Should gay marriage be a priority for President Obama? Given the gravity of the economy, our military adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan, instability in Pakistan and both North and South Korea, the continuing threat of terrorism across the globe, and not to forget health care reform, should we expect the President to focus on gay marriage or repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell?
The obvious answer to that is No -- or at least not yet. He has other things that are more important to the American people. That is the opinion of Nancy Pelosi and Rick Warren.
So it's easy to have some sympathy for Robert Gibbs when
reporters press him on gay issues, as
Jake Tapper did yesterday.
But here's the thing: most Americans don't need to prioritize gay
marriage because they're part of the 97% or so who don't have to
worry about it. Of course other things should take precedence for
them.
Those of us who are homosexual, though, not only have to worry about the way the law actively discriminates against us, we have to live with that discrimination. Every day of our lives. Yes, we are affected by the economy. Yes, we worry about terrorism. Yes, health care is an every day issue.
There are very few, if any ways in which the law positively demands discrimination today. But that is what DOMA and DADT do - make discrimination against homosexuals an enforceable part of what the government does in its normal course of business.
The equal protection clause of the constitution is designed expressly to address this kind of problem - when a majority doesn't need to worry about legal discrimination (since it doesn't affect them) and can turn their focus to other matters. When a minority is particularly small, it is a severe burden to constantly have to fight for the attention that is necessary in a multifarious and noisy democracy.
But when, as in so many states, the voters actually exclude that minority from equal protection, sometimes in the state constitution itself, there is nothing but politics left for the minority - and that means sounding selfish and annoying, which can, itself, then further alienate the majority.
This is the America lesbians and gay men now face. We understand, and are part of the problems that all other Americans face and that the President has to address. But as Americans ourselves, we have expectations that are unique. Unlike the vast majority, the law - the law - intentionally and explicitly excludes us. We cannot not fight for our own equality. And if that makes us seem pushy and bothersome, we won't apologize. This has to be our priority, 24/7.
So when heterosexuals like Tapper are willing to be annoying on our behalf (and, to be fair, that is one of the occupational hazards of being a good journalist) we owe them some gratitude. Our goal is to not have to be annoying any more, but that means getting enough of the majority to join us in the project of change (which is, itself, pretty annoying) in order to remove the huge annoyance that affects so much of our lives now.
105 Comments for “In Praise of Jake Tapper”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But when, as in so many states, the voters actually exclude that minority from equal protection
Of what or from what?
Marriage is neither mandated or guaranteed. Military service is neither mandated or guaranteed. Both are things made available, subject to a set of requirements and conditions, that the government chooses to encourage because they’re good for society as a whole.
Frankly, Link, nobody cares because heterosexuals, having had marriage for as long as they have, realize that it’s not the panacea that the gay community insists that it will be. The lack of marriage has become a convenient excuse for the gay community to blame all of its problems upon, not a particular end. That much is obvious when you see the leaders of the gay community who are screaming the loudest about the “need” for marriage openly downplaying its value and mocking it as a “patriarchal” institution — or supporting patently-antimilitary causes like the anti-JROTC movement here in San Francisco.
You want real progress for gay people? Turn the same screaming and shaming that you did to people who make political contributions that you don’t like on gays who knowingly have disease-spreading promiscuous sex. Picket the houses of gays like Dan Savage who extol the virtues of three-ways and claim that monogamy is “hurtful”. Go on TV and call the gays who dress children as sex slaves and take them to sex fairs to “show off” the same “dumb bitches” and “cunts” that you’re using on Carrie Prejean. Take the tens of millions of dollars that you blew on annoying advertisements and ugly signs and give it to people who have trouble paying for their HIV meds, or need to pay a lawyer to draw up wills.
There is plenty of capability to make proactive change. You just have to decide whether it’s more important to antagonize and namecall the voting public who don’t agree with you instead.
posted by BobN on
“here in San Francisco”
Here?
posted by Phyllis Wilson on
Oh, so now I finally understand what all the fuss is about. Heterosexuals are protecting the sanctity of marriage because only heterosexuals understand how irrelevant marriage really is. Thanks for clearing that up Dallas.
posted by Observer on
North Dallas Thirty, above, is making essentially the same arguments we heard from the whites in Mississippi back in the day when we were campaigning for voting rights for Mississippi black people.
Of course there is no logical argument in either case, so what we’re left with is name calling and diversion and, when all that fails, the ever present “we have the power so shut up.” If that’s an argument.
I’m straight, by the way. So I don’t have a horse in this race. I’m white, too, but that doesn’t mean I thought it was OK to exclude blacks from the vote.
posted by Mark on
you wrote: “most Americans don?t need to prioritize gay marriage because they?re part of the 97% or so who don?t have to worry about it…Those of us who are homosexual, though, not only have to worry about the way the law actively discriminates against us, we have to live with that discrimination.”
So tell me then, why so many gay men vote Republican?
“Turn the same screaming and shaming that you did to people who make political contributions that you don’t like on gays who knowingly have disease-spreading promiscuous sex.”
Again, gay men voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin is record numbers. The answer here is not to attack Dan Savage!
You need to understand why gay men would choose to vote for a party that would not only deny health care and education to children and reproductive rights to women, but has also opposed gay marriage at the state level in every single state where it has been on the ballot or decided in the legislature.
posted by Chris on
Yeah, Dallas — it is of course common knowledge that straight people have never, ever, ever had “disease-spreading promiscuous sex,” “three ways,” or “dress children as sex slaves.” Likewise, straight people have never blew “tens of millions of dollars….on annoying advertisements” or paid lawyers to draw up wills… Who would pay a lawyer to draw a will?!?!? So shame on you gays!
posted by G. on
Dallas,
Yes there are gay people who act irresponsibily and shamefully – just like there are straight people who do.
Many gay people condemn other gays who act irresponsibily.
However, I am not responsible for other people’s behavior – anymore than a black person is responsible for blacks who committ crimes.
We are talking about equal civil rights here. Taking responsibility for someone’s behavior is a different issue all together.
posted by Jodavwal on
The most promiscuous people I’ve ever met are married straight women (usually while married to people like North Dallas Thirty). Why would I bother picketing people who don’t believe in monogamy and participate in 3-ways? There’s no law against any of that nor should there be. It defies logic how stupid and un-American so many of us are. Or do they have a different definition of “free” country. (Just waiting for the ubiquitous bible to arrive now)
posted by guster on
I’m a straight man who loudly supports gay rights. You don’t need to praise or thank us, any more than we need to praise you for supporting gay rights. Equal rights are equal rights. Anything else is bullshit.
posted by Derk on
North,
You contradict yourself. You attack Savage for discouraging monogamy. At the same time, marriage exists – partly – to encourage exactly that same monogamy. It is worse if I cheat on my wife than if I cheat on my girlfriend. A married relationship is one that society holds up as a sacrosanct monogamy. This is one reason we encourage marriage. Another reason is that we know that married couples live longer, use less drugs, etc. Hell, being married my car insurance premiums go down – it must make me a better driver too.
The socially conservative should be embracing gay marriage as a way to fight the perceived “gay lifestyle” epitomized by the destructive lifestyles you cite. We want the mothers of gay sons to be harassing them with “when are you going to settle down and get married?” questions just like the mothers of straight sons. Social constructs like marriage have many purposes. One is to promote stable relationships for raising children. But there are others.
Marriage is no panacea, but it’s wonderful and distinctly different from living with a long term partner. It saddens me that this “privilege” is something my gay friends can’t share in. I have no fear that my gay friend getting married somehow would lessen my marriage, so why wouldn’t I want them to share in that joy, live longer and (apparently) magically become safer drivers? I’d have to be a real asshole to want to exclude them – or a bigot.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You need to understand why gay men would choose to vote for a party that would not only deny health care and education to children and reproductive rights to women, but has also opposed gay marriage at the state level in every single state where it has been on the ballot or decided in the legislature
One, if “denying health care to children” is so important to Obama Party members, why, then, do they raise taxes that they used to argue hit the parents of children who can least afford it to pay for it for those whose parents are making two to three times as much?
Two, if “denying education to children” is so important to Obama Party members, why, then, do they make it financially impossible for poor parents to remove their children from horrible schools and send them to better ones?
Three, at what point does your responsibility for your reproductive behavior end — when you choose to have sex, when you choose to have unprotected sex, or when you have to kill another human being because the obvious outcome of your first two choices is inconvenient?
Three-A, why does the Obama Party support it being a Federal crime to kill an unborn animal, as is outlined in the Endangered Species Act, but not a human being?
Four, since, according to gay liberals and the Obama Party, it is not antigay to support the FMA or state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, why should we care?
posted by Chris on
“Frankly, Link, nobody cares because heterosexuals, having had marriage for as long as they have, realize that it’s not the panacea that the gay community insists that it will be.”
But I thought that marriage was so fragile, so important, so sacred to society that the concept of same-sex marriage would destroy the United States of America and then the entire world?
If all heterosexuals believed that, there wouldn’t be any opposition. But there is. A lot of opposition so some straight people must regard marriage in high esteem.
And NGT, you’re damning an entire group of people based upon the actions of a few. For every misguided gay parent taking their kid to a leather convention, there is a well-rounded gay parent taking their kid to a park. This is true of STRAIGHT PEOPLE as well. People, regardless of sexual orientation, make bad decisions.
And some of us gays actually DO work for HIV charities and try to help the indigent and the sick. So NGT, please keep your self-righteous anger in check.
As for the Dan Savage comment, everyone seems to take his ideas out of context. He’s not saying monogamy that is hurtful, it’s the illogical expectation of it. Meaning for most people, it’s not realistic, and for all people, it’s difficult. Considering the 50-plus percent divorce rate in this country, I’d say that’s fair assessment.
Regardless, it is odd that the White House has made no comment on the actions of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, or Iowa, and the only time our President mentions gays or lesbians is in a joke. Forgive us if we take a little offense to that. As if discrimination against gays and lesbians is nothing more than a nuisance. Is it so awful to ask for a little respect from the government, who seems to have no trouble at all taking our tax dollars?
And “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” needs to be repealed. It’s a stupid law, one that promotes homophobia, and is completely outdated.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The socially conservative should be embracing gay marriage as a way to fight the perceived “gay lifestyle” epitomized by the destructive lifestyles you cite.
An interesting counterpoint to this statement.
The most promiscuous people I’ve ever met are married straight women (usually while married to people like North Dallas Thirty).
So what you’re doing is claiming that marriage will stop irresponsible behaviors by pointing out that the most irresponsible people you know are married. In addition, you’re pronouncing the virtues of monogamy at the same time as you’re trashing it as “stupid” and “un-American”.
The fact that the gay community trashes marriage while simultaneously whining about how much they “need” it should be a red flag that there’s something more taking place here. If marriage is so important to gays, why do they sneer at every virtue and value that it represents?
posted by TS on
I concur with what most of David Link says. I think DADT should be a federal priority because the military is a publically-funded institution that should be non-discriminatory, but not marriage. Gay marriage is, at this stage, best handled as a state’s rights issue. I recognize the inconveniences associated with a gay couple making a cross-country road trip and being unmarried and remarried several times, but to me they are not worth risking a federal effort to force people all over the country to accept somthing they don’t currently want. Anyway, being subject to different laws is one of the risks of travelling. If you go to Iran, you are subject to arbitrary arrest as a spy. If you go to Somalia, you are subject to being killed by a gang that makes its own law in its own territory.
posted by StPaulite on
ND30 it may blow your mind to learn that the gay people “trashing marriage”, whoever they are (are you posting from the 1970s?), are not the same people “whining” about gay marriage. Not the same people, even though both are gay! Why, it’s as if a blanket group identity doesn’t actually describe the opinions at issue here or the people who hold them, imagine that.
“The fact that the gay community trashes marriage while simultaneously whining about how much they “need” it should be a red flag that there’s something more taking place here. If marriage is so important to gays”
By the way I’m dying to know what you think the “something more taking place” is. Care to enlighten?
posted by Christopher on
Re: North Dallas Thirty
1) NDT, gays aren’t sneering at the virtues of marriage, they’re sneering at the HYPOCRISY OF SELF-RIGHTEOUS STRAIGHT PEOPLE. You can’t use the argument that gays are not worthy of marriage because they are promiscuous and self-destructive when some married heterosexuals are guilty of the same type of behavior.
But again, this is damning an entire group of people based upon individual actions. ANYBODY, regardless of sexual orientation, can have self-destructive and promiscuous tendencies. If these actions do not disqualify heterosexuals from marriage, then it shouldn’t disqualify homosexuals.
2) The stereotypical “gay lifestyle” is misnamed. It should be called the POPULAR LIFESTYLE. All of pop culture is shallow, hyper-sexual, and excessive. This is, again, not homo-centric so you can’t keep using it as an argument that gays are inherently irresponsible because of their “lifestyle.”
3) You’re missing the other benefits of marriage. Gay couples are owning property together, joining their finances, and raising children. They have no federal protections for their property, their money, or their children. Straight people do. This is where the inbalance lies. The fact that a straight couple can cohabitate for 7 years and have a commonlaw marriage but a gay couple can be together for 50 years and not have ANY federal protection is bullshit.
Re: TS
Yes you are subjected to different laws in different COUNTRIES. This is the United States of America. There is a big difference. Also, I’m not sure why gay marriage is a “forceful” issue. The United States grants personal freedom to all its citizens as long as they are unobstrusive to others. If gay marriage were legal, churches would still have the right to refuse certain unions (as they do now), parents would still have the right to tell their children they believe gay marriage is wrong (as they do now), and businesses would still have to treat all of their employees, regardless of sexual orientation, race, or gender, with equality (as they do now). So what exactly would change?
One of the prices we pay as American citizens is that other citizens will believe and live their lives in ways that we don’t approve. But just like we have religious and personal freedom, so should our neighbors.
It’s easy for the majority to tell the minority to wait for their rights and be thankful for what they are given. If everyone would put themselves into a situation in which they are the minority, I think it would alter their worldview dramatically.
posted by Matthew Thompson on
Hey Dallas. Take a chill pill man!
posted by David Link on
TS, you make a good point about the value of prioritizing repeal of DADT. On DOMA though, I both disagree and agree with you. DOMA has two parts. One provides that no state has to recognize a same-sex marriage contracted in another state, and I think it makes political sense right now to keep that intact.
However, the second part of DOMA says affirmatively that the federal government shall not recognize any SSM lawfully entered into in any state. That is the opposite of federalism, and that is what I think falls into the category of active governmental discrimination. As more and more states adopt either same-sex marriage or even civil unions or domestic partnerships, the scope of that discrimination will become increasingly apparent — not to mention annoying. And I think it’s worth my annoying the President, and the Congress, back.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30 it may blow your mind to learn that the gay people “trashing marriage”, whoever they are (are you posting from the 1970s?), are not the same people “whining” about gay marriage.
You’d be surprised.
But emphasizing the moral or symbolic importance of the m-word could alienate some religious and unmarried families, both of which make up a large segment of potential voters. Discussing the latter group, Jean offered her own version of a response to the princess ad, to much laughter and applause:
“Here’s the message I wanted to see. … ‘You’re right honey, you can marry a princess, and isn’t that wonderful? You can also marry someone of [a different] race. And you know what, you don’t have to get married; in fact I think you should consider whether you want to participate in that patriarchal institution.'”
In short, you have the “No on 8” executive committee members, aka the leaders of the gay community arguing for the necessity of gay marriage, ditching marriage’s value and trashing it as a “patriarchal institution”.
By the way I’m dying to know what you think the “something more taking place” is. Care to enlighten?
Sure. It’s roughly the same thing as a three-year-old who ignores a toy until someone else picks it up, at which point it becomes the only thing that matters in their universe.
Add to that a healthy undercurrent of antireligious bigotry, a strong dislike of heterosexuals, a need for some kind of “trophy”, and an overwhelming desire to avoid actually confronting the issues that create nine-tenths of the problems in the gay community, and you have it.
Marriage is two things to the gay community: a convenient excuse and a useful proxy fight. That much is obvious by how willing they are to throw it away when their Obama Party leaders order them to do so, or how willing they are to trash it when doing so allows them to attack heterosexuals and religious people.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But again, this is damning an entire group of people based upon individual actions.
That would be because there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of willingness in that group of people to condemn said individuals.
Certainly one would think that if the gay community can call someone who expresses their views against same-sex marriage in public a “dumb bitch” and a “cunt” on national TV, you would think they could speak out as vociferously against people who take children dressed as sex slaves to a sex fair to show off, call it “educational”, and insist that anyone who opposes them doing so is homophobic.
But then again, we’re forgetting the point of this whole argument; it’s not to extol the virtues and values of marriage for gays, but to attack anyone who disagrees.
Unless they’re Obama Party members, of course.
posted by Christopher on
“Marriage is two things to the gay community: a convenient excuse and a useful proxy fight.”
Well, isn’t that true of the Republican Party as well? Haven’t they used it as a divisive issue for years to gain votes and win elections?
“how willing they are to trash it when doing so allows them to attack heterosexuals and religious people.”
And by your words here, aren’t you guilty of the same sin? Aren’t you using marriage as a way to trash homosexuals in the same manner that you’re claiming homosexuals are using marriage to trash heterosexuals?
posted by bully28 on
Good lord, I haven’t seen North Dallas Thirty since the days I used to pay attention to the vitriol over at GayPatriot (is that guy still even around?)
NDT, you’re as absurd as ever. You pick out one theme and hyper link till you’re blue in the face, in some attempt to generalize opinion and attribute them to EVERYONE who happens to be gay.
Surely you don’t do that to, say, the GOP, do you?
Further, the label “Obama Party” you’re using is for nothing else than a cheap and childish attempt at snark, and it’s not even good. If you want people to respect your opinion and actually have a conversation about some legitimate issues, how about you treat THEM with equal respect.
Until then, go troll around Gay Patriot and other echo chambers. You’re useless and hateful (and yeah, I know you’re a ‘mo, I’ve argued with you before back when I was a soon-to-be-former GOP homo back in ’04) and I’m pretty sure full of a lot of anger.
posted by Juanita de Talmas on
“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
-Supreme Court of the United States
Loving v. Virginia Decided: June 12, 1967
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, isn’t that true of the Republican Party as well? Haven’t they used it as a divisive issue for years to gain votes and win elections?
How can you call opposition to gay marriage a divisive issue when the Obama Party and its candidates proclaim their public opposition to gay marriage and support state and Federal constitutional amendments to ban it?
posted by Patrick on
So can we expect to see an actual argument from North Dallas 30 anytime soon? Because so far all his comments simply contain excuses for his own homophobia, not a coherent argument against marriage equality.
ND30, what real reason can you give for denying marriage rights to those same-sex couples who wish to get married? The fact some gays live irresponsibly isn’t an argument, because many straight people do as well. The fact some gays don’t want to get married isn’t an argument, because many straights don’t want to get married either. The fact some gays don’t value marriage isn’t an argument, because as you can see from the astronomical divorce rates, many straights don’t value their marriages either. Yet no one is using these facts to try and deny marriage rights to heterosexual couples. Only gays, why is that I wonder?
You have provided so far a string of red herrings, hoping that the utter vacuousness of your “arguments” will go unnoticed and unchallenged. Well, it hasn’t. More and more people are beginning to notice that when you trim all of the fat from the claims of the foes of equality, that there isn’t any meat. There never is with people whose goal is to keep rights away from others.
Count me and my wife as another straight couple for marriage equality.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
And yet the same court mere years later dismissed Baker v. Nelson for want of a Federal question.
Obviously, it’s not quite as “vital” or “essential” as the gay community thinks.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yet no one is using these facts to try and deny marriage rights to heterosexual couples. Only gays, why is that I wonder?
Probably for a very simple reason; it’s hard to argue that homosexual couples are identical to heterosexual couples when homosexual couples are completely dependent on heterosexual couples to produce them.
In other words, heterosexual couples have the capability to provide something of value to society that homosexual couples don’t. The best that can be hoped for in regards to gay marriage is that it might keep gays from irresponsible behavior, even though it doesn’t do so for straights.
The problem is, Patrick, that I am trying to explain the value of an institution that you and your philosophy and ideology hold in contempt. Liberalism has made of marriage an inconvenience, something that you do for the tax writeoff with the current sexual partner, a commitment that can be broken with less muss and fuss than a car loan; as a result, since you see it as nothing more than that, you simply don’t understand why you shouldn’t include everyone. It’s like trying to explain to a three-year-old the difference between a dime and a nickel; your only concern is what marriage does for you and you alone, and my concern is what marriage does for society.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
you want people to respect your opinion and actually have a conversation about some legitimate issues, how about you treat THEM with equal respect.
I would, but I figured out a long time ago that when Priya Lynn and other commentors tell people to commit suicide or send them nasty emails claiming they have AIDS, you don’t bother to lecture them on treating others with respect, nor do people suddenly devalue their opinions. Hence, it’s pretty obvious that your behavior won’t matter as long as you have the right opinions, and if you don’t have the right opinions, everything you say will be wrong anyway. Therefore, I don’t give respect under the belief that it will be reciprocated or thatit adds any value; I give it when I feel like doing so.
posted by Patrick on
“Probably for a very simple reason; it’s hard to argue that homosexual couples are identical to heterosexual couples when homosexual couples are completely dependent on heterosexual couples to produce them.
In other words, heterosexual couples have the capability to provide something of value to society that homosexual couples don’t. The best that can be hoped for in regards to gay marriage is that it might keep gays from irresponsible behavior, even though it doesn’t do so for straights.”
Again, another non-argument. There are many thousands of straight couples who get married each year who cannot produce children, either because of infertility or due to menopause. Yet no one is arguing that we should ban men with low sperm counts from being able to marry, nor is anyone arguing that a 65 year old woman should not be permitted to marry. No marriage law anywhere in the country says anything about producing children as a requirement for marriage.
Besides, your argument is invalid not just because it applies to straights as well as gays, it is invalid because it simply isn’t true. Homosexual couples can and do produce and raise children. Lesbian couples frequently go through the exact same fertility treatments that their infertile straight counterparts do and give birth to their own children. In fact a lesbian couple could theoretically contribute to society at twice the rate of any straight couple, as they have two wombs to work with. Gay men are not excluded from child production either, as they can have and raise children through surrogates. And there is always the avenue of adoption.
So the idea that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they can’t produce children is completely invalid for three distinct reasons. First, straight marriage does not require couples to produce children. Second, not all straight marriages are capable of producing children. And third, there’s nothing to say that same-sex marriages can’t produce children in some fashion.
Three strikes, go back to the dug-out.
“The problem is, Patrick, that I am trying to explain the value of an institution that you and your philosophy and ideology hold in contempt. Liberalism has made of marriage an inconvenience, something that you do for the tax writeoff with the current sexual partner, a commitment that can be broken with less muss and fuss than a car loan; as a result, since you see it as nothing more than that, you simply don’t understand why you shouldn’t include everyone.”
My, you are a presumptuous little man, aren’t you? You are again wrong on multiple counts. First of all, neither I nor my philosophy hold marriage in contempt, exactly the opposite is true. Not only am I happily married and faithful to my own beautiful wife, but I am licensed to conduct marriages. I have presided over the marriage ceremonies of many friends and take great joy in being there when they start their marriage together. And I’ve been there with some of them to help them through the rough patches.
Tell me, how many couples have you joined in marriage?
Next up in your long litany of wrongness is the often heard but unsubstantiated assumption that support for marriage equality is a liberal position. Again, not true in my case. I consider myself to be a classic conservative, in the tradition of Burke and Goldwater. I believe in a small, unobtrusive government, individual liberty, and the responsibility that goes with that freedom of action. Marriage equality is complementary to all of these tenets. It reduces the power of the government to regulate and define marriage to the exclusion of millions of its own citizens, expanding liberty. It gives homosexuals the same freedom of choice already granted to everyone else. And it gives homosexual couples the same responsibilities to help make stable, long term relationships that my wife and I, and the many couples I’ve joined already strive towards.
You, on the other hand, seem to only see the value in marriage because of who you are able to exclude. This is the same sort of value that a member sees in an all-white country club. That’s not value at all, merely naked bigotry.
I’ll ask again, not that I truthfully expect any more coherent of an answer. What is your argument against marriage equality?
posted by Christopher on
“How can you call opposition to gay marriage a divisive issue when the Obama Party and its candidates proclaim their public opposition to gay marriage and support state and Federal constitutional amendments to ban it?”
Last time I checked, it was the voters who elected politicians, and the issue is divisive amongst VOTERS. 51% voted for Prop 8 in California, but 49% did not. I therefore call the issue divisive.
And it’s not the Obama Party, it’s the Democratic Party. Saying that is just as assinine as me calling the Republican Party the “Limbaugh Party.”
“it’s hard to argue that homosexual couples are identical to heterosexual couples when homosexual couples are completely dependent on heterosexual couples to produce them.”
So homosexuals are inherently lesser than because we were simply born? Wow.
“In other words, heterosexual couples have the capability to provide something of value to society that homosexual couples don’t.”
My aunt and uncle were barren. Should their marriage be annulled because they didn’t produce any children i.e. any value to society? My grandfather is almost 70 and won’t be producing any children. Should he also not marry?
“The best that can be hoped for in regards to gay marriage is that it might keep gays from irresponsible behavior, even though it doesn’t do so for straights.”
You still haven’t addressed the issues of shared property, shared finances, and shared children. Adopted children who were abandoned by (ahem) straight people. And what about lesbian couples who use the same fertility treatments that naturally infertile straight couples use?
“Liberalism has made of marriage an inconvenience, something that you do for the tax writeoff with the current sexual partner”
Since gay marriage is illegal in 45 states, you are referring to the actions of straight people and, once again, damning all homosexuals for the actions of some, ***not all*** heterosexuals.
“your only concern is what marriage does for you and you alone, and my concern is what marriage does for society”
And what does gay marriage do to the society? That point you’ve never made. You’ve talked about how it’s not essential to gay people but you’ve only argued that citing extreme behavior that is not limited to homosexuals and does not represent all homosexuals.
And I guess homosexual couples spending money on houses, vehicles, education, insurance, entertainment, travel, food, clothing, and other items don’t contribute at all to a capitalist society such as this one.
“Hence, it’s pretty obvious that your behavior won’t matter as long as you have the right opinions, and if you don’t have the right opinions, everything you say will be wrong anyway.”
You are airing your opinions in a public forum. Anytime you do that, you will be subject to praise, agreement, disagreement, and criticism. This is the price of a public forum. The Dixie Chicks and Miss California found that out the hard way so it hardly follows to a conservative or liberal bias. If you don’t want your opinion judged, then simply don’t give it. Or grow a tougher skin.
Or how about don’t comment on a gay friendly website. I don’t comment on extreme right-wing websites because no one is going to be open to my opinion. Practice a little self-awareness next time.
“Therefore, I don’t give respect under the belief that it will be reciprocated or thatit adds any value; I give it when I feel like doing so.”
If you expect confrontation, you will always find it. It seems that were burned by the actions of a few extreme, misguided gay activists, and for that, I’m sorry. But you’ve taken those past experiences and made a hatred for an entire group of people and no matter what religion or philosophy you follow, I promise you none of them would condone it.
As I’ve said before, you are damning all homosexuals (including me, by the way) for the actions of a FEW. I have not resorted to name calling at all during this thread, nor have I sent you hate mail or hateful messages. I have just criticized your opinion, which you stated in a public forum. Therefore, do not link me or others like me to the negative experiences you have had in the past.
Let’s agree to disagree. It’s apparent you are not open to my opinion and I do not agree with yours. I do hope you grow less vitriolic over time. Hate ages the soul but it does not make it wise.
posted by Kyndra on
I am gay and I would hold my own marriage, if ever allowed, in the same very high esteem as I held my straight parents’ marriage, and the marriages of my responsible straight friends. I and my partner could offer all the same things a sterile hetero couple could to society. Things like a stable and loving home to the unwanted children of irresponsible heteros and a partnership that promotes the health and productivity of two tax-paying American citizens. I would really love to have the oportunity to partake in the institution of marriage with my chosen partner for all of the same reasons (sans procreation) as any earnest straight person, I want to confirm and declare my everlasting love for my monogamous partner. Actually, I quite get the sanctity of it. ND30s arguments ring so hollow and only appeal to bigotry not any real logic or truth.
posted by Bobby on
Sorry North Dallas, but I’m a big fan of Dan Savage. His advice is realistic and insightful, his own relationship has lasted 10 years and they have a kid together.
Savage unlike other advice columnist knows how to deal with reality. You should read it once in a while, I’ve learned a lot from him.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
There are many thousands of straight couples who get married each year who cannot produce children, either because of infertility or due to menopause.
There are many millions of straight couples who get married each year who can produce children.
Meanwhile, there isn’t a single same-sex couple out there that can do what the vast and overwhelming majority of opposite-sex couples can do.
Big difference. Fundamental difference, if you recognize that the structure and incidentals around marriage are focused primarily on the necessity of society to provide a stable environment for raising one’s own children.
It gives homosexuals the same freedom of choice already granted to everyone else.
Problem is, not everyone else has the same “freedom of choice” to marry that to which they’re sexually attracted. Indeed, society specifically limits marriage in a way that is incompatible with numerous other peoples’ “choice”.
Your position is very similar to the ACLU’s, which is as follows:
The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.
Or to the gay community’s:
Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others.
which then goes on to call for equal benefits for unmarried parents, “households in which there is more than one conjugal partner”, and so forth.
You see, Patrick, your position is not libertarianism; it’s amoral liberalism. The damaging portion is that, having argued that individual convenience should be the sole guiding factor in marriage, you’ve pretty much undermined any value that marriage has to society and, like your fellow gay marriage supporters, are now arguing that it should be extended to everyone regardless of situation. You’ve cheapened it to the point of uselessness.
Perhaps that was the point.
And it gives homosexual couples the same responsibilities to help make stable, long term relationships that my wife and I, and the many couples I’ve joined already strive towards.
Unfortunately, your fellow gay marriage supporters have already stated that it does nothing of the sort, making the claim that married people are always the most promiscuous and irresponsible.
One of the things that is entertaining here is watching a libertarian who argues to get the government out of their bedrooms whine about the government not recognizing their sexual relationship.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Kyndra | May 28, 2009, 5:41pm | #
And of course, absolutely none of that can be done without a marriage certificate.
That post really exemplifies the problem here. We have all these gays talking about what they “would do” if they could get married, but not a single one of them talking about what they’re actually doing now.
It’s been my life experience that people who were responsible before they got married stay responsible afterwards, and that people who were irresponsible before they were married rarely stop being so when they are married.
Perhaps that’s why I’m not inclined to believe that a piece of paper will somehow make Kyndra and her ilk responsible — but more likely to believe that it’s a convenient excuse for why they aren’t doing it now.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So homosexuals are inherently lesser than because we were simply born? Wow.
Does “different” or “not identical to” translate to “lesser than”, Christopher?
You still haven’t addressed the issues of shared property, shared finances, and shared children.
Do you agree, Christopher, with your fellow gay marriage supporters that say these situations, in which there could be shared property, shared finances, and shared children, should be given the same status as marriage?
· Single parent households
· Senior citizens living together and serving as each other?s caregivers (think Golden Girls)
· Blended and extended families
· Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents
· Adult children living with and caring for their parents
· Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives
· Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other?s primary support and caregivers
· Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner
Or are you willing to state that the mere presence of shared property, shared finances, and shared children does not indicate that something is “equal” to marriage and should not be automatic grounds for marriage rights?
And I guess homosexual couples spending money on houses, vehicles, education, insurance, entertainment, travel, food, clothing, and other items don’t contribute at all to a capitalist society such as this one.
Do only married couples spend money?
posted by fregan on
@ North Dallas Fifteen:
Dear halfwit. We Don’t need you to care. We don’t care what you have to say. We don’t need you. We will get what we want no matter what you say. You have no impact. You are simply clutter in this issue. You are like a machine who’s only function is to turn itself off.
NRN :(no response necessary. I’m gone.)
posted by Patrick on
“There are many millions of straight couples who get married each year who can produce children.”
Yet many of those who can, don’t. Until you are willing to argue that straight couples who can’t have, or choose not to have children should be denied marriage rights, then it is disingenuous of you to apply the same standard to restrict homosexuals. Your inconsistency reveals your intolerance.
“Meanwhile, there isn’t a single same-sex couple out there that can do what the vast and overwhelming majority of opposite-sex couples can do.”
Now you are simply lying. Many thousands of same-sex couples are raising children right now, often their own, sometimes adopted, just like their heterosexual counterparts. Your refusal to acknowledge this reality doesn’t make it magically go away.
“Big difference. Fundamental difference, if you recognize that the structure and incidentals around marriage are focused primarily on the necessity of society to provide a stable environment for raising one’s own children.”
And yet not one marriage law anywhere contains raising children as a requirement for marriage. How odd. Your little screed continues to miss the fact that many same-sex couples are already trying to provide exactly the stable environment for raising their children that you are trying to deny them.
In the end, the truth remains that it is you and your kind who are harming not only marriage as an institution, but the stability of real families. It is you who is harming the thousands of children of same sex couples right now by working to deny them exactly that stable environment that you argue is so important for their development. You reveal yourself as not only intolerant, but as a hypocrite.
“Problem is, not everyone else has the same “freedom of choice” to marry that to which they’re sexually attracted. Indeed, society specifically limits marriage in a way that is incompatible with numerous other peoples’ “choice”.”
I beg your pardon, but we aren’t talking about sexual attraction. We’re talking about love and commitment. Sexual attraction is but a component. And speaking of love, I would just love to hear you explain how two adult homosexuals who want to enter into a consensual, long-term relationship is different enough ethically from an adult straight couple doing the same. I’m sure your answer will be as devoid of reason and compassion as the rest of the incoherent drivel you’ve sputtered up thus far. Like this drivel for example…
“You see, Patrick, your position is not libertarianism; it’s amoral liberalism. The damaging portion is that, having argued that individual convenience should be the sole guiding factor in marriage, you’ve pretty much undermined any value that marriage has to society and, like your fellow gay marriage supporters, are now arguing that it should be extended to everyone regardless of situation. You’ve cheapened it to the point of uselessness.”
I’ve argued no such thing. You sir, are battling a straw-man of your own creation. I have argued specifically that there is not a valid ethical or legal reason to prevent homosexuals from marrying. You have done your part to prove the point by not providing a valid reason or anything that could be mistaken for one. Their inclusion in the institution will expand and strengthen the protection of marriage to many tens of thousands of families that already exist today without damaging straight marriage in the least.
There may be people out there who support polygamy or other alternative marriage arrangements. I am not one of them and it is dishonest of you to pretend as though my arguments and theirs are one and the same. This is hardly surprising, as dishonesty is one of the favored tools of the opponents of equality throughout time.
You may be of the opinion that your country club was a better, more valuable place before all the blacks and Asians were allowed to join, but I appreciate the diversity. It makes things more interesting and enriches all our lives.
“Unfortunately, your fellow gay marriage supporters have already stated that it does nothing of the sort, making the claim that married people are always the most promiscuous and irresponsible.”
No one, save you just now, has made that claim. Nor does that claim represent a valid reason to permit marriage among straights while denying it to gays. Just more dishonesty and inconsistency to add to the pile.
“One of the things that is entertaining here is watching a libertarian who argues to get the government out of their bedrooms whine about the government not recognizing their sexual relationship.”
I’m sorry, but to whom are you talking? I’m not a libertarian, as I’ve already explained. I am a classical conservative. Further, the government does recognize my relationship. In case you can’t remember back that far, I’m a man married to a rather attractive woman. It is unjust that my marriage is recognized while those of homosexuals are not. Either the government should recognize both, or get out of the business of recognizing marriages altogether. That is what equal protection under the law means.
At least it does to any conservative who puts loyalty to the Constitution ahead of loyalty to their own prejudices.
posted by Patrick on
Perhaps that’s why I’m not inclined to believe that a piece of paper will somehow make Kyndra and her ilk responsible — but more likely to believe that it’s a convenient excuse for why they aren’t doing it now.
So you know Kyndra well enough to know she is being irresponsible? You know that she isn’t loyal or serious in her commitment to her partner? What amazing psychic powers you have!
Quick, what number am I thinking of right now?
I don’t wish to speak for Kyndra, because unlike you apparently, I don’t know her. But you have made many baseless assumptions about the motives, behavior, history, and beliefs of most of the posters here. In my case, you were wrong about… well, all of it. I suspect that your track record isn’t going to improve in this case.
If this were baseball, I’d send you back down to the minors. Your batting average sucks.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Many thousands of same-sex couples are raising children right now, often their own, sometimes adopted, just like their heterosexual counterparts.
Really? Please produce a child of a same-sex couple that was produced by biological intercourse between just the members of that couple and whose genes come exactly half from both members of the couple, just like the vast majority of children produced by heterosexuals.
You can’t do it. You can’t even come close to doing it. That, Patrick, is the real difference here. You try to slip and slide around it, but what you cannot avoid is that, without two different genders, you don’t have reproduction. You can’t produce a homosexual without heterosexuals. That establishes clearly that homosexual and heterosexual couples are different on the most basic biological level, and thus can be legitimately recognized and treated differently.
And that leads us to this:
It is you who is harming the thousands of children of same sex couples right now by working to deny them exactly that stable environment that you argue is so important for their development.
If having unmarried parents is harmful to children, why don’t you mandate marriage? Better yet, why don’t you arrest gays who deliberately chose to put children into these situations that you claim are “harmful” for child endangerment?
Next:
I beg your pardon, but we aren’t talking about sexual attraction. We’re talking about love and commitment. Sexual attraction is but a component. And speaking of love, I would just love to hear you explain how two adult homosexuals who want to enter into a consensual, long-term relationship is different enough ethically from an adult straight couple doing the same. I’m sure your answer will be as devoid of reason and compassion as the rest of the incoherent drivel you’ve sputtered up thus far.
Followed, ironically, by:
There may be people out there who support polygamy or other alternative marriage arrangements. I am not one of them and it is dishonest of you to pretend as though my arguments and theirs are one and the same.
Actually, if you look, they are quite the same.
To have our government define as ?legitimate families? only those households with couples in conjugal relationships does a tremendous disservice to the many other ways in which people actually construct their families, kinship networks, households, and relationships. For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?
You see, Patrick? They’re merely repeating your argument that conjugality isn’t important; thus incestuous households, situations in which children are rotated between mutliple households, and households with more than one conjugal partner should be given marriage rights because they’re just as “socially, economically, and spiritually worthy” as married couples — and anyone who disagrees is a bigot.
And onward:
No one, save you just now, has made that claim.
Wrong.
The most promiscuous people I’ve ever met are married straight women (usually while married to people like North Dallas Thirty).
I suppose since you can’t acknowledge or confront that statement, you ignore it and hope it will go away.
That is what equal protection under the law means.
And that definition of “equal protection” is why you and your fellow amoral liberals are arguing that the law should give the same protection to plural relationships, incestuous relationships, and so forth — because “who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?”
After all, that wouldn’t be “equal”, would it?
The problem here, Patrick, is that liberals like yourself spend far too much time being jealous and envious of what other people have rather than worrying about being the best that you can be with what you have.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So you know Kyndra well enough to know she is being irresponsible? You know that she isn’t loyal or serious in her commitment to her partner? What amazing psychic powers you have!
Oh, there’s no psychic power to it at all; it’s simply being able to recognize future tense.
You see, Kyndra’s entire post is filled with what she “would do” if she got married. Nowhere in it is mentioned what she’s doing now, although all of the things she grouses about — being faithful, declaring her love, yada yada — can and quite often are done completely independently of marriage. Hence, since she insists she would do these things “if” she had marriage, it’s a rather safe bet to state that she’s not doing them now.
Feel free to disagree and state that gay people can form perfectly good relationships, be faithful, raise children in a stable home, have a partnership that promotes health and productivity, and so forth without marriage.
posted by TS on
I concede points from both Mr. Link and Christopher.
“Force to accept” is indeed too strong a phrase. I agree that arguments claiming people will be forced to accept gay marriage are silly. But there is something to the idea of wanting to live in a place because you prefer to live in the society its laws shape. I want there to be a diversity of societies, which means allowing those peopled by xenophobics to have theirs, and also traditionalists who aren’t hateful or irrational but merely mistrust the new to reserve the word marriage for straight unions.
I agree about DOMA. Actually, if I had my way, the federal government would be restricted to making sure the states don’t attack each other, forcing them to maintain functional intertransit and postal systems, and maintaining the military. The only complication I can forsee is the courts.
posted by Pat on
Again, another non-argument. There are many thousands of straight couples who get married each year who cannot produce children, either because of infertility or due to menopause. Yet no one is arguing that we should ban men with low sperm counts from being able to marry, nor is anyone arguing that a 65 year old woman should not be permitted to marry. No marriage law anywhere in the country says anything about producing children as a requirement for marriage.
Not only that, Patrick, but we encourage such marriages to occur. We value such marriages. And because no same sex couples can procreate while most opposite sex couples can procreate (well, at least for some period during their marriage), that seems to be the basis of an argument to allow ALL opposite sex couples to marry (even if they cannot or choose not to procreate) and disallow ALL same sex couples to marry. I agree with you. Not even close to a real argument. Anyway, thanks for your support.
Certainly one would think that if the gay community can call someone who expresses their views against same-sex marriage in public a “dumb bitch” and a “cunt” on national TV, you would think they could speak out as vociferously against people who take children dressed as sex slaves to a sex fair to show off, call it “educational”, and insist that anyone who opposes them doing so is homophobic.
NDT, the gay community did that? I only heard Perez Hilton do that. And just about everyone, including liberals and/or others who usually read Hilton’s website condemned those remarks.
Really? Please produce a child of a same-sex couple that was produced by biological intercourse between just the members of that couple and whose genes come exactly half from both members of the couple, just like the vast majority of children produced by heterosexuals.
You can’t do it. You can’t even come close to doing it. That, Patrick, is the real difference here. You try to slip and slide around it, but what you cannot avoid is that, without two different genders, you don’t have reproduction. You can’t produce a homosexual without heterosexuals. That establishes clearly that homosexual and heterosexual couples are different on the most basic biological level, and thus can be legitimately recognized and treated differently.
Um, Patrick never said that a same sex couple can procreate with each other. However, he has argued that it is a specious argument for opposing same sex marriage.
The problem here, Patrick, is that liberals like yourself spend far too much time being jealous and envious of what other people have rather than worrying about being the best that you can be with what you have.
Quite the opposite, NDT. Patrick has stated that he is straight and married. He just has the audacity to want the same thing for homosexual couples. I think that’s pretty nice of him.
However, I’ll agree with your point somewhat though. Sure there are people that should stop being envious of others, and play the cards they are dealt with to their best advantage. But that doesn’t mean that all people who support same sex marriage are doing it solely out of envy. In fact, it’s unfair to even suggest that. I could just as easily say that gay persons who do not support same sex marriage are doing so, because they feel the need to kiss up to their anti-gay brethren and say, “see, I’m gay and I’m with you on some of your anti-gay stances, now love me.” I’m sure some do, but it would be unfair to say that’s true for all gay persons who don’t support same sex marriage, right?
You see, Kyndra’s entire post is filled with what she “would do” if she got married. Nowhere in it is mentioned what she’s doing now, although all of the things she grouses about — being faithful, declaring her love, yada yada — can and quite often are done completely independently of marriage. Hence, since she insists she would do these things “if” she had marriage, it’s a rather safe bet to state that she’s not doing them now.
Feel free to disagree and state that gay people can form perfectly good relationships, be faithful, raise children in a stable home, have a partnership that promotes health and productivity, and so forth without marriage.
Obviously gay couples can do so, and even straight couples do so without marriage. I don’t know Kyndra, but my guess is she is already doing those things, and sees marriage as a way of upholding her values. You know, like many straight couples that value marriage (even the ones who don’t procreate with each other).
Further, I still imagine even today that if a daughter tells her parents how she is going to move in with her boyfriend, and have the same commitments, etc., as marriage and even sign some legal papers, but not marry him, the parents would still say, “over their dead bodies.” Maybe I’m wrong about that, but marriage still seems to mean something to most couples.
posted by Eric on
One completely inaccurate comment from ND30 that I haven’t seen responded to: the idea that marriage isn’t a “guarantee.” Any straight couple, so long as they’re not married to other people, they’re of legal age, and they’re not related (and they have to be closely related) are guaranteed the right to get married if they so choose. Even if one of them is on death row. If a state tried to prevent two people from getting married because they’re tall or short or ugly or pretty or they don’t like the way they dress or they have criminal records or they’re the wrong religion or they’re not monogamous, that couple would be in fantastic position to sue them.
So this idea that the government is free to give marriage licenses to those couples it chooses to, and not others, is just bogus. And even if marriage licenses were like pilot’s licenses and they could only be given to the select few, the government would still need a rational reason for giving them to some people and not others.
posted by Kyndra on
Actually, I do all those things; I am currently in a loving and committed monagamous relationship without the paper or attendant rights. And I know for a fact that I am more faithful and committed (which is to say 100%) than most people, straight or otherwise. I just want the paper and the word so that I can be recognized as equal and not relegated to 2nd class status. Support and recognition does make unions and partnerships stronger, if it didn’t, straight people wouldn’t want it either. Your arguments against gay marriage are really just arguments against marriage in general, you fail to explain why, if allowed at all, marriage should only be extended to the majority class of people and no one else. And again, you prove by the assumption that I cannot maintain a committed relationship and am just seeking an excuse, that you seriously believe gay people aren’t capable of love and committment; you are truly just ill-informed and prejudiced. My partner and I will be together until death parts us no matter what, just like many of my coupled friends, gay and otherwise.
posted by Patrick on
“Really? Please produce a child of a same-sex couple that was produced by biological intercourse between just the members of that couple and whose genes come exactly half from both members of the couple, just like the vast majority of children produced by heterosexuals.”
Tell you what, I’ll do that just as soon as you can find a legal definition of marriage anywhere in the country that specifically requires the ability to reproduce as a prerequisite to getting married.
What’s that, you’ve come up empty? What a shock.
“You can’t do it. You can’t even come close to doing it. That, Patrick, is the real difference here. You try to slip and slide around it, but what you cannot avoid is that, without two different genders, you don’t have reproduction. You can’t produce a homosexual without heterosexuals. That establishes clearly that homosexual and heterosexual couples are different on the most basic biological level, and thus can be legitimately recognized and treated differently.”
No, what it establishes on the most basic biological level is the difference between fertile and infertile couples of any gender. You don’t just require two genders for reproduction, you require two genders capable of reproducing. A very good friend of mine had the misfortune of contracting ovarian cancer in her mid twenties. She ended up having her uterus and ovaries removed to save her life. She is just as biologically incapable of giving birth as any gay man. Shall I tell her to cancel her wedding plans?
Logically, your argument that an inability to produce children is a reason to discriminate against gays must also equally apply to any straight couple incapable of producing children. It is not an argument that has anything to do with sexuality, but simple capability. So again, until you are going to be intellectually honest enough (big problem for you, I realize) to include infertile straight couples into your equation, then we can safely reject this argument due to this inconsistency.
Further, your focus on just the biological mechanism of reproduction misses most of the point entirely. Any girl can get her hands on some sperm, that’s easy. It’s raising the child that is the hard part. It isn’t during intercourse that a child benefits from the stability of marriage, but in the twenty or so years after the fact.
So while it is true that same-sex couples can’t biologically produce children, it hardly matters. What they can do just as well as straight couples is raise children. Thirty years worth of family studies confirm this fact. It is the potential for a child rearing relationship that is important and deserves recognition and protection. Look at the millions of mixed households with step mothers and step fathers. They exist in exactly the same situation one would find same-sex marriages in from a purely biological standpoint. Yet are you here to argue that such households aren’t actually contributing to society? Are you here trying to deny legal recognition of step-mothers and step-fathers based on the simple fact they are not biological parents?
No, you are not. This further inconsistency reveals yet more bigotry.
“If having unmarried parents is harmful to children, why don’t you mandate marriage? Better yet, why don’t you arrest gays who deliberately chose to put children into these situations that you claim are “harmful” for child endangerment?”
Because I have a better, simpler idea. Allow gays to marry and watch the problem take care of itself.
“You see, Patrick? They’re merely repeating your argument that conjugality isn’t important”
My argument? Why no ND30, that is your argument too. You’ve yet to claim that reproduction is a requirement for straight couples to marry. You refuse to discriminate against infertile straight couples. I also refuse to discriminate against infertile couples, I just apply it consistently.
Until you man up and exclude infertile straight couples from marriage rights, you have no ground upon which to exclude gay couples on the same grounds. Until you take that step, there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously.
“The most promiscuous people I’ve ever met are married straight women (usually while married to people like North Dallas Thirty).
I suppose since you can’t acknowledge or confront that statement, you ignore it and hope it will go away.”
I acknowledge her statement. What I don’t acknowledge is your manipulation of it. For example. The biggest drunk I know happens to be a Lutheran.
What you have done with her statement is akin to claiming that I meant “Lutherans are the biggest drunks”. That clearly isn’t what I said, nor was it her statement either. She did not claim that marriage makes people less responsible or more promiscuous that the population as a whole. She was merely pointing out that marriage doesn’t work to correct such behavior in all cases, regardless of one’s orientation.
“And that definition of “equal protection” is why you and your fellow amoral liberals are arguing that the law should give the same protection to plural relationships, incestuous relationships, and so forth — because “who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?”
So now I’ve gone from a libertarian to a liberal. That was fast.
You really are a completely shameless liar, aren’t you? I am no more responsible for the arguments of the extreme fringe of the equality movement that you are responsible for the arguments of the extreme fringe of the anti-gay movement. What you have tried in vein to do above is no different than if I were to accuse you of supporting the death penalty for sodomy as some extreme opponents of gay marriage do.
Would that be fair to you? Of course not. So please don’t ascribe to me beliefs and arguments I do not hold or support.
I understand why you feel the need to group gay marriage in with all these other issues. It’s because you don’t actually have any valid argument against gay-marriage taken by itself that stands up to any scrutiny. You lose that argument, so you have to try and like gay-marriage to other topics like polygamy, incest, what have you, and pretend as though they are all the same thing. Well chief, they aren’t. It’s an old tactic, one that has been used before by opponents of inter-faith and inter-racial marriages. They lost too. You will be no different.
“The problem here, Patrick, is that liberals like yourself spend far too much time being jealous and envious of what other people have rather than worrying about being the best that you can be with what you have.”
Said the plantation owner to his slaves…
Yes, I can’t tell you how envious I am of all those straight, married people… wait a tick… [looks at own penis, looks at vagina on the person next to me, looks at ring on left hand]. Hey, I am one of those straight married people. Who exactly am I supposed to be envious of again?
It is this that you don’t seem to understand. I don’t want equality for myself, I already have it. I look at the inequality being forced on other people unjustly and work to correct it. That is the opposite of envy. That’s compassion.
Try it sometime.
posted by Patrick on
“Oh, there’s no psychic power to it at all; it’s simply being able to recognize future tense.”
No, it’s arrogance, presumption, and an inability to empathize with the situations of others.
“You see, Kyndra’s entire post is filled with what she “would do” if she got married. Nowhere in it is mentioned what she’s doing now, although all of the things she grouses about — being faithful, declaring her love, yada yada — can and quite often are done completely independently of marriage. Hence, since she insists she would do these things “if” she had marriage, it’s a rather safe bet to state that she’s not doing them now.”
No, it is a safe bet that if she were allowed to be married, she would conduct herself in marriage much the same way she is conducting herself now. The future tense refers to her future marriage, not the circumstances of her current relationship. Your choice to deliberately misread her intent is yet another example of your bigotry guiding your arguments.
“Feel free to disagree and state that gay people can form perfectly good relationships, be faithful, raise children in a stable home, have a partnership that promotes health and productivity, and so forth without marriage.”
Of course they can, I’ve never denied it.
Now it is up to you to explain why such relationships deserve legal recognition and protection in straight couples but not in gay couples.
Good luck with that.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
One completely inaccurate comment from ND30 that I haven’t seen responded to: the idea that marriage isn’t a “guarantee.”
Oh, now THAT is hilarious (emphasis mine):
Any straight couple, so long as they’re not married to other people, they’re of legal age, and they’re not related (and they have to be closely related) are guaranteed the right to get married if they so choose.
And what, exactly, does the Equal Protection Clause say?
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.
Funny, the Equal Protection Clause doesn’t say anything about you being able to deny “equal protection”, which gay liberals equate to “marriage”, based on age, previous marriage, blood relationship, or anything of the sort. Indeed, it says “any person” must be granted the right to marry, without caveats.
And therein lies the hilarity. The state certainly has the power to limit marriage. The denial of that by the gay community is just a little to the left of crazy.
posted by Patrick on
In all such cases, the limits have a logical, justifiable reason. We restrict the age of people entering marriage because we know that children are not yet capable of making such an important decision, and allowing them to do so exposes them to exploitation. We limit blood relations because of the very real possibility of the offspring of such unions having severe genetic problems.
The question then becomes what is the danger inherent to allowing gays to marry? Equal protection means that the state has to give a compelling reason before curtailing the equal rights of individuals. What is the compelling reason to refuse to allow two consenting adults of the same gender from marrying?
Please stop dancing around the issue ND30, what actual reason, what danger does gay-marriage present to either the individuals involved, their children, or society? This is the third time I’ve asked you.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Logically, your argument that an inability to produce children is a reason to discriminate against gays must also equally apply to any straight couple incapable of producing children.
Suppose we did.
Who would that eliminate from marriage?
1) All same-sex couples, without exception
2) All heterosexual couples with some form of biological damage
The latter is 100% of a population, while the former are few and far between exceptions to a far greater majority.
We don’t make laws by the outer fringe. We make them by the majority. Hence, we do not get involved with whether or not individual heterosexual couples have children or are capable of having children because the vast majority do and are; it would be clear that doing so was individual discrimination. However, we can say without discrimination or prejudice that not a single same-sex couple is capable of having children in exactly the same fashion as the vast majority of heterosexual couples. It’s a proven biological fact.
Your disdain for children and the importance they have to society is the problem here, Patrick, as is obvious in this statement.
Because I have a better, simpler idea. Allow gays to marry and watch the problem take care of itself.
Let’s see; you deliberately put children in a bad situation and demand that society do what you want or you’ll continue hurting them. That makes a better argument for banning gay adoption, since you seem hell-bent on putting children into situations that you whine and scream are “harmful” to them.
I am no more responsible for the arguments of the extreme fringe of the equality movement that you are responsible for the arguments of the extreme fringe of the anti-gay movement.
I fail to see why you are so upset about rhetoric that could have been lifted directly from your posts.
“who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?”
You’re all about “equality”, Patrick. Why are you so hypocritically trying to make such a blatant denial of it? Is it because admitting that you support it would be political suicide and completely undercut your entire argument?
I give the Beyond Marriage organization points for honesty, just like I give the ACLU props for admitting that their whole goal is to force plural marriage. But I have to wonder why people like you, Patrick, are so dishonest, claiming you value marriage while you endorse and support groups that are trying to dismantle it completely.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
We restrict the age of people entering marriage because we know that children are not yet capable of making such an important decision
Actually, you don’t, given that gay rights groups consider age-of-consent laws to be homophobic and an impingement on the rights of children.
We limit blood relations because of the very real possibility of the offspring of such unions having severe genetic problems.
Unfortunately, Patrick, you already argued that procreation was irrelevant to and should not be a limit on marriage. You have stated that marriage is about the “love and commitment” of the couple and that nothing else matters, especially not any considerations relative to reproduction.
Hence, by your own arguments, there is no compelling reason to deny people the right of equal protection based on their age or blood relationships.
What is the compelling reason to refuse to allow two consenting adults of the same gender from marrying?
Because the basic and fundamental reason for marriage is to provide a legal framework that facilitates the production and raising of a couple’s own children. It neatly melds the biological right of parentage that exists in our law with the acknowledgement that, since there are two parents involved in producing a child, it is better if they are united as one in the eyes of the law and relative to the child.
Since this is not an issue with same-gender couples, there is no reason for the government to offer it to them.
Please stop dancing around the issue ND30, what actual reason, what danger does gay-marriage present to either the individuals involved, their children, or society?
I think this quote sums it up best:
To have our government define as ?legitimate families? only those households with couples in conjugal relationships does a tremendous disservice to the many other ways in which people actually construct their families, kinship networks, households, and relationships. For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?
Simply put, it’s a wholesale devaluation of marriage. It is reducing something that is very special and comes with high expectations, requirements, and responsibilities to something to which everyone is entitled.
posted by bls on
Hate to mention it, NDT, old boy, but I’ve never heard of “Lorri Jean.” As I’m 99.99% of the world has not.
And given that fact, I must wonder aloud why she’s being linked to as a “leader of the gay community” here? I mean, how many people would have known (or cared) what she said if you hadn’t pointed to it here yourself?
Sheesh. These are such tired tactics….
posted by bls on
“Simply put, it’s a wholesale devaluation of marriage. It is reducing something that is very special and comes with high expectations, requirements, and responsibilities to something to which everyone is entitled.”
But marriage already is something to which “everyone is entitled.” Everyone who’s heterosexual, anyway….
posted by Patrick on
“Suppose we did.
Who would that eliminate from marriage?
1) All same-sex couples, without exception
2) All heterosexual couples with some form of biological damage
The latter is 100% of a population, while the former are few and far between exceptions to a far greater majority.”
Your distinction is an artificial one. If your real reason for offering up the procreation argument were actually for the sake of favoring those unions that can produce children, then the logically appropriate distinction to make is between couples capable of producing children, and those incapable of producing children for whatever reason.
This would be your ideal solution if you were being honest about your motivations for presenting the argument. Under these conditions, 100% of couples who could produce their own children could get married, and 100% of couples who could not produce their own children would be excluded, without exception. It’s a much cleaner distinction without any leftovers. It would be consistent.
However, the truth is, you are not really interested in the issue of child production. You don’t actually care if a couple can have their own children or not, so long as they are straight. You are hiding behind this argument as a way to specifically discriminate against gays. That is all.
“We don’t make laws by the outer fringe. We make them by the majority.”
Um, no. We have many hundreds of laws on the books that are there specifically for the protection of the “fringe” aka, minorities of all sorts. You are, as always, simple wrong.
“Hence, we do not get involved with whether or not individual heterosexual couples have children or are capable of having children because the vast majority do and are; it would be clear that doing so was individual discrimination. However, we can say without discrimination or prejudice that not a single same-sex couple is capable of having children in exactly the same fashion as the vast majority of heterosexual couples. It’s a proven biological fact.”
By which you would be favoring those straight couples who can’t produce children over same-sex couples who also cannot produce children. No matter how you try to dance around it, it is still an example of individual discrimination and prejudice. But again, favoring couples who produce children isn’t your actual goal. Your actual goal is simple to discriminate against gays, nothing more.
“Your disdain for children and the importance they have to society is the problem here, Patrick, as is obvious in this statement.”
It is truly awe inspiring the depths of what you “know” about everyone. You “know” that I am a liberal, you “know” that I disdain children”, you “know” that Kyndra is irresponsible and unfaithful
Unfortunately, what you “know” has absolutely nothing to do with the real world. Reality doesn’t care about your prejudices. In reality, I’m not a liberal, I’m a conservative, just like a growing number of supporters of marriage equality. In reality, my apparent disdain for children runs so deep that just a few hours ago I and my wife were engaged in an attempt to make our own children, just so that we could disdain them, I guess.
It is really amazing what a psychosis such as yours can do to the human mind. You’ve so poisoned your ability to reason that you seem to actually believe that everyone who is on the other side of the fence has some nefarious plan to destroy families and society, when the blindingly obvious truth is they simply want to be integrated so that they too can participate in marriage and the family life that we straights take for granted.
“I fail to see why you are so upset about rhetoric that could have been lifted directly from your posts.”
There is a lot you fail to see.
“You’re all about “equality”, Patrick. Why are you so hypocritically trying to make such a blatant denial of it? Is it because admitting that you support it would be political suicide and completely undercut your entire argument?”
No, it’s because I don’t actually support what you accuse me of supporting. You are lying about what my arguments are for. What you are trying to do here would be no different than if I insisted that because you oppose gay marriage, you must also support maintaining a federal database on homosexual, outlawing anal/oral sex, the death penalty for sodomy, banning gay adoption and foster care, banning gays from holding jobs as public teachers, and any number of other insane anti-gay right-wing paranoia spouted by people on your side of the issue.
But I don’t do that. For all I know, you might actually think some of that is a good idea, but if you do, you haven’t said so here. So I’m honest and respectful enough not to pretend you hold views you haven’t expressed. I don’t assume to know what you believe beyond what you have said.
I would appreciate it if you would be honorable enough to do the same.
“I give the Beyond Marriage organization points for honesty, just like I give the ACLU props for admitting that their whole goal is to force plural marriage. But I have to wonder why people like you, Patrick, are so dishonest, claiming you value marriage while you endorse and support groups that are trying to dismantle it completely.”
Please, feel free to quote exactly where I’ve endorsed the full policy platforms and goals of the ACLU, Beyond Marriage (whoever that is) or any other of these groups you are dishonestly attempting to tie me to. In fact, I dare you.
Just because I support one or some of their goals, it does not follow that I endorse and support all of them. Surely you have enough mental horsepower rattling around to be able to understand that distinction.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Hate to mention it, NDT, old boy, but I’ve never heard of “Lorri Jean.” As I’m 99.99% of the world has not.
You’d be wrong there.
Soon after hiring the Dewey Square political consulting firm to lead the fight against Proposition 8, members of the No on 8 executive committee knew something was wrong with the firm’s messaging and approach.
“We should have fired some people really fast early on,” said Lorri Jean, CEO of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, speaking at a No on 8 debriefing panel on Saturday, January 31.
The panel was part of the annual Creating Change conference sponsored by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, held this year in Denver. In addition to Jean, panel members included Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors, National Center for Lesbian Rights Executive Director Kate Kendell, Jordan Rustin Coalition Board President Ron Buckmire, API Equality Director Tawal Panyacosit, and NGLTF director of organizing and training Daniel Hawes. All except Buckmire were members of the No on 8 executive committee.
Very, very wrong.
Very, very, VERY wrong.
I suppose, though, that if you can’t confront another gay person’s inane statements, your only other option is to pretend they don’t exist or that no one has ever heard of them.
posted by Patrick on
“Actually, you don’t, given that gay rights groups consider age-of-consent laws to be homophobic and an impingement on the rights of children.”
Actually, yes, I do. I am not the gay rights group you linked to, so there is not reason at all for you to believe that I must share all of their opinions. This tactic of yours is very sophomoric. Even a H.S. debate coach would call B.S. on it.
Try to step up your game if you want to run with the adults.
“Unfortunately, Patrick, you already argued that procreation was irrelevant to and should not be a limit on marriage.”
Actually, that is a point on which we agree. You have admitted that the ability to procreate biologically should not be a limit on marriage, so long as the couple in question is straight. I simply take that argument through to its logical conclusion.
“You have stated that marriage is about the “love and commitment” of the couple and that nothing else matters, especially not any considerations relative to reproduction.”
No, I have not said that nothing else matters beyond love and commitment. That is the straw-man argument you have decided to battle instead of the one I’m actually making.
Indeed, as I have said, other consideration do matter. Considerations such as the age of the partners, and therefore their ability to give informed and mature consent. Considerations such as genetic risks posed to the possible children of a union.
I’m sorry you are not equipped to address the arguments I’m actually making, which must be why you insist on answering only to arguments of your own creation. It’s dishonest and really sad, but not unexpected given your behavior thus far.
“Because the basic and fundamental reason for marriage is to provide a legal framework that facilitates the production and raising of a couple’s own children.”
Have you found that legal framework that requires married couples to produce their own children yet? Anywhere? Bueller? Bueller? Of course not.
“It neatly melds the biological right of parentage that exists in our law with the acknowledgment that, since there are two parents involved in producing a child, it is better if they are united as one in the eyes of the law and relative to the child.”
You continue to focus all of your attention on the production part, yet completely ignore the raising part. How many millions of married couples are raising children right now that had nothing to do with the production of said children? How many adoptive parents, step father and step mothers, foster parents, and same-sex couples are raising their children who don’t fit into your argument?
Many millions. Yet your only interest is to deny marriage right to just the same sex-parents, not straight non-biological parents. Your only goal is the continued discrimination against gays, that’s it.
Why do you continue to embarrass yourself by throwing out this red herring?
“Since this is not an issue with same-gender couples, there is no reason for the government to offer it to them.”
Nor is there then any reason for the government to offer it to infertile straight couples using your logic. Until you have a legitimate, reasonable answer to this inconsistency, you’ll continue to reinforce the fact that your only interest is discrimination, not the noble goal of protecting families.
Your actions and words harm real families, right now.
“Simply put, it’s a wholesale devaluation of marriage. It is reducing something that is very special and comes with high expectations, requirements, and responsibilities to something to which everyone is entitled.”
Yet again you try to link same-sex marriage to other issues, yet again you evade answering a direct question.
Out of a misplaced sense of optimism, I’ll ask again. What about extending the high expectations, requirements, and responsibilities to homosexuals devalues marriage? What risks does it run for the individuals, their children, or society? Please answer the direct question without trying to extend your answer to other issues such as polygamy, etc. Doing so only devalues your answer.
posted by Patrick on
No, bls is right, very very right. I’ve never heard of Lorri Jean either. Outside of CA, I doubt very much any appreciable number of people have heard of her.
And even if they had, it is not bls’s responsibility to be held accountable for the statements of every marriage equality supporter under the sun. Bls is responsible for the statement of bls, trying to pin the opinions of others onto them is really dishonest.
But we already knew that about you, didn’t we ND30?
posted by bls on
“NDT: ‘You’re so very, very wrong.’”
So, let’s see. You offer as “evidence” for your argument:
Oh, my – yes. That’s very convincing.
And Patrick makes a good point, too. I’m also a woman, for instance, but don’t feel bound to hold to every position that every woman “leader” (which is, I guess, every woman with a Wikipedia page) holds to.
Please. For about a hundred years now, people have been screaming about “gay activists” – but whenever questioned directly about it, couldn’t name even one.
posted by Adrienne on
North Dallas Thirty wrote, “Simply put, it’s a wholesale devaluation of marriage. It is reducing something that is very special and comes with high expectations, requirements, and responsibilities to something to which everyone is entitled.”
Kind of like voting. Expanding the right to vote to women and minorities really devalued the whole institution.
Wait a second…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Unfortunately, Patrick, your attempt to minimize Lorri Jean just wilts when one considers facts. Even your fellow leftist liberals know about and sing her praises.
Now why is this woman, who detests marriage as “patriarchal” and tries to minimize the importance and values of marriage so that she doesn’t alienate other leftist groups, running the No on 8 campaign, the main campaign that generated and spent millions of dollars, the one that you all endorsed and supported, to promote gay marriage?
That’s the question you keep trying to avoid.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If your real reason for offering up the procreation argument were actually for the sake of favoring those unions that can produce children, then the logically appropriate distinction to make is between couples capable of producing children, and those incapable of producing children for whatever reason.
And you can make that distinction. Homosexual couples are incapable of producing children for ANY reason.
What about extending the high expectations, requirements, and responsibilities to homosexuals devalues marriage?
The fact that homosexuals are incapable of doing the very thing that those high expectations, requirements, and responsibilities were put in to assist, protect, and support in the first place.
Your actions and words harm real families, right now.
Oh yes, let’s watch the hypocrisy take place right now.
To have our government define as ?legitimate families? only those households with couples in conjugal relationships does a tremendous disservice to the many other ways in which people actually construct their families, kinship networks, households, and relationships. For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?
Single parent households
· Senior citizens living together and serving as each other?s caregivers (think Golden Girls)
· Blended and extended families
· Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents
· Adult children living with and caring for their parents
· Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives
· Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other?s primary support and caregivers
· Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner
Don’t you care about children in households where there is more than one conjugal partner, Patrick? How can you possibly deny them the rights, benefits, and protections of marriage of having their multiple parents married? You must be a bigot and a hatemonger.
This is what happens when you make of marriage an entitlement, Patrick. Were you actually thinking intelligently, you would realize that “everybody should have marriage” only ensures that you will have to marry everybody who asks.
It all depends on whether you think marriage is special and important. In your case, marriage is just a matter of convenient government benefits and tax writeoffs, so why shouldn’t everyone have it? It has no value to you; indeed, you and your fellow liberals think it a “patriarchal” institution, whose emphasis on monogamy and fidelity is “stupid” and “un-American”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Kind of like voting. Expanding the right to vote to women and minorities really devalued the whole institution.
Really? You honestly think marriage is the same thing as voting?
posted by Patrick on
“Unfortunately, Patrick, your attempt to minimize Lorri Jean just wilts when one considers facts. Even your fellow leftist liberals know about and sing her praises.”
My fellow leftist liberals? You really do live in your own little world don’t you. Who is president in your world? What color is the sky? Because a world where I am a leftist liberal, isn’t the same one I inhabit. I think you are terribly confused.
“Now why is this woman, who detests marriage as “patriarchal” and tries to minimize the importance and values of marriage so that she doesn’t alienate other leftist groups, running the No on 8 campaign, the main campaign that generated and spent millions of dollars, the one that you all endorsed and supported, to promote gay marriage?
That’s the question you keep trying to avoid.”
I do not have to answer for opinions I do not hold. I am responsible to answer for my own opinions, not those of every extremist you choose to dredge up. I have not endorsed anything this woman has said. I challenged you earlier to show where I endorsed the views you dishonestly tied to me, you failed to do so, which came as no surprise to anyone I’m sure.
This is probably the third time I’ve pointed out the unfairness of this tactic, yet you continue to shamelessly utilize it, as though you have nothing else to use.
You have no ethical standing to be talking to anyone at this time. You have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to manipulate and lie about the opinions and arguments of those you are trying in vein to argue against. Further, your refusal to accept the inconsistencies in your “argument” reveals you to be both intellectually lazy and dishonest.
You are not here to argue and debate the issue in good faith, you are here just to spread the virus of your own bigotry.
Well sorry chum, we’ve been vaccinated.
posted by Patrick on
“And you can make that distinction. Homosexual couples are incapable of producing children for ANY reason.”
“The fact that homosexuals are incapable of doing the very thing that those high expectations, requirements, and responsibilities were put in to assist, protect, and support in the first place.”
You just can’t accept responsibility for your argument, can you? If you truly feel that couples who can’t have children of their own shouldn’t get married, then just say so. Own it, accept the consequences of your stated opinion. Clearly state that you don’t want sterile straight couple to wed. It’s fine, we’ll all respect you more for at least being consistent.
Until you can do that, you’re just trying to place a fig-leaf over your desire to discriminate against gays. If that’s what you want, just say so. Clearly say, “I don’t care about procreation, I just don’t want to see the queers included in marriage.” I’ll even respect you more for clearly stating what is obviously your real opinion. You can’t honestly have it both ways.
Pick one. You’ll feel better.
“This is what happens when you make of marriage an entitlement, Patrick. Were you actually thinking intelligently, you would realize that “everybody should have marriage” only ensures that you will have to marry everybody who asks.”
Except for that little niggling fact that I don’t think everyone should have marriage. It so happens that I don’t think marriage should extend to many situations. However, I have yet to hear a single valid argument explaining what the significant difference is between a committed gay couple and a committed hetero couple that would make it alright to deny marriage rights to one but exclude the other. You have likewise failed to provide such a reason.
All you have left is your “slippery slope” logical fallacy trying to tie gay marriage to a whole host of other, different issues. It is precisely because you have been reduced to arguing through such obvious fallacies that I know you simply don’t have a valid, reasonable argument against same-sex marriage. You probably never will either.
That’s why your movement is losing traction. It’s why you’ve already lost the next generation and why you’re beginning to lose right now in courtrooms, legislatures, and popular votes all over the place.
We know a bluff when we see one, and you just don’t have the cards to win this hand.
“It all depends on whether you think marriage is special and important. In your case, marriage is just a matter of convenient government benefits and tax writeoffs, so why shouldn’t everyone have it? It has no value to you; indeed, you and your fellow liberals think it a “patriarchal” institution, whose emphasis on monogamy and fidelity is “stupid” and “un-American”.”
Yet again you pathetically attempt to saddle me with opinions and beliefs I simply do not hold. Was you shame surgically removed? Did it hurt?
The idea that I, a married man, who has himself served others by officiating their own marriages, holds no value in marriage, is simply farcical.
You would be funny if you didn’t actually believe the ridiculous nonsense you spout.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Long story short: when slapped with facts, Patrick sticks his fingers in his ears and starts whining.
One would think, Patrick, that if you actually valued marriage as much as you claim to, that the words of these “extremists” would be highly offensive, and you wouldn’t want them and their views anywhere near marriage. But the simple fact of the matter is that your concern is less for marriage than it is using marriage as an excuse to push leftist ideology. After all, doesn’t incorporating people who belittle monogamy and insist that men should be able to have promiscuous sex outside marriage into marriage benefit you?
posted by Patrick on
What facts are you talking about? Are you talking, yet again, about the opinions (ie, NOT facts) of other people that I do not share? Because for the millionth time, I do not have to be held accountable to them by you or anyone else. That’s not whining, that’s logic and a simple rule of civilized discourse. Two things you clearly have never had even a passing acquaintance with.
Let me ask you the reverse of the same question. Why is it you are not offended by the anti-gay zealots who want to see homosexuals executed in accordance with Leviticus? How does incorporating people who advocate the murder of their fellow citizens benefit marriage? Why do you endorse and support such people?
Is that a fair point? Of course it isn’t. Neither is yours. You try to paint all gay people with the same brush, as though the tiny fringe of them with whom you take such glee in quoting actually speaks for them all. A more perfect example of stereo-typing, I haven’t run across.
You are very proud in your ignorance and bigotry. It’s obvious you have spent a great deal of time honing the rationalizations you use to justify your support for discrimination. What you don’t have are actual facts, actual reasons, which is why you have to resort to fallacies, rhetoric, manipulations, and outright lies.
Here’s the long story short. You have nothing. When pressed for actual facts supporting why same-sex marriage would be dangerous or harmful to society, you instead to talk about other issues. Because for this issue, you have nothing but hollow, asinine, rhetoric.
Thank you, come again.
posted by Adrienne on
North Dallas Thirty wrote, “Really? You honestly think marriage is the same thing as voting?”
Why no, not exactly the same thing. But they share many aspect in common, the are both civil institutions grounded in tradition, they both have responsibilities and high expectations, and they have both have a history of segregation and exclusion attached to them.
It’s called a simile, it’s a lot like a metaphor. You should take a Literature class sometime so that you don’t look so dumb.
Now, do you really believe that SSM and polygamy or incest are the same thing, or were you using your own similes? If so, what do these things have in common that makes you think the comparison is at all appropriate to the discussion we’re having. This should be funny…
posted by Rob on
Hey Patrick, NDT is a Ferrous Cranus and somewhat of an Artful Dodger. Keep humiliating him though, it’s quite entertaining.
posted by Aaron on
[I]If you truly feel that couples who can’t have children of their own shouldn’t get married, then just say so. Own it, accept the consequences of your stated opinion. Clearly state that you don’t want sterile straight couple to wed. It’s fine, we’ll all respect you more for at least being consistent.
Until you can do that, you’re just trying to place a fig-leaf over your desire to discriminate against gays. If that’s what you want, just say so. Clearly say, “I don’t care about procreation, I just don’t want to see the queers included in marriage.” I’ll even respect you more for clearly stating what is obviously your real opinion. You can’t honestly have it both ways.
Pick one. You’ll feel better.[/I]
Pwned. I’ve spent forty-five minutes reading through this whole thing, what will it take for Dallas realized he’s been beaten silly?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why is it you are not offended by the anti-gay zealots who want to see homosexuals executed in accordance with Leviticus?
But I am offended. So much, in fact, that I will heartily condemn their desire to see gays executed for the mere crime of being gay. I can point out why their wanting to do so is not in the least Scriptural. While they are entitled to their beliefs, they are wrong, and should be called out as such.
There. You see? Not at all difficult for me. But seemingly impossible for you and your fellow leftists who, when confronted with the statements made by the leaders of the gay community, first a) pretend they don’t exist, b) try to minimize those leaders, and then c) attack the person who brings them up, rather than simply condemning them.
What credibility should we give to a community whose primary advocacy organization for marriage is led by a group of people who are openly contemptuous of and deride marriage? Why should a community whose belief is that plural and incestuous relationships are equally as good and should be granted marriage benefits be allowed anywhere near marriage?
Along those lines:
How does incorporating people who advocate the murder of their fellow citizens benefit marriage?
The better question to ask, Patrick, would be, “How does incorporating a group of people who believe that monogamy is ‘hurtful’ and that opposition to promiscuity is ‘stupid’ and ‘un-American’ benefit marriage?”
I am focusing on peoples’ beliefs relative to marriage. You are trying to deny marriage based on peoples’ beliefs on things other than marriage, which is as ironic as it is hilarious.
And finally:
Now, do you really believe that SSM and polygamy or incest are the same thing, or were you using your own similes? If so, what do these things have in common that makes you think the comparison is at all appropriate to the discussion we’re having.
They are all endorsed by the gay community and the leftist community as being just as, quote, “socially, economically, and spiritually worthy” as regular marriage.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And herein lies a problem (emphasis mine).
When pressed for actual facts supporting why same-sex marriage would be dangerous or harmful to society, you instead to talk about other issues.
How, exactly, does one provide facts on a hypothetical like “would be”?
What I can provide are actual examples of what gays consider to be normal marriage behaviors.
Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, ?Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.?
Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: ?I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn?t mean anything.?
Why should society promote this, Patrick? Why do you think this sort of behavior adds value to marriage?
If you truly feel that couples who can’t have children of their own shouldn’t get married, then just say so.
And again, you try to blur the obvious, that there is no homosexual couple of any sort that is capable of producing children that are biologically related to both of them.
It is impossible to say with any degree of certainty that a given heterosexual couple is incapable of having children without having to subdivide. However, no homosexual couple anywhere is capable of doing so, without any exceptions. Big difference.
Simply put, heterosexual relationships fit marriage better and are infinitely more likely to fulfill the reason for society giving them marriage in the first place.
The problem is that liberals, in their insane obsession with “equality”, are doing with marriage what they did with school grades: ignoring the value of standards, incenting subpar work and behavior, and trying to make everyone “equal” when they clearly are different.
posted by Patrick on
“The better question to ask, Patrick, would be, “How does incorporating a group of people who believe that monogamy is ‘hurtful’ and that opposition to promiscuity is ‘stupid’ and ‘un-American’ benefit marriage?”
It would be a better question, if the assumptions contained in it bore any relationship to reality. Are you really, truthfully so stupid as to believe that same-sex marriage supporters, as a group, all believe that monogamy is hurtful, stupid, and un-American?
Take me, right here. I am a gay marriage supporter. I do not believe any of those things. I practice monogamy in my own marriage, and in the many years of relationship with my wife that proceeded it. You have many actual gays right here who likewise see monogamy as something to aspire to and cherish, they have said so themselves.
I no more have to condemn the extremist comments you link to then you have to condemn the comments I provided, because they do not represent my beliefs any more than my example represented yours.
Why is this so hard for the mush behind your eyeballs to understand? It is not appropriate for you to throw up this crap and expect us to be accountable for it. It doesn’t represent the arguments we are presenting to you.
You are not debating with even a trace of honesty, you aren’t actually debating at all, just running around the web looking for fringe sound-bytes, throwing them up and pretending that they represent the beliefs of the people here that you are talking to. That’s ridiculous. It is also apparently the only weapon available to you.
How utterly pathetic.
“I am focusing on peoples’ beliefs relative to marriage. You are trying to deny marriage based on peoples’ beliefs on things other than marriage, which is as ironic as it is hilarious.”
No, you are not. You are falsely projecting the opinions of a few fringe elements onto an entire population. Your claim that gays as a group do not value monogamy is every bit as false as my counter-example of all same-sex marriage opponents supporting execution for sodomy.
Neither is anywhere close to true. The difference is, I know it, which is why I came up with an equally ridiculous example with the intention of revealing the glaring error in your logic.
You, otoh, seem to actually believe that all gay people, everywhere, share the opinions of an individual like this Lorri Jean you keep getting on about, when the proof that you are wrong is right here on these very pages.
Kyndra wrote “Actually, I do all those things; I am currently in a loving and committed monagamous relationship without the paper or attendant rights. And I know for a fact that I am more faithful and committed (which is to say 100%) than most people, straight or otherwise. I just want the paper and the word so that I can be recognized as equal and not relegated to 2nd class status.”
So what ND30, is she lying? Just to try to trick us? She must actually deep down think that monogamy is un-American.
Get a clue.
posted by Patrick on
“How, exactly, does one provide facts on a hypothetical like “would be”?”
Except it isn’t a hypothetical anymore, is it? Same-sex marriage has existed in Massachusetts for five years already. It is an everyday reality. Twelve thousand same-sex couples are living in the state right now, some of them for as long as five years.
So, here is your task, show us if the society of Massachusetts has been harmed by the existence of same-sex marriage, and if you find such harm, please counter it against the additional benefits the society enjoys.
Shouldn’t be hard for someone who is so completely convinced that same-sex marriage is a destructive influence. Have fun. Come back when you’re done with your homework.
“And again, you try to blur the obvious, that there is no homosexual couple of any sort that is capable of producing children that are biologically related to both of them.”
And again you remain completely oblivious to the obvious, that no marriage laws anywhere require a couple be capable of procreation. The one thing you insist upon isn’t even a part of the legal definition of marriage. Until you can admit this and account for it, your insistence on rehashing this thoroughly debunked argument will just be interpreted as a sign of surrender.
“It is impossible to say with any degree of certainty that a given heterosexual couple is incapable of having children without having to subdivide. However, no homosexual couple anywhere is capable of doing so, without any exceptions. Big difference.”
Maybe for someone as ignorant of basic facts of biology as you appear to be, but for the rest of us, it’ll be pretty easy to spot many of them. Show me any woman past the age of 65, and I’ll bet willing to bet that she ain’t ripe for breeding anymore. Show me a woman who has had a hysterectomy, and I’m 100% certain that she’s not popping out any babies. Show me a man without testicles, and I’ll show you a man who’s firing blanks.
And you still, still insist on focusing on just the ability to conceive, to the exclusion of the ability to parent. We know that gay couples can parent just as well as straight couples. We’ve been looking into it for decades. Marriage, if it is to have any value to the development of children, has to be just as concerned about the decades following conception as the twenty minutes proceeding it. However, not every child is going to have both their biological parents around.
We know gays can raise children with the same rate of success as straights, and until every orphaned child has a home, and every adoption agency is empty, those children deserve a chance to belong to a family. Until there are no more parentless children to go around, there is no valid argument against allowing gay couples to be that family and be given the same legal protections and responsibilities afforded to their straight neighbors. None.
Opponents of gay marriage harm children. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I no more have to condemn the extremist comments you link to then you have to condemn the comments I provided, because they do not represent my beliefs any more than my example represented yours.
The difference is that I was willing to state they didn’t AND put my money where my mouth was by condemning the behavior.
You, on the other hand, seem truly and completely incapable of condemning this behavior — likely because it doesn’t fit the propaganda campaign of gays as helpless victims you’ve been waging.
You, otoh, seem to actually believe that all gay people, everywhere, share the opinions of an individual like this Lorri Jean you keep getting on about, when the proof that you are wrong is right here on these very pages.
That would be because, despite these words, not a single one of those gay marriage supporters is a) telling her to get lost, b) demanding she be removed from her job as leader of the country’s largest LGBT center, and c) stopping the millions of dollars that they donated to the No on 8 campaign, which she leads.
In other words, they, like their messiah Barack Obama, say whatever they need to say, but don’t feel in the least compelled to actually do anything about it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Maybe for someone as ignorant of basic facts of biology as you appear to be, but for the rest of us, it’ll be pretty easy to spot many of them. Show me any woman past the age of 65, and I’ll bet willing to bet that she ain’t ripe for breeding anymore. Show me a woman who has had a hysterectomy, and I’m 100% certain that she’s not popping out any babies. Show me a man without testicles, and I’ll show you a man who’s firing blanks.
And the argument then becomes that everyone in Africa is short because you went looking only for Pygmies.
You have to try really hard and impose all sorts of conditions to find infertile heterosexual couples. On the other hand, I can simply pick any gay couple and they won’t be fertile, guaranteed. Do you understand that fundamental difference?
Opponents of gay marriage harm children. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.
Oh yes, let’s watch the hypocrisy take place right now.
To have our government define as ?legitimate families? only those households with couples in conjugal relationships does a tremendous disservice to the many other ways in which people actually construct their families, kinship networks, households, and relationships. For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?
Single parent households
· Senior citizens living together and serving as each other?s caregivers (think Golden Girls)
· Blended and extended families
· Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents
· Adult children living with and caring for their parents
· Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives
· Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other?s primary support and caregivers
· Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner
Don’t you care about children in households where there is more than one conjugal partner, Patrick? How can you possibly deny them the rights, benefits, and protections of marriage of having their multiple parents married? You must be a bigot and a hatemonger. How dare you deny children a “family” with full marriage rights like that?
posted by Pat on
I do not have to answer for opinions I do not hold. I am responsible to answer for my own opinions, not those of every extremist you choose to dredge up. I have not endorsed anything this woman has said. I challenged you earlier to show where I endorsed the views you dishonestly tied to me, you failed to do so, which came as no surprise to anyone I’m sure.
Patrick, I’m afraid you just completely pasted your opponent in this debate, and that, along with other faulty arguments is all he has left.
And the argument then becomes that everyone in Africa is short because you went looking only for Pygmies.
NDT, another in a litany of logical flaws in your argument. I guess you’ve had a bad day.
You have to try really hard and impose all sorts of conditions to find infertile heterosexual couples. On the other hand, I can simply pick any gay couple and they won’t be fertile, guaranteed. Do you understand that fundamental difference?
Yes, NDT, everybody gets it, except you. The simple fact is I could pick any couple where the woman is over 60, and they won’t be fertile. That’s one condition, not all sorts.
The crux of your argument is that since gay couples cannot procreate, they should not have marriage. You have even admitted you see no benefit to society for opposite sex couples who cannot or will not procreate. Yes, we all get your point that most opposite sex couples for a period of time can procreate. Now, are you saying that opposite sex couples who cannot or will not procreate should not marry. I’m not even saying you have to ban them marriage. But that such marriages should be discouraged. If that’s your position, at least you’re being consistent.
On the other hand, I see value in such marriages, and will continue to whether or not gay couples can marry or even have civil unions. Heck, I even attended a wedding recently of such a couple. I suppose that you, to be consistent with your principles, would have to turn down such an invitation.
posted by Patrick on
“The difference is that I was willing to state they didn’t AND put my money where my mouth was by condemning the behavior.”
Well good for you. Here’s a gold star. I don’t feel that I have to condemn the opinions of people whom I haven’t supported, endorsed, or used as reference in my arguments. It is entirely you who has included them in this debate for the express purpose of hiding behind them, instead of discussing the actual topic at hand.
Their presence here is a sign of the weakness of your arguments, not mine.
“You, on the other hand, seem truly and completely incapable of condemning this behavior — likely because it doesn’t fit the propaganda campaign of gays as helpless victims you’ve been waging. ”
I’m capable of many things, however since I’m not tied to the opinions of these people in any way, nor have I used anything they have said or done as support for my arguments, I simply don’t have any ethical responsibility to respond to them.
Surely this isn’t that complicated?
“That would be because, despite these words, not a single one of those gay marriage supporters is a) telling her to get lost, b) demanding she be removed from her job as leader of the country’s largest LGBT center, and c) stopping the millions of dollars that they donated to the No on 8 campaign, which she leads.”
Man, you make this too easy…
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2008/11/lorri-jean-prop-8-leader-paid-277299.html#4876346173168239613
Well look at that. A gay marriage supporter who is demanding that Lorri Jean give up her position. Looks like your never ending loosing streak just got another hash mark.
Besides, in response to the money question, are you really so stupid (I gotta stop asking that, because I already know the answer) that you believe that every gay person throughout the country donated to Prop 8 in California? And even if that were true, that somehow the act of donating money to a campaign magically alter the opinions, goals, and beliefs of those donating to exactly match the people heading the organization?
I’m a member of the NRA, and I donate generously to its various legislative efforts to get concealed carry laws passed in my home state. Does that mean I automatically support all of the NRA’s policy goals? Of course not, for example I think that requiring back-ground checks at gun shows is self-evidently a good idea. The NRA leadership disagrees.
It’s amazing that you continue to feel justified in your attempts to fit all gay marriage supporters into the same tiny box of goals and opinions, even after you have been shown that the reverse isn’t true for you personally.
We have grown accustom to such dishonesty from your camp. And I suspect its only going to get worse now that your inevitable slide into defeat is gaining momentum.
posted by Patrick on
“And the argument then becomes that everyone in Africa is short because you went looking only for Pygmies.”
You really are terrible at this. That’s not an appropriate response to, well, anything.
“You have to try really hard and impose all sorts of conditions to find infertile heterosexual couples. On the other hand, I can simply pick any gay couple and they won’t be fertile, guaranteed. Do you understand that fundamental difference?”
Try really hard, you mean like looking at a woman’s drivers license to determine her age? Yeah, that’s SUPER hard.
Participants actually need to write their DOB right on the marriage certificate. If you were serious about your argument that only those couples capable of having children should marry, then all the officiant would have to do is look at the woman’s age. Over 65? Sorry lady, you’re past your “marry by” date. That will take care of a bunch of infertile couples right there.
But of course, you aren’t serious about this argument, which is why you apply it inconsistently. You are however serious about discriminating against gay people, because you believe they would devalue marriage. How they would do that, you have yet to answer for.
Do you understand the fact that no marriage laws anywhere require any couple to be fertile? Do you recognize that you are in fact trying to redefine marriage to exclude all of its traditions beyond childbirth?
Do you understand that your requirement that a couple be able to produce children of their own would necessarily exclude more straight couples than gay ones if it was applied fairly?
No, you don’t understand much of anything.
“Oh yes, let’s watch the hypocrisy take place right now.”
We’ve been watching your hypocrisy on full display for several days now, thank you very much. You’ve just repeated the same material ad nauseum.
I’m not here to talk about polygamy or incest or any of the other issues separate and distinct from gay marriage on your little list. If you want to talk about them, then go find a polygamy supporter to talk argue with. We’re talking about the pros and cons of same-sex marriage, except that you can’t seem to stay on topic. I know why. You have no good arguments against it, so you try to change the subject.
You’re pathetic.
posted by Patrick on
Hang on. I think I’ve got it all figured out. Dallas’s argument against gay marriage goes like this…
1. Only couples who can conceive their own children should get married.
2. However, those straight infertile couples are super-ninja sneaky. So applying this fertility standard consistently would be like, hard, and stuff.
3. Therefore, since being fair would require actual work, let’s just lock out the fags.
Fail.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I don’t feel that I have to condemn the opinions of people whom I haven’t supported, endorsed, or used as reference in my arguments.
Sure you have. You’ve whined about how awful these peoples’ lives are without marriage. You’ve insisted how gays only want to “integrate” into society and have “committed, lifelong relationships” and that gays never do anything other than that.
I am simply pointing out that your “victims” a) openly mock marriage, b) downplay marriage’s value, c) state flatly that monogamy is “hurtful”, and d) insist that “men are pigs” and that it’s not “practical” to expect gay people to be monogamous or sexually responsible.
I have also pointed out that your “victims” insist that plural relationships, incestuous relationships, and relationships where you play musical children among multiple households are just as “socially, economically, and spiritually worthy” as a male-female committed heterosexual couple.
The problem here is that, in order to condemn this behavior, you would have to admit that it happens — which then explodes your propaganda attempt to hide it. Thus, we end up with the amusing sight of you whining that marriage should be extended to people whose leaders openly mock it as a “patriarchal” institution and who insist that promiscuity within marriage is completely fine.
Well look at that. A gay marriage supporter who is demanding that Lorri Jean give up her position.
LOL….the exact quote is, “I wish she would do the movement a favor, resign from any paid leadership position and spend all her free time in Alaska.”
In short, this person isn’t demanding her removal from all leadership positions; he’s wishing she’d just resign her paid one.
In comparison, THIS is what demanding someone be removed from their job looks like.
But protesters, the majority of whom were El Coyote patrons until Christoffersen’s donation to Yes on 8 became public, were not swayed and vowed to protest tonight, Saturday and every Thursday until there is a resolution, something some activists are calling for:
And shouting:
Hey, hey, ho, ho, Marjorie has got to go!
while at the same time:
But the anger was apparent as the few customers of the evening walked in, including a lesbian couple. They were met with angry chanting of “Shame on you, shame on you, shame on you!”
That to me shows just how disgusting liberal gay marriage supporters like you are, Patrick; you claim to be defending gays and lesbians, but then you scream at and namecall them when they don’t do exactly what you want. The fact that you actively seek to hurt those who you claim to be “defending” demonstrates convincingly that your “support” of gay marriage is in regard to some other agenda, and that you are merely using gays as an excuse.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Try really hard, you mean like looking at a woman’s drivers license to determine her age? Yeah, that’s SUPER hard.
But of course, Patrick, you actually have to look at a woman’s driver’s license and determine her age to figure out whether she or her husband might be fertile or not.
Same-sex couple, you don’t even need to do that. You can always, under every condition, state positively that they can’t reproduce. Completely simple, cut and dried, no additional information required.
I’m not here to talk about polygamy or incest or any of the other issues separate and distinct from gay marriage on your little list.
My dear Patrick, you were the one who was arguing that not granting marriage rights to any grouping of people who happened to have children was “harmful” and thus grounds for granting them.
And you were the one that was arguing that “love and commitment” and “equal protection for everyone” should be the only requirements for granting marriage.
I simply am pointing out that your lazy arguments legitimize all of these things. What’s particularly hilarious is that you can’t seem to find it in yourself to condemn the same organizations that are pushing for gay marriage for the fact that they are also pushing for incestuous, child, plural, and all the other forms of relationship that you (claim to) abhor.
posted by Patrick on
“Sure you have. You’ve whined about how awful these peoples’ lives are without marriage. You’ve insisted how gays only want to “integrate” into society and have “committed, lifelong relationships” and that gays never do anything other than that.”
Ah, no, I have not. Your sheer dependence upon lying is stunning. If you were to be honest, about anything, for even one second, you would have no arguments left. You continue to put up the bold faced lie that gay marriage supporters are a monolithic block without deviation in belief or behavior. So you define the entire community by the beliefs and opinions of its fringe. That’s bigotry.
I absolutely demand that you support your claim that I have said anywhere that all gay couples do this, or that all gays couples do that. I’ve never made such a claim. Period.
Of course some gay couples behave irresponsibly. But then again, so do many straight couples. So I’m sorry, but that is not a valid reason to deny marriage to one group when the other group is equally guilty. You have no leg to stand on here.
“The problem here is that, in order to condemn this behavior, you would have to admit that it happens — which then explodes your propaganda attempt to hide it.”
Hide what? I’m not denying that anything happens. What I am denying is the fairness and logic of your attempts to define an entire population of people based on the behavior of a few. You otoh, are trying to hide. You openly mock all gays because a few of them behave poorly, yet you ignore the fact that straight, married people do precisely all of the same things you’re complaining about. Not all of them of course, but some of them, just like gays.
It’s this conveniently selective inconsistency that reveals your one, pure motivation is just discrimination against gay people. You are not a noble defender of marriage or children, just an anti-gay bigot.
“Thus, we end up with the amusing sight of you whining that marriage should be extended to people whose leaders openly mock it as a “patriarchal” institution and who insist that promiscuity within marriage is completely fine.”
Who elected these “leaders” to represent and speak for all gays? No one, that’s who. The few fringe people you’re talking about have no more authority to speak for all gay people than Rush has authority to represent all conservatives, or for the Pope to represent all Christians.
Your argument is based upon only deceit.
“That to me shows just how disgusting liberal gay marriage supporters like you are, Patrick; you claim to be defending gays and lesbians, but then you scream at and namecall them when they don’t do exactly what you want.”
Who the frack are you talking to? Where have I screamed and name-called any gays for not doing something? You’re not at all connected to reality.
The actions of other people are not my actions. The actions of some gays are not the actions of all gays. What about this simple empirical fact is not getting through to you? Where are you getting confused here?
posted by Patrick on
“But of course, Patrick, you actually have to look at a woman’s driver’s license and determine her age to figure out whether she or her husband might be fertile or not.”
Or just look at the marriage application in the spot where the bride to-be writes her DOB. Wow, that took like, three whole seconds. I’m beat. I think I need to lie down.
“Same-sex couple, you don’t even need to do that. You can always, under every condition, state positively that they can’t reproduce. Completely simple, cut and dried, no additional information required.”
See, fairness and consistency is hard. Discrimination is easy. So we should discriminate unfairly because it requires less work.
What an idiot.
“My dear Patrick, you were the one who was arguing that not granting marriage rights to any grouping of people who happened to have children was “harmful” and thus grounds for granting them.”
No, my dear liar, that’s not what I said. That’s what the little version of me that exists only in your brain said to you.
“And you were the one that was arguing that “love and commitment” and “equal protection for everyone” should be the only requirements for granting marriage.”
See, that was the little me in your head again. In fact, if you could stand the pain of being honest for a second, I said quite clearly that other factors are important too, such as age, blood relation, the capacity to give informed consent, etc.
Now, I know you can’t wait to get on to your next distortion and lie. But seriously, what exactly do you think such tactics accomplish? It is precisely because of the sort of behavior that you are demonstrating here that the public’s patience for the anti-marriage equality movement is wearing thin. It is because of the fact anyone with a working brain can see you haven’t a rational leg to stand on, so you have to manipulate, lie, and frighten. That’s all you have left. It may be good enough to whip the choir into a frenzy, but you’re loosing converts by the millions.
“I simply am pointing out that your lazy arguments legitimize all of these things.”
No, they do not. Your misunderstanding and fear does that. If you want to discuss the pros and cons of these other issues, feel free to find an appropriate venue to do so.
I’m here to discuss same-sex marriage. Since you obviously aren’t, based on how frequently you’ve tried to change the subject, why are you still here?
“What’s particularly hilarious is that you can’t seem to find it in yourself to condemn the same organizations that are pushing for gay marriage for the fact that they are also pushing for incestuous, child, plural, and all the other forms of relationship that you (claim to) abhor.”
I have no need to, because I am neither a member or a contributor to any of the organizations you’re so obsessed with.
I’m not the one who introduced them to the discussion, and I’m not going to waste my time condemning every single little organization or individual you find with whom I don’t agree. You’re just deploying them like a smoke screen, attempting to distract everyone from the truth that you want to talk about everything except the actual topic. That may work great with the people you hang out with, however I travel in somewhat more sophisticated circles. So I ‘m not going to be led around by your diversions and baiting. If you can’t keep on topic, just admit defeat and leave.
posted by Patrick on
Here ND30, let me diagram your fatal flaw for you. See if you can spot the logical fallacy…
Lorri supports x. Lorri is gay. Therefore, all gays support x.
Do you see the problem here?
posted by toy on
Gay marriage is coming and it can’t be stopped. Of course there will be people who fight against it, but in the end there is no good reason for people to stand against it.
posted by Patrick S on
ND30 can you explain to my why you think that Marriage Equality and the Hate Crimes Prevention Act will lead to sex with ducks ?
posted by Patrick S on
For anyone not aware this video proves ND30 believes that gay marriage and sex with ducks are one in the same
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I absolutely demand that you support your claim that I have said anywhere that all gay couples do this, or that all gays couples do that. I’ve never made such a claim. Period.
Of course, you have.
You’ve so poisoned your ability to reason that you seem to actually believe that everyone who is on the other side of the fence has some nefarious plan to destroy families and society, when the blindingly obvious truth is they simply want to be integrated so that they too can participate in marriage and the family life that we straights take for granted.
And I pointed out that the very leaders of the largest “gay marriage” organization, No on 8, the one to which hundreds of thousands of gays and gay marriage supporters gave millions of dollars and their support and endorsement, openly deride and insult marriage as “patriarchal” and show nothing but contempt for its values.
It is because of the fact anyone with a working brain can see you haven’t a rational leg to stand on, so you have to manipulate, lie, and frighten.
What’s to lie about? Gays support teaching sex to five-year-olds. Gay-rights groups oppose age of consent laws and insist that it is “common” for gays to have sex with children seventeen years younger than they are. Gays dress up toddler-age children as sex slaves, take them to sex fairs to show off, claim it’s an “educational” experience, and then insist that anyone who opposes them doing so is a “close-minded” bigot and homophobe. Indeed, gay marriage supporters such as yourself openly use screaming “homophobe” to intimidate people, with catastrophic results.
Meanwhile, with all that going on, gay marriage supporters like yourself are going on TV and calling a young woman a “dumb bitch” and a “cunt” for expressing her beliefs — which, ironically, are the same as the candidate you just poured millions of dollars and shouts of “pro-gay”toward — when you’re not screaming at and trying to “shame” lesbian and gay people who don’t happen to agree with your need to make life miserable for people who make political donations with which you disagree.
If gay and lesbian people want to integrate, demanding sexualization of children, namecalling people for expressing the same beliefs as someone you praise, and spending hours barricading parking lots and screaming, harming a business and trying to get someone fired from their job over a $100 political donation seems a rather funny way to do it, because normal, regular folks do nothing of the sort.
posted by Patrick on
You are certifiable. After literally days of it being beaten into your thick, yet curiously empty, skull that it is not a valid argument to project the actions of select individuals onto an entire population, it’s still the only trick you use.
In fact, you are so completely dependent on this fallacy to continue talking that you have been reduced to mining for new content from other countries. That study you just linked to came from Great Britain! You can’t even keep your failed arguments focused within one entire country. It’s truly amazing.
Well since the actions and opinions of foreigners are now fair to attribute to the entire gay community here in the U.S., it’s only reasonable that you be held accountable for the anti-gay death squads now murdering homosexuals by the dozens throughout Iraq. Why did you, ND30, glue the anuses shut of dozens of gay Iraqi men and then force feed them laxatives? Why are you such a cruel, heartless, murderer? Why does the anti-gay marriage movement want to torture and kill gays? I’m only arguing using your rules of engagement.
Don’t bother complaining about it, I’m only arguing using your demonstrated rules of engagement. Feels nice, doesn’t it?
posted by Patrick on
See, Patrick S gave a perfect example.
Pat Robertson believes that gay sex is exactly the same as sex with ducks. Pat Robertson is a gay marriage opponent. Therefore all gay marriage opponents believe gay sex is exactly the same as sex with ducks.
ND30 is a gay marriage opponent. Therefore ND30 must also believe gay sex is exactly the same as sex with ducks.
See how easy it is to prove something when you stop thinking rationally? I think I’ll start arguing just like ND30. It’s so much simpler when you don’t have to worry about reason, shame, or common decency.
posted by Adrienne on
North Dallas Thirty wrote, “What’s to lie about? Gays support teaching sex to five-year-olds. Gay-rights groups oppose age of consent laws and insist that it is “common” for gays to have sex with children seventeen years younger than they are. Gays dress up toddler-age children as sex slaves, take them to sex fairs to show off, claim it’s an “educational” experience, and then insist that anyone who opposes them doing so is a “close-minded” bigot and homophobe.”
Well the lie here isn’t in the telling that these things happen, no one has denied that some gay people do stupid things.
The actual lie is twofold.
Firstly, as has already been hammered out by Patrick, it is deceitful to post examples of extreme behavior or opinions and then pretend that they represent an entire community instead of just the few individuals actually responsible. That’s profiling.
And second, it is even more deceitful to focus on these examples of some gays behaving badly, while completely ignoring heterosexuals engaging in exactly the same behaviors. There are thousands of examples of straight men, (and women, have to be fair) having sex with teenage partners many years their juniors. The recent spat of female teachers, (often married) sleeping with male students is just one example. I’m sure we all remember the Jean Benet Ramsey case, that was tied very closely to the practice of straight parents dressing up their little girls, (some not yet old enough to walk) like beauty queens, complete with gaudy make-up and slinky, revealing dresses. How is a child beauty pageant different from the leather fair you linked to? I certainly don’t see much difference. It may be different apparel, but they both sexualize children to an uncomfortable and inappropriate degree.
The reasonable conclusion to draw is that such stupid behavior is not a unique characteristic of homosexuals, but of a percentage of humans in general, regardless of their sexual orientation.
That being the case, it is not rationally or morally justifiable to use your examples as a means to deprive homosexuals of rights, while arguing to preserve them for heterosexuals.
As other people keep pointing out, your argument lacks any internal consistency.
posted by Adrienne on
North Dallas Thirty wrote, “They are all endorsed by the gay community and the leftist community as being just as, quote, “socially, economically, and spiritually worthy” as regular marriage.”
I just noticed that you had responded to my question earlier. And indeed my prediction was right, it was funny.
The Beyond Marriage website that you linked to, the one you claim represents the ENTIRE gay community, has approximately 500 signatories. A list, which incidentally, had not been added to or modified since July 2006. In fact, the entire web page has not been updated since that time.
From this we’ve learned two amazing things. First off, the entire gay community in the U.S. is comprised of less than a thousand people. This runs counter to the assumption most people have that homosexuals number in the millions. It also begs the question how fewer than one thousand people were able to enter into eighteen thousand marriages in California alone. The second thing that we’ve learned is that homosexuals are terrible at keeping their webpage current.
You sir, are a gem. Don’t ever change, every court needs a jester. LOL!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why did you, ND30, glue the anuses shut of dozens of gay Iraqi men and then force feed them laxatives? Why are you such a cruel, heartless, murderer? Why does the anti-gay marriage movement want to torture and kill gays?
I didn’t. In fact, I condemn the people who do and call them what they are, which is sociopathic twisted murderers. And I’ll say the same — and in fact have — about anyone who wants to torture and kill gays. They’re entitled to their beliefs, but they are not entitled to kill other people.
And again:
Pat Robertson believes that gay sex is exactly the same as sex with ducks.
Pat Robertson is entitled to his beliefs, but he’s dead wrong, and I have no trouble saying that he’s wrong.
Now, you see, instead of whining and complaining, I simply made my positions clear. That’s probably due to the fact that I see no need to defend this sort of behavior, nor am I afraid of acknowledging that some people are sociopathic murderers of gay people, or quite a bit kooky in the case of Pat Robertson. I don’t need their approval, nor do I care if they get upset with me for disagreeing with them. It hardly upsets me to criticize their behavior.
Perhaps your problem, Patrick, is that you don’t want your house picketed, or white powder mailed to your office, or people on TV calling you a “dumb bitch” and a “cunt”, or people screaming at you “Shame, shame, shame”, or people blockading the parking lot at your business demanding that you should be fired — which is what you know would happen if you ever criticized or held gay people responsible, because you’ve done it to others. That would explain why you get so upset about being confronted with these things; certainly it must offend your sense of decency to see gays molest children, but obviously, it’s more important to you to be a good compliant liberal.
Speaking of which, here’s a great example of the mentality of the gay community.
How is a child beauty pageant different from the leather fair you linked to? I certainly don’t see much difference.
It boggles the mind just what exactly ideology enables people to ignore.
Or perhaps Adrienne really does believe that child beauty pageants feature naked adults masturbating, having sex with each other, urinating on each other, and so forth. The gay community is very good at propaganda, and obviously the lack of outcry in regards to taking children to these events indicates that gays think, or have been trained to think, that doing so is normal.
posted by Patrick on
“I didn’t.”
Oh, I see. So then, as it turns out, it’s not accurate to assume that opinions or goals of any given person will be the same as anyone else just because they share some opinion or goal.
So, as you have just demonstrated for us, one can’t accurately make broad pronouncements about the “gay community” or the “anti-gay rights” community based on the opinions or goals of the extremists in either group.
Thank you for eviscerating the foundation of your argument.
“Perhaps your problem, Patrick, is that you don’t want your house picketed, or white powder mailed to your office, or people on TV calling you a “dumb bitch” and a “cunt”, or people screaming at you “Shame, shame, shame”, or people blockading the parking lot at your business demanding that you should be fired — which is what you know would happen if you ever criticized or held gay people responsible, because you’ve done it to others.”
Perhaps you base your actions and beliefs upon fear, in fact I’m confident that is precisely what you do. I however, do not. I haven’t done anything out of fear since High School. I hold the beliefs I do because of what’s logical, just, and most beneficial to all.
“That would explain why you get so upset about being confronted with these things; certainly it must offend your sense of decency to see gays molest children…”
It offends my sense of decency to see anyone molest children, gay or straight. But that is another diversion. Pedophilia is just as present among heterosexuals as homosexuals. Why do you differentiate? Don’t bother answering, I know why. Convenient inconsistency.
“but obviously, it’s more important to you to be a good compliant liberal.”
You just can’t handle reality, can you? You’d like to believe that I am a liberal, because that’s the paradigm that has been beaten into your nearly lifeless brain. Gay marriage must be a liberal issue, so gay marriage supporters must be liberals. End thought.
Well, I’m sorry to burst yet another in your endless stream of bubbles, but this is yet again an example of something you “know”, just not being so. I, for the third or fourth time, am a classic conservative. Individual liberty and personal responsibility have always been conservative hallmarks, which are just two of the reasons I support the personal liberty and greater social responsibility for homosexuals that marriage represents.
Nor am I alone amongst conservatives. More and more people on the right are seeing the light on this basic issue of liberty and supporting same-sex marriage. Just yesterday, that paragon of liberalism, Dick Cheney, came out in support of same-sex marriage and against the anti-federalism of DOMA. He will not be the last.
You, however, might be.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh, I see. So then, as it turns out, it’s not accurate to assume that opinions or goals of any given person will be the same as anyone else just because they share some opinion or goal.
If they demonstrate that they don’t share those other goals and opinions, as I did.
However, in your case, where you have made no demonstrable effort whatsoever to differentiate yourself from your fellow gay marriage supporters and have in fact tried to cover up for them, it is perfectly accurate.
The problem here, Patrick, is again, an inability on your part to deviate from the liberal party line.
Perhaps an example will help.
How is a child beauty pageant different from the leather fair you linked to? I certainly don’t see much difference.
It boggles the mind just what exactly ideology enables people to ignore.
Or perhaps gay marriage supporters like you, Patrick, really do believe that child beauty pageants feature naked adults masturbating, having sex with each other, urinating on each other, and so forth. The gay community is very good at propaganda, and obviously the lack of outcry in regards to taking children to these events indicates that gay marriage supporters think, or have been trained to think, that doing so is normal.
Individual liberty and personal responsibility have always been conservative hallmarks, which are just two of the reasons I support the personal liberty and greater social responsibility for homosexuals that marriage represents.
But you and your fellow gay marriage supporters have stated that the most promiscuous people you know are married. Furthermore, you and your fellow gay marriage supporters have stated that monogamy is “stupid” and “un-American”.
Now watch as you try to whine and spin that you shouldn’t be held accountable for their statements — just after I stepped up and demonstrated why I shouldn’t be held accountable for the actions of sociopathic murders without any whining or spinning.
posted by Adrienne on
North Dallas Thirty wrote, “Speaking of which, here’s a great example of the mentality of the gay community.”
It would be, if I were a member of the gay community. Alas, I am not. Your assumption success rate isn’t doing so well.
North Dallas Thirty wrote, “It boggles the mind just what exactly ideology enables people to ignore.
Or perhaps Adrienne really does believe that child beauty pageants feature naked adults masturbating, having sex with each other, urinating on each other, and so forth. The gay community is very good at propaganda, and obviously the lack of outcry in regards to taking children to these events indicates that gays think, or have been trained to think, that doing so is normal.”
You know what else boggles the mind, the amount of time marriage equality opponents seem to spend online looking for gay porn…
Although these images do bring two other questions to mind.
First, since Dallas keeps going on and on about how “common” and “normal” it is for homosexuals to bring children to these sorts of venues, I find the conspicuous absence of any pictures of such children very interesting. It is obvious that the journalist in question was deliberately looking for sensationalistic images, so if there were toddlers in bondage outfits running all over the place, (as Dallas claims is standard gay operating procedure), why would he have photographed them? It certainly doesn’t prove they weren’t there, but it does call the claim into question.
And second, apparently Dallas spends too much time cloistered in his office searching for gay porn to be upset about, because if he were to get out more, he would see the exact same sorts of things in straight culture. Have you ever been to New Orleans, Dallas? Any given Friday or Saturday night on Bourbon Street, you can see these kinds of acts being conducted by straight people. Public sex, exposed breasts, urination. It’s all there. And believe it or not, some straight parents too are dumb or irresponsible enough to bring their children along.
So just as before, your argument applied fairly extends to both homo and heterosexuals. The phenomena you’re so in a twirl about isn’t limited to one or the other, but is common among both.
Still no consistency. Keep trying, it’s so cute to watch you fail.
posted by Patrick on
“However, in your case, where you have made no demonstrable effort whatsoever to differentiate yourself from your fellow gay marriage supporters and have in fact tried to cover up for them, it is perfectly accurate.”
Ah. So to be clear, in your world, if a person chooses not to dignify wild, offensive, baseless accusations with a response, they must be true. Riiiight.
Listen, Skippy, it isn’t the responsibility of everyone else to defend themselves from every insane accusation thrown in their direction. In fact, if you were a mature adult, you would realize that it is actually your responsibility not to throw them around in the first place.
“But you and your fellow gay marriage supporters have stated that the most promiscuous people you know are married.”
I have not stated that. In point of fact, the most promiscuous person I know is a teenage boy who happens to be a cousin of mine through marriage.
But that is besides the point. Personal liberty and responsibility go hand-in-hand. People have to choose to be responsible with the freedoms they have. Some will, some won’t. That is going to be true regardless of their age, gender, race, religion, or sexuality. But before they can make that choice for themselves, they first have to be given the opportunity to make it. That is probably the core reason why I support marriage equality.
“Furthermore, you and your fellow gay marriage supporters have stated that monogamy is “stupid” and “un-American”.”
Ah, no, I have not. In fact, I have said clearly that I practice monogamy in my own marriage. See, here…
“Take me, right here. I am a gay marriage supporter. I do not believe any of those things. I practice monogamy in my own marriage, and in the many years of relationship with my wife that proceeded it.”
So even though I have clearly differentiated myself from that particular red hearing, you continue to try to falsely pin it on me. So you were lying, again. How predictable.
Besides, you contradict yourself, just a few posts ago, you said…
“You’ve insisted how gays only want to “integrate” into society and have “committed, lifelong relationships” and that gays never do anything other than that.”
So, ND30, which one is it? Did I say that gays only want to have lifelong, committed relationships, or that lifelong, committed relationships are stupid and un-American?
See, this is the problem with building your argument on lies. Eventually the pile gets too big and you can’t keep them all straight. No pun intended. Honesty is so much easier to organize, you should give it a try.
“Now watch as you try to whine and spin that you shouldn’t be held accountable for their statements…”
I shouldn’t, because they aren’t my statements and I have not supported or affirmed them. This is about as simple a concept as has ever been presented in a debate, yet it seems impossible for you to wrap your tiny head around. I can’t decide if that’s funny or tragic. Probably a little of both.
You’re a broken record ND30. You’ve been reduced to parroting you own defeated claims ad infinitum, as though repetition is going to breath new life into them. It’s not working.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
First, since Dallas keeps going on and on about how “common” and “normal” it is for homosexuals to bring children to these sorts of venues, I find the conspicuous absence of any pictures of such children very interesting.
You need only ask.
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
Next attempted dodge:
Have you ever been to New Orleans, Dallas? Any given Friday or Saturday night on Bourbon Street, you can see these kinds of acts being conducted by straight people. Public sex, exposed breasts, urination. It’s all there.
Of course, the difference is that those people get arrested.
But of course, if you were to do that to gays, gay marriage supporters like you and Patrick scream that it’s “homophobic” and insist that people who object to dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to sex fairs are “close-minded”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah. So to be clear, in your world, if a person chooses not to dignify wild, offensive, baseless accusations with a response, they must be true.
If they are wild, offensive, and baseless, it would seem rather simple to refute them.
But of course, that would require you to criticize your fellow gay marriage supporters, and you simply can’t do that.
Listen, Skippy, it isn’t the responsibility of everyone else to defend themselves from every insane accusation thrown in their direction. In fact, if you were a mature adult, you would realize that it is actually your responsibility not to throw them around in the first place.
Which is, of course, why you and your fellow gay marriage supporters accuse me of spending all my time “cloistered in (my) office searching for gay porn”.
The difference is, of course, that when I say that gay marriage supporters like yourself are picketing businesses, trying to destroy the lives and careers of people, and publicly excoriating any gays and lesbians who dare do other than you command, all over a $100 political donation, I can back it up.
posted by Adrienne on
“You need only ask.”
Okay, then I’ll ask again. Those pictures are from an event called the Folsom Street Fair, which is an S&M and bondage event. Both gays and straights attend it and participate. It is not a gay event exclusively, but a bondage event for all who are into that particular activity. Nor are gays the only ones who bring their children to it. So it’s not helping your argument any to include it as evidence, just reinforcing your double standard.
“Of course, the difference is that those people get arrested.”
On Bourbon Street? Oh, why no, that was at an apartment complex. The NOPD lets such things slide on Bourbon street, or haven’t you seen the “World Famous Sex Show”? The reality is there are places where straights engaging in the same sort of public exhibitionism you were complaining about is tolerated, even encouraged.
And if New Orleans is too passe for your tastes, try Fantasy Fest in Key West.
“But of course, if you were to do that to gays, gay marriage supporters like you and Patrick scream that it’s “homophobic” and insist that people who object to dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to sex fairs are “close-minded”.”
You just can’t help yourself. Do you make broad generalizations about everyone you meet and interact with? Can you tell everything you need to know about a person by what kind of car they drive, what sort of shoes they are wearing?
I’ve read all of both yours and Patrick’s posts. He has been very patient with your brash categorization, I won’t be. I take your accusations as a personal insult. You do not know me, you do not have the right to speak for me. The sheer volume of arrogance you exude is simply breathtaking.
You know what’s homophobic? Your double standard of demonizing the whole gay community for things you see a handful of gays doing, while ignoring the reality that straights do the same things in about equal proportions.
That has been the chief tool of racists, misogynists, bigots, and now homophobes from the beginning of time. You’re nothing special Dallas, we humans have seen it all before. Just another run-of-the-mill, know-nothing, arrogant, hypocrite.
I’m sure you couldn’t be more proud of your accomplishment.
P.S. Patrick may not have been aware of it, but since you value monogamy, (as do I) you will be delighted to learn that lesbian couples, on average, are more monogamous than straight couples. Unless you’re going to be as consistent with that argument as you were with the fertility issue.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Okay, then I’ll ask again.
And I will simply repeat the quote:
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
As is typical, instead of confronting your fellow gay marriage supporters who are insisting that any opposition to them taking children to sex fairs is homophobic and “close-minded”, you try to blame straight people with aspersions.
Like this:
On Bourbon Street? Oh, why no, that was at an apartment complex. The NOPD lets such things slide on Bourbon street, or haven’t you seen the “World Famous Sex Show”?
That would be news to them.
But of course, that’s not the point here. In order to justify the behavior that you and your fellow gay marriage supporters do, you have to invent some sort of theory that all straight people are as promiscuous and perverted as the gay marriage supporters whose behavior you endorse. Just like the enabling spouse who argues that everyone drinks two bottles of vodka a night and there’s nothing abnormal about it.
You do not know me, you do not have the right to speak for me.
Ironically, of course, coming from the same person who insists that I spend all of my time “cloistered in (my) office searching for gay porn”.
Like all gay marriage supporters, you are used to intimidating and screaming at people to get your way. I simply stand my ground — only more effectively, since I can provide quotes and links that demonstrate exactly what you and your fellow gay marriage supporters are demanding that people endorse, like teaching sex to five-year-olds.
Patrick may not have been aware of it, but since you value monogamy, (as do I) you will be delighted to learn that lesbian couples, on average, are more monogamous than straight couples.
That’s odd, since the previous argument was that gays needed marriage to be monogamous.
Then again, we should also remember that the gay community defines “monogamous” as limiting yourself to three-ways.
posted by chris54 on
The Caribbean is known for its adult sex vacations resort with European and Russian escorts at charlisangels where you can enjoy the pleasure of escorts in beach front villas.
posted by Patrick on
“If they are wild, offensive, and baseless, it would seem rather simple to refute them.”
If you were a reasonable person, you would have realized by now that your broad generalizations and guilt-by-association has been refuted. But, since you couldn’t reason your way out of a gazebo…
“But of course, that would require you to criticize your fellow gay marriage supporters, and you simply can’t do that.”
I have no interest or need to criticize the actions of people whom I have not endorsed.
But still, this is another diversion. The arguments I use in support of same-sex marriage are logical and reasonable. They are independent of the actions of any other supporters. That’s why you want to focus on the misdeeds of a few individuals, so that you don’t have to debate the issue on its merits. That’s clearly not an argument you are prepared for.
“Which is, of course, why you and your fellow gay marriage supporters accuse me of spending all my time ‘cloistered in (my) office searching for gay porn'”.
Did I now? Could you point me to that quote? Adrienne is free to say whatever she(?) likes, whether I approve of it or not. However, you are simply lying to claim that I accused you of it. This is your basic problem. You refuse to see that any movement or group is made up of individuals not easily categorized or generalized about.
“The difference is, of course, that when I say that gay marriage supporters like yourself are picketing businesses, trying to destroy the lives and careers of people, and publicly excoriating any gays and lesbians who dare do other than you command, all over a $100 political donation, I can back it up.”
Ah, no, you can’t. I haven’t done any of those things. You are again lying when you claim that I have. Nor, I dare say, have many gay marriage supporters outside of CA been involved in your examples.
However, you can bet your brass buttons that if someone in my community had paid money to not only try and deprive me of my right to marry, but to try and retroactively divorce me from my wife against our will, that I would protest and boycott the crap out of them. Wouldn’t you?
Peaceful protests aren’t just tradition in our country, but a right enshrined in our Constitution. So, I’m very sorry, but political actions have consequences in a democracy. One of the consequences of paying to try and keep gays segregated is the possibility of protest or boycott. You’re not going to get much sympathy out of me over that, because if the situation were reversed, I’d be doing precisely the same.
posted by Patrick on
I think the Onion has been following North Dallas 30’s “argument”…
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/oh_no_its_making_well_reasoned?utm_source=EMTF_Onion
posted by Adrienne on
North Dallas Thirty wrote, “And I will simply repeat the quote:
As is typical, instead of confronting your fellow gay marriage supporters who are insisting that any opposition to them taking children to sex fairs is homophobic and “close-minded”, you try to blame straight people with aspersions.”
Regardless of how many times you repeat the quote, it will not stop being the opinion of only one person, one person who is speaking only for themselves. Your quote from a single person is no more proof that all gays think taking children to leather fairs is alright and normal than the murder of that abortion clinic doctor in Kansas is proof that all pro-life supporters are assassins.
Pointing out the truth that straight people engage in these same activities isn’t and example of blaming anyone, it’s an example of applying an argument consistently.
Doesn’t it bother you that you have to lie to support your point of view? It would bother me. But then again, I value honesty. Your behavior suggests that you don’t.
North Dallas Thirty wrote, “In order to justify the behavior that you and your fellow gay marriage supporters do, you have to invent some sort of theory that all straight people are as promiscuous and perverted as the gay marriage supporters whose behavior you endorse.”
There is so much wrong in this burning pile of mental wreckage that I must pause to consider where to begin. Let’s start with the words “endorse” and “justify”. Where exactly have I endorsed the behavior you’re complaining about? Nowhere. In fact, I repeatedly called it stupid and irresponsible, regardless of the sexuality of the people involved. That’s the exact opposite of endorsing them.
Where your poisoned little psyche is having problems is that my pointing out the fact that straight people also engage in the same activities isn’t an endorsement or justification, it is simply a refutation of your attempt to use them to discriminate against gays alone. But that’s the sort of inconsistency that your arguments use for fuel. You can’t stand having the water of reason thrown on the fire of your indignation.
And secondly, there is not theory. It’s a fact that some heterosexuals do these things, just like it’s a fact some homosexuals do. The only theory is yours, that because a few do it, they all must. Or your theory that because I know some heteros do these things, that I must think they all do.
Most people don’t suffer from that particular delusion.
North Dallas Thirty wrote, “Like all gay marriage supporters, you are used to intimidating and screaming at people to get your way. I simply stand my ground — only more effectively, since I can provide quotes and links that demonstrate exactly what you and your fellow gay marriage supporters are demanding that people endorse, like”
Please, by all means, show me where I’ve demanded that we teach sex to five year olds. You can add it to the list of quotes Patrick has asked you for. I’ll wait…
The fact you believe you’re doing anything “effectively” is quite humorous.
North Dallas Thirty wrote, “That’s odd, since the previous argument was that gays needed marriage to be monogamous.”
Who made that argument? Oh, right, the voices in your head.
posted by Patrick on
Looks like the bigot finally had enough. Too bad, ND30 was a good chew toy.