The Cato Institute has posted The Future of Marriage by Stephanie Coontz, author of the recently published book "Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage." She writes:
For most of history, marriage was more about getting the right in-laws than picking the right partner to love and live with.... It was just 250 years ago, when the Enlightenment challenged the right of the older generation and the state to dictate to the young, that free choice based on love and compatibility emerged as the social ideal for mate selection. ....
Massive social changes combine to ensure that a substantial percentage of people will continue to explore alternatives to marriage. ... Stir in the reproductive revolution, which has made it possible for couples who would once have been condemned to childlessness to have the kids they want, but impossible to prevent single women or gay and lesbian couples from having children. Top it off with changes in gender roles that have increased the payoffs of marriage for educated, financially secure women but increased its risks for low-income women whose potential partners are less likely to hold egalitarian values, earn good wages, or even count on a regular job. Taken together, this is a recipe for a world where the social weight of marriage has been fundamentally and irreversibly reduced. ...
[But] marriage is not on the verge of extinction. Most cohabiting couples eventually do get married, either to each other or to someone else. New groups, such as gays and lesbians, are now demanding access to marriage-a demand that many pro-marriage advocates oddly interpret as an attack on the institution. And a well-functioning marriage is still an especially useful and effective method of organizing interpersonal commitments and improving people's well-being. But in today's climate of gender equality and personal choice, we must realize that successful marriages require different traits, skills, and behaviors than in the past.
There's also a responding essay by social conservative Kay S. Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute, who laments the social costs of "de-linking marriage and childbearing" such as the rise in single mothers dependent on the government for support. She writes:
The United States has spent billions trying to prop up fatherless families through welfare payments, nutrition programs, early childhood education, Title 1, child support, and a teeming, maddening family court system. We don't have much to show for it.
It's a good reminder that social conservatives have some reasons to be concerned with the state of marriage, and that those who support expanding the right to marry to include same-sex couples would do well to recognize these fears, and then explain why marriage equality would strengthen, not weaken, marriage as a social bedrock.
73 Comments for “Marriage, Then and Now”
posted by Karen on
Two things:
I don’t see why my marriage should have to demonstrably “strengthen” the “institution” to be considered legally valid. This is not something which was demanded of interracial couples, for instance. For me, this fight isn’t about proving my “worthiness”, it’s about demanding my rights, which are, as a wise man once said, inalienable. And which include not having legal decisions made by my government about me based solely on my sex. Allaying peoples’ fears is nice, but let’s not pretend that it’s actually NECESSARY for marriage equality to be the just and correct and right thing to do.
Secondly, it all depends on your definition of “marriage” and “gay” and “childbearing”.
To those of us with an already egalitarian and abstract view of what a “marriage” is, a factual understanding of what a “civil marriage” is, and an impression of gay people and families that are based in reality, it seems utterly impossible that marriage equality could “weaken” the institution.
Those who believe it will weaken the instution do so because, as they understand the language, it is impossible for it NOT to. Marriage is DEFINED for them as straight, so marriage equality by DEFINITION weakens it. Or gay people are DEFINED for them as immoral, debauched, valueless, so including them in marriage can only weaken it. Or childbearing is DEFINED as scandalous and sad for them unless it is done within a heterosexual marriage, so extending that link to include gay families would be unthinkable. Or, commonly, all three.
And in my experience, these “definitions” are nearly impervious to logic and fact. They look at my marriage and they see a play-marriage. They look at me and they see a person who can’t overcome her “lust” for her wife. They look at my children and they see poor, fatherless waifs.
It’s a good thing that winning these people over is not necessary for marriage equality to be right.
posted by Avee on
I don’t see why my marriage should have to demonstrably “strengthen” the “institution” to be considered legally valid. This is not something which was demanded of interracial couples, for instance … For me, this fight isn’t about proving my “worthiness”, it’s about demanding my rights…
That’s all well and good, but not very strategic. In fact, the civil rights movement was at its most successful when it presented its goals as integrating black Americans into mainstream (and aiming for middle class) society. At the March on Washington lead by MLK, the men wore ties and white shirts. Clearly, they didn’t just “demand their rights” but sought to allay fears.
During the late ’60s when that image was rejected in favor of “demanding rights,” the movement stalled.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
avee: “During the late ’60s when that image was rejected in favor of “demanding rights,” the movement stalled.”
The Civil Rights movement stalled in the late 60’s? That’s news to me. Where exactly do you get your information from?
posted by Regan DuCasse on
The mention of social conservatives that lament delinking marriage and childbearing put that in the forefront of the argument against same gender marriage. That gay sex prohibits procreation.
In fact, much of their arguments are posited as if gays and lesbians doing anything EQUAL to heterosexuals is either at the expense of it, or diminishes the value altogether.
However, I have found that it’s prejudicial and mean in spirit to accomodate sterile or non procreative heterosexuals as able to contribute to society, while at the same time saying it’s impossible for homosexuals to do the same.
One’s rights are not predicated on procreation whatsoever.
While trying to make up alternative, or any other kinds of laws that restrict gay people-heterosexuals in similar circumstances go unencumbered. What part of EQUAL don’t people understand?
What part of other things of merit besides child rearing don’t they understand either?
And in what POSSIBLE way, does a gay couple NOT having children, kept heterosexuals from doing what they choose?
There is no shortage of making babies, even if there is a shortage of marriage.
And THAT certainly can’t be blamed on gay people, but I know it is.
Heterosexuals have more explaining to do. And the definitions of equal and justification are getting mangled in the process of arguing the issue.
Avee has a point. The least anti marriage tends to bring up the stereotypical images they’ve been presented with to make THEIR case.
Of course, they don’t assume blacks are like the images they are presented by music videos and crime reports on tv…, but none of that helps minorites such as black or gay to make people believe they are serious.
posted by Brian Miller on
Finally, someone has stepped up to the plate to give an accurate and historically relevant history of the *actual* development of “legal marriage” through the ages!
Ms. Coontz has done a heck of a job. And of course, as always, it took a libertarian (this time at CATO) to move the debate beyond Demopublican and Republicrat talking points. She’s done a tremendous service to both the LGBT community and society as a whole.
posted by Jos76 on
My partner and I live in Massachusetts and we are legally married. There were 4,000 couples married before us and twice as many since. Given that social security benefits are given at the federal level, we don’t gain anything more than recognition at the state level. When all is said and done, we have livings trusts, wills, and teneant in common documents to make sure that we have to problems at the federal level. We have to obviously jump through more hoops than straight couples, but that’s fine with us. We have a very normal marriage that is well supported by our families. You can read the chronocal of it on my blog: http://www.jos76.wordpress.com.
Jos76
posted by grendel on
O come on, Brian, Coontz is hardly the first to make these same points. In fact two years before Coontz published her book, Graff, a liberal lesbian living in Mass. no less (Oh the horror!) thoroughly entertaining and well researched book called “What is Marriage For? The Strange Social History of Our Most Intimate Institution” and came to exactly the same conclusions.
Sometimes Brian your partisanship overwhelms your objectivity.
posted by Karen on
Avee,
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t attempt to allay these peoples’ fears, change their minds and hearts, and explain how we’re not going to weaken marriage, cross our hearts and hope to die.
We should. We are. All the time. They don’t believe us, of course.
But when Stephen says “those who support expanding the right to marry to include same-sex couples would do well to recognize these fears, and then explain why marriage equality would strengthen, not weaken, marriage as a social bedrock”…
Well, it just sounds like he thinks that we don’t address these things day in and day out, fruitlessly. And it sounds like he thinks we need to EARN our rights by proving how wonderful and beneficial our marriages are, when really it’s just a matter of recognizing how the various rights we already enjoy under the constitution apply to civil marriage.
He’s still trying to prove that our “class” of marriages aren’t detrimental, but I’m saying there’s no such thing as our “class” of marriage, because a female citizen should be legally indistinguishable from a male citizen unless it’s absolutely 100% necessary for the government to peek into our underpants.
So the question “Is this class of marriage detrimental or beneficial” is meaningless. And everyone would do well to remember THAT.
posted by Karen on
I should qualify that – it’s *legally* meaningless, not entirely meaningless.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Perhaps Karen can point out to us where in the Constitution it says that you should be allowed to marry anything to which you are sexually attracted.
Furthermore, since Karen insists that it is unconstitutional to deny the rights of anyone to marry whomever they want, why, then, should society be allowed to deny ANY marriage?
Society has every right to determine what marriages should or should not be considered beneficial. This can be done by direct vote, by representative vote, or by simply allowing a decision to stand, i.e. Loving.
posted by Doug on
We’ve heard from the likes of NDT before:
Of course society has every right to determine if different races can marry.
Of course society has every right to determine who can sit at the lunch counter.
Of course society has every right to determine who can stay at which hotel.
Of course society has every right to determine who can live in which neighborhood.
Of course society has every right to determine that women cannot vote.
We’ve heard this before. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oddly enough, Doug, society DID decide.
Women have the right to vote due to a constitutional amendment ratified by society.
Lunch counters, hotels, and whatnot were determined by legislative vote ratified by society.
Different races marrying was first allowed in several states by legislative vote; then society allowed the Federal decision on it to stand.
You simply can’t make a logical argument that would convince society. Hence, your attempt to force it by fiat, and hence the fact that society has rebuffed it repeatedly, unlike women and minorities.
Then again, as Avee adeptly points out, women and minorities did not try to piggyback leftist social causes and antireligious bigotry onto their movements, nor did they demonize their opponents.
posted by Hank on
Congratulations Jos. I am increasingly convinced that the only way to defeat the anti gay bigots – so ably represented by the prior post – is to prove them wrong one by one by living lives of integrity and honesty and committment. Best of luck to you.
posted by Pat on
Doug, also, it happened because these groups fought for these rights, and stated that they were worthy of them, as opposed to saying they should be content with second-class citizenship. The same will eventually happen with gay people since anti-gay bigotry is on the decline, most people see the leader bigots as the clowns and charlatans they are, and more and more gay people believe they are worthy of equality, as opposed to simply keeping their mouths shut and feel deserving of inferior status, and behave like nice little boys. It’s going to be a matter of time before more and more state legislators and eventually the federal government will see the light and/or they will also interpret the Fourteenth Amendment to see that it does apply to gay people as well, and not compare same sex couples with an adult/child couple or an adult/non-human couple, or some other absurd argument. Right now only an adult woman (with a certain degree on consanguinity) can marry a man. It seems to me that denying a man to do so will eventually found to be unconstitutional, just as it was found for a person of a different race in the Loving case.
Hank, as I suggested above, your method to defeat the anti-gay bigots is not sufficient, but a good start.
posted by Hank on
You’re right of course Pat. Someone has to go sit at the lunch counter and refuse to move. But I was struck by reading Jos’s blog at how well he and his husband have been able to fit into their community and church and family. I hope someday soon we all can reach that level of integration with our lives.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Hi NDF,
You’re right, NDF it doesn’t say in the Constitution you can marry WHATEVER you want. You’re also reading between the lines yourself. Nowhere in any agenda of those who support marriage between gay people does it say ANYONE should marry ANYTHING or ANYBODY.
The Constitution, does assume INALIENABLE rights. And proceeds to name a few.
Such as life and liberty…these words were after all written by SLAVEHOLDERS.
How ironic.
So you see, NDF, gays and lesbians ARE free people. And what the laws CAN’T do, is inhibit individuals FROM their duties as significant others and their children. Those responsibilities are most efficiently accomplished through marriage. And our laws try to hold gay people to a different standard for BEING different, rather than the SAME standards for marriage that heterosexuals live under.
No one gay is trying to CHANGE those standards, nor could they be changed if two GAY people are married to each other.
There are only FOUR basic standards for marriage.
The laws can only discriminate against gay people as they are intended to in the first place. But there is no COMPELLING reason to on it’s OWN MERITS.
That is the point.
And even to this day, laws at first implemented against those who were slaves are being used again against gay people.
Which is very telling. The intent of the law isn’t to enable the freedoms and equal standing of a citizen, but instead to relegate them to a status that is inferior to that of other citizens.
Even to the criminal class.
When free people’s access and freedom ARE less than a dangerous criminal class, than the moral exemption for such a freedom has gone out the window.
I’m so tired of people using excuses that don’t exist to deny gay people the option of caring for their loved ones and living as adults.
There is no movement to marry beyond ONE spouse on a par with that of gays and lesbians WORLDWIDE. The choice to marry is still a choice. And if there are heterosexuals who find it less attractive nowadays, gay people cannot be held responsible for that.
One of these days, people will be honest about this issue and deal with it for what it is. Personal freedom and enabling those who are responsible, contributing citizens.
posted by ReganDuCasse on
BTW, NDF…how would YOU respond to being demonized AND dehumanized for identifying as gay?
It’s required SUPERHUMAN patience and great personal risk to achieve what gay people have so far. And LIKE other minorites mentioned before, justice could come to late as it has for said other minorities.
Many of the social ills that plague blacks THREE TIMES as much, are a by product of equality taking too long.
This is also true of the gay community. Had marriage, fidelity and forming long term bonds been encouraged long ago, perhaps the scourge of AIDS wouldn’t have left such devastation.
Whites didn’t consider black sexuality any more than they do gay sexuality to be something of value and worthy of protection. Black males were violated and black women exploited much the same way gay males are violated and lesbians exploited now.
Make no mistake, on the more personal level, these are things that blacks and gays share historically. The anxiety, stigma and exploitation IS the same. It’s just as then, white folks would never admit to it or be accountable. Same goes for the straight world and how they treat gay youth.
Know the difference, NDF between and ACTION and a RE-ACTION.
Justification as opposed to rationalization.
Gay folks cannot be held responsible for homophobia any more than blacks should be for racism or women for misogyny.
As long as you keep asserting where and who the majority holding the lives of gay people in their hands, think again about who has done and could continue to do the most damage, no matter WHAT gay people do.
At least, peaceful assembly, accessing the courts and DUE PROCESS OF LAW have been the tools employed so far. This is legal, right and preferable.
Perhaps, it is a teaching moment for the other side to consider-the option of violence and stealth could be taken too.
That gay people take the high road of transparency, openness, peaceful integration and contributive action means that it’s high time the other side reconsider who they are dealing with RESPECTFULLY as having earned the right for equal standards in the law LONG AGO.
posted by Brian Miller on
Oddly enough, Doug, society DID decide.
Actually, in the case of marriage, the courts decided.
At the time of Loving vs. Virginia, a supermajority of voters in the states with anti-interracial-marriage laws were strongly in favor of them.
Back then, just as today, ND-30’s social-con buddies whined ceaselessly of “activist judges” who “overruled the will of the majority.”
Of course, by the 1980s, that rhetoric was only acceptable in the halls of groups like the CoCC and other right-wing extremist groups.
Similarly, in 20 or 30 years from now, ND-30 and his buddies will be claiming that they never opposed gay marriage and that, hey, they were always for it — but we have to stop those freaky fill-in-the-blanks.
Conservatism is funny. It’s one of the few philosophies that guarantees itself a future by repeating its past mistakes in an endless and predictable cycle.
Coontz is hardly the first to make these same points. In fact two years before Coontz published her book, Graff, a liberal lesbian living in Mass. no less (Oh the horror!) thoroughly entertaining and well researched book called “What is Marriage For? The Strange Social History of Our Most Intimate Institution” and came to exactly the same conclusions.
Coontz and CATO have more reach nationally (and certainly more reach within their movements) than Ms. Graff. The clearest proof of the latter contention is that the ideas expressed in Coontz’s article are mainstream in libertarian circles, yet elicit gasps of horror (and loud condemnation) in liberal ones.
posted by Karen on
“Perhaps Karen can point out to us where in the Constitution it says that you should be allowed to marry anything to which you are sexually attracted.”
You’re a damn liar, ND30. You know very well that my argument is not “I should be allowed to marry anything to which I am sexually attracted”. You know this because I explicitly SAID IT in my post. My argument is “I am, by dint of my constitutional rights, legally indistinguishable from a male citizen unless there’s a VERY good reason for me not to be.”
“Furthermore, since Karen insists that it is unconstitutional to deny the rights of anyone to marry whomever they want,”
Liar.
“Why, then, should society be allowed to deny ANY marriage?”
Does it interfere with my right to not be judged by my sex? No? Then it is outside of my argument, you liar.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
My argument is “I am, by dint of my constitutional rights, legally indistinguishable from a male citizen unless there’s a VERY good reason for me not to be.”
And, like a male citizen, nothing bars you from marrying someone of the opposite sex.
Now, please show us in the Constitution what you are citing.
Because, if you are using the Fourteenth Amendment, what I will point out is that, in Section I, it covers “all persons”, with no exceptions allowed for age, consanguity, plurality, existing marriage, citizenship, or any of the restrictions currently extant on marriage.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And now to Regan.
Nowhere in any agenda of those who support marriage between gay people does it say ANYONE should marry ANYTHING or ANYBODY.
Uh, no.
And much closer to home….
And FWIW, I think that we should be working towards a more flexible civil family law that does allow for plurality.
And further down:
If someone wants to marry 3 women, it’s none of my business as long as they all consent.
BTW, NDF…how would YOU respond to being demonized AND dehumanized for identifying as gay?
I find that a very ironic question on several levels.
On the one hand, since you insist that society “demonizes and dehumanizes” all gays, then it would be self-evident that I have been.
On the other, you could be denying that I’m gay; not surprising, since it’s the conventional wisdom among gays that anyone who doesn’t believe exactly as they do isn’t gay.
In addition, given that people like myself are regularly demonized, dehumanized, and told to commit suicide by other gays, it seems doubly ironic to hear gays themselves complain about it.
Perhaps the biggest irony, though, is your making said statement prior to these statements:
It’s just as then, white folks would never admit to it or be accountable. Same goes for the straight world and how they treat gay youth.
in which you blame white people and straight people for all the problems experienced by black people and gay people, regardless of when, where, or how.
As a white person, I didn’t realize I had the power to make black people take drugs or have unprotected sex, abortions, babies by multiple women, and so forth.
And as a gay person, I didn’t realize that the mere existence of straight people forced me to have unprotected promiscuous sex and spread HIV.
Perhaps that’s why you think I’m not gay; not once has the absence of marriage forced me to be promiscuous or have unprotected sex and spread HIV. I guess it’s just like black people who don’t blame white people for all their problems or who openly criticize the black community; they’re called “Uncle Toms”, “house slaves”, and “oreos”, and told that they’re not really black.
posted by Brian Miller on
Perhaps Karen can point out to us where in the Constitution it says that you should be allowed to marry anything to which you are sexually attracted.
There is, of course, no such statement. Of course, Karen is not claiming that she should be “allowed” to marry “anything to which she is sexually attracted,” so your “ah-ha” is (as usual) a straw man.
The text of the 14th Amendment is as follows:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Your Republican Party’s anti-gay marriage laws, anti-gay adoption laws, anti-gay immigration laws, anti-gay tax laws, etc. are a clear violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. It’s right there in plain black and white. You can make tortured arguments and distort others’ arguments, but the fact of the matter is that not only are you (once again) morally wrong, but you’re advocating laws that are directly in opposition to the most basic principles of our Constitution.
And it’s a debate you’ll lose — just like your conservative buddies lost their prior arguments in favor of slavery, and racial segregation, and denying women the vote.
posted by Pat on
And, like a male citizen, nothing bars you from marrying someone of the opposite sex.
True. However, Karen is barred from legally marrying her wife, while a man is not legally barred to. Sounds like a violation of the 14th Amendment to me.
And as a gay person, I didn’t realize that the mere existence of straight people forced me to have unprotected promiscuous sex and spread HIV.
You’re the only one here that’s made that claim.
But I was struck by reading Jos’s blog at how well he and his husband have been able to fit into their community and church and family. I hope someday soon we all can reach that level of integration with our lives.
Hank, I couldn’t agree more.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Your Republican Party’s anti-gay marriage laws, anti-gay adoption laws, anti-gay immigration laws, anti-gay tax laws, etc. are a clear violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. It’s right there in plain black and white.
Well then, since no “person” is to be denied “equal protection”:
— marriage laws that prevent any person from marrying based on consanguity, age, existing marriages, or species violate “equal protection”, since they prevent persons from marrying whatever or whoever they choose
— adoption laws that prevent any person from adopting for any reason, be it drug use, lack of a job, previous convictions for child abuse, and so forth violate “equal protection”, since they prevent some people from adopting and not others
— immigration laws that differentiate based on immigration status or citizenship violate “equal protection”, since they treat non-citizens differently than citizens (“person” does not imply citizenship as a requirement)
— tax laws with rates based on income violate “equal protection”, since they charge people different amounts and don’t require some people to pay taxes at all
And before you try to babble that “person” doesn’t mean everybody, indeed it does — unless, of course, you’re going to deny the legal personhood and constitutional protections of children, noncitizens, relatives, sex offenders and child molestors, people with higher incomes, and so forth.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Oh, yeah, this is where Northdallass starts defending pedophelia, ranting “that’s discrimination” when someone points out that there’s a good reason why children can’t marry – they’re not old enough to give informed consent.
Exceptions are made to general principles where there is good reason to do so. There is not a good reason to prevent gays from marrying the one person they love most. If a man has the right to marry a woman a woman deserves the same right he has to marry a woman. Anything else is sex discrimination and there’s no good reason for it. Northdallass’s “you can marry somone of the opposite sex” argument is akin to outlawing voting for the Republican party – everyone will have the equal right to vote Democrat.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
True. However, Karen is barred from legally marrying her wife, while a man is not legally barred to. Sounds like a violation of the 14th Amendment to me.
As would be, in that interpretation, barring Karen from marrying her daughter, since she and her daughter qualify as “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment and thus must be given “equal protection” — which means the right to marry whomever or whatever they choose.
Furthermore, Pat, applying that interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment means that sex may never be taken into consideration under any circumstances, or it’s a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; therefore, laws barring men from using the women’s restroom and vice versa are unconstitutional.
You’re the only one here that’s made that claim.
As the French say, au contraire.
Regan DuCasse clearly blamed white people for black sexual promiscuity and straight people for gay sexual promiscuity and the spread of AIDS.
She stated that whites and heterosexuals should “admit” that they are at fault and “take accountability” for it. Nowhere in her post did she say that blacks or gays have any control over their sexual behavior or that they are in any way accountable for it. She made it clear that straight people force gays and lesbians to have promiscuous unprotected sex and spread HIV.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh, yeah, this is where Northdallass starts defending pedophelia, ranting “that’s discrimination” when someone points out that there’s a good reason why children can’t marry – they’re not old enough to give informed consent.
Neither age or informed consent are mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment as being required for a definition of “person”. Furthermore, you argue, Randi, that the Fourteenth Amendment requires you to be allowed to marry the “person” you love most — which means that preventing you from marrying your son or daughter is wrong if you love them the most.
Now, Randi, state publicly that children are not “persons” and thus can be deprived of their Constitutional rights at will — or that it is not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for the government to limit marriage.
I believe the latter, which is why I fully support laws against pedophilia and child marriage.
If a man has the right to marry a woman a woman deserves the same right he has to marry a woman. Anything else is sex discrimination and there’s no good reason for it.
By that theory, then, if a woman has the right to go into a women’s locker room and stare at naked women, a man deserves the same right; anything else is sex discrimination and there’s no good reason for it.
Furthermore, gays and lesbians do not want to limit people to “one”:
FWIW, I think that we should be working towards a more flexible civil family law that does allow for plurality.
And further down:
someone wants to marry 3 women, it’s none of my business as long as they all consent.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Neither age or informed consent are mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment as being required for a definition of “person”. Furthermore, you argue, Randi, that the Fourteenth Amendment requires you to be allowed to marry the “person” you love most — which means that preventing you from marrying your son or daughter is wrong if you love them the most.”
What I said was that exceptions are made to general principles (such as the 14th amendment) there there are good reasons to do so. Just because they aren’t all spelled out in the ammendment doesn’t mean they aren’t valid laws. For example there is no right to drive a car in you constitution, nor is there an exemption to the right to drink based on age, but those are still valid restrictions. And so it is with the restrictions on marrying your son or daughter. When it comes to marrying someone of the same sex (given the same restrictions that apply to opposite sex marriages, such as a non-blood relative, age, etc.) there is NO GOOD REASON for society to stand in the way.
Northdallass said “I fully support laws against pedophilia and child marriage.”.
Bullshit. You fully support pedophilia and child marriage whenever the mood strikes you. In this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31277.html?success=1#comments
When I opposed underage marriages, polygamy, and incest you jumped all over me at June 19, 2007, 4:02pm saying
“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”.
Northdallass said “Furthermore, gays and lesbians do not want to limit people to “one”:”.
This is why its so obvious to everyone what a lying scumbag you are. That was one person’s opinion and she speaks for no one other than herself. You constantly equate one person’s opinion or actions with the entire LGBT community – totally dishonest and despicable.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Furthermore, Pat, applying that interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment means that sex may never be taken into consideration under any circumstances, or it’s a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; therefore, laws barring men from using the women’s restroom and vice versa are unconstitutional.”.
No, once again, exceptions to general principles can be made where there are good reason to do so and its reasonable to allow women seperate restrooms on the basis of privacy. A man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman doesn’t violate anyone’s privacy.
Northdallass said “And as a gay person, I didn’t realize that the mere existence of straight people forced me to have unprotected promiscuous sex and spread HIV.”
Pat replied “You’re the only one here that’s made that claim.”
Northdallass lied “Au contraire…Regan DuCasse clearly blamed white people for black sexual promiscuity and straight people for gay sexual promiscuity and the spread of AIDS.”.
She NEVER said the “the mere existence of straight white people resulted in some gays or blacks being promiscuous – you’re a damn liar.
What she said was social ills plague oppressed people and if you discourage marriage, fidelity, and long term bonds perhaps you encourage the spread of HIV. And she’s absolutely right, straight white people like you never take responsibility for your oppression of blacks and gays and the harm that inevitably causes.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And she’s absolutely right, straight white people like you never take responsibility for your oppression of blacks and gays and the harm that inevitably causes.
Or, in other words, straight white people are always to blame for any problems that black or gay people have.
Bullshit. You fully support pedophilia and child marriage whenever the mood strikes you.
Thank you for saving me the effort of citing that thread, which includes your attempt to insist that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement — hence demonstrating your usual accuracy in such matters.
It also provides a nice demonstration of how your condemnation of anyone who says polygamy should be allowed doesn’t apply to gays and lesbians who do.
And along those lines:
A man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman doesn’t violate anyone’s privacy.
Neither does marrying multiple people, marrying children, marrying your brother or sister, and so forth violate anyone else’s “privacy”. Therefore, according to your logic, laws against all of these are unconstitutional.
Let me also save you some effort.
— Since you argue that procreation or any concerns associated with it are invalid relative to marriage, the possibility of birth defects is not grounds to deny close-relative marriages.
— Since you argue that all family relationships are valid and that the government must recognize them all equally, saying that brother-sister or parent-child marriages are wrong violates that.
— Since you claim that anyone should be able to marry whomever they love most without restrictions, that means that people who love children most of all should not be deprived of their constitutional right to marry them.
What this all boils down to is that you don’t have a legal leg on which to stand — and given that gays and lesbians like yourself refuse to take responsibility for any of your behaviors, but instead blame everything on “straight white people”, you have no compelling argument that you are capable of respecting or carrying out the responsibilities that marriage entails.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Or, in other words, straight white people are always to blame for any problems that black or gay people have.”.
No,you lie, that’s not what I said – the oppression of blacks and gays by straight white people causing some problems is not the same as saying straight whites like you are responsible for all problems – stop lying.
Northdallass said “your attempt to insist that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement”. You lie. I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you had an eight year old chained up in the basement and given your spirited defense of pedophilia I doubt anyone else would be either. I NEVER offered an opinion as to whether or not you actually do have an eight year old chained up in your basement.
I said men can’t use women’s restrooms because it violates women’s privacy. Northdallass responded “Neither does marrying multiple people, marrying children, marrying your brother or sister, and so forth violate anyone else’s “privacy”. Therefore, according to your logic, laws against all of these are unconstitutional.”.
You idiot, my logic is that one only makes exceptions to general principles when there is damn good reason to do so. I never said a violation of privacy was the only good reason for making exceptions to the 14th amendment. Of course there are good reasons for exceptions for polygamy, incest, and pedophilia. There is however, NO good reason for making the sex of one’s marriage partner an exception.
Northdallass said “Since you argue that procreation or any concerns associated with it are invalid relative to marriage, the possibility of birth defects is not grounds to deny close-relative marriages.”.
I never argued that – you lie. I said procreation is not a valid requirement for marriage, not that its “invalid relative to marriage”.
Northdallass said “Since you argue that all family relationships are valid and that the government must recognize them all equally, saying that brother-sister or parent-child marriages are wrong violates that.”.
You lie, I never said that. I specifically opposed polygamous relationships, incestous, and pedophilic relationships. Its you who ranted that I was discrminating by doing so.
Northdallass said “Since you claim that anyone should be able to marry whomever they love most without restrictions, that means that people who love children most of all should not be deprived of their constitutional right to marry them.”.
You lie, I said exceptions can be made to general principles when there are good reasons and the same goes for the general principle of being free to marry whomever you love most. I said “when it comes to marrying someone of the same sex (given the same restrictions that apply to opposite sex marriages, such as a non-blood relative, age, etc.) there is NO GOOD REASON for society to stand in the way.”.
Northdallass said “you don’t have a legal leg on which to stand — and given that gays and lesbians like yourself refuse to take responsibility for any of your behaviors, but instead blame everything on “straight white people”.
I have NEVER refused to take responsibility for my behaviors. Gays and Lesbians like me NEVER blame anything on “straight white people” that they aren’t responsible for. The fact is you are responsible for attacking, demonizing and lying about LGBTS on a daily basis for years, its people like you that are the reason LGBTs get fired from jobs for reason’s other than job performance. Its people like you that are the reason LGBTS get evicted from their homes merely for being LGBT. Its people like you that are the reason LGBTs get assaulted and murdered merely for being LGBT.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Gays and Lesbians like me NEVER blame anything on “straight white people” that they aren’t responsible for.
But, since you insist that straight white people are responsible for every problem that blacks, gays and lesbians have, that’s a rather meaningless statement.
I have NEVER refused to take responsibility for my behaviors.
Of course — since in your mind, you never do anything wrong; everything wrong that you do is other peoples’ fault.
Such as your repeated attempts to deny that you accused me of having an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement, or your attempt at selective editing to avoid taking responsibility for the fact that you argued that any marriage that doesn’t violate “privacy” should be allowed, or your clamming up and refusing to condemn gays and lesbians who support polygamy and claim it should be legalized after your screaming tirades and condemnations of people elsewhere for allegedly endorsing polygamy.
its people like you that are the reason LGBTs get fired from jobs for reason’s other than job performance.
What we know, Randi, is that LGBTs sexually harass other people, then claim they’re being punished because of reasons other than their job performance.
?I?ve worked too hard for years,? she said. ?If I?m such a terrible manager, if I?m such a bad leader, where are the red flags in my past? The only thing I can come up with is that this is a whole lot of homophobia and sexism.?
Or, in other words, blaming “straight white people”.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “But, since you insist that straight white people are responsible for every problem that blacks, gays and lesbians have, that’s a rather meaningless statement.”.
Of course you lie again because you couldn’t oppose what I’m saying without lying. What I said was, and I quote “And she’s absolutely right, straight white people like you never take responsibility for your oppression of blacks and gays and the harm that inevitably causes….the oppression of blacks and gays by straight white people causing some problems is not the same as saying straight whites like you are responsible for all problems”.
Northdallass said “Of course — since in your mind, you never do anything wrong; everything wrong that you do is other peoples’ fault.”.
You’re projecting. That’s not whats in my mind, its you who feels that way and thus accuses others of being like you are.
Northdallass said “your repeated attempts to deny that you accused me of having an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement.
You lie, I NEVER ventured an opinion as to whether or not you acutally are a child molester, I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you were.
Northdallass said “your attempt at selective editing to avoid taking responsibility for the fact that you argued that any marriage that doesn’t violate “privacy” should be allowed”.
You lie, I never made any such argument. All marriages should be allowed unless there is damn good reason to oppose them and two spouses of the same sex is NOT a good reason.
Northdallass said “What we know, Randi, is that LGBTs sexually harass other people, then claim they’re being punished because of reasons other than their job performance.”.
We don’t know that. What we know is that Christians murder people because their bible tells them to.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=3b742afe-c303-4fb7-9042-e20479bb05cb&k=17315
“I know I was brought into this world to be hear today to change this world of there evil ways. They even want to dis-re-guard the ten command-ments from the time that Moses in his day brought in power which still is in existence today,” wrote Pickton, who is facing another 20 counts of murder which are to be dealt with at a second trial.
Christians like you refuse to hold your own community accountable for promoting and distributing the book of hate that motivated
Picton to murder 50 women. You praise and uphold the book that commanded these murders as your ultimate guide to morality. We can see by your support of murder, polygamy, and pedophilia where your “morals” are.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
North Dallas Forty, I had no idea WHAT you were.
I didn’t say that ALL white people are responsible for what’s happened to blacks NOR did I say that about straight people.
I was pointing out that that institutionalized hate and discrimination DOES create a hopelessness and lower self esteem issues that HAVE put said minorities at disproportionate risk for self destructive behavior.
These ARE by products of being held to DIFFERENT, impossible and hypocritical standards. Not the same ones as those around you, and knowing it.
You are simply pointing out these RESULTS, but you do not engage the causes.
That blacks, women and gays and lesbians have thrived DESPITE such barriers speaks to an UNDERAPPRECIATED class. And mind you, ignorance played a huge part in the incursion of HIV into these minority communities, precisely because information and access to reliable protection and medical care most often is lacking in quantity and quality in these respective communities. Sure, AFTER a person is informed and has access, protection is possible.
But what glib answers do you have for historical context, NOT the results you see now?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Of course you lie again because you couldn’t oppose what I’m saying without lying.
Or you’re simply making that accusation because you were caught blaming straight white people for all the problems of gays and lesbians.
Straight white people know that HIV is spread primarily through promiscuous unprotected sex and IV drug use; they also know that gays and lesbians have much higher incidences of IV drug abuse and that one-third of gays who are HIV-positive have unprotected and promiscuous sex with, not just HIV-positive people (which can still spread disease), but with gays who DON’T have HIV or with people whose serostatus they don’t know.
Unlike black and gay people, though, straight white people have never had the luxury of being able to blame society’s “oppression” for drug use or promiscuous sex and spreading disease; hence, they know that, if they do it, THEY are the ones who are responsible, and they can choose whether or not they’re going to do it.
Which is why they don’t buy blacks and gays blaming them for blacks and gays being unable to stop themselves from using drugs or having promiscuous and unprotected sex.
All marriages should be allowed unless there is damn good reason to oppose them
So Randi, tell us what your “damn good reason” is to oppose and ban plural marriage, especially since your fellow LGBTs like Karen advocate changing laws to accomodate it. Obviously SHE doesn’t think there’s any good reason to ban it. Why don’t you explain why you’re right and she’s wrong? Aren’t you being intolerant to prevent Karen or anyone else from marrying as many people as they want?
Christians like you refuse to hold your own community accountable for promoting and distributing the book of hate that motivated
Picton to murder 50 women. You praise and uphold the book that commanded these murders as your ultimate guide to morality. We can see by your support of murder, polygamy, and pedophilia where your “morals” are.
Go right ahead and say that to Jos, Gene Robinson, Soulforce, and every other gay group that claims to be Christian.
What you daily demonstrate, Randi, is that being gay is incompatible with being religious, being a Christian, or putting any value on the Bible whatsoever. You do an excellent job of demonstrating that gay “Christians” like Jos and “Bishop” Gene Robinson are nothing but phonies; if they actually believed in the Bible and Jesus and God, THEY would be endorsing these things, and thus you would be blasting them.
And since you don’t….
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I didn’t say that ALL white people are responsible for what’s happened to blacks NOR did I say that about straight people.
Uh huh.
Whites didn’t consider black sexuality any more than they do gay sexuality to be something of value and worthy of protection. Black males were violated and black women exploited much the same way gay males are violated and lesbians exploited now.
Make no mistake, on the more personal level, these are things that blacks and gays share historically. The anxiety, stigma and exploitation IS the same. It’s just as then, white folks would never admit to it or be accountable. Same goes for the straight world and how they treat gay youth.
I don’t see “some whites” or “a few” or “most”; I see just plain “whites”, with no qualifiers whatsoever.
And “the straight world” speaks for itself.
I was pointing out that that institutionalized hate and discrimination DOES create a hopelessness and lower self esteem issues that HAVE put said minorities at disproportionate risk for self destructive behavior.
Or, more precisely, when you can engage in self-destructive behavior and blame it on other people for “making” you do it, you’re likely to continue.
It’s called “enabling”, and it’s awfully convenient.
Like Bonnie Bleskachek, don’t take responsibility for the fact that you sexually harassed people; blame it all on “homophobia and sexism”.
Like black children, harass those who succeed academically as “acting white”, or call them “oreos” — just like the constant claims here that I’m “not gay”.
And mind you, ignorance played a huge part in the incursion of HIV into these minority communities, precisely because information and access to reliable protection and medical care most often is lacking in quantity and quality in these respective communities.
Or, more precisely, it is in Planned Parenthood’s best financial interest that black women continue to use abortion or the Pill as the birth control of choice, inasmuch as both make much more money for them than condoms do.
Furthermore, Regan, you are completely ignoring the fact that gays are CHOOSING to have unprotected sex despite knowing about condoms, as shown here:
The numbers suggesting steady condom use among gay youth don?t harmonize with 23-year-old Kelvin Barlow?s experiences in Atlanta. ?A lot of my partners are not thinking about condoms,? said Barlow, who was diagnosed with HIV at age 17. ?I think I?m usually the first one to bring [condom use] up [in sexual situations]. Sometimes my partners know my status and sometimes they don?t ? they just want to jump in the bed.?
Barlow believes a combination of ignorance and emptiness led to his seroconversion. ?At that time I was the dumbest thing walking ? I thought I was invincible and could do whatever and not get ill,? said Barlow, who was 15 and dating a 35-year-old man. ?I thought I was in this relationship with this man who loved me, why do we need to wear condoms??
Obviously he knew full well what he was doing and was more than happy to do it — until he tested positive, at which point he started whining that he “didn’t know” and that it wasn’t his choice, but “emptiness” that caused him to not use condoms.
A whole generation of gays has grown up knowing that they will never be held accountable for their behavior and that they can blame society’s “oppression” for their bad choices — and, as it turns out, the disease rates are showing it.
You are simply pointing out these RESULTS, but you do not engage the causes.
Wrong.
What I am doing is engaging the fact that gays and lesbians sit around and whine about what “victims” they are and how that somehow justifies them having bareback sex with multiple people or shoving needles into their arms.
My answer is simple: grow up and take responsibility for your own life and your own choices.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Alrighty then, NDF…as I also said, that you conveniently glossed over for the sake of taking my words and generalizing them into an all or nothing argument, let’s also talk about those who accomplish a great deal, IN SPITE of determined institutions to discriminate. Let’s also talk about those who are accessing the courts, as is their right to work, live and socialize freely as they see fit, without justified bans and barriers to that end.
I am equally concerned with self destructive behavior, but you are not talking about the gays and lesbians who ARE grown up and are determined to REMAIN self determined by way of marriage and adopting which are institutions that enable maturity and security. It’s a fair complaint that the marriage laws, military bans and other discriminatory practices are the ones trying to use every lame excuse in the book to continue the practice.
Gays and lesbians who are brave and disciplined enough to serve in uniform or raise abandoned children as their own deserve no less enabling to do so as any other citizen.
You’re talking about addicts and those who are sexually irresponsible. That’s not a GAY issue, and you know it.
Sitting around and whining isn’t a gay issue either.
And this isn’t about bad choices regarding sex, and unwanted pregnancies and drug problems.
This is about those who ARE responsible having the freedom to equally pursue the choices that are meritorious and contribute to society.
All I said was, that institutionalized hate, and hopelessness actually puts ALL young people at risk.
But young gay people are at risk out of proportion to their peers.
A whole generation of all kinds of people are the ‘me’ generation. They are the boomers in the 35-60 age range. That’s not a gay issue either.
Discrimination DOES exist, and I’m acknowleging that it does and has proven to be unhealthy for previous minorities.
And taking responsibility for someone else’s hatred is impossible.
Don’t twist my words to mean something else and mangle the definition of this thread.
Marriage is something that would help gays and lesbians, period. And what people define as marriage now on the law books, are NOT what’s being argued in the public arena, nor is it gays and lesbians who are saying that they support any other kind of marriage OTHER than that between TWO, unrelated, unmarried people.
So what if you’re gay? So what? Not everyone’s experience is the same, nor will it affect them the same way.
You haven’t mentioned any struggles or issues that might have made you reconsider who you work and live and commune with on a daily basis. Don’t vilify anyone for a different experience than yours.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
I don’t ignore ANYTHING that’s going on in the real world. Unprotected sex isn’t a gay issue, it’s an issue PERIOD. But it’s bears mentioning which minorities suffer the most difficulty with the problem. And the reasons have a pattern. That’s all I’m saying.
But it bears acknowleging that in the annals of discrimination and institutionalized hate the pattern is clear.
Low expectations and the laws and attitudes of the majority to continue to treat or expect gay men and women to act and respond and live like children.
A similar attitude that was projected onto blacks and women. There IS a pattern, NDF.
Why do YOU ignore the fact? And those who RESIST this treatment, stand up for themselves and refuse to go along with that…are called whiners.
Or unjustified in their complaint.
You say YOUR answer is simple.
But what are you saying to those determined to treat gay people like children?
I already know what you like to say to other gay people…who do not hold the socio/political power enough to make the changes needed.
So what’s your other answer to when competence meets the discrimination then what?
Enough time has passed and gay folks have been patient enough for justice.
I don’t disagree with a person being mature and taking responsibility. But when they’ve DONE all that, and then some…then what?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And what people define as marriage now on the law books, are NOT what’s being argued in the public arena, nor is it gays and lesbians who are saying that they support any other kind of marriage OTHER than that between TWO, unrelated, unmarried people.
Again, Regan, I showed you here and here examples of gays and lesbians supporting several other kinds of marriage with such statements as this:
FWIW, I think that we should be working towards a more flexible civil family law that does allow for plurality.
And further down:
someone wants to marry 3 women, it’s none of my business as long as they all consent.
And from the first link, do you want to argue that its signatories and supporters, just to list a few, are not LGBT?
Karen O. Bachman
Co-Chair, Stonewall Democrats Transgender Caucus
Ricky Blum
Board of Directors, Queers for Economic Justice
Staff Attorney, Legal Aid Society
Member, Pride At Work
Ellen Carton
Former Executive Director, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
So what’s up with that, if no gays and lesbians are saying anything like in the Beyond Marriage or in Karen’s words?
But it’s bears mentioning which minorities suffer the most difficulty with the problem. And the reasons have a pattern. That’s all I’m saying.
Well, actually, they don’t when it comes to HIV.
American Indians, Pacific Islanders, and Asians have suffered discrimination as well, but their HIV rates are just slightly above or even lower than the rate for whites. Hispanics have suffered discrimination too, but their rate is a fraction of that of black Americans and gays. Women are on your list as having been discriminated against, but even in the highest-rate group, their rate is less than half that of males, and in the other groups, even lower.
Further slicing the numbers makes a few things obvious; one, all minorities except blacks have LOWER numbers of infections than whites, and two, that the majority of cases annually come from gay men, aka men who have sex with men.
So if it’s discrimination against minorities that causes the problems, why don’t we see it in other minorities?
But what are you saying to those determined to treat gay people like children?
Very simple: who cares?
I don’t need a piece of legal paper to form a lasting relationship.
There is no reason for me to adopt a child.
If I feel the need to go into the armed forces, I fully accept that, in order for other people to be most comfortable, my sexual orientation cannot be brought up.
If someone wants to discriminate against me at work, that’s their problem; there are more than enough recruitment calls I turn down on a regular basis that make it clear that there are numerous other companies out there who value my education and experience far more than my sexual orientation.
And despite all of this, I have never felt the need to have promiscuous unprotected sex or use drugs, nor do I feel the need to wallow about and whine about all the things I “can’t do”. I value my life and my career far too much to throw it away on such cheap pleasures, and there are far more productive things I CAN be doing.
posted by Pat on
She made it clear that straight people force gays and lesbians to have promiscuous unprotected sex and spread HIV.
No. That was your own incorrect inference. So I stand by my original statement.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
NDF…so what if you came up with a FEW examples of gay people who believe in OTHER kinds of marriage? They are not a majority of gays and lesbians who feel that way and few know who they are.
And again, you twisted what I said to fit another argument I wasn’t making. MY point has been that women and blacks and gays HAVE been treated like children in the law.
I didn’t necessarily make the connection between THAT and HIV rates in women.
I was pointing out a historical fact in it’s own context and certainly not necessarily with current mores in general. YOU are doing that.
And Pat is right, I never did say any such thing that straight people FORCE gay people to have unprotected sex.
I pointed out the correlation between the typical devaluing of gay life as having historical commonality with the devaluing of black lives IN THE PAST.
And it’s THAT devaluation that puts young gay people AT RISK of self destructive behaviors. If they in fact eventually engage in self destructive behaviors, there are usually legitimate connections between that and early mental and emotional abuse for being gay.
I was pointing out the connection.
So WHAT if YOU don’t have the same feelings, experiences and responses that OTHER gay people might or would have?
If you’re unsympathetic, so what? That’s obvious that you are not. And if you don’t care about getting married and don’t need a piece of paper to validate your relationship or don’t care about adopting children, so WHAT?
The point isn’t that YOU don’t want to, the point is having the choice to or not.
And you didn’t address the more important aspects of my questions. Which was, after gay people have proven to be a compassionate, intelligent and talented population, WHY NOT be respected and included as a full citizen as such qualities warrant it?
Being gay is different from being black, as being Jew is different from being female.
But at the end of the day, it’s a difference that doesn’t warrant the hostility, prejudice, violence, fear, ignorance, distrust and discrimination.
Unless you agree with that being gay does. I don’t know what to say to you or such a low opinion of gay people coming from a gay person.
I’ve encountered blacks who have hated other blacks and felt shamed by the issues that plague black people.
If that’s you. Why don’t you just admit it? Instead of vilifying those of us who defend gay people and understand the historical context of what it means to be devalued as a gay person and there is little instruction out there on how to resist and overcome such devaluation.
If you can, goody for you. So what do you do to help the others having a little more trouble doing so while they are young?
posted by Regan DuCasse on
BTW…PI’s, Native Americans and Asian have lower rates because of less sexual partners and less sexual encounters in comparison to other populations.
They also tend to be more closeted and more connected to their families of origin who don’t encourage them to go about gay relationships in the same way a white or black person disconnected from their families would.
I understand the context of such a thing very well. And one’s family will have the greatest impact on one’s success with overcoming difficult issues.
Gay young people, are NOT instructed the way they need to be to overcome being devalued. It depends largely on their family, cultural identity and religious affiliation and those influences and whether they are negative or positive.
Native Americans have higher incidences of alcoholism and it’s attendant problems. So yes, although NA’s may have lower HIV rates, they have higher alcohol addiction problems.
Disrimination and isolation made manifest in a different way, but no less devastating to a devalued population.
I used to know a young boy who hated being a Jew. But he’d been raised in Soviet Russia. Where Jews are devalued and isolated and kept from practicing their culture and religious life. And even though this kid was a recent immigrant with far more freedom and access to be Jewish, it was going to take some re-education to make him reconnect, identify and enjoy his cultural and religious identity.
Your disdain and snobbery is evident NDF.
It’s actually quite pathetic that you’re more invested in insults than guiding a gay young person along to understand his rights and to foster hope for equal rights.
I suppose you’d rather call it whining when that youngster engages a serious passion for not backing down or being silent and engaging his peers and family in supporting him.
If you’re so wonderful and have all you want, then why not join in securing the futures of gay children in this country?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If you’re so wonderful and have all you want, then why not join in securing the futures of gay children in this country?
I have and do.
Point is the ideal program, in my opinion; it provides opportunity and support for those who don’t have it, and it holds them accountable. But it’s not very well-known in the gay community, and I believe that is because it doesn’t wallow in the past and use history as an excuse for current problems and failings, nor does it allow its kids to do it. It doesn’t make excuses for bad behavior, nor does it whine about how it’s OK to do drugs or have unprotected sex because society “devalues” you or because of “historical” discrimination.
In short, it’s not a gay activist organization. It’s an organization that helps gay people develop and succeed regardless of their political or ideological views.
Anathema to most gays, I know. Why, the Point Foundation even accepts Republicans.
Gay young people, are NOT instructed the way they need to be to overcome being devalued. It depends largely on their family, cultural identity and religious affiliation and those influences and whether they are negative or positive.
Technically right, but lacking in detail.
Everyone can find a reason as to why they’re “devalued” — their looks, their way of speaking, their education, and whatnot.
It all depends on whether you have a family that teaches you to focus on what you don’t have — or one that teaches you to be grateful for, value, and develop to the maximum that which you do have.
The ironic thing to me is that you, for all your talk of being “supportive”, you really aren’t very supportive at all — unless the person agrees with you fully. I sometimes wonder if the reason so many gays are political leftists and antireligious bigots is because those who aren’t are relentlessly browbeaten, told they “hate gay people”, and accused of “supporting murder, polygamy, and pedophilia” for being a Christian. For a young teenager, that has to be stressful; in order to be gay and be accepted, you have to give up everything with which you grew up, repudiate your family as bigots, and go into a culture where those who advocate any sort of sexual responsibility are called “repressed” and “prudes”.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
I said “Of course you lie again because you couldn’t oppose what I’m saying without lying.
Northdallass replied “Or you’re simply making that accusation because you were caught blaming straight white people for all the problems of gays and lesbians.”.
That’s pathetic Northdallass, trying to cover up a lie with another lie. I never blamed straight white people for all the problems of LGBTS, I said they were responsible for some of them.
Northdallass said “Unlike black and gay people, though, straight white people have never had the luxury of being able to blame society’s “oppression” for drug use or promiscuous sex and spreading disease”
Straight white people have never suffered oppression so they haven’t experienced the social breakdown that it causes – duh.
Northdallass said “So Randi, tell us what your “damn good reason” is to oppose and ban plural marriage”.
I’ve already explained that to you, moron. Its because when men take multiple wives it creates a shortage of women for other men. Its because with a 50% divorce rate its clear its difficult enough to balance the needs and desires of two people in a relationship without adding three or more. Its because polygamy has long reputation of oppressing women and forcing them into underage marriages. You disagree with those reasons for opposing polygamy I suggest you go and lobby to have the law changed to suit your perverted desires.
Northdallass said “What you daily demonstrate, Randi, is that being gay is incompatible with being religious, being a Christian, or putting any value on the Bible whatsoever”.
I’m not gay you moron, I’m bisexual. And its laughable how in one breath you mention gay Christians like “Jos, Gene Robinson, Soulforce, and every other gay group”, and in the next breath say they don’t exist. The idea that I prove being LGBT is incompatible with being religious and that they don’t prove that those two are compatible is absurd – of course “absurd” is your middle name (or is it “liar”). Yeah, that’s it, Northdallass Absurd Liar Forty.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Regan said “If you’re so wonderful and have all you want, then why not join in securing the futures of gay children in this country?
Northdallass said “I have and do.”.
You pathetic liar. You attack, demean, deamonize, and lie about gays day in and day out and then you want to pretend that a couple of rare incidents of you suggesting people donate to this organization makes up for it. Puhleeze. You do everything you can to increase societal hatred and oppression of gays, you are the enemy of LGBTS.
Northdallass said “it doesn’t wallow in the past and use history as an excuse for current problems and failings”.
Would that the oppression of people like you were history, unfortunately its not. Half of Americans think gay relationships are wrong, large percentages of Americans work to prevent gays from having stable relationships and marriages, to fire gays from their jobs, evict them from their homes, allow bullying against gay school childen, and to prevent gay students from forming support groups. And to scum like you anyone pointing out this oppression is “whining”. You’re a privileged white heterosexual – you are in no position to be criticizing gays, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said ” I sometimes wonder if the reason so many gays are political leftists and antireligious bigots is because those who aren’t are relentlessly browbeaten, told they “hate gay people”, and accused of “supporting murder, polygamy, and pedophilia” for being a Christian.”
You stated your support for pedophilia, polygamy, and incest loud and clear. When I opposed those things you attacked me saying that I was discrminiting against those people and that it was unconstitutional to prevent incestous, polygamous, and under age marriages.
As to murder you promote the bible as the unquestioned guide to morality and it calls for gays to be put to death – case closed.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What’s really funny, Randi, is that you insist you don’t blame the problems of blacks, gays and lesbians on straight white people….but then claim that the reason blacks, gays, and lesbians have promiscuous sex, spread disease, and use drugs is “social breakdown” caused by “oppression”.
Straight white people have never suffered oppression so they haven’t experienced the social breakdown that it causes – duh.
Along those lines:
You disagree with those reasons for opposing polygamy I suggest you go and lobby to have the law changed to suit your perverted desires.
I’ve already said I don’t support polygamy.
What I’m going to demonstrate, though, is how LGBTs like you blast other people for supporting it even when they make it clear that they don’t, yet say absolutely nothing when your fellow LGBTs do.
The person who wants the law changed here is Karen.
FWIW, I think that we should be working towards a more flexible civil family law that does allow for plurality.
And further down:
someone wants to marry 3 women, it’s none of my business as long as they all consent.
And what have you said about Karen? Hint: it’s not condemning her for her “perverted desires”.
You’re a good person.
See that? Randi says anyone who supports polygamy and wants to change laws to allow polygamy is “perverted”, but says that LGBTs who want to do it are “good persons”.
Again, it’s typical; the LGBT Randi, rather than acknowledge bad choices on the part of gays and lesbians and blacks, blames “oppression” for gays, lesbians, and blacks using drugs, having promiscuous and unprotected sex, and spreading disease.
And the amusing example is that Randi screams that Christians support “murder, polygamy, and pedophilia”, and yet can’t find it in her heart to blast gays like Soulforce, “Bishop” Gene Robinson, and Jos who claim to be Christian.
Which I think is an indicator that these individuals aren’t really Christians — unless, of course, Randi is following a hypocritical double standard.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You’re a privileged white heterosexual – you are in no position to be criticizing gays, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Thank you for so nicely demonstrating my point.
I’m not surprised that you have to deny my gayness, Randi, because it does break all the rules; I have a job and career I enjoy, a stable relationship, a beautiful house, and my religious faith.
All of which you insist I can’t possibly have because everyone hates gays; therefore, any person who is successful must not be. It’s the LGBT version of blacks claiming that successful black people are not “black enough” or are “oreos” and “Uncle Toms” who “act white”.
You have nothing to offer gay children except endless diatribes about how awful life is and how everyone hates them, and that Christians, white people, and successful people are to blame for their choice to use drugs, have promiscuous unprotected sex, and spread HIV.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “What’s really funny, Randi, is that you insist you don’t blame the problems of blacks, gays and lesbians on straight white people….but then claim that the reason blacks, gays, and lesbians have promiscuous sex, spread disease, and use drugs is “social breakdown” caused by “oppression”.
No, once again you lie. What I said is that some of the problems of blacks and LGBTS are caused by whites. It is you who lied and claimed I said all blacks and LGBT problems are caused by whites – I said no such thing. I’ve repeatedly made that clear and you’ve repeatedly played the fool by pretending some equals all. By all means continue to discredit yourself with the same old lie.
Northdallass said “I’ve already said I don’t support polygamy.”.
And you lie again. In this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31277.html?success=1#comments
When I opposed underage marriages, polygamy, and incest you jumped all over me at June 19, 2007, 4:02pm saying
“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”.
I never claimed Karen was perfect but she’s clearly a good person as opposed to you. I never saw her defending pedophilia and incest whereas you have. Karen doesn’t devote her life to demonizing and lying about others – you do. You are despicable, hidieous and evil.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “I have a job and career I enjoy, a stable relationship, a beautiful house, and my religious faith. All of which you insist I can’t possibly have because everyone hates gays; therefore, any person who is successful must not be.”.
You’re insane – I never said any such thing. Once again you lie because you can’t oppose what I actually do say otherwise. What makes it clear you’re not gay is your unmitigated hatred of gays and the fact that you claim to be gay rather than “exgay”. The only gays who hate gays as much as you reject their sexuality, claim to be “exgay” and that they’ve found “freedom” from homosexuality. No gay who hates gays as much as you acutally claims to be gay. Clearly thats just another one of your long, long list of lies.
Northdallass said “You have nothing to offer gay children except endless diatribes about how awful life is and how everyone hates them, and that Christians, white people, and successful people are to blame for their choice to use drugs, have promiscuous unprotected sex, and spread HIV.”.
LOL, this coming from someone who tells gay children “most gays are deviant”; “gays are vicious, evil, and hateful”, “gays are all promiscuous diseased drug users”, “gays attack heterosexuals” and so on. You do everything you can to assure gay children are looked down upon and give bigots lies to justify their discrimination. You do everything you can to ensure gays are hated and despised and you ask people to think I’m the bitch for pointing out that discrimination is wrong and harmful to LGBTs – that’s rich. You’re deluded and demented, taking delight in attacking others. The world most assuredly will be a better place once you’re gone.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never claimed Karen was perfect but she’s clearly a good person as opposed to you.
Just as I stated.
See that? Randi says anyone who supports polygamy and wants to change laws to allow polygamy is “perverted”, but says that LGBTs who want to do it are “good persons”.
Meanwhile, Randi, the games that you play in terms of manipulating and misquoting evidence to fit your predetermined conclusions and bash others while ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit have been identified and called out by even folks who are the exact ideological opposite of myself, so I’m not wasting any more time on it.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
No, what I specifically was saying Northdallass is that your defense of pedophilia shows what a pervert you are.
Northdallass said “the games that you play in terms of manipulating and misquoting evidence”.
LOL, this from the guy who repeatedly insisted I said all problems of LGBTS and blacks are caused by straight whites when what I clearly said was some of the problems of LGBTs and blacks are caused by whites. By the way, Northdallass, in what way are the folks at BTB your “exact ideological opposite”? In that they are not the enemies of gays? You once claimed not to be the enemy of gays, are you retracting that now and admitting the (obvious) truth? As far as BTB is concerned, they obviously weren’t confident in their arguments as they refused to let me further address the issue and banned further posts by me.
Recent research refutes Northdallass’s claim that “most gays are deviant” and that all gays are promiscuous:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012201742.html
“Same-sex couples are as committed and happy in their romantic relationships as heterosexual couples, find two studies in the January issue of the journalDevelopmental Psychology.”
“Regardless of civil union status, same-sex couples were more satisfied with their relationships, reported more positive feelings toward their partners, and reported less conflict than married heterosexual couples.”.
And contradicting Northdallass’s absurd claim that discrimination doesn’t cause problems for gays:
“The researchers did find that same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to end their relationships than same-sex couples in civil unions or married heterosexual couples. This suggests that protections offered by a legalized relationship may have an impact on same-sex couples, said the researchers, who plan to examine that question in future research.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You forgot one line:
The three-year study found that same-sex couples were similar to heterosexual couples in most relationship areas and that legal status didn’t seem to be the overriding factor affecting same-sex relationships.
So in other words, your arguments that gays and lesbians need marriage to have stable and lasting relationships are refuted by this study.
And as for your last statement, that’s no surprise; had that study included unmarried heterosexual couples as others have, it would have found that they are more likely to end their relationship than are married people.
Simple answer why: ending a marriage requires a divorce and carries a legal penalty. In the case of a Vermont civil union, ending it requires at least one of the parties to reside in Vermont for a full year prior to having the union dissolved — difficult if you are, like the vast majority of people who have a Vermont civil union, not living in Vermont.
In short, you’re comparing relationships that have only an emotional penalty for ending with relationships that carry stiff financial penalties and legal requirements for ending. It should be no surprise that the latter tend to last longer; cell phone contracts with cancellation penalties tend to be cancelled less than those without, too.
As far as BTB is concerned, they obviously weren’t confident in their arguments as they refused to let me further address the issue and banned further posts by me.
Knowing Jim Burroway, I seriously doubt that was the problem.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
NDF, I fully support the Point Foundation. I understand that what they do is provide support in education and other funding to further a gay person’s social ambitions. It is non sectarian. And it is NOT anathema to the basic ideologies many gays and lesbians hold. If you promote Point, or help with scholarships, what is anathema is your unsympathetic attitude as if ALL young gay people are privy to Point support.
I’ve personally met many youngsters who have overcome adversity and become Point recipients. These are tremendous young people.
I tend to work with youth on a different level. Steering them from the destructive decisions they, nor any other young person can make.
But don’t lie and behave as if Point isn’t supported because it doesn’t care regarding ideology or politics.
The gay folks who are aware of it, cheer the motives of the Point Foundation. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any OTHER funds available for it, now would there be?
posted by Craig2 on
I fail to see how fiscal conservative attacks on vulnerable families and solo mothers and their children constitute the “defence of marriage.”
Rather, such mean-spirited anti-welfarism contributes to homelessness, family disintegration, increased chances of youth suicide and substance abuse, youth criminality and other damaging social consequences.
Egalitarian marital and spousal relationships are the best context for bringing up children,
if one is able to undertake the responsibility to do so. However, some solo mothers have good reasons to ditch their drug running, criminal and abusive
transient impregnators, so as not to expose any male children to these less than inspiring feral males.
Incidentally, Coontz isn’t a libertarian- although kudos to the Cato Institute for publishing her work.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Karen on
ND30,
I’ve been too busy in the past few days to respond to your attacks, but let me get a quick one in:
I fully agree with the points brought up about plural marriage and its problems. In a perfect world, the men who take multiple wives would be balanced out by women who take multiple husbands; alas, this is not a perfect world. Therefore I am not, nor have I ever been, advocating what most people now think of as “plural marriage”.
I do think that family law ought to be maximally flexible, yes, and allow people to set up whatever works for them in terms of kinship. There are complications when it comes to poly relationships, but it could theoretically be done, and I DON’T see any moral imperative to keep consenting adults from doing so at all costs. I don’t think polyamorous relationships are inherently evil, as you apparently do. But desiring that we be “working towards more flexible family law” is not the same thing as “advocating plural marriage”. There are many things that can (and perhaps should) be decoupled from the other accoutrements of marriage and be made accessible in a more modular, flexible fashion. Your complete inability (or unwillingness) to grasp nuances of language is showing again.
Nevertheless, the important point is this: the government can constitutionally make distinctions between married and unmarried citizens. (If it couldn’t, civil marriage would be legally meaningless.) Marital status is not a characteristic protected by equal protection/suspect class jurisprudence. Sex is. The government cannot constitutionally make distinctions between male and female citizens unless absolutely necessary.
Constitutionally, it is perfectly acceptable for the legal validity of my marriage to be predicated on whether I am already validly married or not. It is not constitutionally acceptable for it to be predicated on what sex I am.
It does not matter that there are citizens that I, being female, would be allowed to marry. What matters is that my femaleness is a factor in the first place.
posted by Karen on
As a quick example:
I am able to freely and easily customize the beneficiaries of my retirement account. I can choose a single beneficiary, equal co-beneficiaries, or unequal co-beneficiaries, a succession of possible beneficiaries, etc. Why does the tax treatment when I die and my beneficiaries inherit differ according to whether I was legally married to that beneficiary or not?
Why can’t we have marriage mean automatic beneficiary status in the absence of other plans, but nothing else? Why can’t my partner – or partners – roll their share of the IRA into their own without penalties, but my spouse can?
This is the sort of flexible family law that I am referring to. A far cry from plural marriage, eh? And certainly not the same thing as claiming that I have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to plural marriage.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “You forgot one line:
“The three-year study found that same-sex couples were similar to heterosexual couples in most relationship areas and that legal status didn’t seem to be the overriding factor affecting same-sex relationships.”
So in other words, your arguments that gays and lesbians need marriage to have stable and lasting relationships are refuted by this study.”.
And you forgot the line that immediately followed that:
“The researchers did find that same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to end their relationships than same-sex couples in civil unions or married heterosexual couples. This suggests that protections offered by a legalized relationship may have an impact on same-sex couples, said the researchers, who plan to examine that question in future research.”
And Northdallass, let’s hear in what way you are Box Turtle Bulletins “exact ideological opposite”. You hate gays and they don’t? You promote the hatred of gays and they don’t? Your goal is to oppress gays and their’s isn’t?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why does the tax treatment when I die and my beneficiaries inherit differ according to whether I was legally married to that beneficiary or not?
Because of the way your benefit plan was written.
The Pension Protection Act of 2006, as passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by President Bush, allows the following:
Beneficiaries other than a spouse named on 401(k) plan documents can roll the plan funds they inherit directly to their own IRA. Prior to the change, nonspouse beneficiaries had to receive the 401(k) funds in whatever manner the plan documents prescribed, usually a lump sum distribution, creating an immediate state and federal tax burden and potentially pushing the beneficiary into a higher income tax bracket. Nonspouse beneficiaries also can be included in those for whom hardship withdrawals qualify, giving families more resources in the event of a medical or other emergency.
But if your benefit plan’s not been updated to reflect that, you can’t do it.
I have no quibbles with doing this at all; indeed, I was one of the people who lobbied for the Pension Protection Act. And frankly, it’s an intelligent way of doing things; for example, making healthcare proxies easier to get and more binding is far simpler and has far greater broad-based support than does gay marriage.
But the problem is that gay activists are not fighting for benefits and protections for relationships; they are fighting an ideological war, and they are willing to even leave gay families in the lurch rather than move one inch.
Case in point, and the ideologues lost.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Let’s hear it Northdallass, how exactly are you Box Turtle Bulletins “exact ideological opposite”?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
As is typically the case, and contrary to Northdallass’s lies, once again Democrats are supporting a gay friendly measure while Republicans oppose it:
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/01/012208part.htm
Washington state Democrats are proposing expanding the state domestic partnership law.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
ND30, actually, here’s the legal leg that gay people DO have to stand on regarding marriage. And polygamy and whatever OTHER suggestions, don’t.
I dont’ know how many times it has to be said, BUT, the modern legal basics are as follows to marry.
1. Being the minimum age of consent.
2. Being currently unmarried.
3. Being of consent to the marriage.
4. Not already closely related.
Most state and federal laws respect the close blood relation. Important inheritance, medical decisions and other conditions of custody can fall to kin already.
Hence, why long time gay couples got trumped by relatives when it came to those situations.
Where it matters, siblings and other relatives have no need to marry. Nor is there any strong political/socio wave of people who WANT to.
Polygamy is multiple WIVES, not exactly multiple SPOUSES. Again, there is no strong call for this.
But for the sake of argument, when it comes to PRIMACY in the relationship, well…who has it? This requires that the relationships themselves are not egalitarian and are definitively confusing when it comes to inheritance and custody.
The only polygamous societies in America are RELIGIOUS. It requires that one man have many wives, but it puts OTHER men at risk of having NO wife at all. This is unfair, unworkable and has proven to be abusive.
The closest thing our society has to multiple legal spouses in serial divorce and remarriage, and it makes a mess doesn’t it?
Unworkable. Unfair.
The question boils down to exclusive discrimination against persons WHO ARE GAY.
Not those who are married or closely related.
This isn’t about ANY two men or women, but specifically a GAY couple who are involved romantically.
Their lives fall within the basic four laws for marriage NOW and don’t change them.
Being gay is a human condition of DIFFERENCE, not STATUS as marriage laws mostly discriminate for.
Marriage laws do not discriminate based on one’s human condition, nor should they.
So that’s why the tiresome and stupid polygamy or whatever argument is stupid and has NO MERIT, whatsoever.
The conjecture around this issue is beyond unfounded and has nothing to do with being gay.
Indeed, ND30, gay people are blamed for divorce rates, the falling marriage rates in socialist countries. Instead of the socialism itself. And gay people are blamed for every other issue as if it’s exclusive to gay people.
I am a married woman no matter WHERE I am in the entire world.
The impossible and patchwork laws created to spite (yes spite) gay people are what really diminish the governmental benefits of marriage.
And I say spite, because despite all the ‘saving marriage’ labels all the new laws have. Marriages and marriages are still failing at the usual rate.
And most of all, it bits that a thrice divorced man, and an adulterer could respectively write and sign a document called ‘The Defense of Marriage Act.’
Hypocrisy and unsafe marriage material ON THE HOOF.
posted by Hank on
I found this site several years ago, and was immediately interested. I had the same feelings as many others – thoroughly gay, but as Ashpenaz often says, that is just part of my life – and I was uncomfortable with the overwhelming political association of gay leaders with some radical leftist goals. So I loved this site.
However, at least in the comments sections, I think it has run aground. For comparison, sometime check out another gay site – http://www.exgaywatch.com. Generally conservative or libertarian, unashamedly Christian, and thoroughly gay. Why is it better than this site? Because the forums are monitored. Occasionally a troll will pop up, but he or she is quickly taken to task, and required to post respectfully. If he can’t do that he gets banned.
Contrast that with this site. The troll here is clearly not gay – not based on his beliefs, but simply his use of pronouns. Watch his language carefully, you’ll find he slips once in awhile and uses words like “you” instead of “us”.
He loudly proclaims his Christianity, yet one of the first things that Jesus taught was that we were not to judge others. Contrast Jesus’ words with the troll’s condemnation of Christian leaders like Bishop Robinson who lead lives different than he would wish. Does that mean the troll is lying when he talks of his Christian beliefs? I would not go that far, but the Bible clearly teaches that one of the ways you will be able to recognize Christians is by their obvious love for their fellow man.
He speaks about his own success and happiness. Yet from reading his posts, that’s clearly untrue. Is there anyone else on these forums who pores over past writings like he does, then triumphantly posts his “gotcha” comments? Not exactly consistent with a happy life – instead, a compulsive recluse, sitting at his computer all day.
His language is foul, and worst of all, he exhibits a total lack of respect for others who have the temerity to disagree with him.
I’m not going to pick up my marbles and go home, although over the last year or so I’ve seen several very intelligent people do that, after their time being picked apart. I do, however, sincerely wish that some owner of this site would monitor these forums, and at least demand that posters respect each other. I can get all the disrespect I need in the straight world – why come here and get abused?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Most state and federal laws respect the close blood relation. Important inheritance, medical decisions and other conditions of custody can fall to kin already.
Hence, why long time gay couples got trumped by relatives when it came to those situations.
Especially when those long time gay couples somehow forgot to get things like wills, healthcare proxies, and financial powers of attorney, ALL of which trump “relatives”.
Example: the gay media initially had a field day over the Russell Grof case, in which the parents of a deceased gay man tried to basically steal his body from his partner, whining about how this would never happen if they could get married.
Of course, they lost interest after his partner won, which any first-year law student could tell you would happen; properly-executed and established wills ALWAYS trump defaults like kin bonds.
(Except those who were dumb enough to argue that marriage prevents you from being sued and dragged through legal battles by your spouse’s parents — who can be answered by two words: Terri Schiavo).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The troll here is clearly not gay – not based on his beliefs, but simply his use of pronouns.
What amuses me, Hank, is that no matter how you try to will me otherwise for whatever reason, I AM gay.
Furthermore, your saying you’re against my “foul language” means very little when this sort of thing is uttered without a peep from you:
Your Jesus character eternally tortures innoncent babies because they supposedly inherited the sin of Adam.
Not only have you failed to condemn this abomination, you’ve praised it and identified this as your perfect role model. No gay has every done anything to remotely compare with the evil you worship. You yourself have defended pedophilia so don’t give us this feigned outrage over supposed wrongdoings by gays.
Picton murdered 50 women because he followed the commandments of your bible. Condemn this evil book now or fail to and make it clear you support the evils of the Christians portrayed in it.
Finally, using your interpretation of “not judging others”, that would mean that Jesus would say or do nothing about people who molest children or have sex with underage teens and give them HIV.
In short, you’re rationalizing — I suspect, because putting up those reasons is better than simply screaming that you want me banned because you don’t like me or what I have to say.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “I AM gay.”.
Not bloody likely. Coming from a nortorious liar your assurances mean nothing. You also insisted “most gays ARE deviants”. Fact is any gay who hates gays as much as you do doesn’t call themselves gay, they call themselves “exgay” because they reject their being because they hate it so much. You are obviously straight.
Hank is right – youre a compulsive recluse consummed with hate sitting at your computer all day wasting your life attacking innocent people instead of trying to do good in the world. The world will be a much better place once you’re gone.
And further demonstrating your desire to attack gay and hide the evil of straight Christians you NEVER voluntarily point out the omnipresent examples of straight and Christin wrongdoings like these:
A retired baptist minister aids and abets prostituion
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2370
An HIV positive man knowingly infects women and girls
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n26_v93/ai_20028177
If it weren’t for me bringing attention to these stories you’d just sweep them under the rug, you repeat the same tired isolated examples of gay wrongdoings but are willfully blind to the far more common examples of straight wrongdoings.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And Northdallass, we’re still waiting to hear in what way you’re the “exact ideological opposite” of the folks at Box Turtle Bulletin – what are you afraid to admit your ideology is to indiscriminately attack gays and their’s isn’t?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again, Randi, your words demonstrate the hollowness of Hank’s complaints, especially given that he says nothing about your language or your commenting.
Which is ironic, considering that he must know you’ve been banned from sites he cites like Ex-Gay Watch, as well as from Box Turtle Bulletin, for being a troll.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
No, Northdallass, Hank has you nailed to a “t” and you know it. Your life is so empty and worthless you have nothing to do but try desperately to extract whatever miniscule pleasure you get out of attacking others who’ve done you no harm.
Ex-gaywatch banned me because they don’t tolerate dissenting opinions on religon. Box Turtle bulletin has not banned me although they did prevent me from responding to the one post when they weren’t confident in their ability to argue against me.
I’m sure Hank would have some criticisms of me if it weren’t for the fact that any actions of mine he might perceive as wrongs are miniscule in comparison to the evil you purvey day in and day out, such as your notorious lying and dishonestly asserting that annecdotes of gay wrong-doing are representative of the entire community. Stop lying for a change and making claims about the character of the LGBT community without randomly selected and statistically significant surveys to back you up and people will stop seeing you for the evil hateful pervert you are.
If you’re the “exact ideological opposite” of the folks at Box Turtle Bulletin your suggestion that they wouldn’t do anything wrong in their treatment of me is entirely hollow. Once again, if you’re not a coward, let’s here you explain in what way you’re “exact ideological opposites” – what are you afraid of?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, Randi demonstrates how, according to her, she never does anything wrong; it’s only those mean, unfair, awful people at Ex-Gay Watch and Box Turtle Bulletin who are out to get her.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
You lie. I never claimed I never do anything wrong. And by the way, your assertion that “hank must know you’ve been banned from exgaywatch” is absurd. Exgaywatch never informed their readers they had banned me. In fact quite the opposite. Timothy Kinkaid emphasized how “no one hit you with a stick” for expressing my opinions and then a few posts later they banned me without telling their readers, failing to show the transparency they critiicized others for failing to do.
And Northdallas, we’re still waiting – in what way are you and Box Turtle Bulletin “exact ideological opposites”? Are you realizing you shouldn’t have let that fact slip and you’re too ashamed to spell it out?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Exgaywatch never informed their readers they had banned me.
Mhm.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Exactly as I said, exgaywatch never informed their readers tehy banned me.