It's not surprising that debate over an anti-gay-marriage amendment in Wisconsin turned violent:
Videotape shows a man in a suit pushing one opponent of the amendment and then punching another. The tape shows the man walking out and then returning and throwing ketchup bottles and other objects.
Opposition to same-sex marriage is based on a visceral reaction, characterized by gut emotion rather than reason. Which is why changing minds requires persistent appeals to the heart as well as the head. Either that, or training for fisticuffs.
Meanwhile, in California, Gov. Schwarzenegger faces a political test.
25 Comments for “Push Comes to Shove.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Such antics aren’t called “passion from the heart.” They’re called hate, and should be indicated as such.
Opposition to same-sex marriage isn’t supported by “a love of tradition,” or “religious belief” or any of the other emperor’s new clothes which are used to cover it. It’s supported by a genuine dislike (i.e. hate) of gay people and a desire to see them and their families isolated and marginalized. In other words, it’s a desire by haters to see the people they hate suffer.
The fact that some people get all balky and “offended” when you point this out, and claim that they’re “not hateful,” doesn’t matter one iota. The same sorts of people, forty years ago, were claiming some of their best friends were black — they just didn’t want them living next door.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Incidentally, I don’t see why anyone should get excited over the Governator giving us the oh-so-exciting “right to file taxes as a married couple.” Talk about a useless “right!”
posted by Peter LaBarbera on
Stephen, making political points by generalizations cuts both ways. You wrote:
<>
So, according to your logic, I could cite the many mean-spirited attacks by homosexual advocates against Christians/traditionalists (death threats, hate calls, occasional physical attacks, e.g., against Ralph Ovadal in Wisconsin some years back) and say: Opposition to traditional sexual mores is “based on a visceral reaction, characterized by gut emotion rather than reason.”
The fact is, there is a cultural debate going on, and there are extremist wackos on both sides of that debate. Your side has its share, as I’m sure you know–and I would contend that “gay” intolerance (refusal to respectfully “tolerate” dissenting views) is on the rise as “gay” power grows.
Regarding the debate, both sides employ reason and emotion, albeit from opposing worldviews. If you’re going to use extremists and Fred Phelps to represent my side of the debate, then you have to deal with the extremists on your side. Best–pl http://www.americansfortruth.org
posted by Peter LaBarbera on
Sorry: the code took out the quote by Stephen that I was citing:
“Opposition to same-sex marriage is based on a visceral reaction, characterized by gut emotion rather than reason.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
the many mean-spirited attacks by homosexual advocates against Christians/traditionalists (death threats, hate calls
The right wing victim complex is hilarious.
Get back to us when there’s an epidemic of Christian-Conservative-bashing and proposed constitutional amendments to revoke their equal protection rights under the Constitution, Peter.
If you’re going to use extremists and Fred Phelps to represent my side of the debate, then you have to deal with the extremists on your side.
Your reasoning is flawed, because it’s your side who seeks to take away rights from American citizens who happen to be gay. Claiming victimhood status as a result of the passionate response of gay citizens to your predation is hilarious.
If you’re who I think you are claiming to be, you’re among the meanest-spirited individuals in the “debate” — not to mention one of the more dishonest.
posted by inahandbasket on
Peter – Guess you have more time now on your hands since you lost your bid to write bigotry into the Illinois state constitution. Now you’re trolling the gay blogs, eh? Do you agree with Marilyn Musgrave (right-wing nutcase Representative from CO) that marriage equality is more of a threat to national security than terrorism? Or is fighting against marriage equality PART of the “War on Terror?” This linky will take you to another gay blog: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/musgrave-exposes-gops-warped-agenda_28.html
Have fun, Petey!
posted by Peter LaBarbera on
“The right wing victim complex is hilarious.”
Northeast Libertarian: if you are truly libertarian and care about individual rights, then you would care about those who HAVE been victimized for opposing “gay rights.” Do you care?
FACT: there are many examples of pro-gay extremism against opponents, of extreme insensitivity toward religious people/groups (e.g., assault on St. Patrick’s Cathedral some years back; protesters screaming “Shut it down!” outside recent “Love Won Out” conference in Boston), even physical attacks (Ovadal). Deal with it.
FACT: people are losing their jobs or getting disciplined for defending traditional sexual mores or criticizing homosexuality–e.g., Matt Barber, who was fired by Allstate for writing an online article criticizing “gay marriage.” Do you defend this?
FACT: Gay activists frequently presume that because someone disagrees with they (out of religious or moral conviction) that they “hate” them–e.g., here in Chicago, the Gay Liberation Network’s labelling of Cardinal Francis George as a “hater” because he defends the teachings of the Cath. Church….
Comments above do the same. Stick to the point of my post, please.
–pl Americans For Truth
posted by Peter LaBarbera on
NE Libertarian: are you conflating legitimate POLITICAL/CULTURAL debate with nasty attacks like the ones that Stephen Miller described or the ones I cited?
Don’t you see a distinction between groups pushing for pro- or anti-“gay marriage” amendments and someone phoning in a death threat to an opponent?
posted by Peter LaBarbera on
Where did everybody go? Just like the Left: name-calling and smears are easier than reasoned debate….
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Mr. LaBarbera,
Do you really want reason? This may or may not be an incident that is unusual in where it happened.
But your beliefs are not separated from political and cultural debate.
Your insistence that homosexuality, so therefore homosexuals, are not separate from anything of merit gay people can offer society.
Or what of merit they may offer each other.
This isn’t about sexuality, but other aspects of society that gay people are banned from, regardless.
If you hate what gay people do, AS gay people, nor respect that sexuality will have differences that is morally neutral, then you don’t want a reasoned debate about the justifications for banning gay people from ANYTHING that a free and competent citizen can engage in without permission from the government or the institutions gay people wish to particpate in on equal terms.
The violence is real. The isolation and separate and unequal standards are real.
This is the most important aspect of gay lives that concern gay people.
It is YOU who is obssessing more about the sexual lives of gay people and you can’t distinguish fetishes and pathologies (that heterosexuals also have) from homosexuality.
Now, unless you will conceded that a sexual difference, with no origins based anywhere but the same place that heterosexuality comes from, then we can have a conversation.
Reasoned debate wouldn’t enter with the bias that heteosexuality is a virtue.
I’ll take you on, anyday.
Deal with THAT!
posted by Christopher on
” protesters screaming “Shut it down!” outside recent “Love Won Out” conference in Boston), even physical attacks (Ovadal)”
Bravo to those protestors. So you are against shuttng down an organization that condones mental torture and child abuse?
“people are losing their jobs or getting disciplined for defending traditional sexual mores or criticizing homosexuality–e.g., Matt Barber, who was fired by Allstate for writing an online article criticizing “gay marriage.” Do you defend this? ”
Yes, I defend it. People are fired on the spot if they oppose rights for blacks or other minorites in the workplace. So why should blatant homophobia be allowed?
“Gay activists frequently presume that because someone disagrees with they (out of religious or moral conviction) that they “hate” them–e.g., here in Chicago, the Gay Liberation Network’s labelling of Cardinal Francis George as a “hater” because he defends the teachings of the Cath. Church…. ”
The Roman Catholic Church is arguably the biggest killing machine in world history. There is no doubt in mind that RATzinger and his ilk are motivated by teh same perverse hatred that motivated the Inquisitors.
posted by raj on
“Porno Pete” LaBarbera is commenting here? ROTFLMAO
Somehow I doubt that it is really he, though.
NB: “Porno Pete” stems from the fact that, several years ago he claimed to have had oodles of gay porn in his office. For research purposes, of course
Of course
Porno Pete is hilarious.
posted by Peter LaBarbera on
To Regan:
“But your beliefs are not separated from political and cultural debate.”
WHOSE ARE? OUR BELIEFS, PRESUMABLY LIKE YOURS, ARE FORMED BY ALL SORTS OF INFLUENCES, INCLUDING REASON, FAITH, OBSERVATION OF NATURE, ETC.
“Your insistence that homosexuality, so therefore homosexuals, are not separate from anything of merit gay people can offer society.”
NEVER SAID THAT: PEOPLE WHO PRACTICE/IDENTIFY WITH HOMOSEXUALITY HAVE CONTRIBUTED MANY WONDERFUL THINGS/IDEAS TO SOCIETY. BUT JUST BECAUSE I LIKE ELTON JOHN’S MUSIC OR LAUGH AT ELLEN D.’S JOKES DOESN’T MEAN I HAVE TO AGREE WITH THEIR SEXUAL LIFESTYLE, OR AGREE WITH YOU THAT THEY ARE INTRINSICALLY “GAY.” PEOPLE EMBRACE ALL SORTS OF BEHAVIORS, ACTING ON VARIOUS INCLINATIONS (TEMPTATIONS), SOME HEALTHY, SOME NOT, SOME RIGHT, SOME WRONG — THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE BEHAVIORS/TEMPTATIONS ACCEPTABLE OR MORALLY NEUTRAL. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE USE OF ‘TEMPTATIONS’ WILL INFLAME THE SECULAR ZEALOTS ON THIS LIST, BUT THIS IS A FORMULATION I’M OFFERING TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE WE’RE COMING FROM. CERTAINLY MOST PEOPLE WILL ACKNOWLEDGE STRONG TEMPTATIONS IN MANY AREAS OF LIFE, AND THAT THEY SHOULDN’T ACT ON THEM ALL…
“Or what of merit they may offer each other.”
WE DISAGREE WITH SEXUAL BEHAVIOR BETWEEN PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX, AND THE ADVOCACY OF SAME. OBVIOUSLY, PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX CAN OFFER EACH OTHER A GREAT DEAL W/O SEX BEING INVOLVED.
This isn’t about sexuality, but other aspects of society that gay people are banned from, regardless.
OF COURSE THIS IS ABOUT SEXUALITY (I KNOW YOU’D MUCH RATHER FOCUS ON ‘DISCRIMINATION’). THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT IT’S ABOUT: WE DISAGREE WITH HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE (W/O “HATING” THOSE INVOLVED), AND YOU THINK THE PRACTICE IS FINE AND THOSE WHO OPPOSE IT ARE WRONG, “BIGOTS,” ETC.
“If you hate what gay people do, AS gay people,”
WE DISAGREE WITH WHAT PEOPLE EMBRACING A HOMOSEXUAL IDENTITY DO SEXUALLY…I.E., THAT ASPECT OF PRACTICING/ADVOCATING HOMO-SEXUAL BEHAVIOR… WE DO NOT REGARD PEOPLE AS INTRINICALLY OR BIOLOGICALLY “GAY.” TO US, “HOMOSEXUAL” IS AN ADJECTIVE, NOT A NOUN (ALTHOUGH THIS ARTIFICIAL CREATION BORN OUT OF THE STUDY OF HOMOSEXUALITY IS OFTEN USED AS SUCH).
“nor respect that sexuality will have differences that is morally neutral,”
ALL DIFFERENCES ARE NOT “MORALLY NEUTRAL.” WE BELIEVE PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EMBRACING/PRACTICING HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR, AND THAT THEY CAN CHANGE THAT BEHAVIOR, AS COUNTLESS PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE.
“then you don’t want a reasoned debate about the justifications for banning gay people from ANYTHING that a free and competent citizen can engage in without permission from the government or the institutions gay people wish to particpate in on equal terms.”
SO IF WE DISAGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THE ESSENCE OF ‘GAY’ IDEOLOGY, AND VARIOUS OTHER POINTS IN THE DEBATE, INCLUDING REDEFINING MARRIAGE, THEN BY DEFINITION WE ARE NOT ENGAGING IN REASONED DEBATE? SORRY, THAT DOESN’T FOLLOW. THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD RIGHTS BE BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/INCLINATIONS? WE SAY ‘NO’–THE BEHAVIOR IS WRONG, AND THE PROLIFERATION OF “SEXUAL ORIENTATION” LAWS WILL ONLY LEAD TO THE ABROGATION OF OTHER PEOPLE’S RIGHTS TO DISAGREE, AS IS IN FACT HAPPENING TODAY. (HOW TELLING THAT ANOTHER WRITER ON THIS STRING DEFENDS THE FIRING OF MATT BARBER FOR CRITICIZING HOMOSEXUALITY!)
The violence is real.
WE CONDEMN ALL VIOLENCE AND HATRED AGAINST ‘HOMOSEXUALS’ (SEE POINT ABOVE). BLAMING UGLY ANTI-GAY ATTACKS ON CHRISTIANS WHO SAY THEY LOVE HOMOSEXUALS AND YET OPPOSE THEIR BEHAVIOR AS SINFUL IS LIKE BLAMING PRO-LIFERS FOR THE NUTS WHO BOMB ABORTION CLINICS. SHOULD WE BLAME YOU (ALL GAYS) WHEN A FEW ‘GAY’ WACKOS STORM A CATHOLIC CHURCH AND STOMP ON THE EUCHARISTIC WAFERS?
The isolation and separate and unequal standards are real.
WE BELIEVE THAT WRONG AND CHANGEABLE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF BEING A ‘CIVIL RIGHT,’ AND THAT PUTTING IT THERE CORRUPTS CIVIL RIGHTS IN GENERAL. YOUR RACIAL ANALOGY FALSE APART BECAUSE SKIN COLOR IS UNCHANGEABLE. THERE IS NO MORE A ‘RIGHT’ FOR TWO MEN TO MARRY THAN THERE IS FOR GUY TO MARRY 3 WOMEN. THERE IS NO ‘RIGHT’ FOR HOMOSEXUALS TO ADOPT CHILDREN, OR SERVE IN THE MILITARY WHEN HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE IS BANNED AND DEEMED BAD FOR MORALE.
This is the most important aspect of gay lives that concern gay people.
FREEDOM IS IMPORTANT TO US. PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM BEING FORCED TO ACCEPT HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR AS NORMATIVE IS IMPORTANT TO US. PROTECTING KIDS FROM NAIVELY EMBRACING A (GLAMORIZED) HOMOSEXUAL IDENTIY, WITHOUT KNOWING THE SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS (ESP. FOR MALES) IS OF GREAT CONCERN TO US.
It is YOU who is obssessing more about the sexual lives of gay people and you can’t distinguish fetishes and pathologies (that heterosexuals also have) from homosexuality.
WRONG AGAIN. I ONLY WISH THAT I COULD BE AS “OBSESSED” AS THE COUNTLESS “GAY” ACTIVISTS ON THE OTHER SIDE. AS YOU CAN SEE ABOVE, I’M NOT CRITICIZING “FETISHES” BUT THE WHOLE OF HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT/ADVOCACY. OF COURSE, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU THAT SOME ‘HETEROSEXUALS’ PRACTICE WRONG AND HIGHLY DANGEROUS BEHAVIORS LIKE ANAL SEX. (I’M ASSUMING THAT THE TERM ‘HETEROSEXUALS’ INCLUDES THOSE WHO COULD ONE DAY PRACTICE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR, AND VICE VERSA FOR ‘HOMOSEXUALS’)
Now, unless you will conceded that a sexual difference, with no origins based anywhere but the same place that heterosexuality comes from, then we can have a conversation.
ARE YOU SO WISE AS TO HAVE FIGURED OUT THE ORIGINS OF SEXUAL DIFFERENCE? OR, FOR THAT MATTER, THE ORIGINS OF DIFFERENCE OF ANY BEHAVIOR? I DIDN’T KNOW I WAS DEBATING GOD. 🙂 THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT ‘NUTURE’ CONTRIBUTES TO HOMOSEXUAL IDEATION. AND NOBODY EVER CALLED HETEROSEXUALITY (IN GENERAL) A PERVERSION, SO YOU ARE WRONG TO PRESUME A MORAL EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. SIMPLY CHARGING “BIAS” WON’T CUT IT.
Reasoned debate wouldn’t enter with the bias that heteosexuality is a virtue.
HETEROSEXUALITY IS NORMAL, NATURAL, LIFE-GIVING BEHAVIOR. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT. “HETEROSEXUALITY,” I.E., THE NATURAL WAY OF THINGS, IS SUPERIOR TO (ABERRANT) HOMOSEXUAL ACTS, WHICH HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO MANY ‘GAY’ MEN DYING EARLY. WHY DO YOU ACCORD THEM EQUAL STATUS? AGAIN, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG TO ASSUME MORAL EQUIVALENCY BETWEEN THE TWO.
I’ll take you on, anyday.
DITTO MINUS THE BRAVADO.
posted by Irrational Entity on
Peter LaBarbera, your usage of homosexual is well outside the standard definition of sexual orientation. I and others are homosexuals regardless of whether we engage in homosexual behavior. Changeable behaviors are part of our rights. Religious identification is far more readily altered than sexual orientation, yet protections against religious discrimination exist.
Homosexuality is a normal minority variation. To use a different example, left-handed persons are not a majority but an expected if relatively small portion of the population. Homosexual behaviors are also quite natural. The activity shows up in a variety of cultures and exists in many animal species. Homosexual activity may not be procreative, but most heterosexual activity is not procreative. Sex does far more than produce children, and in certain situations, homosexual activity is beneficial to those involved and is a moral good.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
assault on St. Patrick’s Cathedral some years back
“Assault?” How laughable.
protesters screaming “Shut it down!” outside recent “Love Won Out” conference in Boston
Protestors exercising their free speech rights are an important part of democracy.
even physical attacks (Ovadal)
I recall a number of self-described Christian groups having claimed being roughed up — of course, all of the allegations turned out to be baseless.
So basically, because some people with banners show up outside your churches and conferences, you’re being “oppressed?”
Right-wing victim complexes are so tiresome.
people are losing their jobs or getting disciplined for defending traditional sexual mores or criticizing homosexuality–e.g., Matt Barber, who was fired by Allstate for writing an online article criticizing “gay marriage.” Do you defend this?
Certainly. Allstate, as a private employer, has the right to hire and fire its employees at will and implement whatever employee codes of conduct which it wishes in the conduct of its everyday business.
Given that gay and lesbian Americans and their friends and family represent a massive piece of the insurance marketplace, it is of no surprise to me that Allstate has decided that it does not wish to be affiliated with individuals who could offend one of its more important customer constituencies. If the employee values his freedom to gay-bash more than his job, that is his right — he has the right to find employment with an employer who agrees with his perspective or is neutral.
Gay activists frequently presume that because someone disagrees with they (out of religious or moral conviction) that they “hate” them–e.g., here in Chicago, the Gay Liberation Network’s labelling of Cardinal Francis George as a “hater” because he defends the teachings of the Cath. Church
You use a lot of emotional terms like “hate” and “defend,” which are really irrelevant to the debate. In the public dialogue, the Catholics have the right to say whatever they want and the GLN (whoever they are) have the right to say whatever they wish as well.
Once again, you seem to be complaining that you’re being unfairly victimized because your opponents have the same freedom of speech that you do, and you cannot regulate what they say.
OUR BELIEFS, PRESUMABLY LIKE YOURS, ARE FORMED BY ALL SORTS OF INFLUENCES, INCLUDING REASON, FAITH, OBSERVATION OF NATURE, ETC.
I happen to believe that your beliefs are formed primarily by a bizarre belief in a superstitious deity for which no objective evidence exists — and I have a right to my beliefs just as much as you have a right to yours.
You again seem to be demanding special victimhood status because people disagree with your beliefs and your logic and are unwilling to accord some sort of undeserved special “respect” to them.
EVER SAID THAT: PEOPLE WHO PRACTICE/IDENTIFY WITH HOMOSEXUALITY HAVE CONTRIBUTED MANY WONDERFUL THINGS/IDEAS TO SOCIETY. BUT JUST BECAUSE I LIKE ELTON JOHN’S MUSIC OR LAUGH AT ELLEN D.’S JOKES DOESN’T MEAN I HAVE TO AGREE WITH THEIR SEXUAL LIFESTYLE
What you don’t seem to understand is that very few gay people particularly *care* what you think of their so-called “sexual lifestyle,” and find your prurient interest to be untoward, at best.
OR AGREE WITH YOU THAT THEY ARE INTRINSICALLY “GAY.”
Again, we are supposed to care about this. . . because?
Most gay people care about your opinions about as much as you care about the opinions of gay people vis-a-vis your choice of underwear. Firstly, nobody cares. Secondly, it’s highly inappropriate for you to express such interest in the first place, and makes you rather disliked — just like anyone else with an unsolicited boorish opinion on others’ personal affairs.
PEOPLE EMBRACE ALL SORTS OF BEHAVIORS, ACTING ON VARIOUS INCLINATIONS (TEMPTATIONS), SOME HEALTHY, SOME NOT, SOME RIGHT, SOME WRONG — THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE BEHAVIORS/TEMPTATIONS ACCEPTABLE OR MORALLY NEUTRAL.
I would advance that improper use of the caps lock key is also unacceptable, but again — who cares about what your assessments are of other people’s so-called “unhealthy temptations?” Mind your own business.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE USE OF ‘TEMPTATIONS’ WILL INFLAME THE SECULAR ZEALOTS ON THIS LIST, BUT THIS IS A FORMULATION I’M OFFERING TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE WE’RE COMING FROM.
It doesn’t inflame me in the least. I regard your extreme interest in the sexual practices of other people with a combination of bemusement and slight distaste.
CERTAINLY MOST PEOPLE WILL ACKNOWLEDGE STRONG TEMPTATIONS IN MANY AREAS OF LIFE, AND THAT THEY SHOULDN’T ACT ON THEM ALL…
Again, why are my temptations any of your business?
If you must know, I suffered from a number of temptations today, some of which I gave into — several of them being unhealthy.
I saw some chocolate cookies at the grocery store today, bought them, and ate them.
Shall I list all my other temptations for you, to get your personal counsel so that I can live my life according to (someone claiming to be) Peter LaBarbera?
And more importantly, why should I care? What unique insights do you have to offer me or anyone else which offers any benefit whatsoever?
WE DISAGREE WITH SEXUAL BEHAVIOR BETWEEN PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX, AND THE ADVOCACY OF SAME.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we got you the fortieth time. Again, why should we care what “you” (singular or plural) think about our own lives in any area?
OF COURSE THIS IS ABOUT SEXUALITY (I KNOW YOU’D MUCH RATHER FOCUS ON ‘DISCRIMINATION’). THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT IT’S ABOUT: WE DISAGREE WITH HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE (W/O “HATING” THOSE INVOLVED), AND YOU THINK THE PRACTICE IS FINE AND THOSE WHO OPPOSE IT ARE WRONG, “BIGOTS,” ETC.
I beg to differ. You don’t “disagree with sexual practices” — you rather attempt to use government force to coerce those with whom you disagree into adopting your position.
This is the ultimate illustration of the weakness of your core argument. The evidence and logic behind your “beliefs” is largely linked to a book of myths revered by middle-eastern shepherds and fisherman. Modern, logical people reject them. Because your logic is so weak that you can convince few to no people, the *only* tool left in your arsenal to see your beliefs succeed is an effort to coerce.
You’re really not all that unusual from any other statist movement in that regard.
WE DISAGREE WITH WHAT PEOPLE EMBRACING A HOMOSEXUAL IDENTITY DO SEXUALLY…I.E., THAT ASPECT OF PRACTICING/ADVOCATING HOMO-SEXUAL BEHAVIOR… WE DO NOT REGARD PEOPLE AS INTRINICALLY OR BIOLOGICALLY “GAY.” TO US, “HOMOSEXUAL” IS AN ADJECTIVE, NOT A NOUN (ALTHOUGH THIS ARTIFICIAL CREATION BORN OUT OF THE STUDY OF HOMOSEXUALITY IS OFTEN USED AS SUCH).
Yeah, we got this the fortieth time (as I noted above). Again, the question I have is — who cares?
You still haven’t given me or anyone else a reason why we should care. And no, your efforts to use government force to impose your views don’t make me or anyone else care about your views — they simply motivate us to oppose your statist impulses, just like they would if a group of “us” decided to use the government to force everyone to wear purple based on “what we believe.”
ALL DIFFERENCES ARE NOT “MORALLY NEUTRAL.” WE BELIEVE PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EMBRACING/PRACTICING HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR, AND THAT THEY CAN CHANGE THAT BEHAVIOR, AS COUNTLESS PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE.
Let’s ignore the empirical evidence, which illustrates that your whole “ex gay” thing is a sham (boy, Wayne Besen surely must be annoying you!) and focus again on my earlier question: why should anybody care what you think?
SO IF WE DISAGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THE ESSENCE OF ‘GAY’ IDEOLOGY, AND VARIOUS OTHER POINTS IN THE DEBATE, INCLUDING REDEFINING MARRIAGE, THEN BY DEFINITION WE ARE NOT ENGAGING IN REASONED DEBATE?
No, you’re not. Disagreement based on emotional reactions and mysticism/mythology isn’t debating. If you’re going to take any position on the issues, you should base them on logic — not on what you “believe.”
I may “believe” the moon is made out of green cheese and that the universe was created by Meowzer the Giant Purple Sky Cat who lives in a candy castle on Pluto. In that event, as well as any other “belief,” the question is — who cares?
That’s the question you have to answer — why should anybody care what you believe? Opinions are like rectums — everyone has them and many of them stink.
SHOULD RIGHTS BE BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/INCLINATIONS?
Rights are not based on anything other than one’s intrinsic humanity.
What many describe as “gay rights” are simply human rights which all people have, which groups such as yours attempt to deny to groups which you don’t like.
WE SAY ‘NO’–THE BEHAVIOR IS WRONG, AND THE PROLIFERATION OF “SEXUAL ORIENTATION” LAWS WILL ONLY LEAD TO THE ABROGATION OF OTHER PEOPLE’S RIGHTS TO DISAGREE
It depends on how you define “sexual orientation laws.”
I don’t support non-discrimination laws for gays. I also don’t support them for religious whackos like yourself. If Allstate wants to fire anyone for any reason, they should be able to do so. The good news is that Allstate realizes that gay people are important customers, so the job security of an Allstate employee who is gay is better than a similar employee who is an activist religious nutcase.
It’s called free markets, and they generally favor gay people over irrationalists such as you and your group.
(HOW TELLING THAT ANOTHER WRITER ON THIS STRING DEFENDS THE FIRING OF MATT BARBER FOR CRITICIZING HOMOSEXUALITY!)
See, the problem here is that you don’t really support free markets, freedom of religion, free speech, etc. You seek to use government to “protect your guys” and not others.
Whereas I see government as something which should be small and limited and have no role in employment other than as an arbiter to enforce an employment contract should one party or the other violate it.
WE CONDEMN ALL VIOLENCE AND HATRED AGAINST ‘HOMOSEXUALS’ (SEE POINT ABOVE). BLAMING UGLY ANTI-GAY ATTACKS ON CHRISTIANS WHO SAY THEY LOVE HOMOSEXUALS AND YET OPPOSE THEIR BEHAVIOR AS SINFUL IS LIKE BLAMING PRO-LIFERS FOR THE NUTS WHO BOMB ABORTION CLINICS.
As you reap, so shall you sow. The hatred you plant in citizens, and the bizarre role which you assign yourselves within the intimate and family lives of others, has created a large zealot class. Your ignorance about our constitutional system, combined with your contempt for our civil liberties, has yielded an environment where many wild-eyed zealots — frustrated at their inability to compel gays or reproductive rights supports to obey them — have turned to violence instead.
SHOULD WE BLAME YOU (ALL GAYS) WHEN A FEW ‘GAY’ WACKOS STORM A CATHOLIC CHURCH AND STOMP ON THE EUCHARISTIC WAFERS?
Trespassing into a church and stomping on a couple of wheat cookies isn’t very nice. It’s also not up to an organized campaign of killing people with whom you and your group disagree. That you’d even make the comparison is further evidence of your logically tone-deaf perspective.
WE BELIEVE THAT WRONG AND CHANGEABLE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF BEING A ‘CIVIL RIGHT,’
One of the glorious things about living in America is that my civil rights aren’t defined by what you and your group believe or don’t believe, but rather by the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.
I have the right to equal protection under the law, due process, sexual privacy (as upheld by the SCOTUS in “Lawrence vs. Texas”), freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of conscience, and freedom to reject your bizarre and archaic superstitious beliefs.
Those are all the rights I need, and all of them will deliver, over time, equality under the law for marriage, inheritance rights, and everything else.
That you don’t like that the equal protection clause, or First Amendment, applies to gay Americans doesn’t bother me in the least. You don’t have the votes to amend the Constitution to deny gays their constitutional civil rights, and you never will.
Again, why should I care about your opinions about my life? The only thing I care about are your efforts to undermine my constitutional rights with your bizarre cult values, and I am confident those efforts on your behalf will fail.
PUTTING IT THERE CORRUPTS CIVIL RIGHTS IN GENERAL.
No need to put anything anywhere. My American citizenship guarantees me the protection of the Bill of Rights, and nobody can take that away from me — not even you and your merry band of bedroom snoops.
That must truly, deeply infuriate you.
THERE IS NO MORE A ‘RIGHT’ FOR TWO MEN TO MARRY THAN THERE IS FOR GUY TO MARRY 3 WOMEN.
Actually, I agree with you here. I look forward to the day when “marriage” is a private arrangement which isn’t defined by government.
In the mean time, marriage as a contract between two adults “licensed by the state” will eventually be opened up to same-sex couples. It is inevitable under the equal protection clause of the constitution, and further, it’s a problem YOU and YOUR GROUP created by getting government involved in the marriage business in the first place.
You forgot that your big government plan to regulate and punish those you don’t like is ultimately governed by the Constitution — as all government programs are. Oops. Your bad.
THERE IS NO ‘RIGHT’ FOR HOMOSEXUALS TO ADOPT CHILDREN, OR SERVE IN THE MILITARY WHEN HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE IS BANNED AND DEEMED BAD FOR MORALE.
Au contraire. The government, once again, has no rational basis for its discrimination, and said discrimination is illegal under the same equal protection clause which says the government doesn’t have a right to ban fundamentalist Christian cultists like yourself from adopting or serving in the military.
American citizenship and its rights and responsibilities are a treasure for all US citizens, which fortunately will never be taken away or long distorted by small-minded cults such as yours, or any other zealot or activist.
FREEDOM IS IMPORTANT TO US.
No it is not. 2/3 of your original complaints about gay activist groups is that they’re oppressing you because they have freedom of speech equal to yours and can express their own opinions — and you don’t like those opinions.
You also view the constitutional rights of groups which you don’t like to be revokable. That’s not freedom in the slightest.
PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM BEING FORCED TO ACCEPT HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR AS NORMATIVE IS IMPORTANT TO US.
No, using the power of the state to coerce individuals into adopting your beliefs — under penalty of state punishment — is important to you. That’s not “protection,” it’s dictation.
PROTECTING KIDS FROM NAIVELY EMBRACING A (GLAMORIZED) HOMOSEXUAL IDENTIY, WITHOUT KNOWING THE SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS (ESP. FOR MALES) IS OF GREAT CONCERN TO US.
No, using the power of the government to force children into your preferred curriculum — without their consent or the consent of their parents — is important to you. Never mind that the curriculum you demand be forced upon all has no factual basis and is loaded with your superstitious mumbo-jumbo.
I ONLY WISH THAT I COULD BE AS “OBSESSED” AS THE COUNTLESS “GAY” ACTIVISTS ON THE OTHER SIDE.
Let me put it to you this way, Mr. LaBarbera (if you really are he, which I still doubt). Very few gay people (certainly not me) have any interest in going to your cult’s web sites and explaining why Christian fundamentalism is a doctrine for weak minds — even though it’s objective truth.
Why?
Because you have the freedom, in America, to choose to be weak-minded and stupid. It’s not the best choice, in my view, but it’s your freedoms at stake.
Gay people also have the right to live the way they wish. That you’re receiving negative reactions to your unsolicited, unwelcome, ill-informed and superstition-based “concerns” about individuals’ own life arrangements should be unsurprising to you. Most people don’t like nosy, opinionated fundamentalists.
It’s not “oppression” or “obsession” which leads to that reaction — it’s predictable irritation at your cult’s low level of social skills.
AS YOU CAN SEE ABOVE, I’M NOT CRITICIZING “FETISHES” BUT THE WHOLE OF HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT/ADVOCACY.
Whoop-de-doo. You *still* haven’t told us why we should care!
I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU THAT SOME ‘HETEROSEXUALS’ PRACTICE WRONG AND HIGHLY DANGEROUS BEHAVIORS LIKE ANAL SEX.
And I bet that the vast, vast majority of heterosexuals are as concerned with your “concern” for them as the vast majority of gays most assuredly are.
(I’M ASSUMING THAT THE TERM ‘HETEROSEXUALS’ INCLUDES THOSE WHO COULD ONE DAY PRACTICE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR, AND VICE VERSA FOR ‘HOMOSEXUALS’)
Again, why should we care about your pitiful efforts to redefine words to mean something other than their empirically-observed values?
ARE YOU SO WISE AS TO HAVE FIGURED OUT THE ORIGINS OF SEXUAL DIFFERENCE?
No, but science has made some significant practice. It’s just *slightly* more believable than the idea that all people were made out of mud which God blew on, so I suspect you’ll have to do some reading up on the topic — for your own edification of course, since again I doubt most homosexual or heterosexual people care about your opinion on the matter.
I DIDN’T KNOW I WAS DEBATING GOD. 🙂
I’m sure that even God, if he actually existed, would find you to be tiresome.
THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT ‘NUTURE’ CONTRIBUTES TO HOMOSEXUAL IDEATION.
Actually, there’s significantly greater evidence to suggest that “nuture” (sic) contributes to a bizarrely prurient, inappropriate interest in others’ sexual habits. Hint, hint.
NOBODY EVER CALLED HETEROSEXUALITY (IN GENERAL) A PERVERSION, SO YOU ARE WRONG TO PRESUME A MORAL EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.
Suppose someone did? Would most heterosexuals care? No. Should they? No.
You call homosexuality a “perversion.” Do most homosexuals care? No. Should they? No.
In both cases, it’s none of your business.
SIMPLY CHARGING “BIAS” WON’T CUT IT.
Ignoring the rather shocking double-entendre here, I will once again ask: who cares?
So you don’t like the homosex.
Do you do it? If so, stop.
If you don’t, don’t start.
HETEROSEXUALITY IS NORMAL, NATURAL, LIFE-GIVING BEHAVIOR.
I’m sure victims of male-on-female rape would disagree.
HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT.
Neither is using an Apple computer or driving a Chrysler car.
Doesn’t stop millions of people, nor should anyone care.
“HETEROSEXUALITY,” I.E., THE NATURAL WAY OF THINGS, IS SUPERIOR TO (ABERRANT) HOMOSEXUAL ACTS,
OK. Let’s assume you’re right. Let’s suppose lots of people want to engage in “inferior aberrant acts.”
Who cares?
What business is it of yours again?
WHICH HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO MANY ‘GAY’ MEN DYING EARLY.
Oh that’s right. Thanks for reminding me that heterosexuals are immune to HIV and other sexually-transmitted diseases. It’s a good thing there isn’t it! 🙂
WHY DO YOU ACCORD THEM EQUAL STATUS?
Everyone has equal status under the law of this country, in terms of civil rights and constitutional rights. I’m sorry this upsets you so. Deal with it.
AGAIN, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG TO ASSUME MORAL EQUIVALENCY BETWEEN THE TWO.
Moral judgments of consensual activities, as opposed to ethical ones, are subjective declarations, usually by weak-minded control freaks. In your case it’s particularly bad, since you’re basing your condemnations on a 2,000 year old collection of illiterate shepherd’s myths and the “research” of a man thrown out of the APA for unethical research.
DITTO MINUS THE BRAVADO.
Actually, I don’t need to take you on. I’m a sovereign individual living in a free society. I don’t need to care about your viewpoints, since they’re irrelevant to my life and that of my family, and I don’t care about them.
I will tune them out, which is just fine for me (and likely enrages you) and so will increasing numbers of other Americans. When, in your frustration at your inability to sway with your poor logic, you decide to use government power to coerce others into your world-view with the force of arms, you’ll find a well-organized group of people from across the political and sexual orientation spectrum — libertarians, moderates, conservatives, greens, socialists, and liberals — who will oppose you.
And you will lose yet again, just as you have in the past.
Sucks to be you, doesn’t it?
Why not find a new hobby?
posted by Jorge on
Wow.
I think maybe calling opponents of gay marriage “viscerial” is not a good idea. A line by one of my professors last year springs to mind:
“When arguing with an asshole, make sure the other party is not similarly engaged.”
And I don’t have much patience for people who think that just because they’re gay and just because they know they’re right, they can treat other people like they’re some kind of not-human or lesser creatures.
To make matters worse, it’s a terrible distraction.
posted by inahandbasket on
Northeast Libertarian:
Thanks for taking the time to totally smack down Porno Pete.
If he was a woman with such a purient interest in same sex private behavior I’d say she’s suffering from an acute case of Pre-Lesbian tension.
posted by dalea on
‘PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM BEING FORCED TO ACCEPT HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR AS NORMATIVE IS IMPORTANT TO US.’
Does this have an actual meaning? No clue what the point here is.
And there is usually a clause in the employee’s contract forbidding controversial behavior that can be connected to the employer. Sounds like your boy Matt went a bit too far. I do like the Colorado law, passed by a coalition of high risk sports enthusiasts and smokers, that forbids discrimination based on ‘any legal activity’. Might have helped Matt; and sure does help gays.
The Roman Catholic church has public services to which all are invited; the idea that there was trespass is silly. Things got a tad over heated, but still this is a tempest in a teapot. Let us not forget the enormous subsidies the taxpayers, who include us, give this institution.
posted by Bobby on
“I recall a number of self-described Christian groups having claimed being roughed up — of course, all of the allegations turned out to be baseless.”
—I disagree. I saw a documentary about death metal music. That is music with lyrics about killing christians and other stuff. Some of their devotees worship Satan and will find christians to rape and torture and kill. This phenomenom has occured world wide. The documentary was on MSNBC, hardly a conservative or Christian network.
While this has nothing to do with gays, it does show that ANYONE can become a victim of prejudice.
posted by Randy R. on
Hey Peter:
I hear that when there are conferences on gays in the right wing, you bill yourself as an “expert” on homosexuality. What exactly qualifies you as an expert? Could it be that you read lots and lots of gay magazines? I hear that you have more porno magazines in your office than most gay men. True?
Do you do research on gay people? Mix and mingle in their habitats? I’ve heard that you have a black leather outfit that you wear to leather bars when you do your research. Is that true?
How can you be an expert on homsexuality unless you have engaged in homosexual acts, such as anal and oral sex with another man. Have you done that?
Oh, and please, as a matter of courtesy, please use only lower case letters. Otherwise, you are shouting. And only a queen in a high heels gets the right to shout. But then, any ‘expert’ on homos would know that.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Thanks for taking the time to totally smack down Porno Pete.
My pleasure! 🙂
If he was a woman with such a purient interest in same sex private behavior I’d say she’s suffering from an acute case of Pre-Lesbian tension.
It’s *so* true.
I don’t understand the prurient interest some have in others’ sex lives (or lack thereof in many cases). I especially don’t understand why they would think the people whose lives they’re critiquing would care about their unsolicited opinions. The whole thing is just psychologically baffling.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I saw a documentary about death metal music. That is music with lyrics about killing christians and other stuff. Some of their devotees worship Satan and will find christians to rape and torture and kill. This phenomenom has occured world wide.
A sensationalist “news” story or two does not a crisis make.
Besides, knowing people like Mr. LaBarbera, I have no doubt that they get punched in the face often. Generally, obnoxious people who hop into others’ faces to condemn them and generally don’t respect personal boundaries and social cues often receive bloody noses. Boo hoo.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””See, the problem here is that you don’t really support free markets, freedom of religion, free speech, etc. You seek to use government to “protect your guys” and not others.””””
I thought that, some time ago, so called “conservatives” supported the right of people to fire whoever they wanted?
Would this guy be as upset if Allstate had fired someone for being gay, or had fired someone for criticizing fundamentalist christianity?
http://www.toucanfiles.blogspot.com
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Mr. LaBera,
I appreciate you taking the time, but you turned around things I said to mean something I didn’t say or mean.
For example you said:
“All differences are not morally neutral.”
I didn’t say they were, I said there will be sexual differences that are.
And Irrational Entity makes a good point. It’s not your job or your business to save the public from gay acceptance, nor gay people from accepting themselves.
Indeed, all this interference has only made an inevitable and important part of the human race, a difficult minority to realize fully.
And what is the point of that?
You do more than just ‘disagree’. You engage in socio/political activity that compromises the very physical and mental safety of gay youngsters.
You have no such worries as a Christian crusader.
You know your religious activity is protected, regardless of how mutable it is.
But that doesn’t give you the responsibility of policing gay people or denying them equal opportunity to marriage and family and military service because of it.
We are a nation of more than religious belief. We are also a nation of non believers who can arrange their lives as they see fit.
No one is harmed by gay people BEHAVING as gay people.
As for the entitlement based on ‘procreative ability’.
Again, fecundity and fertility are not virtues unto themselves.
They are simply human conditions.
Women since time began suffered great risks from sexual activity.
Childbearing raises many health risks for women. We’re talking a mortal decision until modern medical intervention.
Would you argue that but for the ‘unnatural’ options of non procreative sex and contraception, women should have to continue to suffer not only from pregnancy, but menses and menopause too?
Just because sex between men and women is normal, it doesn’t mean that procreation is always desirable or the exclusive reason to have sex.
It’s normal for men and women to have sex.
It’s normal for gay people to have attraction to their same gender, whether sexually involved or not.
Successfully raising children was NEVER a talent bestowed on groups or certain people.
Not even all women have the instinct to want to be mothers, nor can be or should.
Doesn’t mean their lives and how they contribute without bearing or parenting children isn’t valid.
Indeed, it’s important that every human being realize their full potential without non parent stigma following them all their days.
You might disagree that homosexuality is right or normal.
You might not believe it’s natural.
But facts and evidence say otherwise. You are not proving that heterosexuality is superior anymore than you’re proving that homosexuality is inferior.
You just believe it.
That’s not a matter of facts, but opinion.
If you believe that many gay people have made contributions to society.
Well goody.
That’s what I meant when I said that this isn’t about sexuality. A person’s sexuality makes no difference in whether they can contribute something of merit to all of society.
And having sex, a committed sexual relationship and love obviously ENHANCES everyone’s life and ability to be RESPONSIBLE with it, gay or not.
Ask yourself Mr. LaBarbera: is the nastiest most reprobate heterosexual able to have more rights to marry and have a family or serve in the military than the most qualified and talented gay person and STILL call our nation’s laws right, equal and just?
I think not.
posted by Randy R. on
Hey, it’s Saturday night, and I’m going out! Out to a gay bar!
Where’s our friend Peter been these past few days? Oh, I’m sure he’s doing some ‘research’ tonight at a local gay bar too.
Hey Pete! Don’t forget to be safe — you know from watching Oprah and all those Lifetime tv movies that a lot of diseases are transmitted to the clueless wifey!
PS. You probably already know this, since you are an ‘expert on homosexuality’ but gays love to watch Oprah and the Lifetime channel. Tune in tomorrow!