crusades or something? “They couldn’t help it!”
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Communists deserved to be persecuted.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Kris,
I’ve always read Sullivan’s work, and appreciate his insight and perspective, even when I’ve disagreed with him on issues like waterboarding or his fixation on Palin’s pregnancy. Who gives a shit that he’s gay, or an Obama supporter? If you dispute the substance of his writing, articulate your objections. Resorting to ad hominem slurs only diminishes your stature.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
RMB,
“MWS is incapable of seeing the total narcissism of those beliefs.”
No, creating your own morality to suit your own proclivities is narcissism.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Alex,
The tyrannic government liberals created began to nationalize laws, agencies, services and culture.
If all things were local (education, health, culture, etc…) we would not even be having this discussion.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:10 pm
“If homosexual relationship are already taking place then certainly the state doesn’t need to approve it. Contract laws are a wonderful thing and homosexuals are just as capable at making use of them. The state seal of approval on your relationship will not make any difference. Like I said before this really has nothing to do with gay marriage. You want to force people to approve of a behavior and force them to consider it a “normal” and “healthy” thing. Thankfully, there still quite a few of us who think otherwise.”
There are too many falsities in this to delve into.
At the crux of it, you’re saying that no matter what legal protections and rights same sex couples have, you fail to see how it will change the country’s opinion at large about same sex couples.
If I felt like it, I could get plenty of research that shows how racial discrimination laws and protections were vital for blacks and other people of color to have made the progress where they have today.
And if I felt like it, I could get countless stories of why marriage is the only alternative.
But I don’t.
I’m content with time proving my point. It’s not like gay rights is going to lose, anyway.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
NO, no no Alex. THere are NOT only two sexual orientations. How restrictive you are! There are zillions of “orientiations”, or preferences and ways you can act out your sexual urges. Like I was beginning to list before, pedophilia, promiscuity, necrophelia, bestiality, don’t make me go on. Maybe what you are saying, is that you believe there are only two correct ways to act on your sexual urges – with men, or with women. Well, I disagree with that too. And I disagree when someone insists that homosexual activity is like race – that they were born with those irrestistible urges and they cannot control them, just like you are born with black skin or Asian features and you must therefore…play basketball or eat rice? Well Lord help those people if that is true and they shouldn’t be walking the streets. ALL sexual urges should be controllable. There should be a thinking brain behind sexual activity, ideally. Otherwise you become a hazard to civilized society. Common sense might tell you like it tells me, I am able to control when and with whom I behave in a sexual fashion, I believe others can and should exert the same control over their urges.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:12 pm
MWS,
“No, creating your own morality to suit your own proclivities is narcissism.”
Don’t you understand that this is what you have done?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Alex,
If you succeed in getting rid of Christianity, you don’t know what you’ll get. My guess- with history as my witness- is that you won’t get a nation of minarchists.
So far, where Christianity is shoved aside, you’re more likely to get either communism, fascism, dictatorship, or a soft and hedonistic socialism.
You can pick from those.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Aron,
Sullivan should be deported.
#1 – Sullivan is a guest of our country, not a ciziten.
#2 – He has an illness that 99.9% of immigrants are denied entry, yet he used his power and $ to gain access to our country.
#3 – His writing are subversive and anti-American. He should be deported. As I am an American and he is a guest, I cdan write any slur about him I desire.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
NO, no no Alex. THere are NOT only two sexual orientations. How restrictive you are! There are zillions of “orientiations”, or preferences and ways you can act out your sexual urges. Like I was beginning to list before, pedophilia, promiscuity, necrophelia, bestiality,
Promiscuity is a behavior, not an orientation. Orientation is what you are naturally attracted to.
You are correct that pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality are natural and normal, but they are also immoral because they involve non-consenting partners. You cannot have a healthy relationship with a child, corpse, or animal.
don’t make me go on. Maybe what you are saying, is that you believe there are only two correct ways to act on your sexual urges – with men, or with women.
Two moral ways, yes.
Do you think I should date women, even though I have no sexual attraction to them?
Well, I disagree with that too. And I disagree when someone insists that homosexual activity is like race – that they were born with those irrestistible urges and they cannot control them, just like you are born with black skin or Asian features and you must therefore…play basketball or eat rice?
Huh? You aren’t born good at basketball or liking rice. You are born with certain sexual predestinations.
Well Lord help those people if that is true and they shouldn’t be walking the streets. ALL sexual urges should be controllable.
Should, perhaps. But aren’t.
There should be a thinking brain behind sexual activity, ideally.
Ideally, but not in reality.
Otherwise you become a hazard to civilized society.
Better eliminate me.
Common sense might tell you like it tells me, I am able to control when and with whom I behave in a sexual fashion, I believe others can and should exert the same control over their urges.
Behave, yes. But that’s not an orientation. If you want to argue against a particular orientation, do so, but please realize how illogical it is.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Kristofer,
“#2 – He has an illness that 99.9% of immigrants are denied entry,”
I just wanted to point out that this is very close to being repealed.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 pm
RMB,
“Don’t you understand that this is what you have done?”
No. I struggle with my faith, and doing right and not doing wrong. I don’t presume to make something right just because I enjoy it. If everything is always comfy in your life and conscience, then you are simply basing your morality on your own desires.
That is narcissism.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 pm
So far, where Christianity is shoved aside, you’re more likely to get either communism, fascism, dictatorship, or a soft and hedonistic socialism.
You can pick from those.
This is true; see my 110.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
#161, what does that mean!!!!!!!???
Minarchists are not pagan, anarchists!
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:17 pm
No. I struggle with my faith, and doing right and not doing wrong. I don’t presume to make something right just because I enjoy it. If everything is always comfy in your life and conscience, then you are simply basing your morality on your own desires.
Better than basing it on mythology.
I base it on reason, myself.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:17 pm
However returning to the main point. A religion based on what an individual likes is more narcissistic and selfish than even nihilists.
That’s why I find sensible mature atheists (I work with several) much more tolerable than the cafeteria Catholics and their implicit belief in their own moral perfection.
At least nihilists don’t claim God is on their side in every issue because “God must agree with how I feel”. A nihilist claims there is no morality (because there is no greater authority outside of man).
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Alex,
“There should be a thinking brain behind sexual activity, ideally.
Ideally, but not in reality.”
There is no thinking behind your sexual activity?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:17 pm
RMB,
Hatians are denied entry for having aids, yet Sullivan lives freely, using our health care resources. Nice.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
170 – My activity? Yes. My desires (which is what she was referring to, in context)? No.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
#170, what sexual activity?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Kris,
“#161, what does that mean!!!!!!!???”
It means that if Alex ever gets his fantasy of a Christianless America, he probably isn’t going to like what comes next.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
And based on simple statistics, I would be willing to bet that more than a few of us posting here tonight have some odd fetishes and paraphilias.
I’ll bet MWS has one!
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
MWS,
Alex is not a minarchist. Where are minarchists anti-Christian?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
173 – I’m gay. I have sex with three guys a day, catching STDs from random men, remember?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:20 pm
176 – Yes I am.
Who says a minarchist can’t be anti-Christian?
Ayn Rand was the quintessential minarchist and a diehard anti-theist.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:21 pm
MWS,
Or, you can realize that everyone has their own sense of morality, and that it changes over time — both in the individual and in society at large.
Informing our morality are facts, experiences, and teachings.
Since everyone has their own morality, the law has to be there to provide some standard.
We can all agree on this, no?
I have a question for you:
Have you ever done research on gay people? I suspect not.
What are the facts of sodomy, or of gay relationships, that have told you that it is a detriment to society at large? The facts.
I mean, I assume you’re a rational human being who is capable of using reason, yes?
If you weren’t, you would just abide by everything you were taught without question on whether it is right or wrong.
So why are you afraid to question yourself on your stance on homosexuality, and research the facts just a little bit? If you’re right, won’t you find evidence that corroborates with the beliefs you already hold — except this time you’ll have facts at your disposal?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Kris,
Alex said he is a minarchist.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Reason is a method of arriving at beliefs it is not an objective set of beliefs.
Some people talk as if reason leads inexorably in the same direction from all subjective perspectives. Not even in science does reason lead to only one answer consistent with observations.
In science we accept the simplest theory that works. Not because it is right but because we care about being able to make a consistent explanation that provides predictions. Most scientists are not so fantasy driven to think we can actually fully touch reality and squeeze from it objective truth.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
181 – Reason and faith are, by definition, antithetical. If it were evidence-based, we’d call it reason, not faith.
179 – Read The Sexual Spectrum by Olive Skene Johnson. Great, great book!
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
MWS,
Christianity and minarchism can play in the same ball field.
One can argue that many of the original minarchists that founded American (fleeing from religious persecution) were Christian libertarians.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Doug,
#181 excellent point.
Marx, Hegel, Kant, Bentham, Descartes, all claimed to be employing reason as their guide. All of them were smarter than me (or Alex), and yet they couldn’t agree on the time of day.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Religious Rightists don’t research sex because they hate sex. They think it’s evil and wrong and dirty.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
“Reason is a method of arriving at beliefs it is not an objective set of beliefs.”
Reason informs your beliefs. You use reason, Doug. Everyone does.
You say as much. Reason is a method of arriving at beliefs.
So what are your reasons for opposing gay people? The bible?
So what were your reasons for not enforcing other things in the bible — like stoning, polygamy, slavery, animal sacrifice, and what not?
Why are gay people different?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Alex:
“181 – Reason and faith are, by definition, antithetical. If it were evidence-based, we’d call it reason, not faith.”
Glad to see your opinion but it is irrelevant to the point I made young man. I wish they focused on logic in college.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
183 – Our founders were not minarchists, but they were the closest to them that the world has ever seen in action.
184 – Hah! Those people — especially Marx and Kant — were the enemies of reason. They have more in common with you than with me.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
#185, not true.
Studies have proven that married women (many who are Christian) have better sex lives than single women.
SO: MWS’s wife is probably much more satisfied then the women you dated in high school.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Kris,
“Christianity and minarchism can play in the same ball field.”
I never said they couldn’t. My point was that post-Christian America is NOT going to bring an era of minarchy. In fact, I would suggest that minarchy NEEDS Christianity as a moral guide, a bulwark against the state, and a basis for civil society.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Glad to see your opinion but it is irrelevant to the point I made young man. I wish they focused on logic in college.
Young man? What are you, like, seven years older than I am?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
189 – WTF does that have to do with what I said — even assuming what you’re saying is true.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
MWS, the US is the most religious western nation on the planet. There is, and will never be a post-Christian America.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:29 pm
RMB,
“So what were your reasons for not enforcing other things in the bible — like stoning, polygamy, slavery, animal sacrifice, and what not?”
I always love that canard.
Old covenant.
New covenant.
If you ask a Christian why they don’t support stoning, then you don’t know a thing about Christianity (or even simple stories in the Gospels, like the adulteress Jesus saved from stoning). The people your question should be directed towards are Jews. They are the people of the Torah.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Alex,
You stated that Christian’s hate sex. Clearly not true.
Alex, just because someone goes to church…does not mean they are ‘frigid’. They just chose to discuss in the privacy of their own bedrooms, and not on blogs.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:30 pm
194 – You’re correct, of course, which is why I never make that argument.
Anyway — what about women not speaking in church? Paul said that women shouldn’t speak in church.
Should that be enforced by law?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:30 pm
choose*
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Alex,
I’m afraid that unless your side gets a majority, the color of the sky, and the definition of marriage, will not be changing.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:31 pm
195 – Actually, MWS put up a window into his bedroom.
It’s the missionary position.
ONLY.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:31 pm
#186 I’m not aware I oppose homosexuals.
I don’t think treating the genders as perfectly equivalent in all situations is reasonable. Same-sex marriage is predicated on the idea that a relationship between two men or two women fits the heterosexual structure and pattern that marriage was created for.
That is an arguable point. I’m only one voice and now people tend to disregard the long historical process that developed marriage out of many different models of heterosexual family structures. The question of marriage is one for the majority to decide and I can only speak for my daughter and wife.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:31 pm
198 – Um, this is true, but that’s obvious. What we’re arguing is whether my side is right or not (it is).
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
that is not fair. You know that is not true. He clearly has a healthy marriage.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Alex,
“Should that be enforced by law?”
Secular law? Of course not. Church law? It’s up to the Church. Not to devolve into the minutiae of Christian theology, but St. Paul was referring specifically to sacramental and pastoral leadership (i.e. no priestesses), he was not meaning that women should literally never speak in church. The Church has always used the abilities of women in numerous roles that require speaking.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:34 pm
200 – It fits the essential pattern in the modern definition of marriage: two people in love who choose to join together as a unit, fit for child-rearing if they choose to. It’s about honor, commitment, loyalty, fidelity, joy, and community-building.
There’s a lot to love about the institution, which is why homosexuals want to be a part of it. Why do you think we’re fighting for inclusion into it?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Secular law? Of course not. Church law? It’s up to the Church.
So why should secular law enforce Biblical law when it comes to gays?
Why can’t that just be — in your words — up to the church?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:34 pm
“If you ask a Christian why they don’t support stoning, then you don’t know a thing about Christianity”
Well, you are right there. =P
MWS,
“Alex,
I’m afraid that unless your side gets a majority, the color of the sky, and the definition of marriage, will not be changing.”
So you acknowledge that when the younger, more tolerant generations grow up, that they will be the majority and same sex marriage will be legalized?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:34 pm
#201 You’ve not demonstrate you’re right. That is impossible because we don’t agree on enough for you to demonstrate that to anyone who doesn’t already agree with your dubious premises. You could provide evidence and logical arguments but mostly you’re just asserting you’re right based on??? I’m guessing here… the inherent rightness of teenage atheist homosexuals?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:36 pm
#207 Doug Forrester,
What about the inherent rights of a teenage (19 year old) atheist heterosexual woman who is barren, who wants to get married and/or adopt children?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:39 pm
207 – Christians hate sex because they hate life, just like the author of Ecclesiastes did. And like Jesus, who said that the real treasure is in Heaven, anyway, so we shouldn’t even bother accumulating happiness and goods here. It should all be in preparation for the next life.
That’s a wonderfully comforting delusion for persecuted Jews in the Roman Empire, but in modern America, it’s a bit outmoded.
You said it yourself: you don’t even feel at home in America.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Alex,
“So why should secular law enforce Biblical law when it comes to gays?”
All law is based on morality (of SOME kind), but not all morality is written into law. Your example (women in church) is a matter of church discipline that has little to no bearing on society at large. Marriage- as an institution- is integral to society. Therefore, society (through the state) has a vested interest in it.
That is not to say that gays can’t perform whatever private ceremonies they want. But that doesn’t mean in so doing, they deserve the rights and privileges that society grants real marriage, because society has a vested interest in the preservation of marriage and the rearing of children. Society has no particular interest in sodomy, as it is a fruitless exercise.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:39 pm
#208, it is probably a good thing the 19 year old is sterile, because she is way too young and stupid to be thinking about that.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:40 pm
A nineteen-year-old is generally not considered a “teenager.” I’m a grown man, legally and mentally.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Alex, you do realize you just said that to a pro-life, new father? Clearly Doug loves both…he proved it. Where is your evidence?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
All law is based on morality (of SOME kind), but not all morality is written into law. Your example (women in church) is a matter of church discipline that has little to no bearing on society at large. Marriage- as an institution- is integral to society. Therefore, society (through the state) has a vested interest in it.
So you think that there is a legitimate secular argument against same-sex marriage.
So make it. All of your arguments thus far seem to boil down to (a) Biblical law, or (b) Objectively incorrect psychology.
That is not to say that gays can’t perform whatever private ceremonies they want. But that doesn’t mean in so doing, they deserve the rights and privileges that society grants real marriage, because society has a vested interest in the preservation of marriage and the rearing of children.
How will enacting same-sex marriage keep “traditional” marriage from being preserved?
Why would a same-sex marriage prevent the rearing of children?
Society has no particular interest in sodomy, as it is a fruitless exercise.
Yeah, because that’s all homosexual relationships are. Sodomy. We don’t love, we have sodomize. We don’t have relationships, we have “lifestyles.” We don’t have aspirations and dreams for a beautiful life with a partner. We have an “agenda.”
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
MWS,
Do you think society has an interest in making sure kids in foster care or up for adoption agencies are placed with loving, stable families?
So when there has found to be no detriment to same-sex parenting, do you think the country should have an interest in making sure stable same-sex couples can adopt?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
#208 I don’t believe in an inherent right to marriage or to adoption.
So the woman’s desires to acquire a government document or receive a child from the government don’t matter to me. It could be argued that the woman’s desires require government protection. That’s not an argument I’m convinced of.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Alex,
“Christians hate sex because they hate life, just like the author of Ecclesiastes did.”
That’s just dumb. That’s like saying every queer loves Abba, fantasizes about winning a Tony award, and has a fabulous sense of fashion.
I don’t hate sex. Crap, I have 5 kids! And I don’t hate life. I love life.
As for Ecclesiastes, you have to understand that the Bible is FAR more sophisticated and nuanced than you know. The author is exploring a truth (that life is ultimately fleeting) and expresses some despair regarding where he is at in it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Alex, you do realize you just said that to a pro-life, new father? Clearly Doug loves both…he proved it. Where is your evidence?
He’s “pro-life” as opposed to “pro-choice.”
Christians hate life inasmuch as they hate vital existence, by which I mean: worldly happiness. They hate Earth. They hate man as man; they love life only insofar as it can be furthered to worship Jesus.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:45 pm
“#208 I don’t believe in an inherent right to marriage”
This is fine, but you should realize one, very specific thing:
The Supreme Court in Loving vs. Virginia that people had a fundamental right to marriage.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Alex,
#214,
Honestly, I don’t have the time or energy tonight. I have plowed through that on at least a couple other threads before, and I am certain it will come up again.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:46 pm
I agree that all hate crimes should be repealed.
In our schools here in town, kids literally purposely allow their trousers to fall to their ankles, and get by with it scott free. That’s not right. When teaching, I sometimes here the F word over a hundred times per day with no repurcusions on the students..that’s not right. Why is there so much more credence given to freedom of speech rather than freedom to hear only what we want to hear, especially vulgarity. I know this is kinda off subject but related.
Personally, as far as gay rights, I think each individual thing should be addressed in each state or community. If a state wants to allow for hospital visits, fine; allow for inheritance issues, fine. Whatever, fine. BUT, none of these things takes special wording like ‘civil unions’ to accomplish. Gay unions are just a slipper yslope for ‘gay marriages. We’ve already seen what the proponents want to do in terms of shoving this down churches throats to force them to perform them? Can you imagine a country forcing an LDS church marry a gay in their temples, or be fined, or lose their tax status etc. That’s what some of these people are wanting, therefore, we need to not jump onto the slippery slope…its way too steep and slick.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:47 pm
That’s just dumb. That’s like saying every queer loves Abba, fantasizes about winning a Tony award, and has a fabulous sense of fashion.
…I love ABBA, I wanted to be a Broadway performer at one point in my life, and I happen to think that my sense of style is pretty good.
So you’re actually batting pretty well so far. LOL.
But obviously, I’m making a generalization. You’re being insanely literal here. Assume that I’m referring to you and Doug.
I don’t hate sex. Crap, I have 5 kids!
I can logically deduce that you’ve had sex five times.
And I don’t hate life. I love life.
You don’t love it on its own accord.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:48 pm
221 – If you could be totally assured that churches would not be forced to perform same-sex marriages, would you be okay with them?
I agree with you on that issue, by the way.
And why any gay couple would want to get married in a church is beyond me.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:48 pm
NO, Alex…that is Saul Alinsky, not Doug Forrester.
Alex, as a father I can tell you, you do not understand love and the purpose of life until you become a parent. Doug is experiencing feelings and emotions from the recent birth of his first (planned) that allows men to understand what you cannot understand.
BTW, when you said; “vital existance”, are you suggesting that Doug practices LaVeyan Satanism?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Re #207 and #218
On that note I’m going to sign off and have some personal time with my wife. I intend to have a good time including much happiness. I may be back in an hour or so if I’m not too tired.
MWS keep the (social) liberals on here honest in my absence.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Alex,
“Christians hate life inasmuch as they hate vital existence, by which I mean: worldly happiness.”
Do you realize that monks basically perfected the art of brewing and wine making?
Do you realize that the Church commissioned and inspired much of the greatest art that was ever sculpted, painted, or performed?
A Church that “hates life” doesn’t do that.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
HETEROSEXUALS:
Fall in love
Relationships
Have goals and aspirations
HOMOSEXUALS:
Sodomize
Lifestyles
Have an agenda
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:50 pm
<bockquote?I can logically deduce that you’ve had sex five times.
That is probably more than several of the FPP put together, for the 2007-2008 election season.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:50 pm
“And why any gay couple would want to get married in a church is beyond me.”
A recent study just found that 60% of gay people felt that their faith was at least somewhat or very important to them.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:51 pm
224 – My! You know the reference. Good for you. I had no idea that you were familiar with LaVeyan Satanism. LaVey is wonderful. A great, great thinker and a fantastic humorist.
226 – Thankfully, nature compels men to not always act in accordance with their ideology.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:52 pm
That is probably more than several of the FPP put together, for the 2007-2008 election season.
Have you seen Kavon’s wife?!
A recent study just found that 60% of gay people felt that their faith was at least somewhat or very important to them.
Yuck.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Alex,
Sure, nature compelled this, against all the nefarious forces of religion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPiQE4HjcxA
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:53 pm
#231, I am not in>>to brunette’s.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:56 pm
It was almost impossible to get your music known at a particular time if it wasn’t religious in nature.
But that’s irrelevant; I did not mean that Christians hated life in the sense that they figure that they might as well sit in a corner and die. Again, I refer to ‘vital existence.’
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:56 pm
http://crazymindseye.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/pieta4.jpg
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Alex,
“Again, I refer to ‘vital existence.’”
Well, I must confess, per #230, that I’m not well versed in your Satanist verbiage.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Classical art is so beautiful.
To this era’s detriment, modern-day art is simply horrendous.
Hell, even in the humanities — I’ll take Aquinas over Peter Singer, at that rate.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Alex, do not stereotype heterosexuals on ‘beauty’.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
236 – Meaning: worldly happiness, rather than spiritual pipe dreams. Maximizing one’s earthly potential, for its own sake, not to worship a deity. Morality based upon reason and what furthers one’s life, not according to an ancient book of myths. Total liberation from social conventions — going only by where our rationality leads us. Evaluate things by their merits only.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Looks like I have to go for now. I’m going to have a fun late-night adventure with a friend! Yay!
Us crazy kids and our adventures!
BAH-BAH.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:05 pm
“Hell, even in the humanities — I’ll take Aquinas over Peter Singer, at that rate.”
I should hope so.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Alex,
“Evaluate things by their merits only.”
Merit implies a standard which of necessity includes values that cannot be derived from “pure reason” alone.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
you guys spend 2 hours talking about sex, then you all lie about it when you sign off.
Gotta love guys.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Kris,
Guys lying about sex is as old as, well, guyhood.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Good night y’all. I’ve got a date with some spreadsheets.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:10 pm
#244, no kidding. Doug went to heat a bottle and Alex has paper due in the morning.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:29 pm
214. “So you think that there is a legitimate secular argument against same-sex marriage.”
How’s this:
Men and Women are not the same things.
Therefore a couple comprised of a man and a women is not the same thing as a couple comprised of two men or two women.
The state can distinguish between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples because they are not the same things, unlike the civil rights rulings regarding race where the courts found that they could not distinguish based on race.
Gays may be born with whatever predispositions they feel they are born with, but this feelings of attraction do not mean that the state has to disregard the existence of gender. While men and women are treated equally as individuals, the state has a compelling interest to produce more children so society grows and stays healthy. The state also has a compelling interest that those children be raised well.
I support the state recognizing the rights of same sex couples in whatever way the elected officials or voters feel is appropriate for their state, but I do not accept that the state has to recognize a heterosexual couple in the exact same way it recognizes a homosexual couple, because they’re not the same.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:31 pm
#246 You ended up being right in my case unfortunately.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Alex, I’d still have issues with it, but not as many. I think some of the fiscal benefits are specifically in place to encourage marriage between male and female for purposes of reproduction. For example, ’social security benefits’ where the woman spouse is able to get 50% of the husbands when she reaches age (even if she hasn’t worked outside of the home) is intended to entice couples to bring children in the family. The ‘married, filing jointly’ would be the same kind of thing, intended to encourage marriage so that children can be produced. And its perfectly right and normal that there should be those incentives in place. Have you ever thought about the fact that our HUGE problems we have with our social security system going broke would be solved if only we had hardly any abortions, reared them in a loving home to become all that they can be (including working for a living), we would have money running out our ears in the system. Then add to that, what if we had a situation where each couple decided to have one more child than they are currently having? We would have to up everybody’s benefits ‘big time’ to use all the money.
Bottom line, I don’t want the term ‘marriage’ used, and I don’t want some of the financial benefits to be available if they do not fit the situation. Like I said earlier, deal with each ‘right’ on an individual basis within the state and not associate any special term to it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Furthermore, Alex, I’m still waiting for you to explain your reasoning that attraction between gays justifies the rewriting of the law to promote same sex coupling, but attraction between multiple partners doesn’t.
Why should the attraction gays feel be more important to the court than the attraction married heterosexual couples feel for a third person? Why should the attraction gays feel be more important than attraction felt between cousins?
If one argues that all attractions are innate and all equally natural, shouldn’t the court equally enable them?
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Sigh.
There is a detriment to children being reared from incest.
And it would be nigh impossible under our current system to untangle all the laws so they could fit however many number people would be in a polygamous marriage.
Gay marriage works perfectly under our current system and has no detriment, and the only rewriting of laws that would occur would just make the same exact ones gender neutral.
Furthermore, there ARE studies that question the emotional damage faced on women in polygamous marriages.
“Men and Women are not the same things.
Therefore a couple comprised of a man and a women is not the same thing as a couple comprised of two men or two women.”
Men and women may be different, but again:
THERE IS NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT SAME SEX PARENTING IS OF ANY DETRIMENT TO A CHILD. TONS OF STUDIES SUPPORT THIS.
So why would the law discourage healthy families from adopting and enjoying rights when there isn’t even a detriment?
“Alex, I’d still have issues with it, but not as many.”
You can’t force a church to accept gay marriage. Every state that has legalized it has said that, and religions are free to ignore gay marriage (or marry who they want) under the first amendment.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Also, Illinoisguy, there is no requirement upon receiving a marriage license that procreation has to happen.
So why is this constantly brought up in arguing against same sex marriage, especially when most of these same sex couples who want to get married would love to adopt children who already are in dire need of care?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Yeah you guys burned me out so much on this issue I actually got bested by a Ron Pauler down at the swimming pool. But I’m back in time to see that Lorelli took up the baton and thumped Alex with it ever-so-lovingly, so I’ll add this gem: Tell me why guy homos aren’t just grown-ups playing the cootie game who hate women. And same for women homos. Explain why they aren’t just man-haters trying to cut them out of the family equation. What’s not sick and wrong about that? And before you get offended, Alex, which typically you put up with a lot before losing it, if you can say Christians are frigid or hate sexual activity or what all, it is fair to say gay folks are haters of the gender they are not. That should be a hate crime. That should make them ineligible for the Supreme Court.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Yuckie, girls have cooties, men should be able to marry men. Why would a sane person even entertain that argument? But I digress.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Liz, you need to understand something.
I don’t get aroused by women.
I get aroused by men.
I was born like that.
Furthermore, I am not interested in non human beings, or children, or family members.
I am interested in a consensual, loving relationship with someone who arouses me — someone of the same gender.
What justifies the government from excluding me from the same exact treatment people who are aroused by the opposite gender enjoy?
Especially when there is absolutely no known unhealthy element to it?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:08 pm
In order to justify rewriting laws and abandoning our current definition of marriage I think advocates of same-sex marriage ought to have more than a handful of studies to justify their claim that they won’t damage society.
I’d prefer if voters want to move in this extreme direction that they go slowly so that if we find same-sex marriage has significant negative effects we can repeal it before it becomes entrenched in the law.
I’d never vote to redefine marriage but the majority ought to have some respect for the consequences that the rest of us might face from their rash decision. They ought to wait until more studies and information is in to accurately judge the potential damage from redefining marriage.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:09 pm
I’ll tell you what the secret ingredient is here, although some in this panel may not be mature enough to handle it. It’s selfishness. Mutual usury vs. mutual beneficial relationships. Homosexuality is based on selfishness. Traditional marriage embodies selflessness, for the good of others. That’s in it’s most simplified version. That’s why the movement gets so violently angry when you cross them. Don’t mess with selfishness unless you want a tantrum. On the flip side, that’s why traditional marriage is such a beautiful thing. My illustration for the gay movement would be that bloated blog pic of Perez Hilton’s face contorted with hatred. Just awful. Even if you replace that with two nicely groomed young men in tuxedos cutting wedding cake, I can see Hilton lurking in the background…..
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Doug, that’s not the way our government works.
You know that.
Things are legal unless there IS a detriment. You cannot prohibit behavior or actions that have no known detriment or consequence. The onus is on you to prove that there is a negative consequence.
There have never been any known consequences from same sex marriage, same sex parenting, in either any of the states that have legalized it, or any of the countries that have.
The only people that, time and time again, have a problem with it, are people that have religious misgivings about it, and people who think that children are at a loss being parented by same gendered couples. — something that has been factually debunked.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:12 pm
#255 RMB with all due respect, who gives a flying one about your arousal besides you? The US government should care about what gets you aroused? That’s the selfishness I’m talking about. Sanford is aroused by Latina lassies he’s not married to. He thinks everyone should be understanding and celebrate his new found happiness. Count me out on that one too.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Liz: You are homophobic. It is that simple. You have irrational hatred toward a group that is not based remotely on fact or reason.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:14 pm
“#255 RMB with all due respect, who gives a flying one about your arousal besides you? The US government should care about what gets you aroused?”
EXACTLY!
The government should NOT care who arouses me.
So why stand in the way?
Liz: *There is no detrimental effect to a loving, consensual, non-related homosexual relationship*. Why should the government stand in the way?
By not providing marriage licenses, they are.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Furthermore, Liz, don’t you understand?
There is nothing at all different about a gay relationship or gay people except that they love the same gender.
Nothing.
They are born that way, but other than who they love there is nothing different.
Why do you harbor such hatred? Why such a double standard? Why claim falsities that aren’t there?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Liz, I have one thing in common with Sanford.
Doug, sorry to hear.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 pm
#255 furthermore I guarantee you weren’t born being aroused by men. Maybe someone taught you inapropriately at some stage of your infancy or childhood, and I would be sorry for that. In my experience, I have yet to see any of my children act out sexually in anyway and my oldest is in double digits now. I have more than half a dozen children. No confessions of gayness, straightness, nothing because I don’t feed them a steady diet of any type of sexual images, ideas, or fantasies. They are happy, active, funloving kids. And I would be very angry if some school authority taught them about sexual preferences and thereby ended prematurely their childhood.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 pm
So I would be happy for all sexual deviancy to go back into the closet, for the benefit of the kids. My kids, if they were asked whether men should marry men would probably think that was just silly. And that’s how it should be. Marriage is about families. Gay stuff is about sexual activity.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Liz, I have a question for you:
Nevermind that it’s a really really offensive and silly thing to claim that everyone who is gay was gay because they were exposed to awful things or were abused.
What about all those Republicans that have gay family members, or daughters? All those pastors?
Rep. Sally Kern has a gay son, yet she thinks that gay marriage is debauchery.
How do you explain all this? This mass-scale abuse that must be turning little people gay?
And why has it not been scientifically identified yet? Are you ahead of the curve on all of the most intelligent scientists in the world, Liz?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Liz, so I am incapable of love, just because the person is a male? I don’t have feelings?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Now before accusing me of being a hater, I think you all are haters. The ones dogpiling traditionalists. So lets all search our hearts. Back to politics….
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:26 pm
#258, You can hold a marriage ceremony in every state of the union.
You’re not asking for the right to just hold a ceremony you’re asking for the government to protect and enforce a set of privileges.
When you demand government benefits I think you’re no longer asking for just freedom to do as you please. You’re also demanding government goodies.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Furthermore, Liz, it seems that none of your kids have hit puberty yet, am I right?
What happens if, upon reaching puberty, or sometime later, one of your kids comes out as gay.
Why not just accept that kids or born this way and there’s nothing unnatural about it, instead of condemning your parenting for causing something that can’t even be prevented?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:28 pm
267 why are you incapable of love? I don’t know anything about that, but if you have multiple partners, or if you ask a guy to marry you because you want to give him children and make all his dreams come true (and you yourself are male), there is an element of insincerity there that may be incompatible with what we consider to be true love in this culture.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
No no Doug, let’s no skirt around the actual issue.
People are born gay. But since you refuse to believe that fact, let’s ask this again:
There are absolutely no detriments to a same sex couple, same sex marriage, or same sex parenting.
So why does the government get to deny people from marrying people of the same sex?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:30 pm
#266 Human nature is fallible. How many pastors or Republicans have children who lie, use drugs or get divorces. I don’t think any of us consider homosexuality as a behavior to be worse than lying, drug use or divorce.
This assumption that people are naturally “good” is too silly to take seriously.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Liz, but what if I and my ONE partner wanted to have children through a surrogate mother, or through adoption?
What’s so wrong about that, especially when there are no facts to the notion that same sex parenting is detrimental to children?
Are you willing to put children at risk by not having them as well protected as children from opposite sex couples through all the rights and protections afforded to married families?
Why, when, again, there is no detriment to it?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:32 pm
266 my point was not that all gay people were abused or not. My point was that young children do not naturally contemplate sexual activity, without having the idea put into their head in some way. That is my first hand experience. My experience is also that they are quite content, and happier that way. I’m a big believer in letting kids be kids. So when someone says “I was gay from birth,” I don’t like that because someone abused that person or else they would not be considering such things as a small child, at all. The abuse could be letting them watch inappropriate TV shows, or inappropriate talking or touching for that age. I don’t know first hand, thankfully.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Doug Forrester, but surely there are consequences to lying, to taking drugs, and to divorce.’
There are no consequences to same sex coupling, marriage, or parenting.
So why the comparisons?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:34 pm
“Especially when there is absolutely no known unhealthy element to (homosexuality)?”
You mean, except that homosexual men have shorter life expectancies than smokers? And yet the health hazards of smoking is justification enough for the government to regulate that to no limit.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:35 pm
#272 We don’t know whether there are any serious detriments to same-sex marriage or parenting.
There hasn’t been enough research on that issue to come to a definitive conclusion.
All sexual behavior is voluntary. We aren’t dogs humping every leg on the street. It is probably true that homosexual urges are not chosen.
That doesn’t matter to me. As a society we don’t approve of all innate urges, even ones with no victim.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:36 pm
274 OK, I’ll answer that if you tell me, what is so repulsive to you about the opposite sex? So foreign, awful or frightening, that you would not consider a relationship with someone of the opposite sex? How about a friendship? Can you trust someone of the opposite sex? Is that possible?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Liz, I want to clarify something.
When I said from birth, I meant puberty.
Before puberty, I had emotional crushes on women and men. Mostly women, actually. Typical, normal, grade school crushes.
When I hit puberty, I found that I was aroused by men. And no, it was not by abuse, or ideas, or anything like that. In fact, I didn’t realize I was gay for a while BECAUSE there was no one around me telling me it was normal.
Again, Liz:
There is no known detriment to same sex activity. None.
None.
None.
So what is your problem?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:37 pm
#276 You keep asserting that but on a trivial level it is obviously untrue. There are obviously consequences to any behavior. Often there are compositions of positive and negative consequences.
There exists insufficient research to conclude with absolute certainty that there are no serious negative consequences to homosexual behaviors.
To say otherwise is to knowingly lie. You just can’t know that yet.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Liz, I’ll be happy to answer this!:
“274 OK, I’ll answer that if you tell me, what is so repulsive to you about the opposite sex?”
Nothing at all. I think women are gorgeous. Salma Hayek is positively stunning. I love big boobs, tight abs, and a pretty face on a woman. I love the opposite sex.
“So foreign, awful or frightening, that you would not consider a relationship with someone of the opposite sex?”
This is the problem:
I don’t get aroused by girls sexually. I just don’t. If I could, I would.
I really would. It’d be so much easier. I wouldn’t have people like you telling me I was immoral.
Many gay men DO marry women. Their wives wonder why they are not interested in them sexually, or why they don’t arouse them. The women then feel like it is THEIR fault.
I don’t have relationships with women because it would be wrong to deceive them.
Liz, it would be like if you tried getting aroused by the female body. I’m sure you appreciate its beauty, and you know there are attractive women, but it just doesn’t turn you on. Men do.
“How about a friendship? Can you trust someone of the opposite sex? Is that possible?”
Of course! Many gay men get along spectacularly with women. It’s a cliche at this point.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Yeah and let’s have a proponent of the new age of marriage rebut that one, we’ve been putting it out for a while there and it is met with silence. Can you pro-homo-marriagers state whether or not you can control your sexual urges, and whether you think it is desireable for society to expect that of it’s members or not. Alex already said he is basically an untamed wild animal when it comes to sex. Thank heavens we communicate through the internet, the wonders of today’s electronic age that keep us safer. Care to refine your self-description, Alex? Or back away from it?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:42 pm
“Many gay men get along spectacularly with women.”
It’s the shopping and gossip.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Doug Forrester, so when the American Psychological Association and other leading organizations on this subject say there is absolutely nothing wrong with same sex parenting, and they encourage it, this isn’t enough for you?
What is good enough for you?
I really will be happy to get whatever studies to show you whatever you need to know.
But tell me: What is going to be good enough for you to convince you that there are indeed no detriments to same sex couples?
MWS,
There is no such thing. The notion that gay men die young is not true in of itself. There is nothing programmed in gay men for them to “die young”.
Often what happens is because society condemns their sexual activity, they are forced underground and engage in risky behavior. Or they turn to drugs to cope with their family’s rejection of who they are. Or alcohol.
That’s one of the reasons India decriminalized homosexuality yesterday. Because the law was preventing them from fighting AIDS in that country. The law was forcing men underground to engage in risky behavior, making them more prone to getting AIDS, like anyone engaging in sexually risky behavior.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:46 pm
“Can you pro-homo-marriagers state whether or not you can control your sexual urges, and whether you think it is desireable for society to expect that of it’s members or not.”
I can control my sexual urges like anyone else can control theirs.
Infact, Liz, I controlled myself so well I I continued to engage sexually with women even though I felt nothing from it. I had never done anything with a guy until I was almost 20.
There is nothing different about me from you, Liz. I’m just a guy like anyone else. I just get turned on by the same gender you do.
And you know what? There’s no detriment to it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:46 pm
I hope RMB can control himself and doesn’t attempt intercourse with any male who comes in his vicinity and attracts him.
However if he does that then he chooses when to exercise his homosexuality and when to restrain it.
Just as heterosexuals choose when to restrain our sexual desires.
In the case of monks often the choice to go to seclusion was inspired by an inability to control sexual urges (as with Athanasius)
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:47 pm
“It’s the shopping and gossip.”
I don’t really like shopping very much and I particularly don’t like gossip.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:47 pm
RMB,
If gender truly doesn’t matter, then why are you homosexual? If there is no difference in the sexes, then why do you have a preference?
On the other hand, if there IS something to gender, and differences between the sexes, MIGHT those differences extend BEYOND your arousal? MIGHT those differences- those differences that delineate your preference- extend into areas such as, oh, I don’t know (just throwing something out there)…… parenting?
Hmmmmmmm……. We see sex differences in virtually every higher species of animal when it comes to rearing young. And it is you non-Christians that are constantly telling us we are only animals.
So on what basis are we to believe that the only difference in this whole universe between men and women is where your penis wants to go?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:48 pm
#287 Doug Forrester
Of course.
But you’re telling me I should never engage in homosexual activity with someone who willingly consents? That I’m not capable of a loving relationship with someone of the same gender?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:49 pm
#282 I found your little treatise on the “beauties” of women to be very telling there. It was, icky. Rude and belittling. I detect you do indeed have a problem with women. I’m no expert, but that was extremely disrespectful.
In addition, whether or not I worked up a sexual lather with someone was not even in the top three things I considered while selecting a marriage partner. Admittedly, I find it suspect and repulsive that this seems to be number one, and nearly the ONLY criteria same-sexers have for their partner or partners. Like I said, selfish and NOT conducive to marriage. There’s more to a person than whether or not they can…ring your bell? See, just talking to same-sexers is a lower form of communication. It’s all about sex. Seriously, it’s low grade. But let’s forge onward.
Now, I’m not better than you, but I do know first hand what makes a marriage work. And that sexual lather you are so fond of? That alone, or even as a 1st priority, ain’t it. Can anyone back me up on that one? How many want to bet Sanford and Maria don’t live happily ever after? But he would swear up and down, like the impassioned arguments we’ve seen by same-sexers here, that no one should deny him his soul-mate, his only true love….
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:51 pm
RMB,
“Often what happens is because society condemns their sexual activity, they are forced underground and engage in risky behavior.”
Riiiiiiiiiight. It’s SOCIETY that forces gay men into bath houses, having anonymous quickies in bathrooms, and the like. It has nothing to do with a disordered sense of sexuality that leads the average gay man to have literally hundreds of “partners” in his lifetime.
That’s just normal.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:51 pm
MWS,
This is good, now we’re getting to the subject of traditional gender roles.
It’s a really difficult subject.
However, ask yourself this:
What can you, as a male, not provide to a child that a female can?
Are you saying you cannot be as caring? As compassionate? As loving? As nurturing?
There are differences in gender in terms of the body parts I’m attracted to. That’s all. I don’t believe there are any emotions that can be felt by one gender that the other can’t.
I mean, do you really believe that? Don’t sell your humanity short like that!
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:52 pm
#285, Well the APA once classified homosexuality as a mental illness (as they currently classify transsexualism). I’m not just going to take things on their fallible and often politically-driven authority.
A gradual shift towards homosexual unions that is studied over a period of years would be prudent if the majority wants to move towards redefining marriage. Homosexuals don’t live in a fish bowl. It would be unusual if altering the definition of marriage to include relationships between same-sex individuals would have no impact upon others.
I’d like to see what those impacts are before the majority commits fully to their desire to redefine marriage.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:52 pm
3286 there you just added more evidence. If you have intimate relationships with various women, and feel nothing, you have no respect for women. You got damaged somewhere, buddy. You said it, not me. Women are people too. Whether you acknowledge it or not.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:52 pm
RMB,
“That I’m not capable of a loving relationship with someone of the same gender?”
Love =/= sex.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:53 pm
RMB,
“What can you, as a male, not provide to a child that a female can?”
Breast milk.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:54 pm
…..but seriously, I thought only old bull dykes left over from the 60s were still holding on to the fantasies that there are no general differences between the sexes.
My gosh, if you can’t see that, start hanging out with some heteros.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:55 pm
“Admittedly, I find it suspect and repulsive that this seems to be number one, and nearly the ONLY criteria same-sexers have for their partner or partners”
Not at all.
My first boyfriend wasn’t really a looker, but I deeply loved the person that he was, how loving and caring he was, and how funny he was.
MWS,
So every gay person you met has slept with hundreds of people? But straight people never do?
So straight people never go into bath houses? Or engage in sexually risky behavior?
How can you judge one person’s sexual history just based on their sexual orientation?
You don’t think there aren’t plenty of gay men who find sexual promiscuity disgusting? I am one of them. It’s not good, and it’s not healthy. I am only interested in caring, loving relationships with one person — of the same gender, because that is who I have sexual feelings for.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:56 pm
#290 I’m not qualified to tell you that. I’m not in authority over you. I would discuss that only with fellow Christians.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:58 pm
#293 – you just betrayed the reality of it again. It’s a certain body part you’re after. That’s not normal. Slicing people up into parts like that. Where the hardware is more important than the whole person. That kind of thinking is naturally repulsive to myself. There may be others. This thread has reinforced my suspicion that same-sex attraction is due to an overly active sex drive that manifests itself in an abusive and unnatural way by reducing humans to those that either have sex parts desireable to you, or not. This might be identical to the abnormality found in womanizers, or promiscuous women. They do not value other people, they simply seek a sexual experience that satisfies their particular lust.
That, on a large scale, would be absolutely destructive to society. It also explains the higher incidence of domestic abuse in same-sex scenarios. Love is lacking. Lust is in abundance. NOT conducive to marriage as this culture, and others define it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:59 pm
“3286 there you just added more evidence. If you have intimate relationships with various women, and feel nothing, you have no respect for women”
Oh no not at all.
I love women and I find them, frankly, to often be better, more caring people than men. Women tend to be more understanding, more emotionally in tune with themselves, and have more endurance. Not always, of course.
But I can’t get aroused by them. Why do you not accept this? If I could get aroused by them, I would happily. It’d make things so much easier.
MWS,
I’ve never had anal sex. Not every gay man enjoys it, though certainly many do. My relationship was based on feeling.
Furthermore, I’m gonna ask you again:
I’m not asking if there are differences in gender.
I’m asking you, are you saying that you cannot experience the same kinds of emotions as a woman? You’re not capable of being just as caring, compassionate, loving, etc.?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:59 pm
RMB,
“So every gay person you met has slept with hundreds of people? But straight people never do?”
I’m not saying EVERY. I said “average.” Don’t be silly. And straight people RARELY do. It’s called studies and statistics. I’m not relying on anecdotes here. In fact, I learned about it from a study from conducted by a homosexual who was something of an advocate, but quite disturbed by the figure. It’s something like 5 partners ON AVERAGE for hetero men, and in the hundreds for homo men.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:00 am
280.
“There is no known detriment to same sex activity. None.”
Really?
I’m a big fan of Kant’s Categorical Imperative … that I when I act, I should consider the consequences of everyone in society choosing that action.
How can you say there is no detriment to society because of same sex activity? What would happen if everyone choose only same sex activity? You really don’t think that would pose any detriment to society?
I think it’s just maybe a bit egotistical to say that you’re so smart that you, first of all, are aware of all the potential consequences of same sex activity, and second, have determined that none of those consequences are bad for individuals or society.
Some kinds of same sex activity carry with them higher risks of infection, a detriment to individuals … low birthrates threaten the future of societies … especially societies with old retirees who depend on young tax payer support.
Same sex coupling is not the same thing as opposite coupling. People are free to choose their actions, but not their actions’ consequences.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:01 am
Liz, not at all.
I feel everything towards women that you feel. Every sense of friendship and respect you feel towards women, I feel.
Just as you do not get aroused by women, neither do I.
I only bring up arousal because people like to assert that being gay, that being aroused by men, was a choice. It isn’t.
It’s not because of some over abundance of lust or sex drive. Quite the opposite.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:02 am
RMB,
“I’m asking you, are you saying that you cannot experience the same kinds of emotions as a woman? You’re not capable of being just as caring, compassionate, loving, etc.?”
Not in the same way. No. Can a man and a woman both be compassionate? Yes. Empathetic? Yes. Loving? Yes. But it’s not exactly in the same way. It is complimentary (or supposed to be).
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:04 am
G Says, would YOU choose to engage in same sex activity?
You have no need to worry about all of these things because people are born gay.
People that are attracted to women aren’t going to decide hey, let’s be persecuted, I like guys now!
G Says, question, what if allowing same sex couples to marry and adopt actually furthered a government interest by providing children with loving homes? Is that not a state sponsored interest?
“Some kinds of same sex activity carry with them higher risks of infection, ”
You mean just like straight sex.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:04 am
THere you are back at your insistence on the arousal factor. I find that to be a character flaw. You want to change the whole of society in your quest to get aroused. Fascinating. Yet repulsive.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:05 am
RMB,
“I am only interested in caring, loving relationships with one person — of the same gender, because that is who I have sexual feelings for.”
Your interest in a caring loving relationship is based solely on who you have sexual feelings for? What if you have sexual feelings for more than one person?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:05 am
MWS,
That is not true.
Why would you assume that just because someone likes someone of the same gender they want to sleep with everyone — and that it is different from people who like the opposite gender who like to sleep with everyone?
Do you know anyone who is gay?
I feel like you don’t. It’s a shame.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:08 am
RMB,
“I am only interested in caring, loving relationships with one person — of the same gender, because that is who I have sexual feelings for.”
It drives Alex nuts when people think of gays only in terms of their sex drive, and when you write stuff like that, it doesn’t help Alex’s cause.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:08 am
MWS,
Are you saying you could ever envision having sexual feelings for a guy?
When you were single, you sought out females for relationships, because you’re attracted to females.
Liz,
So anyone who factors in looks in their choice for a partner has a character flaw? Because people can’t consider looks AND character at the same time?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:09 am
MWS,
Good lord, it is no different than you only seeking out women, or Liz only seeking out men, because you find that gender sexually attractive.
Are you trying to dispute this? If so, why didn’t you ever pursue the SAME gender for a relationship?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 am
RMB,
““I am only interested in caring, loving relationships with one person — of the same gender, because that is who I have sexual feelings for.””
I’m not assuming anything, and I’m not even saying it’s everyone. I’m just telling you what the studied showed. Take it up with them.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 am
And MWS,
I don’t know, what do YOU do if you have sexual feelings for more than one person? What does anyone do?
I’m like everyone else. Gay people are not uniform. Some are promiscuous. Some are strictly monogamous. It is no different than straight people.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:11 am
#307 One thing that’s clear from other societies is that sexuality is malleable.
In Greek society a large percentage of males engaged in some homosexual behavior (pederasty).
On some Pacific islands prior to the missionaries homosexuality was much more common than in contemporary society.
There exist a large number of individuals who are able to choose because they feel some degree of arousal for both males and females. This is at least partially formed by social pressures.
The strict homosexual is a rarity less common than black McCain supporters in 2008.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 am
RMB,
I read you to mean that you are in a relationship with ONE person, because you are sexually attracted to ONE person. That lead to wonder what would happen if you were sexually attracted to MORE than one person. Did I read you wrong?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 am
MWS,
There is a study from 1978 that supports your claim.
It has been debunked.
Just like the APA once classified homosexuality as an illness, further studies show they were wrong.
People in 1978 thought very differently about gay people than they realize today.
The absolute only difference between gay people and everyone else is how they consummate their love.
That’s it.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:14 am
Doug,
Good point in 316. Also, there is a lot of homosexual activity in prisons. Does that mean the crime rate is hire among homosexuals, so they enter prisons at a higher rate, or might some of that proclivity be acquired?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:15 am
Nope. Marriage is honestly intended for just the purest and most refined qualities of our best selves to be cultivated and practiced in the home…it has been downgraded substantially, but formally reducing it to a quest for the perfect body part whatever that is for whomever, is pretty much tantamount to just the general destruction of the family as we know it. I’ll fight that, because I’m not into the destruction of society as we know it. I’m one of the “dying” breed that believes in character, and respect for others. Self control. Like the Apostle Paul said, —-darn it I can’t remember what he said and it’s too late to look it up but it was about controlling your own appetites and having self control in general. Look it up if you doubt me. Homosexuality, like all sexual deviance, is pretty much a lack of control and disrespect for other humans. No one here has proved me wrong on that so for now I stand by it. Say no to Perez Hilton.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:15 am
#316 Doug Forrester,
Technically, in a sense, you are correct, in that what people find attractive can change over time.
This is what the Kinsey scale is.
However, if you assert that strict homosexuality is rare, than so too is strict heterosexuality, and everyone falls somewhere in the middle of varying degrees.
This is what Alfred Kinsey found. He’s been dead for awhile now, but you should pick up the movie “Kinsey” at a movie rental store.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:17 am
Liz,
Do you feel the same way about out of wedlock sexual activity?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:18 am
Liz, so what about people that are gay but don’t act on it? Are they not gay then? They’re “straight”, despite them being attracted to men?
“Also, there is a lot of homosexual activity in prisons. Does that mean the crime rate is hire among homosexuals, so they enter prisons at a higher rate, or might some of that proclivity be acquired?”
No, it is often straight men who engage in homosexual activity because they aren’t around the opposite gender.
This is common sense.
Not everyone who is straight finds same gendered activity to be repulsive even if they aren’t naturally aroused by it. See how straight men tend to love lesbians.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:18 am
313 I was hoping you’d ask that!!!! If I had been trained and taught to seek out a same-sex marriage partner, I would have done that. Simple as that. THAT is the danger of teaching this stuff in the schools. We will train up a generation seeking something that will never satisfy their desire to progress, never bring them happiness.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 am
But Liz,
what if having a relationship with someone of the same gender brings them more happiness than someone of the opposite gender?
What if someone falls in love and finds their soul mate in someone of the same gender?
Also, questions, Liz
So what about all those religious people and pastors and conservative people and whatnot that turn out gay sons and daughters? Did they all do something wrong?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 am
“You have no need to worry about all of these things because people are born gay.”
I’m not worried about me. My question is about society as a whole … and even if people are born with predispositions, there are choices to be made about how one lives their life … do I marry? am I monogamous? do I want children? You aren’t born with these choices made for you.
So again, the question you wouldn’t answer (except with more questions)
What would happen if everyone was choose only same sex activity? You really don’t think that would pose any detriment to society?
“Question, what if allowing same sex couples to marry and adopt actually furthered a government interest by providing children with loving homes? Is that not a state sponsored interest?”
If the voters or legislators think it is, good for them. I think the most ideal situation for children is to have a mother and a father. That situation is sadly declining and many children make do with what they are provided with.
I could start proposing that kids be adopted into group schools for the good of society, too. It doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.
“You mean just like straight sex.”
No. If i meant just like straight sex i would say that the same risk of infection. Obviously straight couples can also engage in risky behavior, but you’re the one arguing that same sex coupling has ZERO detriment … and I’m pretty sure that besides the much larger point that you can’t make babies through same sex coupling, there’s the much smaller point that among the gay population there is a higher rate of dangerous sexual activity.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:22 am
324 do I feel the same way about premarital sex as I do about homosexuality? Is that what you’re asking?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:24 am
Is this the largest post in Race history? I gave up about 120 posts in.
Also, gay marriage should be legal in every state and so should gay adoption. No reason why it shouldn’t be.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:25 am
RMB,
“This is what Alfred Kinsey found.”
LOL! You want to talk about debunked studies?
Kinsey was full of crap and sexually abused many of his participants. He also relied heavily on a prison population (see #319) for his bogus figures. That guy was whacked in the head.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:26 am
Now someone back there asked why I don’t run out and have a same-gender marriage or something. Well for one, I got married with the intention of someday having a family. Children. Newsflash – same-gender is not conducive to that. In addition, I wanted someone with the physique and skills to complement my own so that our children would benefit from the range. I definitely didn’t wan’t a sorority situation, or something like The VIEW set in which to raise my children where men were considered strange or alien. I do consider men part of the human race, too. I can’t believe I’m having to explain why both genders make for a better family situation. Funky times we live in. I’ll just try to enjoy the moment.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:27 am
329.
But, but, they made a movie about him!
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:27 am
“What would happen if everyone was choose only same sex activity? You really don’t think that would pose any detriment to society?”
It’s an illogical question. Why would straight people choose homosexual sex?
Why would ANYONE choose gay sex if they didn’t find it more pleasing for them?
Also, so just because two people are gay mean they don’t want children? There are plenty of gay men who have kids through surrogate mothers.
“but you’re the one arguing that same sex coupling has ZERO detriment …”
G Says, what is it about anal penetration that is sexually riskier than anything else?
There are plenty of gay couples that don’t do it. There are plenty of heterosexual couples that do.
Engaging in sexually risky behavior by going to bath houses, etc., that IS a choice.
But no one has a choice as to what gender they find attractive. Just as you didn’t. Just as I don’t.
Furthermore, G Says,
There are no proven detriments to same sex parenting.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:28 am
328 yeah Kevin’s gonna jump in and solve this for all of us in one well thought out post. Thanks deep thinker! Hee hee! Sweat a little, like the rest of us have been doing. It’s seriously a free-for-all at times, put on your helmet and mouthguard.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:29 am
I expect people out in the world to exhibit homosexual behaviors. I expect given this era’s mindset and cultural that marriage will eventually be redefined. The culture of this era will probably last for several generations, perhaps a hundred generations. Eventually it will be passed and replaced by some other mindset.
While I don’t like or approve of any of that, it ranks as nearly nothing compared to my thirst to see human life protected and valued.
If abortion were outlawed and same-sex marriage forced on the states on the same day, I would rejoice. The joy of ending state-sanctioned abortion would overwhelm my disappointment in the American people for redefining marriage.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:29 am
Kevin,
I think we’ve had election night posts run into the 500s, but I’m not sure.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:29 am
MWS,
Ehh, I’m not even gonna deny that, but what Doug said IS very reminiscent of the Kinsey scale.
Liz, so gay couples don’t want children? They don’t adopt? They don’t use surrogate mothers who are willing?
And Liz, you’re saying that you, as a woman, cannot do things that a man can?
Why sell yourself short?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:31 am
334 Doug, what are you saying? IF gay marriage replaces traditional marriage, there would be no need for abortions I’m thinking. Of course, that’s assuming everyone sticks to the new rules.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:31 am
Question to you all:
What if a high court of law found that there was no claim to all the assertions you’re making?
You’ll just never be convinced no matter what?
I’m just curious. Do you all EVER expect to see an area where your mind can be changed?
At what point do steadfast beliefs become delusion?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:32 am
328.
“No reason why it shouldn’t be.”
The reason it shouldn’t be (if you really want to get down to it) is because of the laws that society wants to enact on ourselves through our elected officials or popular vote.
If the only standard for marriage is consenting adults, why should gay marriage be legal, but polygamny not be? No reason why it shouldn’t be?
If a majority of kids are having sex at 16 why shouldn’t they be able to get married if they want to? No reason why they shouldn’t be able to?
The reason they shouldn’t be able to is because that’s what the either the voters themselves think, or the people they voted into office to make the laws think.
That’s the reason.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:32 am
Liz, what state do you live in? (Oklahoma? Kansas? Nebraska?)
If gay marriage is legalized in your state, are you gonna go gay, magically, just like that?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:34 am
So G-Says,
What about democratically elected legislators who legalize gay marriage?
What if a state votes in affirmative of gay marriage? It hasn’t happened yet, no, but it has been awfully close. Anyone can see that as younger people become more eligible to vote in California, and it keeps getting challenged, it’s going to eventually be voted down.
Then what?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:34 am
Liz,
“I can’t believe I’m having to explain why both genders make for a better family situation. Funky times we live in. ”
I feel the same way. I honestly don’t know what to tell people who see no difference between men and women (other than plumbing).
Look there is a multi-billion ad industry that says men and women are different. That’s why different ads run on LIFETIME network, as opposed to say, VERSUS. There are whole series of books trying to explain one gender to the other. Countless stories, folk tales, and novels over millennia based on this fact. It’s one of those things that is so obvious, like breathing, it’s kind of hard to explain to the few people who don’t want to see it.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:35 am
340 Yeah, RMB, I’m gonna go gay, magically just like that. You are a freakin’ rocket scientist.
With firepower like that, sign me up to the rainbow coalition!
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:35 am
RMB,
“Then what?”
Then we saw California off and float it out into the ocean like we should have done 20 years ago.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:36 am
Where do you live? Guam? Abilene?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:36 am
MWS, tell me, I’ll try again:
Do you think you are not as capable of being as compassionate, loving, as mean, as nurturing, as sad, as any kind of emotional state etc., than a woman?
Same to Liz, except with men.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:36 am
C’mon gang, keep it up….we can get to 400 comments.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:37 am
#337, I’m saying this.
If abortion was outlawed in every state _but_ marriage was redefined in every state on the same day, I would rejoice.
Not because I wasn’t disappointed in redefining and devaluing marriage. I would rejoice because my people can still practice marriage even if the rest of society slowly abandons it. However if abortion is outlawed the number of abortions will decline and lives will be saved.
America’s policies aren’t determined by people like me so I try to have priorities of political things that matter most.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:37 am
342 so what’s your point again?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:37 am
I live in New Jersey. (Jokes commence.)
“340 Yeah, RMB, I’m gonna go gay, magically just like that. You are a freakin’ rocket scientist.”
But that’s the point. Why the scare over legalizing gay marriage because supposedly everyone will just go gay? I mean you’ve already said you won’t.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:38 am
RMB,
“What if a high court of law found that there was no claim to all the assertions you’re making?”
A high court of law said that slaves aren’t people, that segregation is okay, and that babies can be murdered in utero.
Not too many around here who are too impressed with what some “high court” says. They’re just lawyers in robes.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:38 am
Doug Forrester,
Do YOU feel like you are not capable as being every bit loving, nurturing, compassionate, level-headed, reasonable, rationale, angry, sad, mean, etc., as a woman?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:40 am
346 are you asking whether or not I have qualities in common with men? Yeah, can you be more specific? Which man? I’m more compassionate than Barack Obama, less emotional than Biden, more compassionate than Nancy Pelosi for sure, meaner than Sanford’s wife, not quite as loving as Ghandi probably….so is that what you’re after?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:40 am
MWS,
So do you apply the same standard in the reverse?
High courts have said slaves aren’t people, then they are.
Which is it?
Would you apply the same standard in relation to gay couples?
Or do you just have no respect to what a court finds no matter what?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:41 am
RMB,
“Do you think you are not as capable of being as compassionate, loving, as mean, as nurturing, as sad, as any kind of emotional state etc., than a woman?”
And I’ll answer again.
You are asking for a quantitative answer to a qualitative question. It’s not a question of being AS compassionate. It’s a different KIND of compassion (qualitative) or a compassion that manifests itself differently.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:42 am
353 so you think that if no one is going to convert to gay marriage once it is legalized, that this is a good argument as to why it should be legalized?
Freakin’ rocket scientist.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:42 am
Liz,
Sort of, but I’m being very general here. You’re on the right track, but this is what I’m asking:
Do you think men as a whole can experience an emotion that you can’t? Or that men can’t be just as ______ (insert any level of emotion here) as you can?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 am
“If gay marriage is legalized in your state, are you gonna go gay, magically, just like that?”
No. But my guess is that if the state is paying for something (gay marriage) they are going to get more of it. Just like financing single mothers on welfare leads to more single mothers, or making divorce easier leads to more divorce.
More people will likely feel justified in choosing a childless same sex lifestyle and the population will likely eventually decline.
That is one consequence I think is highly likely. I don’t know what the future will bring … and neither do you.
If the majority go for it … good for them. Those are the laws we will have and we’ll see where they take us … but if we’re starting from a place that can’t even admit there’s a difference between a man a women I wonder where we’ll end up.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 am
RMB,
“High courts have said slaves aren’t people, then they are.”
So they finally got it right, 1900 some years after the Church (which is supposed to be so reactionary). I’m still not impressed.
The point is, because the court says something, doesn’t make it so. I think that is obvious.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 am
#357.
Men are not women when it comes to emotions, sexuality, etc…
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:44 am
MWS,
Ahhh, interesting.
So what exactly is the kind of love that you feel you cannot capture like a woman can? Do you feel like you are not capable of loving a child as much or in the same way a woman can?
Liz,
I only brought it up because G Says tried to seriously say that if we legalized gay marriage that essentially everyone would go gay. This is obviously silly, because people are born gay.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:45 am
#358, not true….States tht have gay marriage have very low rates of ceetificate applications, after an initial spike.
Gays just dont like marriage. They are clearly smarter then heteros.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:46 am
I know I’m not as capable of watching Mama Mia as a woman.
My wife and mother-in-law got it. I lasted 15 minutes, just about slitting my wrists. For whatever reason, my wife was somewhat surprised I had such a negative reaction to it. I told her, “Love, that movie is dripping with estrogen!”
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 am
I think you have to make this argument case by case. I can find a man, more than likely, that possesses either more or less of any given quality I might have. I believe, there is someone for everyone. You can find more “manly” women than most, and more “feminine” men than most, IF YOU WANT TO, if that is what you are interested in. I think if inner qualities are what you are after, AND I FIND THAT COMMENDABLE (especially compared to that failed “sexual arousal” standard previously argued which I found sub-human)you can find them in a male or a female and it is family, religion, and society’s role to suggest or dictate even, what is the appropriate use of your sexual urges and to choose same-gender does NOT serve the interests of family, religion, or society. Did I miss your point again?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 am
MWS,
I guess this is what I’m really trying to ask:
What kind of proof is good enough for you? What is the hurdle that something needs to clear with you to convince you? Is it a court? (Seems not.) Is it studies? Is it experiences? Is it knowing someone?
Kristofer,
That’s an easy answer to give, sure. But try to look a little deeper. See what you think.
Do you not feel you have the same capacity as a woman to love? That you can’t love someone just as much, with as much depth as a woman can?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:48 am
“I only brought it up because G Says tried to seriously say that if we legalized gay marriage that essentially everyone would go gay. This is obviously silly, because people are born gay.”
No. I asked you what were the consequences of a society who all choose to be gay.
(You never really answered by the way … but i think not having any children would kind of be a small detriment to society).
You’re the one who made up some BS about marriage being legalized forcing people to be gay. Don’t try to pin that on me.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:49 am
Oh my. Everyone’s still at it.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:49 am
And let me re-address that “arousal” crap because it is bugging me. If you are blindfolded, and someone comes in and works you over sexually shall we say, and you have no idea who it is but there is nice music and maybe the aroma of chocolate or lavender or whatever you might like, are you likely to be aroused?
I’ll answer for you. Very likely yes. Was it a male or a female? You don’t know. But you, based on your prior argument, would marry it no questions asked, because WHOEVER it was met your all-important, state-protected right to arousal. Even if it were Godzilla. Criminy.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:49 am
“What kind of proof is good enough for you?”
For what? To prove to me that man and women are the same thing?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:50 am
RMB,
No, I do not have the same capacity to love as a woman. I do not have the same capacity to be compassionate as a woman.
RMB let me educate you on how hetero men and woman think differently;
When a woman is on a date she looks across at the guy, she wonders if he is husband (or partner) material.
When a guy is on a date and he looks across at the women, he wonders _________________.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:50 am
Do you guys realize that the states with gay marriage currently have the lowest divorce rates?
I forgot to bring that up. That is a very provable fact I’m happy to get for you.
Did you all know this?
Liz,
I am indeed talking about the inner qualities. The inner emotions. Put aside the discussion on morals for a second. I’m talking on a basic human level.
Do you think that you were born without the capacity for certain emotions, or the level of depth of certain emotions, that men have?
I truly hope you don’t, because you should have more respect for yourself and your gender than that, but I am interested in your response.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:50 am
No. I asked you what were the consequences of a society who all choose to be gay.
Um.
I don’t know how many times this needs to be explained to you:
A person cannot choose whether to be gay or straight.
You’re a neanderthal.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:51 am
#368, not sure if I like that example.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:51 am
RMB,
Okay, I’ll give you a general example, that I think most of the husbands and wives here would agree to.
Healthy men are great at making big sacrifices, but often suck at making little sacrifices. Some kid I don’t even know drowning in a lake? I’d drown trying to save him. Give up Monday Night Football to read books with the kids? Nah.
But women are great at all the little sacrifices that keep a home working and get children raised. But they tend to lack more at the big sacrifices. That’s one reason why men are still 99% of police, fire and military, even though these positions have been open to women for years.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:51 am
372.
A man and a women aren’t the same thing.
You’re blind.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:51 am
Oh, I know, it’s great: the “Christian” states have the highest rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, abortion, poverty, and murder. The “wicked” states are the cleanest of all.
And don’t you dare attribute that to all the minority races, because they’re the most religious of the lot of you.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:52 am
Alex, did you read above and see MWS state that people are born gay…?
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:52 am
I’ll answer for you. Very likely yes. Was it a male or a female? You don’t know. But you, based on your prior argument, would marry it no questions asked, because WHOEVER it was met your all-important, state-protected right to arousal. Even if it were Godzilla. Criminy.
Same to you.
You’ve also previously stated that a person can basically choose which sex to go with.
Quite frankly, I think you’re a closet bisexual who’s tormented by her desires.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:53 am
A man and a women aren’t the same thing.
You’re blind.
Um…obviously.
That has nothing to do with what I said, which is that no one chooses to be gay.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:53 am
“Do you guys realize that the states with gay marriage currently have the lowest divorce rates?”
That’s because a lot of people in those liberal states don’t bother to get married to begin with. The state doesn’t keep stats on people who cohabitate and break up.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:53 am
Liz,
To an extent you’re right.
Almost all sexual activity will arouse someone to an extent. That’s why gay men are certainly capable of having sex with women.
But I do not feel the same depth of attraction to a woman like I do a man, and I cannot help that.
Kristofer,
Men and women do indeed tend to think differently due to societal social conditioning mainly, but thinking differently doesn’t have to deal with the emotions each are capable of experiencing.
You really feel like you are as capable of being as compassionate and loving as a woman?
I feel genuinely bad then. =( I want you to have more self respect for yourself than that.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:55 am
That’s because a lot of people in those liberal states don’t bother to get married to begin with.
What’s your point? That they’d be worse than you if they got married at the same rates?
You’re just pulling crap out of your ass and calling it a fact.
The divorce rate is lower and that is that. More successful marriages. Isn’t that what we want? Or do we want a ton of unsuccessful marriages?
I honestly am trying very hard to figure out what your point is, but I can’t.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:55 am
372.
Alex, since you missed the last little bit … let me bring you up to speed..
RMB argued that there were ZERO detriments to same sex coupling.
I pointed out that a hypothetical society where everyone was gay would not exactly flourish … which might be kind of a detriment.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:56 am
MWS,
I’m being more abstract here. I’m talking about a human level, not about Monday night football. Not about how men and women approach problems differently.
I’m asking if you feel like one gender can love more or to more capacity than another.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:57 am
I think of all the days and nights as a young teenager I tried to “force” myself straight. How I’d try to force myself to like girls. How I’d try to force myself to not look at gay porn when aroused. How I’d try to trigger myself to enjoy heterosexuality. How I’d date girls, have sexual contact with girls, desperately looking for points that would be as good as my male-centered fantasies.
I’d think of how people like Liz treated me and how I so desperately wanted to escape that.
Finally, I became honest with myself once I was 17 and admitted that, no, I was not “bisexual.” I was in denial. I liked guys — and there’s nothing wrong with that.
But I was robbed of the sexual awakening and exploration of adolescence, as so many gay teenagers are. Instead, it was a time of sexual torment and guilt.
I fight for the younger Alex Kneppers out there when I fight the neanderthals of the Christian Right.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:57 am
Kris,
“did you read above and see MWS state that people are born gay…?”
I don’t think I wrote that here. At any rate, I think it’s POSSIBLE that there are hard-wired urges in some men, but that wouldn’t justify the behaviour. Men are inclined to all sorts of wrong. It’s called concupisence.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:58 am
G Says,
Oh, now I sort of see your twisted logic.
There are no detriments to same sex coupling in our reality, because people are born gay.
If people weren’t born gay, it still wouldn’t actually make a difference, because being gay has nothing to do with wanting to have children.
There are no societies on Earth that on some mass scale don’t want to not have children.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:58 am
“You’re a neanderthal.” Haw haw! Another rocket scientist on board. Welcome to NASA people. Love your reasoning Alex. We’ll give you a minute to bring yourself up a level or two before you re-engage.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:59 am
I pointed out that a hypothetical society where everyone was gay would not exactly flourish … which might be kind of a detriment.
Um, that’s true, but that’s not the society that we live in. About 2-3% of us are born gay.
It’s like asking whether a society filled with deaf people would flourish, since we’d have no music or talking back and forth. Gosh, we wouldn’t! So let’s strip away the rights of the deaf!
It’s an irrelevant question, though, because most people are not deaf.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:59 am
“I’m asking if you feel like one gender can love more or to more capacity than another.”
And I keep answering it’s not a question of MORE, but DIFFERENT.
That’s why children should have a MOTHER and a FATHER, which is what it took to get them here in the first place! Funny how that works.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:59 am
381 the “same depth” of attraction? We’re back to your arousal argument, now you’re just substituting the word “attraction” for arousal. Not buying in, I already handled that one.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:00 am
MWS,
But again:
Being attracted to men has no negative consequences. People get infections because they don’t practice safe sex and sleep with everyone.
But there is no proof that two men having protected safe sex in a loving, monogamous relationship would experience ANYTHING negative.
So why is it wrong? On a secular level. Why is it wrong?
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:00 am
“I feel genuinely bad then. =( I want you to have more self respect for yourself than that.”
Do not feel bad for me RMB!!!!
I am masculine and prefer it that way. It does not mean that I one day might be capable of love, it just means I like to be a guy. I have self respect for myself because I don’t cry during a Britney Spears concert (or attend one).
Maybe I enjoy my life, my freedom…maybe I enjoy not being tied down and not having one partner? There is nothing wrong with that.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:00 am
I don’t think I wrote that here. At any rate, I think it’s POSSIBLE that there are hard-wired urges in some men, but that wouldn’t justify the behaviour. Men are inclined to all sorts of wrong. It’s called concupisence.
What’s wrong with the behavior?
I keep asking you people a question, but I never get an answer: what sort of lives would you like gay men to live? Should we marry women, have sex with them — and rob them of the sort of relationship they so surely deserve?
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:01 am
“There are no societies on Earth that on some mass scale don’t want to not have children.”
Europe.
Japan.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:02 am
A lot of gay men, as MWS pointed out, do have lots of partners. But it’s not because they’re gay. It’s because they’re men. Lesbian couples have less sex than any pairing. Why? Because they’re women. Straight men would have a lot of anonymous sex if women wanted to. But women don’t want to.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:02 am
MWS,
HOW is it different?
I’m not talking about the way people EXPRESS their love.
Don’t confuse that with what I’m asking.
Expressing love and feeling love are different. I’m asking, how is it you feel love differently than a woman?
Liz,
No, I’m saying, why would you let yourself think that women aren’t as capable of feeling love or providing strength or providing stability or anything as a man?
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:03 am
395 – They still reproduce. They just don’t have lots of children. Besides, that’s hardly a consequence of homosexuality…it’s a consequence of modernity. Something you also hate.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:04 am
Kristoffer,
So because you’re a “masculine guy” you’re not capable of love? Of loving? Of crying?
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:04 am
#396 is exactly correct.
It has nothing to do with being gay…
Men are capable of sex without emotion, women are incapable of sex without emotion.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:04 am
385 and the question I asked in 394 merit a response, I think.
I keep asking you people a question, but I never get an answer: what sort of lives would you like gay men to live? Should we marry women, have sex with them — and rob them of the sort of relationship they so surely deserve? Should we remain celibate? For what purpose, if so? Should we enter loving, committed relationships? If not, why not? If so, why not glorify them?
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:04 am
“What’s wrong with the behavior?”
It’s a disordered desire.
And I’m going to have to leave it at that, tonight. I should have been in bed 2 hours ago. We’ll take it all up again, I’m sure.
Good night, y’all.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 am
“Men are capable of sex without emotion, women are incapable of sex without emotion.”
Wow.
So no woman can ever just want a one night stand and some casual sex, and leave the next morning?
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 am
So because you’re a “masculine guy” you’re not capable of love? Of loving? Of crying?
It’s interesting. There are feminine heterosexual men and masculine heterosexual women. They’re just rare. It doesn’t mean they don’t exist, though — and it doesn’t mean they aren’t worthy of entering into a marriage.
It’s rather silly; this whole “only a man and a woman can” X or Y — we can discuss averages, of course, but at the end of the day, these are individuals, and individuals rarely fit into some neat average. Gender roles are averages. No individual couple can fulfill X or Y gender role 100% of the time. Nor should they, quite frankly.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:07 am
#399,
Two things.
1) I can turn it off and on easily.
2) My answer was to your question and emotional equality (does not exist)
3)If my mother died, I’d cry. When I watch Terms of Endearment, I think about Deborah Winger’s panties.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:07 am
It’s a disordered desire.
To not be into any kink or sodomy is disorder. Loosen up, brother! Goodnight.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:07 am
“It’s a disordered desire.”
But why?
What is it about being gay MAKES it a “disorder” instead of just being a reality for a low number of people worldwide?
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:08 am
407 – Da Bible sez!
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:08 am
385 you’re playing into the pattern I have been seeing in the same-sexers here. Very self-absorbed, no, OBSESSED with making yourself feel good sexually. OK I won’t say normal, but regular people as I know them, myself included, don’t look at any porn, don’t torture themselves over who do I want to be with sexually. We don’t do that. Intimate physical contact is pretty much the no brainer culmination of developing the right relationship, with the right person. If you cultivate your sexual fantasies and urges from a young age, constantly stimulating them, engaging in the addictive behavior of viewing pornography which is UNnatural and actually CHANGES your brain, not unlike drugs (did you know that?) and subsequently REDUCES your ability to interact normally with other humans, well, I don’t know how to say it, you’re gonna be weird. Attempts at a long term, strong marital relationship are going to be pretty much impossible. Ideally, you don’t mess with sex until you mean it. If you constantly abuse your sex organs in deviant ways, a normal, committed marriage becomes pretty much impossible. There can always be exceptions. I personally know of none. All the successful marriages I know of involve two people that respect others and themselves, and restrict their intimacy to use only within the bonds of marriage. So of course, if you find that too restrictive, great. But don’t expect people that sacrifice this much for their families to allow a minority group in pursuit of the ultimate arousal to blow it all apart, without a fight.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:08 am
#403, basically, no. If they say they are, they are lying, or emotionally crippled for whatever reason.
RMB, you are such a chick, do you have close, hetero male friends?
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:09 am
Kristoffer,
And what if when I watch Terms of Endearment, I don’t cry, but just look at Jack Nicholson? (I don’t in reality though. No thanks.)
This is my main point, though, why I keep asking this:
What’s wrong with gay adoption if both genders are capable of love?
Or should we only let lesbian couples adopt?
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:10 am
RMB
Let me see if i can walk you through how i see you’re argument:
You keep hammering away at this point that a man can do anything a woman can and vice-versa.
This is important because at the core of the same sex argument is the idea that man and women are exactly the same thing. It doesn’t matter who you are paired with. If you like men, that’s what you like. If you like women, that’s what you like. Because there’s no difference, a same sex couple should be viewed as exactly the same thing as an opposite gender couple.
Now, besides the emotional and socialogical arguments about raising children, I think a lot of us here reject this argument up front, because regardless of the fact that some women can do things men can, and some men can do things women can, there is a divine design that enable men and women to have babies together, and those babies are meant to be raised by the necessary opposite couple that created it.
I’m sympathetic to the the struggles people like Alex feel and believe people should be free to choose how they want to live their life.
As a society though, I feel strongly that the best environment to raise future children is with a husband and wife and I will continue to argue that the laws we have in this country encourage that lifestyle.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:12 am
#411 RMB, are you new to this site? You don’t have an argument from me.
Personally, I think you mislead and confused. Not because you are gay, but because you want to find love and get married.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:12 am
Kristofer,
I do, actually.
Hell there was a New York Times article about gay man – straight man friendships.
I would read it. I’m sure you don’t love the New York Times, but it has nothing to do with Politics or Liberalism, and looks into the issue fairly and explores both sides.
Here, read it, tell me what you think:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/fashion/28friends.html
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:13 am
385 you’re playing into the pattern I have been seeing in the same-sexers here. Very self-absorbed, no, OBSESSED with making yourself feel good sexually. OK I won’t say normal, but regular people as I know them, myself included, don’t look at any porn, don’t torture themselves over who do I want to be with sexually. We don’t do that.
Well, you don’t look at porn because you’re a woman, Liz. Your husband looks at porn.
Yes, he does.
And you didn’t torture yourself as a teen over who you wanted to be with sexually because you didn’t have people at school and in the media telling you that your desires were unnatural and perverted. You people have no idea what you take for granted.
Intimate physical contact is pretty much the no brainer culmination of developing the right relationship, with the right person.
Well, yes. For me, that’d be with the same sex. For you, it’s with the opposite sex.
If you cultivate your sexual fantasies and urges from a young age, constantly stimulating them, engaging in the addictive behavior of viewing pornography which is UNnatural and actually CHANGES your brain
Somewhat. It enhances what’s already there. I can’t force myself to have a foot fetish, though; I don’t have one and no matter how much foot fetish porn I look at, I’ll never have a foot fetish.
not unlike drugs (did you know that?) and subsequently REDUCES your ability to interact normally with other humans, well, I don’t know how to say it, you’re gonna be weird.
Hm. I disagree. I think viewing pornography has made me a lot more open-minded socially and sexually. It was a gateway for me to approach sex from an academic perspective. Don’t know about people of lesser intellects, though.
Attempts at a long term, strong marital relationship are going to be pretty much impossible.
Oh, I disagree strongly. I love porn, but it doesn’t make me want to cheat or something. Just somethin’ to get my rocks off to, ya know?
You’re a girl, Liz. Seriously.
Ideally, you don’t mess with sex until you mean it. If you constantly abuse your sex organs in deviant ways, a normal, committed marriage becomes pretty much impossible.
Nah. Your husband looks at porn when you aren’t looking. Trust me.
There can always be exceptions. I personally know of none.
Your husband.
All the successful marriages I know of involve two people that respect others and themselves, and restrict their intimacy to use only within the bonds of marriage.
Lol, no, your husband looks at porn. Is he a male? Yes? Then he likes porn.
So of course, if you find that too restrictive, great. But don’t expect people that sacrifice this much for their families to allow a minority group in pursuit of the ultimate arousal to blow it all apart, without a fight.
Well, it’s not about arousal. I want to get married because I want that same kind of love and commitment.
But I also like porn.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:14 am
Do you guys and gals realize that 2 hours ago, India finally ended homosexuality as a criminal act.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:14 am
401, well you choose. Just don’t wreck traditional marriage, and don’t act out sexual urges in public. Now if you want to go on a cruise with a boyfriend, go. If you want to live forever in a castle in Germany with your boyfriend, you have my blessing. Look, no one in the world is as obsessed with your love life as you and maybe your Mom might be, so YOU decide how you want to live. But don’t decide how society wants to live. That’s not right. Some things that no one can object to in the privacy of your own home become highly objectionable in the public square. You know that. Go on your cruise. Bungi jump with the gay club. Pursue happiness, man, it’s in the constitution, but leave American institutions intact. Is that so wrong?
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:15 am
This is important because at the core of the same sex argument is the idea that man and women are exactly the same thing.
That is not the core argument.
I’m quite glad I’m gay sometimes, actually; women, on average, are extremely emotional and rather frustrating.
I enjoy my conversations with my (straight) male friends far more than I do my female friends.
I enjoy the company of men. I love masculine virtues and intellectual dispositions. A male-male partnering is perfect for me. Although I do prefer feminine-looking men…
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:17 am
“I’m quite glad I’m gay sometimes, actually; women, on average, are extremely emotional and rather frustrating.”
AH, yeah!
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:18 am
Alex, the answer to #401 is that these are not compassionate people who care about you — or their own gay kids, which explains how they disown them.
These people are evil and you’d be better off leaving the party and not associating with them.
The water’s fine over here.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:18 am
No actually I’ve been coming here since the primaries last year. I haven’t really posted before this though.
Now, G Says,
It’s not that men and women are the same. I’m not saying that. I am saying that there is no set of emotions or level of emotions that one gender can feel that the other can’t.
I am saying that there have been no studies that show that same-gendered parenting has any ill effect on a child in of itself. That it ALWAYS comes back to things like love and stability in a relationship as the factors that affect children.
Now, G Says, let me ask:
If you feel that there is a divine design to a man and woman so they can make children, that’s fine.
But ask yourself: Then why are there gay people?
I’ll tell you: Not even scientists can figure it out. There are theories. I have no idea myself. We know though that homosexuality can be found in almost all species. Some animals just try and hump each other. Some same gendered animals actually raise young and pair up for live.
You’ve got to figure if there’s a divine reason for the gender differences that enable reproduction, there must be one for homosexuality.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:20 am
RMB,
Most Republicans and nearly all conservatives are traditionalist. Belief in traditional institutions is the basis of conservatism.
Liz does not hate you, she just supports American institutions, as in many cases, it is what makes America a great nation.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:20 am
Alex, you fully discredit yourself. You are also disrespectful towards women, which is a pattern I am seeing in homosexual men more and more frequently. And if my husband looks at porn, your mama was a celibacy practicing nun her entire life.
“Enhances”/…”academic perspective?” pornography academic? That’s rich.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:20 am
401, well you choose. Just don’t wreck traditional marriage, and don’t act out sexual urges in public.
I don’t want to alter your marriage in any way. I just want my own.
Who the hell said anything about sexual urges in public?
Now if you want to go on a cruise with a boyfriend, go. If you want to live forever in a castle in Germany with your boyfriend, you have my blessing.
Aw. A castle. How romantic.
Look, no one in the world is as obsessed with your love life as you and maybe your Mom might be, so YOU decide how you want to live.
<3 Mom
But don’t decide how society wants to live. That’s not right.
I’m a libertarian! I agree! I don’t even think that “society” exists — it’s just a collection of individuals!
Some things that no one can object to in the privacy of your own home become highly objectionable in the public square. You know that.
Yes. Being gay isn’t one of them.
Go on your cruise. Bungi jump with the gay club.
Gay club? This isn’t a secret society type thing.
Pursue happiness, man, it’s in the constitution, but leave American institutions intact. Is that so wrong?
It’s in the Declaration of Independence.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 am
“That is not the core argument.”
Why the constant appeal to the equal protection clause then?
The argument is that the court cannot allow the state to consider gender in it’s coupling … and why not? Because men and women are equal. A man can do anything a women can. True equality = no regard to gender = because men and women are the same thing.
It’s not the argument that is made … but that’s what this comes down to: Can courts treat opposite gender couples the same way it treats same sex couples.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 am
Alex, the answer to #401 is that these are not compassionate people who care about you — or their own gay kids, which explains how they disown them. These people are evil and you’d be better off leaving the party and not associating with them. The water’s fine over here.
Well, no, because I’m convinced that most of the party isn’t like Liz.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 am
“Do you guys and gals realize that 2 hours ago, India finally ended homosexuality as a criminal act.”
I do.
You know why?
Because the court asked for scientific, not religious based arguments for submission to the debate.
Guess what: In science, biologically, there is no detriment to homosexuality.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:23 am
421
You only need one man and one women to make a baby … but why to married people cheat on each other?
Because they’re born that way? Or because they choose a set of actions?
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:23 am
Alex, join #420 in his water. He’ll come crawling back when his taxes reach 55% of income and his streets are controlled by Bin Laden.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:23 am
Alex, you fully discredit yourself. You are also disrespectful towards women, which is a pattern I am seeing in homosexual men more and more frequently.
Pfft, I’m disrespectful towards everyone; don’t flatter yourself.
And if my husband looks at porn, your mama was a celibacy practicing nun her entire life.
Haha, no, he looks at porn.
“Enhances”/…”academic perspective?” pornography academic? That’s rich.
Yeah, it’s not something that Christianists tend to be familiar with: sex as something to study.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:24 am
Alex, 2/3 of the party agree with Liz, at least.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:24 am
G Says,
“It’s not the argument that is made … but that’s what this comes down to: Can courts treat opposite gender couples the same way it treats same sex couples.”
And they’re going to find that they can’t.
This should be covered in the federal Prop 8 case.
Men and women may be different, but they are each full human beings who should be afforded every opportunity in life as the other.
If it means marrying someone of the same gender, the government has no right to stand in the way.
*ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NO PROVEN DETRIMENT TO IT.*
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:25 am
Why the constant appeal to the equal protection clause then?
I don’t.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:26 am
Alex, 2/3 of the party agree with Liz, at least.
Half of the party supports civil unions.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:28 am
G Says,
Married people cheat on each other because they chose those actions.
But the wife, unless she’s bisexual or a closet lesbian, is going to seek out men, and the man a woman.
For the same reason they sought out the opposite gender in finding each other: They were born to be attracted to the opposite gender.
It’s the same thing with gay people. There’s absolutely no difference between you or me, except I am just hardwired to like men. And, no, not animals, family members, or children.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:28 am
434
that is not what i said.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:29 am
Frankly Alex, I DO think you’re wrong in that a significant part of the Republican party IS like Liz. Something like 44% don’t want any sort of recognition for same sex couples.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:29 am
ALex, you primarily lost credibility with me on the porn promotion you wrote up.
Now, to anyone it may concern: Porn destroys families. It is addictive. I worked in law enforcement enough to see this first hand. From one description given here of involvement with porn, some posters might know people that are already not well. Some addicts cannot hold it together and end up acting out. Phase it out if you can. It does not in fact enhance your sex life, it deadens you. It deadens your senses and makes you unfeeling, except for maybe angry. Often, porn leads people into violent acts on victims because regular sexual activity is no longer stimulating enough for them. Much like drug addicts need more and more to get high. Shoot, get help. It’s near impossible to beat on your own, as extraordinary as you might be. Any federal violation we investigated, anything, about 90% of homes searched contained porn. Porn and crime TOTALLY go hand in hand. On that note, I wish anyone involved with porn luck, and to be fortunate enough to have someone who cares help you get help.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:29 am
435,
too simplistic. there is a large difference between you and i.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:30 am
“And they’re going to find that they can’t.”
They can’t treat them differently as individuals, that doesn’t mean a same gender couple is that same thing as an opposite gender couple.
You’re going to have a hard time convincing me that the court has to say a same sex couple is the same thing as an opposite gender couple. If you want to live together, fine, but the court doesn’t have to say those two kinds of couples are the same thing.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:30 am
What is the difference between you and I, Kristofer? (Besides that I like guys?)
Explain to me.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:31 am
#438: LOL, how do you think that 90% compares to homes that are NOT criminal?
But the bigger issue is, you can believe all that about porn AND be for equality for gays. Encourage healthy gay relationships just like you do healthy hetero ones.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:32 am
G Says,
But if the court finds there is no detriment to a same sex couple, that there is no proof that a child is in any way worse off by being raised by a same gendered couple, and that marrying someone of the opposite sex isn’t a meaningful or realistic option for gay people, they’re going to find that they can’t prohibit gay people from getting married, nor that there is a substantial government interest in doing so.
They’re not ruling that they’re the same thing. They’re going to rule there’s not enough reason to treat them differently under the law.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:34 am
G Says, furthermore, just like they did with interracial marriage, they’re not going to find a guaranteed right in the constitution to gay marriage, they’re going to find no constitutional right to prohibit it.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:34 am
On a lighter note, some day we may be forced to abandon the basic building block upon which America was built, the traditional family. But like the great Buzz Lightyear said,
“NOT TODAY, ZERG!”
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:35 am
RMB,
Most of my points I cannot write on this page, I’d be fired. So, I will only say this.
1) My sexual bring much higher risk, then for yourself.
2) Courting a woman is different then courting a man, thus we evolved differently. You approach your tricks, dates, sex acts, relationships differently than I do.
3) You have major emotional trama/scars from being rised gay. I do not have those scares.
3)
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:37 am
I am tired, #446 was written poorly.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:37 am
“I think of all the days and nights as a young teenager I tried to “force” myself straight. How I’d try to force myself to like girls. How I’d try to force myself to not look at gay porn when aroused. How I’d try to trigger myself to enjoy heterosexuality. How I’d date girls, have sexual contact with girls, desperately looking for points that would be as good as my male-centered fantasies.
I’d think of how people like Liz treated me and how I so desperately wanted to escape that.
Finally, I became honest with myself once I was 17 and admitted that, no, I was not “bisexual.” I was in denial. I liked guys — and there’s nothing wrong with that.
But I was robbed of the sexual awakening and exploration of adolescence, as so many gay teenagers are. Instead, it was a time of sexual torment and guilt.
I fight for the younger Alex Kneppers out there when I fight the neanderthals of the Christian Right.”
Aren’t you playing the “same emotional personal shit” card that you often accuse Forrester of playing when it comes to the abortion issue when he posts links to babies?
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:38 am
Now, to anyone it may concern: Porn destroys families. It is addictive. I worked in law enforcement enough to see this first hand. From one description given here of involvement with porn, some posters might know people that are already not well. Some addicts cannot hold it together and end up acting out. Phase it out if you can. It does not in fact enhance your sex life, it deadens you. It deadens your senses and makes you unfeeling, except for maybe angry. Often, porn leads people into violent acts on victims because regular sexual activity is no longer stimulating enough for them. Much like drug addicts need more and more to get high. Shoot, get help. It’s near impossible to beat on your own, as extraordinary as you might be. Any federal violation we investigated, anything, about 90% of homes searched contained porn. Porn and crime TOTALLY go hand in hand. On that note, I wish anyone involved with porn luck, and to be fortunate enough to have someone who cares help you get help.
Some people can’t handle porn.
That’s true.
I can.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:38 am
Kristofer,
I was not raised gay. My parents don’t even know.
I keep telling you, once I hit puberty, I found out I was attracted to guys. I of course denied it for a long time, but there ya go.
So because we court people differently you and I are just totally different people? We could never be friends?
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:40 am
443:
“that there is no proof that a child is in any way worse off by being raised by a same gendered couple”
You mean, other than, hey, trust us. It’ll work out … How many life-long studies are out there to PROVE that children raised by same sex couples are fine. You can’t argue that same sex marriage should be legalized because it won’t change anything. You don’t know the future.
But by the way, I hope by that logic, you support the legalization of polygamy. If the only standard for marriage is consenting adults and hardwired feelings, why should the courts only drop the restriction on gender? Why not drop the restriction on the number of people in the marriage?
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:40 am
Well g’night, I’ve gotta go celebrate the ending of homosexuality as a crime in India. Great day for all of us, and so exhausting too.
‘night John Boy.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:41 am
Aren’t you playing the “same emotional personal shit” card that you often accuse Forrester of playing when it comes to the abortion issue when he posts links to babies?
No, because what he’s showing me are not, in my mind, pictures of babies. They’re fetuses. It’s not an argument. If I agreed with his definition of a child, I’d agree that they’re good tools. But they’ll never convince someone like me.
I’m trying to demonstrate to Liz the human costs of what her attitude is.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:42 am
Trust me, RMB, Kristofer is on our side! Lol.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:43 am
G Says,
I already addressed this. First because are laws are not equipped to handle it. Second, because there is no mass movement to legalize polygamy. Third, because there really are studies that show that polygamous marriages ARE detrimental to women’s emotional health.
Also, there are plenty of studies that show it, from child to adult. That’s why it is increasingly being allowed and encouraged.
Are you so naive as to say we need hundreds of years to study this issue?
How can you judge how well your own parents did? Can you not judge them until you’re on your death bed? Honestly now, ridiculous.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:43 am
“I’m trying to demonstrate to Liz the human costs of what her attitude is.”
Alex, i said before that I sympathize with your struggle, and I do, but i think you could choose better words that ‘human cost’ when comparing your feelings with a dead fetus.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:44 am
RMB,
No, we can never be friends, because you are a liberal.
You should tell your parents, you will never gain confidence and adjust if you do not let them know of your true self.
Although, they probably already know.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:46 am
#452, you always make me laugh! LOL
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:47 am
I do plan on telling my parents, yes.
I just wish you wouldn’t think I was “raised” gay.
Nor that you have such a stereotypical view of men, women, and gay men.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:49 am
“Also, there are plenty of studies that show it, from child to adult.”
There were a lot of studies in the 1980s about how second hand smoke wasn’t harmful.
I don’t think there were very many kids being raised in same sex households in the 1960s. Certainly not enough to study. Social studies are very complicated matter. Samples sizes, demographics, bias. Anything can throw them off.
I think it is unwise to conduct a massive social experiment with the whole country because we don’t think anything will go wrong. We just don’t know the future … that’s why i’d much rather have this decided by the people than the courts.
My battery is dead … i guess we shall see what the feds say about prop 8.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:51 am
G Says, have you not considered that the courts are required to look at all the information about this stuff before making their ruling, which is why you should trust their judgment more than the people, who can make any claim they want to?
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:51 am
RMB,
You misunderstood what I meant about being raised gay. I mean that you lived with that your entire life (or from puberty), I did not, so you have scars I do not have. Thus, we are different.
I feel really bad for you and wish you lived in a society that treated eveyone equally. In many cases you are a second class citizen.
Brother, I am pro-equal marriage and pro-gay rights.
My views of men and woman are not stereotypical. I CHOOSE to be an alpha-male, and I am attracted to women who are very feminine. Do not be critical of me for that.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:55 am
…and I believe, guys who cry in movies are babies.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:56 am
About polygamy:
>>First because are laws are not equipped to handle it.
Print new forms. It’s not hard. They have to do this already: Bride = Out; Party 1 = In
>>Second, because there is no mass movement to legalize polygamy.
Oh, but i thought this isn’t about movements. It’s about equality and fairness, isn’t it?
>>Third, because there really are studies that show that polygamous marriages ARE detrimental to women’s emotional health.
Again with the studies. Good lord. 40 years ago homosexuality was classified as a disease. Just because some scientist throws some study in front of a judge doesn’t mean the country is required to rewrite its laws.
I’m sure there are battered women in polygamist relationships, isn’t that like arguing that because some gays are also pedophiles they should all be punished? Surely you don’t like that line of reasoning.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:58 am
Polygamy should be legal.
If a husband and wife want to add a second or third wife to their family, it is their choice.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:59 am
I apologize, Kristofer, for lumping you in with everyone else, then. It was hard to discern your differences from the barrage of backwards thinking that many here exhibited.
I appreciate your sympathies. Thank you.
It’s fine that you choose to be an alpha male. There’s nothing wrong with that.
I would just say that:
1) There are plenty of gay men who would consider themselves to be alpha males, too. (Sorry if you did not mean to contend this.)
2) I feel bad that being “masculine” in our society means emotionally repressing one’s self. Not everyone is highly emotional, and that is fine, but for some reason in our society, “being a man” is not compatible with warmth, vulnerability, being caring and responsible, etc.
It’s just a shame.
And I would just say, every kind of woman you can think of, there is someone like that. The same with men. It is impossible to fit everyone into one neat umbrella.
There are plenty of women out there who are not emotional about sex and like casual sex. There are plenty of men who find sex with multiple people disgusting and something to be valued. There are gay and straight people of all types.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:01 am
I’m sure there are battered women in polygamist relationships, isn’t that like arguing that because some gays are also pedophiles they should all be punished? Surely you don’t like that line of reasoning.
Almost all pedophiles are straight.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:03 am
“Print new forms. It’s not hard. They have to do this already: Bride = Out; Party 1 = In”
No I mean all the benefits. Our system is not equipped to have any number of people receiving health care benefits and such. There has to be a line in the number somewhere or else there would be chaos.
“Oh, but i thought this isn’t about movements. It’s about equality and fairness, isn’t it?”
Hint: The march for equality and fairness IS a movement.
I compare polygamy to the Amish, not to homosexuality. They are a small sect of people with very different or strict beliefs.
I personally have little problem with polygamy in theory. I don’t care two wits about whether someone wants to be married in heaven to a slew of people.
The law, however, cannot handle that, and there is no MOVEMENT to try and MAKE the law handle that.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 am
I’d like to add, though, if religious institutions wanted to offer religious polygamous marries, I wouldn’t care at all.
I would care if we all had to pay more in taxes to accommodate everyone putting everyone on their health insurance plans. Businesses could not handle it.
That’s why polygamy has nothing to do with gay marriage. Opposition to polygamy is purely secular for me.
Besides, polygamy is in that bible that everyone cites as opposition to homosexuality.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:06 am
Polygamy is stupid, to me, but I don’t really care one way or the other. No skin off of my back.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:06 am
“Polygamy should be legal.”
At least you’re consistent. I have to laugh when i hear all these arguments about how ‘expressions of love are never wrong,” and “anyone should be able to marry anyone they want”. Ask a couple questions about how that plays out down the line and people freak out.
“Almost all pedophiles are straight.”
Now there’s an argument that’s easy to prove … I don’t bring up the gays are pedophiles argument to smear gays. I think it’s a terrible argument … and as unprovable as arguing almost all pedophiles are straight or all women in polygamist relationships are harmed.
Now my battery is dead. Night.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:06 am
Alex, I can just say I have extreme empathy with your situation here (does that make me qualified with the Supreme Court?). That is all.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:07 am
…and I believe, guys who cry in movies are babies.
Ditto! I agree. Lol.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:07 am
“Our system is not equipped to have any number of people receiving health care benefits and such. There has to be a line in the number somewhere or else there would be chaos.”
You mean like roommate ‘marrying’ each other for health care?
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:07 am
G Says,
But no one is freaking out.
Expressions of love are NOT wrong.
How can anyone compare rewriting the law to be gender neutral to rewriting the law to not have a limit on the number of people enjoying such benefits?
It’s sheer lunacy.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:08 am
Alex, I can just say I have extreme empathy with your situation here (does that make me qualified with the Supreme Court?). That is all.
I’m far, far, far to their right on economic and foreign policy issues. I argue against MWS from the right once we get going on foreign policy!
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 am
“You mean like roommate ‘marrying’ each other for health care?”
You mean like the recent article that showed that 60% of women wouldn’t mind a “The Proposal” like situation where the woman marries an illegal immigrant to help him stay in this country?
Both marriages have people that commit fraud.
Besides, the roommates would have to divorce to get out of it.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:16 am
“Expressions of love are NOT wrong.”
40 year old and an 18 year old. Wrong?
Family members, mother / son. Wrong?
Polygamist marriage. Wrong?
Prostitution. Wrong?
In sweden the age of consent is 14. Is this wrong?
But the battle cry goes on … expressions of love are never wrong. Ever.
It makes a great bumper sticker, until you actually think about it.
“Both marriages have people that commit fraud.”
So how would a third kind of marriage be any different? wouldn’t they all have fraud?
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:21 am
Incest has tangible problems with it. Birth defects in children.
Legally, 40 year olds are allowed to marry 18 year olds. And ya know what, there’s nothing wrong with it.
Prostitution isn’t the same kind of debate as this. It’s a different kind of debate.
For Sweden, they don’t feel it’s wrong.
Society changes over time.
You need to deal with it.
This is why the Republican party ain’t doin’ too well with young voters. It is not that young people are immoral, rather, they are just more in tune with the realities of a socially progressing world.
And you know what, I’ll say it again:
There are no detriments to consensual, non incestuous, committed gay relationship.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:32 am
Alex,
The point is that an emotional appeal like the one you made earlier is likely to fall on the same deaf ears in the same way that Doug’s emotional appeal fell on deaf ears with you.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:32 am
C’mon guys, only 20 away from 500!!
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:41 am
479,
who cares if incest causes birth defects in children. Haven’t you guys been saying all along that marriage isn’t about children?? That is what abortion is for. You certainly aren’t against that. Last time I checked two gays would have a hard time giving birth to a child. What is the difference between childless incest and childless “gay marriage”. There is no difference. What is the difference between consenting polygamists and consenting homosexuals?? There is none.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:46 am
And don’t give me the bullshit arguments about polygamy being too complex legally speaking. Your entire argument for gay marriage is about “equality” and “justice” and whatever “rights” you feel you deserve. “Legal complexity” isn’t even a factor one way or the other because denying a “right” because of the difficulties of granting it is obviously not a good argument.
So I say what is the difference between “gay marriage,” incest and polygamy??
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:04 am
Mcon, the difference is there is not a class of people who are only capable of being in love with a family member, or only capable of being in love with multiple people.
Gay people are only capable of being in love with a member of their own sex, and we recognize their relationships out of compassion and to prevent the psychological tragedies that come from denying people their greatest joy.
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:08 am
Hm, weird, I am having trouble posting…
Sigh.
“who cares if incest causes birth defects in children. Haven’t you guys been saying all along that marriage isn’t about children??”
Same sex parenting has no detriment to children.
Incest does.
So why equate it?
Children are brought up because people act like child rearing is some requirement for marriage. It’s not.
Legalizing same sex marriage is different from polygamy because there are no secular obstacles to it except for uninformed idiots like you who refuse to use facts to continue to support your thinking.
You can use facts to support the continued illegality of polygamy.
However, if a religious church wants to bless polygamous couples, I have no problem with it.
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:01 am
484 and 485,
Sorry but none of those arguments are valid. If legalizing gay marriage is about “equality” and “rights” for all then incest and polygamy are no different.
Who I can love is irrelevant. The benefits to children are irrelevant as children are not necessary for marriage. Obviously homosexual couples are incapable of creating children so that argument is irrelevant. For all intents and purposes an incestuous couple practicing safe sex is no different than a homosexual couple for this discussion. How are they different?
Consenting adults engaging in homosexuality and wanting to “marry” are no different than consenting adults engaging in incest and polygamy and wanting to marry. Men are hardwired to want multiple partners and I’m sure there are people out there who have found that special someone is their own sister.
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:26 am
#486: Non-response to #484.
Because some love their own sister does not render them incapable of loving others.
Because some want multiple partners does not render them incapable of living individuals (in fact, it presupposes it).
Gay people are incapable of (romantically) loving the opposite sex.
Why condemn them to suffering? Especially since 5% will be your own kids?
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:38 am
487,
Non-response to my whole point. while you may consider gays incapable of loving those of the opposite sex, who you or they are “capable” of loving is irrelevant. If “gay marriage” is about equal rights then it is no different than incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage.
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:59 am
Mcon,
MetroIndependant excellently summarized the entire point.
Gay marriage is about equal rights because, for us, there IS no alternative. Since we are not genetically hardwired to love people of the opposite gender, restricting us to only marry them is not a meaningful option.
There are absolutely no people genetically hardwired to love only their relatives. Infact, biologically, there are many components of us that are designed to make us wary of doing this. (Which is why animals, operating on instinct, don’t really commit incest either.)
People, of course, are genetically hardwired to be attracted to more than one person, but you choose to limit yourself to a single person.
Gay people are genetically hardwired to be attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex, but are given only the option of marrying people that are not genetically attracted to.
That’s why it is discriminatory.
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
“Gay marriage is about equal rights because, for us, there IS no alternative. Since we are not genetically hardwired to love people of the opposite gender, restricting us to only marry them is not a meaningful option.”
Marriage may be about love in reality but in the eyes of the government and before the law love has nothing to do with it. So once again who you are attracted to is irrelevant when trying to differentiate yourself from incestuous couples. Gays desiring marriage are no different before the law than incestuous couples.
“People, of course, are genetically hardwired to be attracted to more than one person, but you choose to limit yourself to a single person.”
Quite. But if marriage is about being able to marry whomever you wish to marry then there is no logical reason for the government to prohibit several consenting adults from participating in polygamous marriage. If marriage is about being able to marry the person you are attracted to then incestuous marriage between consenting adults shouldn’t be a problem either. What would you tell the polygamous family that wants us to “recognize their relationships out of compassion” as Metro so heart wrenchingly put it? What would you tell that loving incestuous couple so intent on getting married and adopting children?
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:15 am
Sigh.
Mcon.
Why do you ignore facts?
Are you that hellbent on being right as to ignore reality?
Is there no factual proof you’re willing to accept?
We’ve covered that gay people are genetically hardwired to be attracted to only the same sex.
We’ve covered there are no emotional or physical detriments to a same sex couple nor to the children they raise, which cannot be applied to incestuous and polygamous relationships.
So the idea is, since there’s no detriment to allowing gay marriage for anyone involved who is sane, why should the government prohibit it?
I mean really, tell me, what is good enough for you? What is the evidence that I need to show you, the differences that I need to point out, the questions I need to answer to you, for you to understand that your beliefs cause real people psychological harm because this aspect they had no control over, that is not in any way unhealthy, they are told it is wrong, immoral, and they can’t enjoy the same rights and protections everyone else has?
Why are you SO determined to ignore reality?
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:32 am
Once problem with polls pertaining to civil unions is that there is not standard meaning of what a civil union is. What Jon Huntsman supported and what Alex Knepper would define could be greatly different, thus the polls don’t really tell us much.
I still haven’t heard what is wrong with just having states address each individual situation with the appropriate laws. If they want a ceremony, so be it, just don’t expect society to call them married, or for that matter to call it a civil union. They can walk up and aisle, jump over a stick, or whatever, just don’t expect society to give them marital type rights for doing so. Those ‘rights’ can be determined separately from there being a special recognized status.
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:39 am
Illinoisguy, you’re right on the flimsy definition of civil unions.
That’s why marriage is the best and only meaningful alternative.
A same sex couple is on equal footing as an opposite sex one, which is why they both deserve to be legally married.
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:55 am
Boy, you sure play fast and lose with “facts”
“We’ve covered that gay people are genetically hardwired to be attracted to only the same sex.”
This statement is not true. All gay people are not even only attracted to the same sex … let alone all being genetically hardwired to be that way. I have seen no proof of a gay gene.
“We’ve covered there are no emotional or physical detriments to a same sex couple nor to the children they raise, which cannot be applied to incestuous and polygamous relationships.”
You mean, you’ve kept saying that there’s no detriment. That doesn’t make it a fact. You have offered no proof, other than your statement, all same sex couples are not damaged by choosing that life style, while at the same time claiming that all people who choose an incestuous or polygamist lifestyle suffer damage. Why is this a fact? Oh, that’s right … the ‘because I say so argument.”
“So the idea is, since there’s no detriment to allowing gay marriage for anyone involved who is sane, why should the government prohibit it?”
You want to change the law … the burden of proof is on you. I’m going to need more than, “uh, because we don’t think it will change anything?”
“A same sex couple is on equal footing as an opposite sex one, which is why they both deserve to be legally married.”
Other than the fact (and I use the term here fact as in real established fact, not the, I-just-made-this-up-to-support-my-argument kind) that a same sex couple is not the same thing as a opposite gender couple. The entire premise of opposite gender coupling is that they can produce and raise children together. Same sex couples can’t do this. Fact.
Now, could the courts place same sex couples on equal footing. Yes, if they rule that way, they will. But I don’t think that race and gender and sexual identity are the same things and as long as you believe that a man a women are differnet things, the court is not required to treat two kinds of couples exactly the same.
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:58 am
“This statement is not true. All gay people are not even only attracted to the same sex … let alone all being genetically hardwired to be that way. I have seen no proof of a gay gene.”
1) Some people are bisexual, yes.
2) So where’s the straight gene?
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:07 am
RMB, I know Alex understands the potential problems with maintaining religious liberty with a legal ‘gay’ marriage situation. Do you?
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:11 am
Wow, this must be the longest thread ever on Race.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:13 am
No, there have been longer ones DanL.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:14 am
And I suspect that the only thing that will come as a result of this marathon argument is that RMB will have firmed up opposition to gay marriage by his rantings.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:15 am
Ugh, I hate to think of it Illinois.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:16 am
Its this long because RMB felt he needed to say exactly the same thing about 100 times, as if we couldn’t read. I guess in his mind, if we didn’t agree, we must not have read it yet.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:22 am
Hahaha, I noticed that Illinois. I was reading the thread last night until about post 150, then I get up this morning and see that, 350 posts later, RMB is still making the same arguments without any proof or success.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:37 am
So it would appear- based on 500+ posts- that gays bring ‘em out better than Romney and Huck combined!
Alex,
Maybe as a follow up to your “Mitt Romney” FPP, you could make a FPP that simply says, “Queers,” and see what happens.
This could be a whole series experimenting with different buzz words.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:38 am
“So where’s the straight gene?”
I don’t think there is proof of one … because no one has proven that sexual identity is genetic.
Kind of bad news for those claiming that all gays are ‘hard wired’ to only be attracted to people of their same gender.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:45 am
MWS, how about Alex take on a series about which candidate’s closet he was in most recently.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:46 am
You F’ing So Cons think your own gay kids you kick to the F’ing streets, are there because their attraction to the same sex is no difference that a preference for chocolate over vanilla?
You people are pure evil — and you take out on your own children.
And wrap yourself up in morality.
There is not better example of pure evil on this planet.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:54 am
Looks like I missed basically my whole thread. A couple of points I’d like to make.
Yes, I think that men and women are, on balance, substantially different emotionally. Certain emotions that women feel men have a difficult time feeling or expressing and I don’t believe this is purely cultural. Let’s use myself as an example. I’d consider myself a modestly feminine (emotionally) straight guy and personal factors tend to confirm that. I like Nicholas Sparks novels, have never watched Monday Night Football and think that Julia Roberts movies are considerably more interesting than Bruce Willis movies. My Ipod library is a full 40% female lead vocalist. For starters. I’m DEFINITELY not an alpha male.
Nonetheless, I discover that there are certain levels of feminity that even I can’t reach. Like MWS, I think Mama Mia is horrifying; I consistently want to throw things at Diane Keaton in every movie she’s ever been in, and I’ll never understand why you need more than 3 pairs of shoes (sneakers, boots, dress shoes). And you might say, “well, that’s just you”, but the thing is…it’s not just me. I have never met a guy who could dip that far into the world of feminity. I have no particularly strong attachment to my masculinity, such as it is, or the cultural trappings that go along with it, but I find it impossible to imagine myself abandoning certain aspects of it. Women, of all stripes, seem to cross certain barriers that seem ironclad to me, almost effortlessly;
Chalk this up to culture if you like, but at a certain point, with the admittedly different (in some cases wildly different) brain chemistry between men and women – some of the “facts” RMB and co are so concerned about- the way the admittedly different hormones interact with our bodies and minds, it simply becomes silly and blatantly ideological to put men and women on the same plane. It won’t do and they know it won’t do, and if they were any kind of honest they’d admit it won’t do.
And is this is something I’ve never quite understood about the essential arguments from social liberals and gay marriage proponents. On the one hand, they insist on liberation. Man must be unshackled from arbitrary cultural constraints which keep him from his potential; he must become a vehicle for biology comingled with pure, untrammeled reason. Only the cold cells of biology can enslave. And yet they are intent on proving that even biology is a chimera, that all differences (even benign differences) are purely individual or cultural, and that we’re all essentially expendable; easily replaced by another cog in the machine.
What, I ask, is terribly logical about saying that gay people are hardwired to engage in gay behavior and we know this because, in fact, gay people seem to feel hardwired and there happens to be a modest amount of data demonstrating the physiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals; while ignoring the avalanche of evidence that, in fact, men and women seem to feel hardwired to behave in different ways and have, in fact behaved in different ways for all of recorded history and that, in fact, the physiological differences between the sexes are far more substantial than any differences between straights and gays? There is no logic in it, of course,; logic for thee, but not for me. Mystical, emotional responses for me, but not for thee.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:56 am
Metro,
Who are you arguing with? Did anyone here say they would disown a gay child, or are you fighting windmills again? I would not kick a gay child to the street, and I am a fairly rabid and evil SoCon.
But even if we WERE advocating that, you seriously can’t imagine a purer example of evil on the planet? You know, stuff like pedophilia, sadism, torture, genocide. Stuff like that?
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 am
Matthew,
#507. Excellent points, particularly about liberal ambivalence towards the hard-wiring of sexual orientation but the implicit rejection of it in the sexes themselves.
But that’s why we hired you.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 am
#508: Because there are countless thousands of disowned kids of SoCons in Los Angeles and other major cities.
Because that is the result of what you preach, even if you choose to deny it.
And yes, for example, I think it’s far worse to psychologically torture one’s children than to do so physically, even if it cannot be prosecuted.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 am
Metro, were they disowned first, or did they cut the ties first? I am sure that it is a mix of the two.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:13 am
#511: Good God. That’s like saying if a wife finally leaves her abusive husband, then she’s the one that ended the marriage.
Religion has completely destroyed morality for you people.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:21 am
Metro, you are putting the horse before the cart. Certainly there are gay children who crave their parents love but aren’t getting it. Then there are children who reject everything that their loving parents hold dear, spit on them, and reactionarily, go as far to the opposite extreme from their parents as possible just to spite them.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:22 am
Additionally Metro, it would be a more apt analogy to blame Jenny Sanford for Mark’s infidelity.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:23 am
If Jenny were just more accepting of Mark’s deviant behavior then they could all get along and be a happy family. But no, her stupid Christianity is driving their marriage apart. She is just an unforgiving adulterer hater.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:25 am
The Science Of Sexual Orientation
Researchers Focus On Twins
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/60minutes/main1385230.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Sexual Orientation in a U.S. National Sample of Twin and Nontwin Sibling Pairs
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/157/11/1843
Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.full
Men with older brothers more likely to be gay
Research adds to idea of biological basis for sexual orientation
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13555604/print/1/displaymode/1098/
‘Genetic link’ to sexual orientation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1025276.stm
Biology and sexual orientation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:36 am
#515: Thank you for proving my point about how religion has destroyed morality for you.
You haven’t even stopped to THINK how your approach would destroy your own children.
That’s what I call a monster.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 am
So here is where everyone went.
I see Metro is holding court.
Waste of time.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:40 am
There are a lot, a lot of contradictions, outright falsehoods, and half-truths on here posted by proponents of making sexual deviancy the national norm. From this thread I feel more confident about saying homosexuality or promiscuity of any kind is kind of like obesity, in the sense that you may be born with a tendency, but what you feed on has a LOT to do with it.
July 4th, 2009 at 2:08 am
Just read over a couple hundred posts. Until now, I never thought, in the few years I’ve been coming to this site, that I’d ever agree with both Alex and Metro in the same post.