Two things in this New Jersey poll on same-sex marriage caught my eye.
First, look at the breakdown of Catholics (who comprise the largest religious group in the state): 48% support same-sex marriage, 40% oppose, and 12% are undecided. The last group certainly deserves comment. Catholics aren't supposed to be undecided on issues the Vatican has pronounced upon; that's for Protestants.
But it is that supportive plurality - and near-majority - of Catholics that we have to keep focusing on. The church takes pride in sticking to its historical ignorance of human sexuality, and is doubling down on prejudice by aggressively recruiting the most anti-gay Anglicans, overlooking things like married priests and near complete acceptance of birth control. Church leadership has now gone beyond hypocrisy and is becoming obsessed with homosexuality.
And that is not going unnoticed in American pews. U.S. Catholics have long ignored the Vatican on birth control and divorce without much fuss from the berobed ones, and may be seeing that the church's position on homosexuality is part of the same continuum of museum-quality bias about sex and marriage - a trinity of sexual sanctimony from the famously (if theoretically) celibate, all-male priesthood. Given the fact that heterosexuals get a pass on their issues, many may even see the new crusade for what it is - pure bias against a minority; and a bias the church is backing up with an awful lot of financial support that is not going to other, perhaps more important church priorities.
That 48% plurality shows how many Catholics remain in their church despite, not because of its bizarre leaders. That is the kind of faith I lack, and admire in those who stay in the church I left.
But there's one other thing in the poll that shouldn't go unnoticed: 46% of all respondents said the issue of same-sex marriage was "not at all important."
This is a point I have made before, and continue to think is at the heart of the political debate we are being forced to have. I think it's fair to ask that 46% this question: Would it be important to you if you could not get legally married?
While I'm sure some would say their own marital status in the eyes of the state is equally unimportant, it is the rest - the certain majority to whom legal marriage is important - who need to know that we feel the same. The lack of marriage is a fundamental distortion in our lives, as it would be in theirs. Because we are a minority, the polling on this issue won't ever indicate how profoundly important this is to us. Their opinion is the only one that matters because they are the majority. We need heterosexuals to consider that we are not engaged in this fight for trivial or frivolous reasons - that we really do value marriage as much as they do. We need it to be important to them because it is so important to us.
42 Comments for “New Jersey”
posted by Amicus on
Here is one message that I think has traction: it is possible to be strongly opposed to something, yet to still vote for it, in civil society.
How can that be? Well, it involves a realization, at some level, that the harmony and functioning of a polity is itself a “value”, one that “values voters” often ignore, when they bring their values in inappropriate ways to the law, which must balance liberties (to be sure, they feel the same way about “secularists”).
So, in particular, the Catholic stance on abortion is not the Jewish, one, say. And, the ELCA in America and the Episcopal view of marriage for committed gay and lesbian couples, is not the same as the Pope’s, The Family’s, or the self-appointed Doctrine of the Faith, the ant-gay group known as the Manhattan Declarers.
Hopefully starting with the attitude and insight of legislators and not resting with solely courts, we govern by evidence, not by doctrines, when making law. This is the way forward, to find compromise, even grudging respect. And, make no mistake, gay marriage IS the compromise.
posted by The Gay Species on
Mr. Link writes, “We need it to be important to them because it is so important to us.”
This is one of the rare moments of perspicacity. It’s one thing if 3-5% of a population regards an issue as 80% important, while 95% of the population thinks the same issue is only 46% important. This cuts two ways, however. If it is NOT important, then why vote one way or another? If important, shall 52% of 100% determine laws that apply only to 95% at best?
Ever since the U.S. abandoned the “Rule of Law” standard, which the political philosopher F. Hayek called the “universalization requirement,” people do not regard laws as universalifiably applicable, and NEED NOT BE. One of the forces that brought down the “Rule of Law” standard was “special interests” and “individual identities.”
What we see — not only in regard to marriage equality, but across the political spectrum — unless WE ALL HAVE A VESTED INTEREST, it does not matter even if a majority does.
posted by Jorge on
The last group certainly deserves comment. Catholics arenât supposed to be undecided on issues the Vatican has pronounced upon; thatâs for Protestants.
Your snarky sniping is not appreciated.
posted by JimG on
“…a trinity of sexual sactimony from the famously (if theoretically)celibate all-male priesthood”.
Have you ever of nuns? Yes, of course, you have. I do not understand why you chose to add the gender snipe into the mix. The Church’s position(s) has always been backed by its women, especially the nuns. And the theoretical issue of celibacy has also had its problems with the Church’s women, though it is definitley not politically correct to speak about it.
posted by Bobby on
US Catholics tend to be a lot more liberal than other catholics, so the poll results does not surprise me.
Besides, New Jersey itself is an extremely liberal state. Why not poll catholics in Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan?
posted by Arthur on
In the early 1960s, children must have been taught anyone not married in the Roman Catholic Church were fornicators. As the preacherâs kid from the largest Protestant church in the neighborhood, I was taunted about my parents, and my status as a bastard, as I walked past the parochial school to my public school. The nuns just stood by stoically. I had to use Websterâs to look up the words fornicator and bastard.
I wonder how much of that attitude still is part of the hierarchy in the conservative, born before WWII, hierarchy in the Vatican. And we want to bring up civil marriage? It is, even for heterosexuals, a ‘living in sin’ concept. For 48% to support civil SSM is huge.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~”Would it be important to you if you could not get legally married?” ~ David Link
It is an important question that gets to the heart of fairness. It matters to most of us, deeply. Most especially of those who are fighting for equal access to it with opposite-sex couples.
And why should this majority who truly are not negatively affected by the recognition of same-sex marriage have the power to allow or deny us â the minority who is most directly affected by such a recognition â this âbasic civil right of manâ?
Ah, yes, majority rule. Or in this context also known as ‘popular sovereignty’ â when civil rights are put to popular vote, and majority rule becomes quite simply a tyranny by majority.
I think it is important that the article focused on the plurality that is either indifferent to or to some extent supportive of same-sex marriage. This calls to mind the theory that time is on our side; recognition of same-sex marriage is an inevitability.
But this isn’t something we are content to wait a generation for. There are real same-sex couples with real life problems, concerns, wants and needs, including the children or future children that will be a part of their lives â all of which are hindered the longer same-sex marriage and all that this civil institution entails is denied to these couples, these families.
That’s why I think it is also important that this article focuses too on that small but significant group of fence-sitters. If we hope for victory on this issue prior to 2030 or even 2020, we need these folks. Those who aren’t quite there yet, but they’re close, the potential is there.
These are the folks that we should be trying to win the hearts and minds of. These are the moderates that could well become our allies in the near future.
I believe that we take these people for granted or dismiss them at our own peril. And some of us do. Some are a bit too quick with the vitriol. Some of us stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that fence-sitting group of moderates which ultimately are deciding whether we win equality at the ballot box, or we do not.
Nevermind how unjust it is for civil rights for a minority to be reduced to YES or NO on a ballot. That’s the reality we live in today.
And it is these people that might best respond to questions like that above. And others… How would you feel being denied marriage? How do you think we feel about it? Why should we be treated differently? What harm will recognition of same-sex marriage cause? In what way does such recognition impact your life; your marriage; your religious faith? And this as we proceed to tell them how it would affect ours.
posted by Jorge on
In the early 1960s, children must have been taught anyone not married in the Roman Catholic Church were fornicators.
They were also taught that non-Catholics are going to hell.
I wonder how much of that attitude still is part of the hierarchy in the conservative, born before WWII, hierarchy in the Vatican.
You actually don’t know? You need to get out more. How many Protestant kids do you know who are taunted as bastard children who are going to hell? Do you know any Catholic kids? What do they say? What does the Catholic Church say when it’s politically active? Have you even heard of the 1965 reforms?
You do know that the current Pope is trying to get cozy with the Anglicans in England, right? I mean, most gays should know that.
posted by Bobby on
Catholics changed a lot about the II Vatican Council.
Still, protestants used to make fun of catholics as well, there was a time catholics where known as “papists” and “mackerel-snappers.” They where ridiculed as slaves to the Pope in Rome, their nuns and priests where accused of having orgies and all kinds of wickedness. Even today if you talk to a 7th Day Adventist they will tell you horrible things about the Catholic church.
Hate. The universal language.
posted by Arthur on
Yes, Jorge, I do live in this world. I was trying to give a bit of historical perspective. Also we must remember the Catholic Church thinks in millennia, not just the fifty years of gay liberation. PS Some of my best friends or Catholic!
posted by Lymis on
“Have you ever of nuns? Yes, of course, you have. I do not understand why you chose to add the gender snipe into the mix.”
Show me the nuns who are making national news pronouncements on any of these issues. For that matter, show me any nuns that the Catholic hierarchy solicits the opinions on any issue – including those having to do with nuns.
Nope. The public sanctimony IS darn near universally from the “famously (if theoretically)celibate all-male priesthood.”
Unless you are somehow claiming that the sexism is in not recognizing nuns as part of the priesthood. If so, you are darn right, but you’d need to take that up with Rome, not the OP.
posted by Jorge on
Show me the nuns who are making national news pronouncements on any of these issues. For that matter, show me any nuns that the Catholic hierarchy solicits the opinions on any issue – including those having to do with nuns.
Mother Theresa.
posted by Lymis on
Unless there are some miraculous apparitions we haven’t been hearing about, Mother Theresa isn’t saying much about much of anything these days. Fail.
Second, Mother Theresa was not an American. Since the post was about US politics and the American Catholic hierarchy, fail on another level.
posted by Lymis on
Should have checked. It was Mother Teresa, not Theresa.
posted by Debrah on
What a delightful offering on the side page by Paul Varnell.
This is what I’ve been saying all along!
Many heterosexuals are not so enamored with the idea of marriage and that’s one reason why I, and perhaps many others, cannot comprehend why it’s so significant to gays.
David Link is very good at covering both the serious as well as the not-so-serious issues here.
I think it would be an excellent idea for him to play Oprah on these fora once a week or so and offer up some of these peripheral topics as the one just discussed about “innate, yes or no”.
In those seemingly peripheral issues are housed some of the most significant impressions and thoughts all of us carry around regarding life’s many mysteries.
You’ve got to spice things up and discuss what people are really thinking.
(One might also explore why someone such as I would choose to comment inside a forum of gay men……but would not be so inclined to do so inside a forum of lesbians. LOL!)
There are fundamental differences we all have on myriad aspects of the human condition, none of which is derived from “bigotry”.
These things are well-worth exploring…..IMO.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~”One might also explore why someone such as I would choose to comment inside a forum of gay men……but would not be so inclined to do so inside a forum of lesbians” ~ Debrah
I have been wondering. Given your comments in another thread here, the best I could tell is, among other things, you felt it important for some odd reason to lecture gay men about engaging in too much intercourse.
Kind of like a Margaret Cho skit, only without the jokes.
As for marriage, I think if one were to take an accurate poll of the gay populace, one would find that most support at the very least the right of same-sex couples to have the same access to marriage that opposite-sex couples do.
It’s not important to everyone, some don’t believe in the concept of marriage, or monogamy for that matter. But it is important to a lot of us. And so is fairness, equality. We want to be treated the same as heterosexuals. We want our relationships to be given parity with opposite-sex relationships, both in the eyes of the law and society. And so, as much as we can, we are trying to break down the stereotypes, the hetero-normative expectations, the laws, rights, privileges, benefits that apply only to heterosexuals or opposite-sex couples.
Bans on same-sex marriage is perhaps one of the most obvious and entrenched of these. If we have to settle for separate but equal on this issue, then we are just as likely to have to settle on others. And we can’t very well really claim that our relationships are as valid as theirs if ours are always categorized as “other”.
I can sort of understand why marriage is so trivial to you. Perhaps you’re already married. You’re not gay so you don’t have to worry about being denied the opportunity to marry someone that you would like to spend your life with. And it’s easy to take things for granted when they are readily available to you.
Maybe you truly don’t give a damn about marriage. That’s your prerogative. But a lot of us do. It truly matters to us. Getting married to our partners and all that entails matters to us. Fortunately, there are those among us who don’t really care for getting married but still believe in fighting for what’s right.
And fortunately there are many heterosexuals who really don’t have anything to lose in this fight, but they, too, are fighting for our equality. I think you could learn something from those folks.
I don’t know what you’re hoping to accomplish here. But I don’t think it’s working. By all means, do what you do. I’ve got other things that are important to me, and arguing with people who have an agenda against gays on a gay forum isn’t one of them. That’s all I’ll say about that.
posted by Debrah on
Let me add another illustrative point for you, “DragonScorpion”.
(At least we share an astrological sign.)
When the hoopla regarding the SSM vote in Maine was taking place, there was a gay man who is an artist there who shared a story from his own family.
His sister had recently given birth and when he and his partner visited her family, she didn’t want him to hold the baby.
Seemingly because the immune systems of infants are so vulnerable.
Does that tell you anything?
This is a woman who is the sister of this man. Not some “anti-gay hate-monger” attempting to hurt someone.
She was doing all she could to protect her child.
Not from her brother.
But because she was intelligent enough to know the lifestyle of her brother also carries risks that other relationships do not carry.
This, obviously and sadly, put a barrier between adult brother and sister.
Should the sister be despised and vilified for acknowledging the realities of rimming and constant anal sex?
Huh?
Just as the Constitution is not a suicide pact, “diversity”, “open-mindedness”, and “acceptance of all behaviors as normal” should not be.
posted by Jorge on
Unless there are some miraculous apparitions we haven’t been hearing about, Mother Theresa isn’t saying much about much of anything these days. Fail.
I was expecting a better rebuttal than that. I think my point stands. PS: It’s not particularly wise to rule out those things when talking about Catholicism.
posted by Jorge on
Many heterosexuals are not so enamored with the idea of marriage and that’s one reason why I, and perhaps many others, cannot comprehend why it’s so significant to gays.
I call bullshit. It it wasn’t that not that important to you, you wouldn’t be carrying the torch against marriage in the first place.
posted by Jimmy on
“Take a glance at some of your websites.”
– Do you have a list, Debrah? I’m in a bit of a rut with the same ol’ same ol’.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And why should this majority who truly are not negatively affected by the recognition of same-sex marriage have the power to allow or deny us â the minority who is most directly affected by such a recognition â this âbasic civil right of manâ?
Let’s update that a bit.
And why should this majority who truly are not negatively affected by the recognition of plural marriage have the power to allow or deny us â the minority who is most directly affected by such a recognition â this âbasic civil right of manâ?
And:
And why should this majority who truly are not negatively affected by the recognition of child marriage have the power to allow or deny us â the minority who is most directly affected by such a recognition â this âbasic civil right of manâ?
And:
And why should this majority who truly are not negatively affected by the recognition of marriage to animals have the power to allow or deny us â the minority who is most directly affected by such a recognition â this âbasic civil right of manâ?
So we’re waiting. Since gay-sex marriage supporters insist that marriage is a “basic civil right” that cannot be denied to anyone under any circumstance, will they now take up the banner of incestuous, child, and plural marriage?
Turns out they already did.
To have our government define as âlegitimate familiesâ 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?
Examples include:
Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner
Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households
Single parent households
You would think that, if gay-sex marriage supporters truly thought marriage and the concept of it was in any way special or unique, they would not be arguing that poly households, single people, and incestuous parent-child or sibling-sibling relationships should be given identical legal and benefit treatment to married couples. But again, this is not about getting marriage for gays; it is about destroying marriage and the “heteronormative” ideas of values and commitment represented in marriage that the gay community finds revolting.
Furthermore, as we have seen already, gay-sex marriage supporters and the organizations that represent the gay community fully endorse and support bans on gay-sex marriage when ordered to do so by their Obama Party masters. And this makes it obvious that gay-sex marriage is only a front and a rationalization for political attacks; it has no real value to the gay community.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
End italics.
posted by Rev JDSpears on
WOW, Debrah! What a wonderful world you live in! You cite that gay pron site dipect all sorts of “nasty sex” and condemn gay men for going there, yet refuse to acknowledge all the straight porn sites that have equal “nasty sex” and do not condemn the straight male for visiting those site! Beside the issue of “somehow” knowing of these sites, your arguments, like nearly all of those arrayed against same-gender marriage, is self defeating.
Civl Unions, like the separate but equal schools for blacks, is never sufficent. Here in the US we have already sufficent evidence that these “Civil Unions” are in fact defective in providing the protections that people like you claim they would provide.
So you claim that there is no such a thing as the gay community? Then why are you fighting an issue that would never happen?
posted by Patrick on
I see Debra is obnoxious as ever!
Please try to get over me Deb as I am long over you and your cavalcade of filth.
posted by Debrah on
“cavalcade of filth.”
***********************************
Indeed.
When discussing the unfortunate “santorum froth”, it’s a true cavalcade.
Dear “Patrick”, you have an enormous economy for words.
I’m looking forward to your next syllable.
posted by Patrick on
heheheh you are so stupid and boring “Deb”.Do you not get it? I am not interested in you or your weak insults. You keep on trolling this site though…I don’t think you have what it takes to play with the big boys @ Joe.My.God…you’d be ripped to shreads.
posted by Patrick on
Hahahahah-
“No doubt, you squat when you pizz” – see what I mean? Stupid. You can stop stalking me now. I have been a regular reader for over six years and have always posted using my first name. You may think you are making fun of me but in reality you are just making your self look like the fool you are. Your insults are so very 1950’s. not surprising since from the pictures on your web site that was your prime. LIS & LOL. “Girlie” Schtick hahahahaha oh you really got me hahahahahahaha almost as cutting as the ” I’m looking forward to your next syllable” bomb hahahahahaha sounds like someone is gonna get their red wings with you O.o oh sorry you haven’t gotten your monthly “friend” for quite a while now, I guess they will have to settle for crusty scab wings.
posted by Libearian on
As a practicing Catholic (one day I just might get it right), I am more than thrilled to read that a plurality of Catholics in New Jersey support same sex marriage.
To be honest, I would much rather have a sacramental marriage sanctified by the Catholic Church that a marriage recognized by the state. Yes, I know that I am a minority, but it is what I truly feel.
More importantly, the New Jersey poll demonstrates the importance of reaching out to people of faith. One reason for the loss in California, aka Proposition Eight, was the lack of support for same sex marriage in the African-American and Hispanic community. It was far too easy and too politically correct to blame the role of the Mormon and Catholic churches in that political career. Yes, the Mormon and Catholic leadership opposed same sex marriage. The leadership is one thing, the people in the pews are another story.
Believe it or not, there are Catholics and Mormons, orthodox Jews and evangelical Christians who support same sex marriage. More imporantly, there people in all faith communities who are neutral or on the fence when it comes to the issue of same sex marriage. These people can be won over. It will take time and effort; villifying their religious faith won’t win anything. The cliche is true, you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.
PS … I always put money in a Salvation Army kettle. The Salvation Army is extremely efficient when it comes to spending (which a lot of gay organizations might want to learn). The good that the Salvation Army does supercedes any of the institutional homophobia of the organization
posted by Bobby on
“Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner”
—And what exactly is the problem there?
“Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households”
—-Maybe society will have a hard time accepting a family with two daddies and two mommies, but the child will be ok with it.
“Single parent households”
—Again, what’s the problem there? Why should I get married to have a child? If was making enough money and I can afford to adopt a baby and later on send him to a military boarding school, how exactly am I harming a child.
Really NDT, even in the straight community there are all kinds of families, including children that are raised by aunts, uncles, grandparents, brothers, etc. Those are not “incestous” relationships, they are loving relationships.
You should read “The Iceman” about a famous mafia hitman. He was raised by a father and a mother, the father beat the crap out of his wife on a regular basis, the mother ignored her kids and decided to spend all her free time praying at church while the kids had to steal food to eat. The father eventually ended up killing his brother after hitting him too hard, and later on found another woman. The mother, who kept telling her kids that sex was evil, was discovered by his own son having sex with a married neighbor. And here’s the kicker, at the catholic school they went they had to deal with nuns that beat the crap out of them on a daily basis.
Yet you think it’s the end of the world if a kid has two mommies and two daddies, a single parent, or any other family situation that doesn’t fit the norm. Well, all I have to say is that sometimes the norm ain’t that normal.
posted by David in Houston on
Debrah, where is this Maine brother/sister story you speak of? It is posted somewhere on the internet, right?
“But because she was intelligent enough to know the lifestyle of her brother also carries risks that other relationships do not carry.
Should the sister be despised and vilified for acknowledging the realities of rimming and constant anal sex?”
Was the sister expecting her brother to have anal sex with her child? Did she fear that he was going to give her baby a rim job? I’m not sure when I’ve read such inane blathering. Yeah, Debrah… gay couples have anal sex 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and never ever bathe or wash their hands. Jesus Christ, what a utterly ludicrous and homophobic scenario you’ve created in your mind. Did it ever even occur to you that some gay couples might not even participate in those activities? …or does every single gay person on the planet behave in exactly the same way?
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âLet me add another illustrative point for you, “DragonScorpion”.â ~ Debrah
I must have missed the first one, âDebrahâ…?
I’ll address your ‘points’ in order of appearance:
It suggests that she’s overzealous and misguided. While I certainly don’t know the specifics of the case or whether it’s fictitious or not, barring some relevant unknown variable here I would describe her concerns as unnecessarily paranoid. I would also suggest to her that she should consider that being needlessly over-protective in regards to exposure to others will in all likelihood lead to her child having significant allergy problems in life.
I have no idea what her intent was, but being his sister in no way establishes her as someone who doesn’t harbor any ill feelings toward her brother or his sexual orientation nor that she didn’t purposefully use this as a slight against him for not following heteronormative conventions.
While I do understand why you would assume otherwise, the fact is, entire families sometimes reject homosexual relatives. Just as many once did and some still do reject the inter-religious or interracial relations of their families. It’s tragic, shameful,but real.
Again, I don’t know the specifics here and as such I don’t know how he felt about her decision, but were I in his shoes the effect would certainly be one of great insult. Especially if she was narrowly focusing her concerns on gays while being indifferent to people who under normal circumstances would run a higher probability of carrying viruses â like health-care workers, teachers, bus drivers, livestock farmers, people who have particularly bad hygiene, etc. Would she bar them, too? Because these sort of people are exposed to far more contagions than two men (or women) in a monogamous relationship.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Vilified? No, probably not. I can certainly appreciate the motivation of wanting to protect one’s child, but then what do we say about a woman who, for instance, refuses to take her sick baby to the hospital because some hospitals aren’t kept as clean as they should be? Or maybe there could be a homosexual working at that hospital (gasp!). This is certainly not a rational and least of all intelligent action to take, regardless the intent.
So many assumptions from you. Constant anal sex? Seriously? Who, heterosexual or homosexual, have the stamina or appetite for constant sex? Other than Tiger Woods… (Sorry, I couldn’t resist)
Of course you, in your ignorance and prejudice, have concluded that gay men just lay around and have sex all day. How thoughtless to go through your life with blinders on as you do. In the real world, those of us who aren’t being paid to have sex, tend to have real lives and real responsibilities that do not allow for nor require constant sex. I realize, you may be in some other category…
Additionally, in your ignorance you’ve not only determined that all homosexual men have anal sex, but you apparently assume the worst, that it is as unpleasant as having a bowel movement. Not so, not even remotely so and I can speak from years of personal experience. What do you have outside of your over-active, prurient imagination? And why, really, do you care?
Your other assumption here is that all gay men engage in anilingus. Not so. Not that I see anything wrong with oral copulation, because I don’t. But this is no more true of all homosexual men (or women) than it would be accurate to assume that all heterosexual men (or women) engage in anilingus or cunnilingus for that matter.
Furthermore, your remarks here assume that all of these sexual activities are done under conditions which are particularly risky for disease or infection â no use of safer-sex products, no attempts at exercising good hygiene before, during or after. Just assumptions, lots of assumptions.
posted by DragonScorpion on
You describe this woman as intelligent. Quite the contrary, I would say that you and her are quite ignorant of what you think you know of all this.
And what risks? HIV/AIDS? In case you are even more uninformed than you appear, anal sex (among other forms of intercourse) does not produce HIV/AIDS. You have to have it, to give it… Furthermore, uncircumcised men and blacks are disproportionately carriers of this disease. Should she be leery of these people also? That would be terribly awkward in the first instance, and distinctly racist in the second. Don’t you think?
So what’s next? HPV? That mostly affects women. Herpes, gonorrhea, chlamydia, etc? Anyone can get it, but these are especially common among the sexually promiscuous, both hetero & homosexual. My partner and I are both monogamous and clean, but by your suggestions here we’re too dangerous to let near a baby? That is simply blind, baseless prejudice.
Now perhaps you are referring to some sort of perceived disease that accompanies anal intercourse? Or perhaps you were referring to some unusual disease that you believe inherently accompanies anilingus? Straight men and women perform both of these acts, and much more commonly than you would care to acknowledge.
If the mother is truly concerned then she should probably start asking her friends and other family members about their sexual habits. Including the men in her life who are quite likely performing cunnilingus on their wives or girlfriends and have from time to time worked on the backdoor. Oh, but I’m sure those lips on your baby’s forehead wouldn’t bring you any discomfort… That heterosexual-thing just changes everything, doesn’t it?
What has becoming increasingly obvious by the lengthy and frequent asinine posts I’ve seen you make at this forum is that you harbor a deep-seated personal prejudice against homosexuals. You have clearly chosen to assume the worst about us and our relationships, and you base these assumptions on stereotypes and ignorance.
It’s really rather pathetic that you cannot find a better use of your time. Not much else to say, other than you are hateful by the caliber of your insults and clearly a troll.
posted by DragonScorpion on
@North Dallas Thirty
1) Your attempts at framing polygamy, child marriage, and inter-species marriage as equivalent to same-sex marriage was a typically unoriginal strawman argument. There is a reason why these are referred to as logical fallacies. Clearly you are becoming more desperate.
Children, animals, and the deceased cannot legally consent, and a compelling case can be made as to why. Adults, on the other hand, can consent to such things as relationships, sexual activity, entering into contracts and marriage.
While all of these to one extent or another has been socially and legally prohibited to homosexuals & same-sex couples in the past, in recent times the legal system and generally society at large has elected to let adults make such highly personal, victim-less decisions for themselves. All except for marriage, that is. And on this, I still have yet to see one valid or compelling argument as to why.
By the way, that âbasic civil rightâ which you throw around derisively is taken literally from the verdict in the anti-miscegenation case Loving v. Virginia. If you don’t like to think of marriage as a ârightâ, then you should take it up with the court.
So again, I put the direct question to you: in what way are heterosexuals & opposite-sex marriages negatively impacted by same-sex marriage?
Can you stick to the subject this time? Can you answer in your own words? Or do you have more distractions? I’ll be waiting…..
posted by DragonScorpion on
Ah, the ubiquitous âtheyâ…
You can generally tell a bigot by his/her use of weak arguments such as sweeping generalizations and treating groups of people like monoliths. Example: if some homosexual somewhere does, says or supports something which is particularly controversial, this, according to the bigoted mind, must represent the entire movement. The thinking continues: if that particularly controversial action, comment or ideology is condemned or discredited then it discredits every belief or postulation presented by the entire movement as a whole.
The term for this sort of tactic, outside of intellectual dishonesty, would be a logical fallacy. It’s weak, it’s dishonest, and it scores no points in legitimate debate. And it is this sort of tactic that North Dallas Thirty habitually relies on…
To the larger point. Few, least of all me, are arguing that marriage is an absolute right which should be afforded to absolutely anyone, under absolutely any circumstances whatsoever, for absolutely any reason at all.
Specifically, in the Loving v. Virginia case, the court held that, âTo deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.â
In other words, while a compelling case can be made why some situations do not warrant the benefits and recognition of marriage, doing so on the basis of the racial mix of the couple (and I would argue the gender mix of the couple as well) based on the supposed harm it would bring to society, is not a compelling case; it is unjustifiable and not in keeping with the U.S. Constitution.
I believe that an argument can be made that couples who are both romantically and financially committed to each other through a formal commitment are more inclined to create and maintain a stable environment for themselves and/or their family. Furthermore, I believe such relationships, when committed, functional, and stable can and often do benefit their community in significant ways as well.
It is upon this basis that the state provides certain benefits to these couples that it does not provide, say, single people. And I should add â because this fact seems to elude those in the anti-equality crowd â there are no legal prerequisites that marriages must produce children or even possess the ability to procreate in order to qualify for marriage and the benefits thereof.
So why, again, are you so opposed to it? Again, what harm does same-sex marriage bring? Why would you want to deny same-sex couples access to an institution which often encourages stability? You’ll need a better explanation than sweeping generalizations, or a radical comment by some unknown individual somewhere…
posted by DragonScorpion on
Most of us who support the recognition of same-sex marriage do believe marriage to be special and unique and thus worth fighting for. I most certainly do. Most of us are not arguing that adult-child relationships, polygamous households, incestuous couples and least of all single people be granted the civil contract of âmarriageâ. (How does one marry oneself, anyway?)
Try as you might to claim otherwise, I’ve got news for you, this obscure website that you conjured up doesn’t represent the gay community. Not even close. And it certainly doesn’t represent me. So you should exercise some honesty and fairness by discontinuing your efforts to tie these views to the rest of us who disagree.
There is that monolith again… Your bigoted stripes are showing.
If the gay community at large found the values of commitment and fidelity so ârevoltingâ why would millions of same-sex couples worldwide, mine included, be monogamously coupled to each other? Why would there be tens of thousands of same-sex couples all over the world who have chosen to commit to each other in civil marriage and lead the âmarriedâ lifestyle every day?
I’m sure you don’t know, but your fallacious declarative statement just sounded good to you at the time, right? Just throw those BS assumptions and baseless accusations out there and hope some of them stick…
posted by DragonScorpion on
Such mindless partisanship. I see you are again repeating what you failed to explain in another thread: how is it that the Democratic party is to be described as the âObama partyâ now, whereas the Democratic party of 2006 wasn’t the âPelosi partyâ nor was the Democratic party of 2000 the âGore partyâ. Or were they and I just missed it? As I asked you before and you evaded like a coward, why-oh-why should anyone, least of all homosexuals, have ever even considered supporting the âBush/Cheney/McCain/Palin partyâ?
Again, I’ll take this lie of yours head-on and you can continue to ignore it and appear to all as the lying fraud that you are.
Most of us in the gay community tend to avoid supporting the GOP because it and many of its members have demonized us, used laws which persecute us to get themselves elected, and have for decades railed on countless issues that are of vital interest to the gay community: same-sex marriage, DOMA, Don’t ask; Don’t Tell, gay adoption, protection in employment & public accommodations, hate crimes legislation, and so on…
And you’re despicably doing the same here. Which should serve as a strong reminder to all of us why we as a community should not support the GOP overall.
Gee, and here I thought same-sex marriage was âabout destroying marriageâ? Make up your mind, already! But I guess this was just more of that spaghetti tactic in action again â throw it against the wall and hope something sticks…
I’ve got news for you, looking around, I don’t think you’ve managed to get anything to stick yet.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Most of us in the gay community tend to avoid supporting the GOP because it and many of its members have demonized us, used laws which persecute us to get themselves elected, and have for decades railed on countless issues that are of vital interest to the gay community: same-sex marriage, DOMA, Don’t ask; Don’t Tell, gay adoption, protection in employment & public accommodations, hate crimes legislation, and so on.
The funny part is, DragonScorpion, you blather on about being “demonized” when you fully support and endorse these statements coming from your Obama Party and its membership.
God don’t like men coming to men with lust in their hearts like you should go to a female. If you think that the kingdom of God is going to be filled up with that kind of degenerate crap, you’re out of your damn mind.
And then you blather on about people opposing gay-sex marriage when your major organizations and its leadership fully endorse and support politicians who support bans on gay-sex marriage.
And then you blather on about job protections when you fully endorse and support your Obama Party leadership openly discriminating against gays — and when you and your fellow leftist agitators try to get gay people who work for Republicans fired.
And this was the final, most hilarious hypocrisy:
Which should serve as a strong reminder to all of us why we as a community should not support the GOP overall.
Which was preceded by:
You can generally tell a bigot by his/her use of weak arguments such as sweeping generalizations and treating groups of people like monoliths. Example: if some homosexual somewhere does, says or supports something which is particularly controversial, this, according to the bigoted mind, must represent the entire movement. The thinking continues: if that particularly controversial action, comment or ideology is condemned or discredited then it discredits every belief or postulation presented by the entire movement as a whole.
As is typical, you try to insist that all homosexuals are individuals, but then demand that all those individuals act a specific way in the name of the “community”.
In short, you want unity of action — except when you’re held accountable for the actions you choose, at which point you want rampant individualism.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I see you had no answer for any of my previous points here, either. Same with the other thread. As I said, naturally, because you have no legitimate arguments to make, and you know it, so you don’t even bother.
And here again you just drudged up the same stuff as usual. Your post here is nearly verbatim to what you posted at the other thread. Just like a broken record.
Well, I’ll just repost what I put at the other thread then.
Keep writing this homophobic garbage of yours, and your mindless service to the anti-gay party that you cherish so much. You provide a better argument for not supporting those who share your mentality in the GOP than I probably ever could.
By the way, don’t think it goes unnoticed that you never say one word of praise to homosexuals in these rants of yours. Not one. You never offer one iota of support or encouragement. Not one. You never say anything positive about homosexuality. Nope, just criticism. Linking homosexuality to most of the immoral things in our society. Blame it all on ‘the gay’.
You never attempt reason. You never ask people what they think of this [despicable activity] or ask them what they think about that [gay organization’s] endorsement of [something controversial].
Nope, instead, your first post in these threads starts off indicting the entire homosexual population in every lewd, immoral and criminal act you can find. Which has been few, so far. And you wonder why most people here won’t follow your lead…
posted by DragonScorpion on
Sounds like something you’d say…
All these claims so far that you’ve been spouting off about hypocrisy I have managed to discredit. I challenged you to produce one example of hypocrisy and this is it? Six degrees of separation… You truly are desperate.
1)I have never endorsed these statements.
2)I would never endorse these statements.
3)I didn’t vote for Louis Farrakhan.
4)I couldn’t even begin to imagine voting for a bigoted scumbag like Louis Farrakhan.
5)Louis Farrakhan is not the President.
6)Louis Farrakhan does not work for the Obama Administration.
7)These statements were, apparently, made by Louis Farrakhan.
8)Louis Farrakhan does not represent the Democratic party.
So now I suppose we can hang you by every bigoted statement ever made by a member of the Republican party in the past 20 years… Oh, this should be fun!
Try again.
You have posted this at least a half dozen times, if not a dozen now in these 3 threads where you keep “blathering” on. You truly can’t find anything else? Then you have no argument.
Yes, lets following that bouncing ball. Some member of the Democratic party, whom I’ve never fucking voted for, gave Harold Ford Jr. $1000 and so for this, if I care anything about equality for homosexuals, I should start voting Republican. Otherwise, I’m a hypocrite. You really don’t grasp how incredibly idiotic that is, do you?
Let’s follow that logic, shall we? In 8 years, your precious anti-gay Republican party managed to propose and see passage of 31 constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Most of which was done solely to help Republicans win election. Political expediency. And we got the shaft. Do you care? Nope, you love your anti-gay Republicans so much, you don’t give a damn.
Ah, but then you don’t even care because, to you, we’re beneath marriage. Same-sex marriage, to all of us who support it, is just an attempt for homosexuals to destroy it, so sayeth you…
You don’t care. But I do.
In 8 years we saw efforts to eliminate Don’t ask; Don’t tell get shot down by the Republicans. Ah, but we can’t be trusted to serve alongside those clean, honorable heterosexual soldiers. We’ll just end up having lots of sex and the military won’t be able to punish those who do out of fear of âhomophobiaâ. So sayeth you. So you don’t care about that one either. Well I do.
The list goes on and on and on. Your party, the anti-gay party, is infested with anti-gay bigots who take advantage of every opportunity to demonize the âhomosexual agendaâ, and pass legislation that strips us of rights, dignity, and makes it that much harder for us to see genuine equality. Do you care? Nope. You’re so ate up with your buddies in the anti-gay Republican party that you spend hours a day here insulting every homosexual who doesn’t give your party the respect you think they deserve.
And you want us to vote GOP more often. Considering what they’ve done for us, I mean, what they’ve done TO US lately. I would have absolutely no reason to.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Whereas you support the party which has stood directly in the way of job protections for. Nice try, again, hypocrite. It’s so pitiful that you truly have no argument here at all. Not only do you regurgitate the exact same links over and over and over ad nauseam, but they don’t even amount to anything…
So again, Howard Dean fired a gay guy, and because of this we should embrace your anti-gay party who has been raping us for the past several decades…
I’m still waiting for that hypocrisy thing… Those who are openly discriminating against homosexuals make up the bulk of YOUR party. The Democrats have certainly had their bigots and their phonies, and they still have plenty. But the Republicans have them beat hands down! And unlike the Republicans, we’ve actually been getting some things accomplished for us, for a change. But there is lots more to go. And Republicans, clearly, will be the ones standing in the way, with you cheering them on like a traitor and demeaning the rest of us for not toeing the Republican hate-machine’s party line with you.
posted by DragonScorpion on
@North Dallas Thirty
That’s because, unlike you, I actually believe we are individuals, and, unlike you I don’t hold us all accountable for the actions of others. Of course I also believe we are a community. Isn’t it amazing how people can be both individuals and part of a community. Just makes your head spin, doesn’t it?
And there is where you’re wrong again, I don’t demand. I encourage. I’m not the one throwing the tantrum in every other post about how unfair it is that homosexuals don’t support a certain party. I don’t equate those who support a certain party with hedonists, child molesters and criminals. You do.
I also don’t advocate for the Democratic party here, other than to point out they’ve done much more for us than the anti-gay GOP has. And they have. That’s a fact. You see, unlike you, I advocate that we support candidates who look out for our interests, regardless of party.
I also caution others not to support the GOP overall, because of how fascist they’ve become in their anti-homosexual agenda. But, I also fully acknowledge that some candidates are an exception.
In fact, I pointed out as much earlier âUntil the Republican party gets off its fascination with social fascism, I won’t be voting for nor contributing to any of them except individual Republicans who are supportive of us. And off hand, I can only think of one, and she lost support due to a Conservative party candidate in New York’s 23rd. â
For this, you launched into your âblatheringâ hyperbole about âObama partyâ this and âObama partyâ that. Accusing me of engaging âNo thought, no rational decisionmaking[sic], just a knee-jerkâ reaction.
All the while, you deliberately ignore all the attempts and successes of your anti-gay party to screw our community. But still, you want our support and you just can’t fathom why you don’t get it. So you fling insults and drudge up smut and accuse us of all being guilty of the same.
It becomes more apparent all the time just how disconnected from reality and common sense you really are.
Which actions have I chose this time? Whose actions am I at fault for now? The so-called psychologist who thinks its healthy to dress children like sluts and parade them around? Is it the obscure group who advocate single-person marriage? Which person’s actions am I accountable for this time, other than my own?
I’ll have you know that I do want unity of action, of course. And in regards to many things, most of which you’ve already made up your mind are otherwise because I’m a homosexual and I don’t support your anti-gay party. Oh yeah, and I don’t bark on command when you point at something.
I believe in unity of action for equality and accountability. We have a lot of shit to clean up in our community, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to launch into tirades that homosexuals are just evil because of what some exhibitionist did at a parade, or what some lunatic did to a kid somewhere. You’ve taken up the torch, and you’ve been burned by it. Time to move on.
As I’ve stated time and time and time and time again, I will support candidates based on many criteria, but the most important one to me now, in light of the last several years, is whether they stand with us. And I don’t care which party they are in.
Tough luck for you, though, as your party tends to rail against us pretty damn consistently. So, I’d say in the next 2 elections anyway, you probably won’t be able to count on very many of us. Definitely not me. But who knows. Maybe my state will see a decent Republican congressional candidate. Or I may have to vote third party.
And if Barack Obama doesn’t deliver some significant progress by 2012, he won’t get my vote either. (Unless the Republicans pick a moron like Sarah Palin or a theocon like Mike Huckabee â I’d support anyone over them.)