In "A Conservative's Answer to Wikipedia," Los Angeles Times staff writer Stephanie Simon looks at a religiously rightwing web encyclopedia, Conservapedia.com, created by Andy Schafly (one of Phyllis's three sons, and not the gay one).
Type in "gay" and the search is redirected to "homosexuality," with all the homophobic pseudoscience you'd expect.
But there was something even more disturbing in Simon's article. She reports that:
In recent months, Conservapedia's articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire... The vandalism aims "to cause people to say, 'That Conservapedia is just wacko,'" said Brian Macdonald, 45, a Navy veteran in Murfreesboro, Tenn., who puts in several hours a day on the site fending off malicious editing.
Such aggression has reinforced the view among some Conservapedia writers that left-wingers are out to suppress their free speech.
What the left doesn't get: The cost of living in a free society is to suffer being offended-without trying to silence those you find offensive (another example: campus "progressives" who steal conservative student newspapers from their distribution sites and destroy them). Conservatives have a right to their media; and the answer to arguments we find appalling is to criticize them. After all, it's not as if gay-supportive information isn't also easily available online.
Another recent Stephanie Simon piece, " New Ground in Debate on 'Curing' Gays," examines how some who are involved in "ex-gay" ministries are beginning to admit that being gay is not a "lifestyle choice." Slowly, the truth usually gains momentum and displaces falsehood. But dialog and debate are much more likely to advance that process than are censorship and sabotage.
72 Comments for “The Right to Offend”
posted by Carl on
Stephen, I wish you’d told us more about how you feel about that Conservapedia website. All you say is that the type of material that is there is what you’d “expect”. Doesn’t it upset you that a website which is being promoted as the conservative answer to Wikipedia is full of offensive, decades-old stereotypes and putdowns of gays? That LA Times article (and how unsurprising that the LA Times, which usually takes a sympathetic view to those that are not supportive of gay rights, trumpets this website with such a heavy article) claims this site is reaching all sorts of young conservatives. Shouldn’t it be upsetting if young conservatives get their information on homosexuality from the dross of Conservapedia?
That LA Times article on anti-gay leaders who now believe homosexuality may be biologically based point out that Albert Mohler has said this, but they don’t point out that he has also said he wants there to be a patch which pregnant women can use to make sure their babies aren’t gay.
posted by ETJB on
The political left does not get the First Amendment? Yeah, right.
Also given the fact that all such online encyclopedias are essentially open to any and all public comment, no 1st Amendment rights have been violated.
posted by Brian Miller on
People complaining about wiki vandalism are funny. Both conservatives and liberals do it — just check out the history of the Outright Libertarians entry on wikipedia for an overview.
Anyone who relies on wikis for useful, accurate and balanced information on controversial issues is a fool.
posted by Fitz on
Is this guy and part of ?all the homophobic pseudoscience you’d expect??
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
A total of 86 of the 200 subjects were referred to Dr. Spitzer by conservative Christian groups specializing in homosexual ministry; NARTH referred 46 subjects; other sources provided 68. It is apparent that the individuals that Dr. Spitzer interviewed were hand-selected from a very large group of persons who had either a homosexuals or a bisexual orientation. The 46 subjects from NARTH might have been chosen as the most successful patients from as many as 250,000 individuals who entered therapy. Unfortunately, no data has been reported about the total number of persons from whom the 200 carefully selected patients were provided. Assuming that only 100,000 subjects were involved — a VERY conservative figure, then 37 “success stories” represents a conversion rate of 0.04%
In later interviews, Dr. Spitzer said:
“Our sample was self-selected from people who already claimed they had made some change. We don’t know how common that kind of change is. . . . I’m not saying that this can be easily done, or that most homosexuals who want to change can make this kind of change. I suspect it’s quite unusual.”
“I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation.”
“…the kinds of changes my subjects reported are highly unlikely to be available to the vast majority [of gays and lesbians]… “[only] a small minority — perhaps 3% — might have a “malleable” sexual orientation.” He expressed a concern that his study results were being “twisted by the Christian right.”
He told the Washington Post in 2005 that supporters of reparative therapy have misrepresented the results of his study. He said:
“It bothers me to be their knight in shining armor because on every social issue I totally disagree with the Christian right…What they don’t mention is that change is pretty rare.”
He noting that the subjects of his study were not representative of the general population because they were considerably more religious. He calls as “totally absurd” the beliefs that everyone is born straight and that homosexuality is a choice.
posted by Fitz on
Randi Schimnosky |
I well aware of the detractors of the study, and the exploiters of the study.
Nevertheless, it supports the claim that a real change is possible.
posted by tmtoulouse on
As a “founding” member of the rationalwiki group I want to clarify your statements about us. We NEVER attempted to shut down conservapedia’s right to say anything. There was maybe 1-2 true “vandals” in our group of 50 or so editors. The rest of us “vandalized” conservapedia by presenting reality based evidence around the site. You say that the proper response is to provide arguments that criticize the muddled thinking thats presented at conservapedia. Thats exactly what rationalwiki is doing.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Fitz, LOL, look at what Spitzer said himself about the study. Telephone interviews with people highly motivated to lie hardly support the claim that “real change” is possible. Consider what Wayne Besen, author of Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth, wrote in his book:
?Despite our insistence, Spitzer elected not to use physical evidence to corroborate the ex-gay testimonies. I asked him why he had refused to use either the polygraph or the penile plethysmograph on his subjects. According to Spitzer, ?there was no way he could get his subjects to submit to such tests.? It never seemed to dawn on Spitzer that these individuals were doggedly avoiding these truth-detecting instruments because they were not telling the truth.?
Many, if not most of the people Spitzer interviewed worked for the “exgay” industry and thus were highly motivated to lie. Virtually all of them expressed a political position that it was wrong to be gay – these weren’t objective honest people
posted by Mason on
What the left doesn’t get: The cost of living in a free society is to suffer being offended…
This will probably be the last time I read your blog, Stephen. That you would take this incident and use it to make the generalization that “the left” doesn’t understand what it means to live in a free society is the straw that broke this camel’s back.
Yes, some on the left may sometimes take things too far and try to silence those they disagree with, but many on the right do the same as well. Indeed, as pertains to gay issues, it is the religious right that cannot bear to let gays live their lives as they choose because it offends the delicate sensibilities of the pious. Your desire to tarnish the entirety of “the left” — which you leave undefined — for the actions of a few reflects, I think, an irrational animosity that stains your own credibility.
I’ve appreciated the balance reading your site has brought to the issue of gay rights, but this post and many others recently have led me to conclude I can find more useful commentary elsewhere.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The rest of us “vandalized” conservapedia by presenting reality based evidence around the site.
Evidence such as “errors, pornographic photos and satire, including this addition to an entry on Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales: ‘Mr. Gonzales is a strong supporter of torture as a law enforcement tool for use against Democrats and third world inhabitants.'”, that is.
Conservapedia did exactly what one should; they set up a website with their own competing views. But leftists, rather than doing the same, started attacking and vandalizing Conservapedia.
One wonders; is science and rationality their true concern, or is it merely a coverup for juvenile behavior and antireligious bigotry?
And finally to Mason:
Yes, some on the left may sometimes take things too far and try to silence those they disagree with, but many on the right do the same as well.
So that makes it right that those on the left who supposedly OPPOSE it are doing so themselves.
Therefore, since gays have vandalized churches, churches would be completely justified in vandalizing LGBT community centers.
The problem with the left, Mason, as you exemplify, is that it refuses to take any responsibility for its own behavior, instead choosing to whine that “other kids do it too”.
posted by John Keenan on
Wikis -regardless of their political alignment- really are the fast food of information: cheap, fast, accessible and typically crappy.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, as per usual won’t acknowledge the obvious. The point Mason was making was not that one side doing something justifies the other side doing it, it was that if you’re going to criticize one side for an action you have to criticize the other side taking the same action. Of course that’s something you’d never do.
For example, after justifying polygamy you then criticize a small LGBT group who supports it while failing to criticize the overwhelming majority who do it who are Christians.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The point Mason was making was not that one side doing something justifies the other side doing it, it was that if you’re going to criticize one side for an action you have to criticize the other side taking the same action.
Notice, again, how Randi and Mason cannot say that leftists were wrong in doing something without invoking conservatives’ alleged bad behavior.
Neatly put, “It might have been wrong, but conservatives made them do it, so that makes it right.”
For example, after justifying polygamy you then criticize a small LGBT group who supports it while failing to criticize the overwhelming majority who do it who are Christians.
Correction; after pointing out how the “LGBT argument” for same-sex marriage legitimizes polygamy, I then referenced the ACLU’s support of polygamy, the Beyond Conjugality report by the Canadian government that endorses polygamy, and the Beyond Marriage organization, which includes literally hundreds of gays and leaders of well-known glbt organizations, endorsing polygamy (and the removal of laws prohibiting marriage between siblings for — ha ha — “benefits”). Plus the fact that the LDS church and virtually all other Christian denominations emphatically reject polygamy and in fact excommunicate those who practice it (indeed, Islam is the only mainstream religion that really endorses it).
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Typical Northdallass, criticize others for what you won’t do yourself. I opposed polygamy and you criticized me for doing so saying preventing polygamists from marrying was “discrimination”.
You denied the existence of the mormon Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the largest polygamist group in the country, instead trying to blame LGBTs and secularists for what is overwhelmingly a religious movement
posted by Tmtoulouse on
I don’t really have time to follow this thread much further, but the simple fact is that about 0.05 percent of the people involved at Rationalwiki vandalized anything. The rest of us focused on trying to provide reality based information, which was labeled “vandalism” by the powers that be at conservapedia. Anyway, our site is available for anyone to come check out and make up their own mind.
posted by kittynboi on
THe conservapedia attack was much less a deliberate political action than it was a simple internet prank, and I imagine most of the people were from somethingawful and similar sites and just did it for fun.
posted by Xeno on
“Nevertheless, it supports the claim that a real change is possible.”
LOL No it doesn’t. The percentage of claimants of real change is way below the margin of error, and the sample size is biased.
Come on, parapsychologists have gotten much better results than the Spitzer study with the Ganzfeld experiment. In other words, there’s better evidence for ESP than for conversion therapy.
posted by Xeno on
“THe conservapedia attack was much less a deliberate political action than it was a simple internet prank, and I imagine most of the people were from somethingawful and similar sites and just did it for fun.”
Somethingawful.com members are notorious for internet vandalism, especially the sites with awful website of the day.
posted by quo on
Randi, you quote Wayne Besen saying, ‘It never seemed to dawn on Spitzer that these individuals were doggedly avoiding these truth-detecting instruments because they were not telling the truth.’ I suspect that they avoided the penile plethysmograph because it is degrading and humiliating. As for polygraphs, everyone knows that they are unreliable.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Quo, these people are eager to convince the general public that any gay can change same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions. If they were telling the truth they’d be eager to use every method at their disposal to demonstrate that they’re telling the truth – they don’t because they aren’t
posted by Bobby on
Do the leftwingers have to control everything? They’ve sued Fox News for using “fair and balanced,” they sue any school that has the word “God” anywhere, including valedictorian speeches, they control google and blogspot and try to ban websites they don’t like.
This is not Europe, if you don’t like our opinions, tough!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You denied the existence of the mormon Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the largest polygamist group in the country, instead trying to blame LGBTs and secularists for what is overwhelmingly a religious movement.
LOL…..how, exactly, am I denying their existence when I am more than willing to point out that they have been a) excommunicated by the LDS church and b) hunted down by the law for decades?
I opposed polygamy and you criticized me for doing so saying preventing polygamists from marrying was “discrimination”.
That’s because, Randi, you have made it clear that marriage is a constitutionally-protected right to grant benefits and protection to your choice of sex partners that cannot be denied anyone for any reason.
Therefore, limiting marriage to two people is depriving those who wish to grant benefits and protections to their multiple sex partners of their constitutional rights and is thus discrimination.
And I love this:
If they were telling the truth they’d be eager to use every method at their disposal to demonstrate that they’re telling the truth – they don’t because they aren’t.
In non-socialist countries like the United States, Randi, the presumption is “innocent until proven guilty”.
But for people like yourself and Wayne Besen, you will fight tooth and nail to ridicule and berate anyone who would demonstrate that sexuality is indeed a fluid concept — because without having it around, your antireligious bigotry and anti-social behaviors are much more difficult to explain.
Those of us who do not use our homosexuality as an excuse are not threatened by ex-gays or anything of the sort — because we respect their right to make and exercise that choice, and we wish them the best of luck.
posted by Brian Miller on
you quote Wayne Besen saying, ‘It never seemed to dawn on Spitzer that these individuals were doggedly avoiding these truth-detecting instruments because they were not telling the truth.’ I suspect that they avoided the penile plethysmograph because it is degrading and humiliating.
So a simple doctor-administered test is “degrading and humiliating,” but a description of gay men as “morally weak human garbage who need to be reformed” is loving and affirming.
Got to get me some more of that right-wing “love!”
posted by dalea on
Brian supplies yet more information about why any mention of Jesus can only move gay people to vomit. If you are offended by this statement: tell them not me.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “That’s because, Randi, you have made it clear that marriage is a constitutionally-protected right to grant benefits and protection to your choice of sex partners that cannot be denied anyone for any reason.”.
You lie, I never said that, in fact I said people who are too young shouldn’t be allowed to marry, incestuous marriages and polygamy should be disallowed and YOU jumped all over me for that in your support for incest, child molestation and polygamy. YOU criticized me for my stand saying “I’m sorry, Randi, but all of your statements are discriminatory. It should not be automatically assumed that children are incapable of consent; that’s age discrimination. It should not be automatically assumed that being related to someone prevents you from giving informed consent; that’s discrimination on the basis of lineage or family. It should not be automatically assumed that all multiple marriages are exploitive; that’s discrimination based on assumptions about private lifestyle decisions…your attitude that people should not be allowed to marry their preferred sexual partner or partners is unconstitutional”.
Don’t try to lump me in with your perverted stands, I stand against all those things and made it clear in this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31277.html#commentform
at June 19, 2007, 1:54pm
Northdallass said “Those of us who do not use our homosexuality as an excuse are not threatened by ex-gays or anything of the sort — because we respect their right to make and exercise that choice, and we wish them the best of luck.”.
I and Wayne are not threatened by people who merely want to live their lives as they choose, unfortunately the whole “exgay” scam is merely an excuse for a political movement to attack gays and deny them equal rights – something its unsurprising you’re in bed with. The people running the “exgay” industry use it solely to create the false impression that gays can and should change and therefore should be denied equal rights. If you truly were gay you’d be all over that program in an attempt to deal with your self-loathing. As you aren’t a client of “reparitive therapy” its obvious you’re just a troll claiming to be gay under the delusion that this will give your gay bashing more credibility.
posted by Lori Heine on
The notion that polygamy is likely to ever be widespread in this country — (so we all need to be protected from it!!!) — is almost too laughable to take seriously. But as some people do seem to take it seriously, I suppose it’s time for a little common sense.
In societies where women and girls are educated, have access to good jobs and have equal recognition of rights under the law, there is practically ZERO interest in polygamy. Colorado City and places like that are closed little systems in which girls are married off early, denied the opportunity for further education and denied access to good employment.
Anyone who wishes to persist floating around in the atmosphere of total delusion and worrying about polygamy is living in an alternative universe.
As far as whether it is to be made legal or not, considering how few women in our society would put up with it, the whole argument is nothing but a red herring.
Get a life, and get real.
The government has no business regulating private contracts between individuals. Might same-sex marriage lead to polygamy (oooh-nooooo!)? Not in the universe of anyone with a healthy, functioning concept of reality.
It might lead to it being legal, but again, the idea that once it’s legal people are going to flock to it is absurd.
As my mother used to say, “You should hear yourselves.”
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Here here Lori.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Or is it “Hear hear” – I’m never too sure about that…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You lie, I never said that, in fact I said people who are too young shouldn’t be allowed to marry, incestuous marriages and polygamy should be disallowed and YOU jumped all over me for that in your support for incest, child molestation and polygamy.
LOL…..nice try.
What I did was to point out how your alleged opposition to all of those things was belied by your insistence that marriage was a constitutional right that the government had no right to regulate whatsoever.
Because, simply put, that’s what all these leftist court cases are based upon — the argument that “equal protection” prevents the states and Federal government from regulating marriage at all and that you should be able to give the benefits and protections of marriage to those to whom you are sexually attracted, without any other consideration.
I fully support the right of the state and Federal governments to regulate marriage as they see fit; that’s why, as I have said elsewhere, if gay marriage is to come, it will be through an additive process, not through selective misuse of the Constitution.
And the question I have for Lori is simply this; do you have any problem with polygamy being legal?
posted by Brian Miller on
The government has no business regulating private contracts between individuals. Might same-sex marriage lead to polygamy (oooh-nooooo!)? Not in the universe of anyone with a healthy, functioning concept of reality.
I agree with the first statement on private contracting wholeheartedly.
On the “scaremongering” about polygamy, my response is less “there’s no way it could happen” and more “so who cares if it does?”
If a man and 4 women want to marry, or a woman and 5 guys want to join together in a relationship of mutual consent, then it’s none of my business. I may not do it, I may even regard it as strange, but it’s certainly not in my purview (nor that of right wing busybodies or left wing social engineers) to “ban” it or “regulate” it.
The persistence of statists in interfering in our lives is just galling. It really is. Nothing is sacredly private or something to be left between consenting adults anymore — it’s just leftist-rightist bureaucrats and “commentators”, most of whom have personal lives that mirror the worst clich
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “What I did was to point out how your alleged opposition to all of those things was belied by your insistence that marriage was a constitutional right that the government had no right to regulate whatsoever.”.
You lie, I never said any such thing. I said children shouldn’t be allowed to marry, incestuous marriages and polygamy should be disallowed:
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31277.html?success=1#comments
at June 19, 2007, 1:54pm
You jumped all over me for that at June 19, 2007, 4:02pm, you said “I’m sorry, Randi, but all of your statements are discriminatory. It should not be automatically assumed that children are incapable of consent; that’s age discrimination. It should not be automatically assumed that being related to someone prevents you from giving informed consent; that’s discrimination on the basis of lineage or family. It should not be automatically assumed that all multiple marriages are exploitive; that’s discrimination based on assumptions about private lifestyle decisions…your attitude that people should not be allowed to marry their preferred sexual partner or partners is unconstitutional”.
Its obvious you’re the one that supports child molestation, incest, and polygamy – don’t try to lump me in with your perverted stands.
Northdallass said “I fully support the right of the state and Federal governments to regulate marriage as they see fit; that’s why, as I have said elsewhere, if gay marriage is to come, it will be through an additive process, not through selective misuse of the Constitution.”.
Obviously you’re insincere about that as two days ago you were berating me for standing against underage marriages, polygamy, and incest.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Obviously you’re insincere about that as two days ago you were berating me for standing against underage marriages, polygamy, and incest.
Not at all.
What I did was to point out how your alleged opposition to all of those things was contradicted by your insistence that marriage was a constitutional right that the government had no right to regulate whatsoever.
I support the government’s right to regulate marriage, which means I support the regulations it has in place against polygamy, incest, and underage marriages.
But you oppose the government’s right to regulate marriage and claim their doing so is unconstitutional — which means you are undercutting the very laws that prevent that which you claim to be against.
Don’t think we’re stupid, Randi; we’re well aware of the fact that gay leftists in Canada, as in the Beyond Conjugality report, are now arguing for polygamy, based on the logic that since, as was expressed in the same-sex marriage fight, the government has no right to regulate marriage and should extend the benefits and protections of marriage to everyone who asks, polygamists should be included in that.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “What I did was to point out how your alleged opposition to all of those things was contradicted by your insistence that marriage was a constitutional right that the government had no right to regulate whatsoever.”.
Once again, I never said any such thing, repeated telling of a lie won’t make it the truth. What is the truth is that when I opposed child marriage, polygamy, and incest you jumped all over me and said “I’m sorry, Randi, but all of your statements are discriminatory. It should not be automatically assumed that children are incapable of consent; that’s age discrimination. It should not be automatically assumed that being related to someone prevents you from giving informed consent; that’s discrimination on the basis of lineage or family. It should not be automatically assumed that all multiple marriages are exploitive; that’s discrimination based on assumptions about private lifestyle decisions…your attitude that people should not be allowed to marry their preferred sexual partner or partners is unconstitutional”.
Your claims to support the government’s right to regulate marriage can’t be taken seriously since two days ago you were vehemently arguing the opposite position – obviously you can’t be trusted or taken seriously on any topic.
“Beyond Conjugality” wasn’t written by “gay leftists” it was written by the Law Commision and has nothing to do with any gay group. Once again you are lying and falsely smearing the LGBT community for something it had nothing to do with. Nothing has been said about the report since it was released, its a dead issue. Once again, it is religion that is the primary basis for justifying polygamy and outside of religious communities there is virtually no one practicing polygamy in Canada or the U.S.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “But you oppose the government’s right to regulate marriage and claim their doing so is unconstitutional — which means you are undercutting the very laws that prevent that which you claim to be against.”.
Once again, you are a liar I never said any such thing. In contrast your words supporting child molestation, polygamy and incest are a matter of record
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Once again, it is religion that is the primary basis for justifying polygamy and outside of religious communities there is virtually no one practicing polygamy in Canada or the U.S.
Mhm.
Of course, we know why you want to cover that up, Randi; one, it gives credence to the argument that the “LGBT community”, as outlined in Beyond Marriage, is pushing polygamy, and two, since you have thrown a screaming fit over how evil, awful, and exploitative polygamy and polyamory is, you would actually have to criticize LGBTs who are doing it.
posted by Lori Heine on
“And the question I have for Lori is simply this; do you have any problem with polygamy being legal?”
No, because I don’t think it’s going to happen in more than a few tiny, nutball enclaves. There are a few religious extremists who think it’s “Biblical” (as indeed, if you read the Old Testament, it is), and probably some hippie-libertine types who would like to try it (and will anyway, whether it’s “legal” or not). The vast majority of people, in a society that recognizes womens’ essential equality to men, will not.
The primary value of polygamy, these days, is rhetorical. It is being used by scaremongers who hope to use it to keep gays from legally marrying.
I have faith that most people have enough sense to think beyond the strictly theoretical and consider the realistic.
posted by Lori Heine on
P.S., NDT:
As far as underage marriages are concerned (and I agree with you these should be illegal, for the sake of the protections of minors), if we eliminate these we will, indeed, eliminate almost all polygamy.
The polygamists have to “catch ’em while they’re young” if they’re to catch ’em at all. Most grown women simply won’t consent to this. Nearly all of the ones who do were raised in places like Colorado City, where they were indoctrinated into that sort of thing before they were old enough to know better.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Of course, we know why you want to cover that up, Randi; one, it gives credence to the argument that the “LGBT community”, as outlined in Beyond Marriage, is pushing polygamy, and two, since you have thrown a screaming fit over how evil, awful, and exploitative polygamy and polyamory is, you would actually have to criticize LGBTs who are doing it.”
Stop lying Northdallass, the LGBT community did not release “Beyond Conjugality”, the law commission of Canada did, I’ve alread pointed out that lie once. You never miss a change to blame gays for something they had nothing to do with, you’re evil at heart.
I don’t need to cover up the Advocate link, Northdallass, its irrelevant. That a handful of LGBTs practice polygamy doesn’t even begin to undo the fact that polygamy is overwhelmingly a religious phenomenon. The religious group Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and their perverted communities in Colorado City, Hilldale, Bountiful, and Eldorado are the largest group of polygamists in the U.S. and Canada and that is widely acknowledged:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4627871
http://www.childbrides.org/UEP_NYT_after_fleeing_opportunity_for_influence.html
http://rickross.net/reference/polygamy/polygamy361.html
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1317513.php/U.S._polygamist_community_faces_rare_genetic_disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints
Even Lori acknowleges that its the religionists that are involved in polygamy.
But of course instead of focusing on the log in your eye that is religious polygamy you have to rant about the speck that is LGBT polygamy. And of course your credibility on the entire issue is shot because two days earlier you were supporting child molestation, polygamy, and incestuous marriages – and that’s not the first time you’ve done so.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And don’t forget these major religious groups promoting and practicing polygamy, no doubt you’d like to ignore them:
http://modernpolygamy.org/morm_chris.shtml
http://religious-freedoms.org/Polygamy_frame.htm
http://www.truthbearer.org/
posted by ETJB on
Some one that killed a message board and banned several members, has a lot of nerve to be talking about the benifits of debate and discussion….
posted by dalea on
It probably would help if we realized that not all polygamist women entered when young. In Colorado there were a sizable number of women with low job skills, a very poor local economy, children and a vanished husband. (One of the joys of heterosexuality: the husband who walks away.)
For women in this position, becoming somebody’s fifth wife is a really good deal. She enters a situation where there are three adult women and one man working for low pay and pooling the money while two women tend the home, children and garden. For low income women, polygamy represents upward mobility.
She now goes off to her low wage job knowing that her children will be cared for, her laundry done, a hot meal will be there when she comes home. She could not have done this on her own. But as a fifth wife, she has a much better life.
The Denver Post interviewed numerous ‘sister wives’ and they pretty much all had this narrative. Low income men tend to be not all that reliable. But polygomous men are there when it counts. And the sister wives prevent physical abuse of each other. So, it appears that polygamy can be a very good deal for women in such circumstances.
posted by Lori Heine on
“So, it appears that polygamy can be a very good deal for women in such circumstances.”
And if so, then so what?
Why should the moralists get their knickers into a twist about it if that is what women want to do?
Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that only very young women would consent to such an arrangement. The fact remains that as the ability of women to make their own way in the world increases, far fewer of them will choose polygamy.
It is the very same Right-Wing men who decry polygamy who do all they can to contribute to the situation (second-class citizenship for women) that spawns it. These men, who tend to be religiously-retroactive and very homophobic as well as sexist, are also the ones most likely — when they do not believe in polygamy — to spin tales of horror and woe about gay marriage. They are the ones who inevitably object to it by claiming we’re going to start marrying our poodles and our tables and chairs.
Ask Warren Jeffs what he thinks of gay marriage. You’ll probably hear the same dire predictions of Apocalypse you get from the likes of Dobson and Robertson.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Stop lying Northdallass, the LGBT community did not release “Beyond Conjugality”, the law commission of Canada did, I’ve alread pointed out that lie once. You never miss a change to blame gays for something they had nothing to do with, you’re evil at heart.
I do wish you’d read my posts, dear, especially when you cite them as a reason for your diatribe.
Maybe you’ll catch it when I add emphasis.
Northdallass said “Of course, we know why you want to cover that up, Randi; one, it gives credence to the argument that the “LGBT community”, as outlined in Beyond Marriage, is pushing polygamy, and two, since you have thrown a screaming fit over how evil, awful, and exploitative polygamy and polyamory is, you would actually have to criticize LGBTs who are doing it.”
And that’s why your rants about what I support aren’t something to take seriously; you obviously don’t read my posts, and fictionalize whatever you need to fit your ideological viewpoints. Facts don’t enter into it.
For example:
That a handful of LGBTs practice polygamy doesn’t even begin to undo the fact that polygamy is overwhelmingly a religious phenomenon.
The Beyond Marriage petition, which demands that the government grant marriage rights to polyamorous relationships, is signed by numerous gay and leftist leaders, including individuals from NGLTF and other organizations that claim hundreds of thousands of members.
The ACLU, which has half a million members, supports polyamory.
The link I cited from The Advocate is of numerous LGBTs involved in polyamorous relationships.
Meanwhile, Warren Jeffs, the leader of the polygamist sect you cite, as well as numerous others of its members, is sitting in jail and was excommunicated by the church to which he claims to belong years, if not decades ago.
When you start publicly condemning and demanding that LGBT polyamorists be arrested, that they be thrown out of the LGBT community, and so forth, then you can start talking about specks in other peoples’ eyes.
And as for “evil at heart”…..well, yes, given that the “LGBT community” measures good and evil based on whether or not one conforms completely to its leftist and antireligious beliefs.
posted by Brian Miller on
What I did was to point out how your alleged opposition to all of those things was belied by your insistence that marriage was a constitutional right that the government had no right to regulate whatsoever.
It’s a bit ironic that you keep referring to me as a “leftist” when you are the one who has such a fetish for government’s “rights” to extensively regulate things, ND-30.
You might want to double-check your nomenclature. Last time I checked, lefties were renowned for their penchant for extensive government regulation to cure social ills — just like you are! 🙂
posted by Brian Miller on
The Beyond Marriage petition, which demands that the government grant marriage rights to polyamorous relationships, is signed by numerous gay and leftist leaders, including individuals from NGLTF and other organizations that claim hundreds of thousands of members.
The ACLU, which has half a million members, supports polyamory.
Oh no! There’s DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT in the gay community and related communities!
Quick! Everyone change their minds to reflect ND’s perspective (and only ND’s perspective) on the issues so that we can regain respectability with the mainstream! Do it now before ALL is lost!
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Yes, Northdallass, I confused “Beyond Marriage” with “Beyond Conjugality”.
“Beyond Marriage” was a small group of LGBTS whereas “Beyond Conjugality” had nothing to do with LGBTS.
In any event your defense of polygamy, incestuous marriage and child molestation (oh yes, underage “marriage” you called it) is despicable.
The fact that the ACLU has hundreds of thousands of members means nothing, the idea that all those members support polygamy is preposterous, its the same logic as me saying that some Christian groups support polygamy and since Christianity has 200 million members that 200 million Christians support polygamy. If you want to say 500,000 members of the ACLU support polygamy then it goes without saying that 200 million Christians support polygamy.
And the people that signed “Beyond marriage” don’t speak for the NGLTF so its preposterous of you to make the doubly false suggestion that their hundreds of thousands of members support polygamy.
The fact is the largest polygamous communities in the U.S. and Canada are Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and their perverted communities in Colorado City, Hilldale, Bountiful, and Eldorado and that is widely acknowledged:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4627871
http://www.childbrides.org/UEP_NYT_after_fleeing_opportunity_for_influence.html
http://rickross.net/reference/polygamy/polygamy361.html
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1317513.php/U.S._polygamist_community_faces_rare_genetic_disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints
Even though you defend polygamy your too dishonest to acknowledge that it is primarily the religious who are involved in and promoting polygamy. Forget about the LGBT polygamy speck in others eyes and worry about the religious polygamy log in your own
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The fact that the ACLU has hundreds of thousands of members means nothing, the idea that all those members support polygamy is preposterous, its the same logic as me saying that some Christian groups support polygamy and since Christianity has 200 million members that 200 million Christians support polygamy.
Which IS what you say, so what’s your point?
Furthermore, before you try your usual backspin, note this; unlike the ACLU, Christians (and the Mormon church in particular) have excommunicated people who practice polygamy and have specifically written it into their doctrine that polygamy is wrong. The ACLU has written into their doctrine that polygamy is RIGHT and that their organization supports it.
And similarly, on this:
And the people that signed “Beyond marriage” don’t speak for the NGLTF so its preposterous of you to make the doubly false suggestion that their hundreds of thousands of members support polygamy.
But, amazingly enough, according to you, the FLDS, even despite the fact that it is legally and spiritually excommunicated and condemned by virtually all other religious groups, speaks for the religious.
Show me the NGLTF’s repudiation and condemnation of Beyond Marriage.
Oops.
What We?re Doing:
The Task Force has been at the forefront of the national effort to defeat anti-same-sex marriage amendments (that often include bans on any recognized legal status, such as civil unions) and promote family recognition. We:
— Welcomed Beyond Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships, which calls for government support of all our households, including single-parent households, senior citizens living together and serving as each other?s caregivers, and close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other?s primary support and caregivers. The complete text of the Beyond Marriage statement can be found at http://www.beyondmarriage.org.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, no matter how you slice it the members of NGLTF and the ACLU don’t automatically support all of their policies. The fact is that there are virtually no LGBTS or seculars involved in polygamy. Its widely acknowledged that the largest group involved in this is the religious Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and their perverted communities in Colorado City, Hilldale, Bountiful, and Eldorado and that is widely acknowledged:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4627871
http://www.childbrides.org/UEP_NYT_after_fleeing_opportunity_for_influence.html
http://rickross.net/reference/polygamy/polygamy361.html
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1317513.php/U.S._polygamist_community_faces_rare_genetic_disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints
It is undeniably primarily the religious who are involved in and promoting polygamy. It is no more valid to say all the members of the ACLU and NGLTF support polygamy than it is to say all members of Christianity support polygamy because some Christians do – that’s your logic, not mine
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The fact is that there are virtually no LGBTS or seculars involved in polygamy.
Mhm.
While openly polyamorous relationships are relatively rare (Rubin, 1982), there are indications that private polyamorous arrangements within relationships are actually quite common. Blumstein and Schwartz (1983, cited in Rubin & Adams, 1986) noted that of 3,574 married couples in their sample, 15-28% had “an understanding that allows nonmonogamy under some circumstances. The percentages are higher among cohabitating couples (28%), lesbian couples (29%) and gay male couples (65%)” (p. 312)
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, someone slipping out on the side for sex is not polygamy. Show me large groups of gays all living in the same house with a formal committment to each other as husbands and wives till death do us part.
LGBTs and seculars like that are extremely rare, what is much less rare is the religious Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and their perverted communities in Colorado City, Hilldale, Bountiful, and Eldorado and that is widely acknowledged:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4627871
http://www.childbrides.org/UEP_NYT_after_fleeing_opportunity_for_influence.html
http://rickross.net/reference/polygamy/polygamy361.html
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1317513.php/U.S._polygamist_community_faces_rare_genetic_disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints
They are the largest group of its kind in the U.S. and Canada, no mater how you whine about the lgbt polygamy speck in other people’s eyes its dwarfed by the religious polygamy log in yours.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And there we see Randi’s usual tactic; when confronted with a fact, she changes her definitions.
Then she tries more around and around in circles, insisting that the existence of the FLDS church, despite the fact that it has been excommunicated and condemned by the vast majority of all other religious organizations, means religious people all support polygamy and are the only ones practicing it — while ignoring NGLTF’s endorsement of a polygamist/polyamorist manifesto, the support and endorsement of the ACLU for polygamy, and clear statistics showing that the majority of gay couples engage in polyamory.
You have to wonder why leftist Randi has so much trouble admitting that polygamy is supported by NGLTF and the ACLU, that the majority of LGBT couples engage in polyamory, and that the FLDS church is condemned both spiritually and legally by the vast majority of religions.
Probably the same reason she accuses people who disagree with her of having an eight-year-old chained up in their basement to molest.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, you lie, I never said all religious people support polygamy, I said drawing this conclusion from the support of some religious people for polygamy is just as disingenous as your claim that 500,000 ACLU members and hundreds of thousands of NGLTF members support polygamy because a few people in those organizations support it.
Note the link to the ACLU policy which you provided:
“Policy #91, National ACLU Board Minutes, June 11-12, 1978:
Advocacy of plural marriage and the expression of a religious belief in plural marriage are protected by the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment even though polygamy has been declared to be criminal by states…
The ACLU of Utah has traditionally advocated that personal relationships between consenting adults are protected by the Constitution, and that freedom of religion and freedom of expression are fundamental rights. Criminal and civil laws prohibiting the advocacy or practice of plural marriage are constitutionally defective.
Policy #91, National ACLU Policy on Polygamy, April, 1991: (Current Policy)
The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.”.
Notice the ACLU says religion justifies polygamy contrary to your lies that they use same sex marriage to justfy it. And the NGLTF “welcomes” the beyond marriage document which deals with a variety of subjects other than polygamy which therefore doesn’t necessarily mean they endorse all of it or polygamy in particular.
And contrary to your lie that the majority of gay couples engage in polyamory, statistics show they do not:
1. Gay male couples united in formal ceremonies show higher commitment to monogamy. In a 1999 study Gretchen Stiers looked at nearly every gay couple in Massachusetts who had gone through a commitment ceremony. In these couples, over 80% of them indicated they were monogamous.. (http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/kurtz080301.shtml)
2. An 88/80 survey of 560 male couples (http://www.buddybuddy.com/survey.html): Survey forms were sent to gay churches and community centers, and returned by couples reading notices in the gay press. Among them, 63% were monogamous, 26% were monogamous with agreed exceptions, and 11% were non-monogamous.
Those churches that condemm polygamy are going against the bible which sanctifies and upholds polygamous marriage. Polygamy is at the very heart of Christianity. If you do a goodle search for “plural marriage” you’ll find that virtually all of the groups actually involved in facilitating it are religious in nature, like these:
http://modernpolygamy.org/morm_chris.shtml
http://religious-freedoms.org/Polygamy_frame.htm
http://www.truthbearer.org
Once again the largest group involved in polygamy is religious Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and their perverted communities in Colorado City, Hilldale, Bountiful, and Eldorado and that is widely acknowledged:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4627871
http://www.childbrides.org/UEP_NYT_after_fleeing_opportunity_for_influence.html
http://rickross.net/reference/polygamy/polygamy361.html
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1317513.php/U.S._polygamist_community_faces_rare_genetic_disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints
I never accused you of having an eight year old chained up in the basement, I said I wouldn’t be surprised if you did given your spirited defense of child molestation, incest, polygamy, and beastialty.
posted by Brian Miller on
I’m so glad that ND is here to disabuse us of our incorrect notions and bring us the unquestionable truth about the fact that all who think differently from the neoconservative extreme right are evil child molesting polygamist illegal immigrants.
Thanks to this edification, I have seen the light and will be supporting Mitt Romney for president. Although Romney is a bit liberal for my reformed tastes, he’s not a traitor like everyone else!
posted by dalea on
Lori says: And if so, then so what?
I suspect it means that polygamy is a very complicated relationship that works in some very select instances. And does not work in most cases. So, if adults wish to enter into complex marriage, I really don’t see any reason to stop them from doing so.
posted by Lori Heine on
I find myself in (rare) agreement here with Dalea. Though I believe polygamy to be primarily a phenomenon of male-dominated societies, I do not regard it as the end of the world. Many cultures have existed under quite stable circumstances for centuries allowing polygamous marriage.
What has happened in this country is that politicians have managed to excite in people not our better angels — as befits a free people — but our inner tyrants. Too many of us are no longer content being able to run our own lives, we want to be able to run everybody else’s.
If polygamy is the “price we must pay” to have gay marriage, then let’s pay it. As women move ever closer to full social equality with men, we will recognize the issue as the bogeybear it always has been.
posted by Brian Miller on
The polygamy bugbear is doubly hilarious when you realize that it grows out of the presumption that women are helpless shrinking violets who need the protection of big strong daddy government to keep dastardly men who cannot control themselves from forcing them into multi-party marriages.
Didn’t that sort of “thinking” die out in the 1950s?
posted by Fitz on
You have got to love that an in-depth discussion of the link between same-sex “marriage” and polygamy/polyamory ends with all the pro-gay posters endorsing such arrangements as ?no big deal? and ?worth the price? and so forth.
It was always one of our propositions that the acceptance of same-sex ?marriage? makes defense of the traditional 2 person relationship more difficult if not impossible to defend. That the acceptance of novelties create an environment were further novelties are excepted.
Yes- people who support same-sex ?marriage? (with very little exception) are intellectually and temperamentally incapable of helping to maintain a healthy and coherent marriage and family culture.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yes- people who support same-sex ?marriage? (with very little exception) are intellectually and temperamentally incapable of helping to maintain a healthy and coherent marriage and family culture.
Fitz, while I am on some levels impressed by the craftsmanship of your Randi Schimnosky-esque attempt to insult and demean other people while leaving yourself a semantic out (“very little exception”), please don’t patronize us; just take it out.
My question, assuming that you honestly believe there ARE some people that qualify; what are the characteristics of a same-sex marriage supporter that would make them, in your eyes, “intellectually and temperamentally capable of helping to maintain a healthy and coherent marriage and family culture”?
Or, if you don’t like that, what are the characteristics of a same-sex marriage supporter that make them “intellectually and temperamentally INcapable of helping to maintain a healthy and coherent marriage and family culture”?
The reason I ask is because I’m genuinely interested in seeing what it would take for you to actually accept someone who supported same-sex marriage as supporting what you value. I want to be absolutely certain that you CAN accept same-sex marriage under the right conditions — or, more precisely, that support of it does not automatically make one “incapable” in your eyes.
posted by Brian Miller on
It was always one of our propositions that the acceptance of same-sex ?marriage? makes defense of the traditional 2 person relationship more difficult if not impossible to defend.
“Defend” from what?
If your marriage is so weak that the lives of other people can cause it to dissolve or fail, it says more about your character (and that of your partner) than about anything anyone else is doing.
Stop blaming other people for your failings.
posted by Lori Heine on
It would, indeed, be interesting to have a psycological examination done on people like Fitz to find out what the hell their problem really is.
The mere fact that they can scarcely post a comment without psychobabbling about the rest of us gives us pause to wonder.
Brian, you assume that Fitz has a marriage he feels he must defend. I think his problem is the same as OnLawn’s: he’s a closed (and truly self-hating) homosexual.
I will probably be accused of cheap shots in having said this, but fair is fair. These trolls come to a website by and for gays and comment here — obsessively — about gay issues.
If they are heterosexual, then why?
Not that there’s anything wrong with being a homo-obsessed closet case pretending to be straight. But again, fair’s fair. What on earth gives these people the right to come here and sit in judgment on us?
Just askin’. Not that any honest answer will be forthcoming from the likes of Fitz.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And just in case you missed it; the “real LGBT” Randi Schimnosky now states that all Christians support polygamy.
And not surprising you don’t want to touch the fact that the bible you claim to worship promotes, supports and sanctifies polygamy as do all Christians by virtue of their promotion of the bible.
posted by Lori Heine on
Obviously, I meant “closeted” rather than “closed.” Although closed (as in -minded) is pretty obvious as well.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I will probably be accused of cheap shots in having said this, but fair is fair.
“Fair is fair”, Lori, would also justify Christians vomiting and urinating on gays, as well as vandalizing gay businesses and gathering places, since dalea has called for the same.
And if I may, you are much better at arguing your case than having to use your opponent’s personal life as a means of attacking and discrediting them.
Just the facts, ma’am; after all, don’t forget dalea’s speculation that your beliefs meant you were some sort of “fundy housewife”.
posted by Lori Heine on
“And if I may, you are much better at arguing your case than having to use your opponent’s personal life as a means of attacking and discrediting them.”
Thank you, NDT, I’m sure I am. The point I am trying to make has nothing to do with attacking and discrediting them, and everything to do with establishing (A) who they are in relation to those they wish to lecture and (B) what makes them imagine they have the right to lecture us.
Generally speaking, heteros who prowl gay websites lecturing them about morality have issues — serious issues. I sincerely doubt that some of them are heteros at all. It isn’t the possibility that they might be gay that I take issue with, but rather the likelihood that if they are, they have problems with it and are taking it out on us.
If Fitz is an “ex-gay,” and has found some marvelous “cure,” then why wouldn’t he want to share it with the great unwashed here at IGF? And if he’s really Pastor Billy-Bob, on a mission from God to convert us all to celibacy, what’s wrong with his coming out and saying so?
The opponents of gay rights seem to place a high premium on hiding and lying. If a real-live fundy housewife wanted to comment on this site, I’d have no problem with that either — as long as she admitted she was a fundy housewife. If there’s nothing wrong with her being one, then why should she feel she had to apologize for it or to conceal it from us?
In short, the only reason why my questions would be seen, by someone like Fitz or OnLawn, as intimidating is because they are hiding something they don’t want us to know. If they’re okay with who they are, why wouldn’t they want to answer my questions? And if I make them think before the next time they sound off, I don’t see that as a bad thing either.
These people have seen fit to make personal attacks on us, impugn our character, slander our motives, question our intelligence and integrity — and not even think twice about it. I certainly don’t think a few personal questions are out of line — questions, I repeat, that they should have no difficulty answering.
posted by Fitz on
Lori Heine (writes)
?The mere fact that they can scarcely post a comment without psychobabbling about the rest of us gives us pause to wonder.?
And then immediately proceeds to write:
?Brian, you assume that Fitz has a marriage he feels he must defend. I think his problem is the same as OnLawn’s: he’s a closed (and truly self-hating) homosexual.?
I don?t remember playing dime store Freud, but apparently your comments rest on such machinations.
?These trolls come to a website by and for gays and comment here — obsessively — about gay issues. If they are heterosexual, then why??
This seems to be your pet peeve alone. I don?t consider myself a ?troll?. I cant recall that IGF is ?by and for gays? and is off limits to comments by anyone who disagrees. On the contrary, with the exception of commentary like yourself, I find it to be one of a few resources were open and widespread opinion is accepted.
Heterosexuals are interested in preserving our common marriage culture, traditional notions of sexual morality and restraint. Its to our service (and credit) to engage those in the gay community who disagree with us.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The point I am trying to make has nothing to do with attacking and discrediting them, and everything to do with establishing (A) who they are in relation to those they wish to lecture and (B) what makes them imagine they have the right to lecture us.
There is a favorite quote I have from Martin Luther, Lori.
When he was at the Leipzig debate with John Eck, Eck was hammering him hard, invoking papal primacy, invoking the canon law, reminding him obliquely that he was but a lowly German, etc., all of which came to a head when Eck expostulated, “What gives you the right to speak on these matters? Are you the only one who knows anything and everyone else is in error?”
Luther replied, “I will answer this; that God Himself once spoke through the mouth of an ass.”
In other words, does it really matter who they are, or what right they have, when what they’re saying is what we should be considering?
The reason dalea tried to claim you were a “fundy housewife” was simple — he was trying to establish that a) you were a fundy housewife, so you had no right to “lecture” gays, and b) that you were insane if you thought you had any right to lecture gays.
Bluntly put, he couldn’t answer your ideas, so he had to discredit them by impugning (or attempting to impugn) you personally.
I don’t think you have that problem with answering, so it rather pains one to see you go down that road anyway.
And personally, your comment about “the mere fact that they can scarcely post a comment without psychobabbling about the rest of us gives us pause to wonder” reeks of Randi’s “it wouldn’t surprise me if you were a child molestor, given that you….” It’s an insult and an attempt to tear another person down cloaked as “wondering”.
If you’re going to do that, do it to their face. But keep in mind that, by insisting that Fitz is a “closeted gay”, that you yourself are making assertions based on his personal life that you are not in a position to know, and your credibility goes seriously south.
Instead of tearing someone else down, attack their ideas. It’s the right thing to do.
And also, if you haven’t noticed, Fitz is sidestepping what I asked him above to focus on your personal attacks.
posted by Lori Heine on
“And also, if you haven’t noticed, Fitz is sidestepping what I asked him above to focus on your personal attacks.”
Really? Well surprise, surprise.
“Bluntly put, he couldn’t answer your ideas, so he had to discredit them by impugning (or attempting to impugn) you personally.”
Is asking somebody to disclose information about himself that we have all disclosed about ourselves really the same thing as “impugning them personally?”
How does it “impugn” somebody to ask them a simple question?
Evidently Fitz says he’s heterosexual. We will take him at his word, since of course we can’t do anything else. A closeted gay man may very well say that, too, but as there’s no way to check it out we take it at face value.
Fitz claims he wants to preserve traditional morality. I believe that can be better accomplished by focusing on responsible behavior and loving commitment rather than on the respective gonads of the people involved in the relationship.
I also believe the reason anti-gay people focus on gonads and Simon-simple rules is because they don’t want to treat others more respectfully or behave more responsibly.
Scapegoating gays is a nifty little way of avoiding this. If gays had not existed, people like Fitz would have had to make us up.
On the issue of polygamy, I have already made it pretty clear that I don’t think, in a society where women enjoy full equality with men, polygamy is going to be an issue.
Polygamous men marry little girls raised in oppressive settings, or very poor women who feel they have no way to better their lives. For somebody like Fitz to claim that polygamy will somehow naturally follow same-sex marriage is idiotic.
I made a comment to see if it would be seized upon — and of course the bait was taken. I said that if polygamy was the price we had to pay for same-sex marriage, then it was worth it. Of course Fitz tried to make something out of this by doing what he does best — selectively remembering what I’d said.
If I’ve already said I don’t believe polygamy will follow same-sex marriage if women enjoy full equality with men, then obviously I don’t think it’s going to happen.
NDT, Fitz is good at sidestepping — he does it all the time. I reiterate that there’s nothing wrong with asking somebody what their little bag is when they come here repeatedly to attack us.
And as for whether Fitz is a “troll,” I think he fits the bill pretty well. He gets on one note and keeps at it, disregards anything others say that he doesn’t want to hear, and must twist his reading of every post to fit his own, preconceived expectations.
Troll? Yup.
Fitz employs a type of argument wingnuts love: the Slippery Slope. If we legalize same-sex marriage, then OF COURSE soon there will be polygamy. Slippery-slope arguments presuppose that people are so stupid they can’t draw intelligent lines or make new conclusions that reshape the direction of society.
But we do that all the time. We’ve been doing it ever since the Stone Age (otherwise we’d still be in the Stone Age).
There really is no particular reason why the State can’t prohibit groups of people from marrying, as such arrangements would be unenforceable. Someone in an earlier comment (I’m sorry, I don’t remember who) pointed out that there’s a difference between 1+1 and 1+ some larger number. He got trampled down in the ensuing squabble, but he was right.
One of the central themes of IGF is that there are conservative solutions to issues involving gay rights that are pro-gay, rather than anti-gay. And that these solutions would be better not only for gays, but for everybody. I happen to believe that, which is why I love IGF. It is also why I have so little respect for anti-gay people who come here ignoring most of what is said and treating us all as if we’re trying to usher in the Apocalypse.
It might make sense on a far-Left gay site. Here it is lunkheaded and duplicitous.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Is asking somebody to disclose information about himself that we have all disclosed about ourselves really the same thing as “impugning them personally?”
Voluntarily disclosed.
Do you happen to think, for instance, that Brian Miller’s repeated attempts to tear me down because I post pseudononymously are right because he posts HIS name?
For somebody like Fitz to claim that polygamy will somehow naturally follow same-sex marriage is idiotic.
Not if the argument used for same-sex marriage is that the state has no right to prevent you from marrying that to which you are attracted sexually.
Polygamy does not have to follow same-sex marriage IF same-sex marriage is granted by expanding the current definition of who the state DOES allow to marry to include couples of either gender. But the “slippery slope” comes into play when courts strike down, eliminate, or weaken the government’s right to regulate marriage at all in the process — just as happened in Canada, if you read the Beyond Conjugality report, and here in the US, if you read the plans in Beyond Marriage.
I also believe the reason anti-gay people focus on gonads and Simon-simple rules is because they don’t want to treat others more respectfully or behave more responsibly.
You may be right — which will be shown if Fitz does not come back to me with a list of characteristics of supporters of same-sex marriage that he thinks are “intellectually and temperamentally capable of helping to maintain a healthy and coherent marriage and family culture”.
But then again, he may come back with a list, in which case it would be obvious that it’s not just the gonads.
Give the man the opportunity to speak and don’t pre-empt him based on what you THINK he believes.
As religious gay persons, Lori, we should be acutely sensitive to letting people speak first rather than judging them based on our belief of what they’re going to say.
posted by Fitz on
NDT
I fully intend to answer your query.
I would just remind you and the rest of IGF readership that my views (in all their complexity) are readily attainable at the blog I run with seven others.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Do you happen to think, for instance, that Brian Miller’s repeated attempts to tear me down because I post pseudononymously are right because he posts HIS name?”
Certainly not.
My problem with people like Fitz is not so much the pseudonym as it is their presumption that because they claim to speak for Righteous Hetero America, they are automatically wiser, morally superior and closer to God.
This is why I ask for more information about them. Most particularly of interest is what they personally do to make the world a better place. And no, posting ignoramus, gay-attacking comments on websites does not count in my book.
As far as letting people speak, when they have something to say besides trying to twist my words, your words and those of others into things we did not mean when we said them, then I’m all ears.
posted by Lori Heine on
And a P.S….
As far as the polygamy bogeybear as concerned, I will AGAIN restate my position.
As I keep saying, as the status of women in this society continues to improve, there will be ever-increasingly less of a likelihood that polygamy will be an issue.
I have said this several times, and I will continue to say it, because it is demonstrably true that the societies (or sub-cultures) in which polygamy is widespread are without exception those in which women and girls are considered the property and playthings of men.
Of course there will be a few hippie types who will cohabitate “polyamorously.” This hardly constitutes such a phenomenon that our laws must stretch to accomodate it.
Want a society without polygamy? Then continue to work for full equality and equal opportunity for women.
Case closed.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Bluntly put, he couldn’t answer your ideas, so he had to discredit them by impugning (or attempting to impugn) you personally.”.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You couldn’t answer my ideas so you tried to discredit me by lying and saying I assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possilbe manners, by lying and saying I have multiple sex partners, by lying and saying I demand to have public sex whenever and wherever.
Northdallass said “”For somebody like Fitz to claim that polygamy will somehow naturally follow same-sex marriage is idiotic.”
Not if the argument used for same-sex marriage is that the state has no right to prevent you from marrying that to which you are attracted sexually.”
You lie, no one sayd the state didn’t have a right to prevent people from marrying if there was good reason to do so, as in polygamy, incest, or underage marriges. There is no good reason to prevent same sex marriages.
Northdallass said “Polygamy does not have to follow same-sex marriage IF same-sex marriage is granted by expanding the current definition of who the state DOES allow to marry to include couples of either gender. But the “slippery slope” comes into play when courts strike down, eliminate, or weaken the government’s right to regulate marriage at all in the process — just as happened in Canada, if you read the Beyond Conjugality report, and here in the US, if you read the plans in Beyond Marriage.”.
You’re insane, there’s been no slippery slope to polygamy in Canada, it isn’t an issue in the slightest. Obviously the Canadian experience has shown the “slippery slope” arguement to be bogus.