America's conservative Christian establishment seems to be having a crisis of confidence. While gays are not the cause, we are the most visible symptom of a broader anxiety that continues to fester among the most dogmatic. Like the Vatican in the 17th Century, some church leaders have misplaced the center of the universe, and blame the rest of the world for disagreeing with their wrongheadedness.
In Adam, Eve and the Serpent, Elaine Pagels did a good job of explaining for lay readers (like me) how Christianity, in its early centuries, became obsessed with sexuality as a moral issue. Today, heterosexual Christians are more than happy to forgive themselves their sexual sins, but the echo of those ancient fears remains. The mysterious and inarguable power of sex cannot entirely be ignored. But long-established doctrines (and moral rules) about a woman's obligation to have children, developed in an age where very fallible contraception was an exception, and not the nearly universal rule. At that time many, many children did not live long, and it was not uncommon for mothers to die in childbirth.
Understandable concerns about survival in older times look different today; they overvalue procreation, holding it not just as a good thing, but as the sole moral justification for any sexual act.
But few, if any heterosexuals today feel sex needs such fine (and sometimes incoherent) sexual rulemaking. They are comfortable placing sexual pleasure in a broader context that includes intimacy, relationship, procreation and even fun.
Despite that reality, the Vatican, in particular, has stood its theoretical ground. Our sexual guardians either look the other way (on contraception) or try to finesse their dictatorial impotence by arguing that sex which is "procreative in form" is good enough for government work.
Few people appreciate how radical that new formulation is. While it was designed to patch over the historic inconsistencies of the procreation rhetoric, which look pretty frayed in the modern world, its natural (if not its intended) effect is to exclude only one group entirely from the sexual moral universe: homosexuals.
A relatively insignificant incident yesterday dramatizes how the religious obsession with sex has morphed into a religious obsession with - only - homosexuality. The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission released its Top Ten incidents of defamation, bigotry and discrimination against Christians in the U.S. last year. On that list was this monstrous anti-Christian attack:
The overt homosexual participation in Obama's presidential inaugural events by "Bishop" Vickie Eugene Robinson, the Gay Men's Chorus of Washington D. C., and a homosexual marching band.
On its face, this is not much; the gratuitous reference to Bishop Robinson's given name (which is Vicki, without the "e," and was in honor of his grandfather, Victor) is juvenile, as are the disrespectful scare quotes around his formal title. The inclusion of a gay marching band makes the complaint seem too trivial to be serious.
But it is dead serious. Think about what this "bigotry" consists of. At the inauguration of the President (it was actually an auxiliary event; Rick Warren got pride of place at the inauguration, itself), a representative of one of the nation's well-known religions was asked to speak. But that religion has a different view of God's position on homosexuality than the CADC.
It is the mere existence of differing theological views about homosexuality that is the "bigotry" here. Bishop Robinson is not, himself, being accused of attacking Christianity, nor is any such claim made about the Gay Men's Chorus or the marching band. Rather, the bare fact that they were asked to attend (and did) is "anti-Christian hatred."
The list includes nine other outrages, two more of which involve homosexuality. But this one stands out. The CADC insists that the mere presence of openly gay people is not just wrong or even intolerable, but an attack on Christianity. And the fact that other Christian religions accept openly gay people is, itself, a further affront, an exacerbating act of prejudice and defamation against the non-accepting.
The fact that there are divisions among Christian denominations - and among believers within specific denominations - is obviously troubling to those who believe that God intends sexual uniformity. That uniformity is supposed to be the center of this moral universe.
But as is so often the case, God is proving more complicated - even mysterious -- than his stewards can comprehend. Christianity's anti-sexual bias is in ruins, at least among heterosexual believers. They can distinguish between sex that deserves moral condemnation and sex that deserves applause. And the difference doesn't have to do with whether it's procreative, in form or anything else.
Having made that distinction for themselves, it's not such a great leap to see how it might apply to homosexuals, as well. Perhaps the center of God's moral universe isn't sexuality, but something else. Perhaps justice, or tolerance or faith or hope provide the axis of morality, and sex is no more than one planet spinning around that better center.
Gays are helping everyone see how that might be true. Someday, maybe, religions could even apologize to us for having got it wrong.
71 Comments for “Is Gay the New Galileo?”
posted by Lori Heine on
What everybody is really arguing about are not matters of Church but of State. If you don’t agree with what a particular church says about gay marriage or gay rights, you can go to another church. It is much less simple to move to another country — particularly since some governments are now determined to rule the whole world in a single, Leviathan State.
Let’s not quibble — let’s cut to the chase. Until others stop trying to turn this country (indeed, the whole world) into a theocracy, any debate about theological meanings will be demeaned.
We’ll get more trolls slumming here with their privileged points of view and their scare quotes. They either don’t understand what the real issue is or they have decided they don’t want to.
In an atmosphere of genuinely free debate, we will eventually win our argument. As a Christian, I obviously believe that. But as a citizen of the developing New World State, I can’t pretend that free debate matters, or is even possible, until the most fundamental issues are dealt with.
If we refuse to force this issue, we will only get more condescension, condemnation and cutesy-pie hipness from the slummers and the trolls. Or more hairsplitting over how many of us have to be good boys and girls before we can be taken seriously.
The argument, as it is now being conducted, is demeaning to us. Any argument demeaning to human beings is, therefore, blasphemous.
We shouldn’t lower ourselves this way anymore.
posted by Debrah on
” Perhaps the center of Godâs moral universe isnât sexuality, but something else. Perhaps justice, or tolerance or faith or hope provide the axis of morality, and sex is no more than one planet spinning around that better center.”
****************************************************
If less time were employed conjuring up “G/d” at crunch time instead of simply displaying an understanding of grown-up behavior on a daily basis, it would go a very long way toward realizing the idea that “the moral universe isn’t sexuality” inside gay culture.
Again, I will never forget the first time I commented here—in a very cerebral way—taking issue with the “Jews” being used as an analogy for gay issues…..as if race and ethnicity should be used alongside the SSM debate.
I was met with dirt-nasty, scummy rhetoric from a few….as a way of “debating”.
As the link to a porn site called “Gay Tube” lingered prominently under contributors’ names like Jon Corvino and Jonathan Rauch.
It has been I who was attacked for illuminating the constant open expression of sexuality among many gays as if it’s just the order of the day.
It would be great if the flowery rhetoric of this post could be realized without others calling attention to the rampant disconnect.
Even on a serious issues blog like this one.
My senses tell me that all too often the other loudmouth gay and lesbian bloggers who feed off raunchy ads as “sideline entertainment” have much influence.
Similarly, I hope that the indirect insults—thinking that not calling the name of a commenter ameliorates the repetitious sludge—of words like “troll” (which is SO OUTDATED!) will evolve into acceptance of the fact that if some of you guys cannot take opposing opinions without this childishness……..
……..you should get out of the blogging business, and off the planet.
The main handicap of the gay community is the debilitating insularity and the need to “control” their tiny surroundings…….
………all the while wondering why observers don’t take them seriously.
posted by Bobby on
It was St. Augustine and his stupid confessions that turned the Catholic Church into an anti-sex enterprise. That bastard felt guilty about everything, he ruined the church which had previously been gay friendly.
The irony of it all is that you look at books in the bible like The Song of Salomon and it’s nothing but depravity. That so-called “poem” talks about cunnilingus and nice tits.
Still, some gays do take sexuality too far. I just dated a man whose only goal in life seems to be getting penetrated in the ass. This man who is absolutely gorgeous and thus extremely demanding told me he doesn’t believe in relationships, he can sleep with anyone he wants, and if you’re busy on the day he wants to get fornicated then you’re not a real top. It is true that sex with him was fantastic, but to have your masculinity questioned just because you don’t believe that sex is everything is rather absurd.
And there are things I like about conservative Christians, for example, I hear there’s a reverend that’s challenging their congregation to have sex everyday for a month with their lawfully wedded spouse. Those people are quite kinky in their own way.
posted by Lori Heine on
Pray tell, Debrah, what would you have us — and I mean us as individuals — do about “the disconnect?”
You go on and on, yet you never quite make this clear.
Other than living my own life the best I can, what am I supposedly so negligent in doing that’s causing all this rampant gay sexuality to be so irresponsibly expressed?
And what demonstration can you give that you live your life responsibly enough that I ought to regard you as any authority on the subject?
Who are you, anyway?
You’ll likely splutter that I have no right — no right at all! — to ask you that.
I have as much right to ask you that question as you would to ask me the same thing.
I’m glad you’re so impressed with yourself. Maybe one of these days, you’ll demonstrate why.
As for your objection to someone’s having called you a “troll,” I don’t know to whom you were referring. I once made the mistake of thinking you were referring to me when you were not. To be clear, I used the word in a general sense, but if you insist on acting like a troll, then yes, it will apply to you.
That clear enough? I hope so.
You seem to take great delight in badgering the men here about their TERRIBLE morality and their childishness. Again, I’m not exactly sure what the hell it is you expect them to do about it.
You’re just mad as hell at gay people, that much is clear. You won’t explain why, but your persistence in returning to this site indicates that you hope we’ll guess.
Some of the folks here may not be “childish” or “irresponsible” at all. Perhaps they’re simply sick and tired — as I am — of getting smacked around with a dead mackerel by every straight person who chooses to take a shot at us. After a while, it tends to bludgeon us into insensibility.
It isn’t helpful. Maybe you care, and maybe you don’t. Keep beating the crap out of everybody on this site and at least a few of us will feel more than justified in deciding that WE don’t care.
Effective communication, that…
posted by Meme on
I don’t think you guys know this, but, being a straight person not only makes you superior it makes you SUPER superior. You can go on the lecture circut and tell all the “gheys” why they are inferior and what everyone is thinking about them.
You see, you become part of the collective and know what every other straight person is thinking about any and every issue.AT ANY TIME.
Straights are just better.I just thought you should know since Bidenstein and B HOops Obamawitz feel exactly the same way.
WE POWN YOU.
And can the Troll crap, that’s about as current as calling yourself a “Diva”.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I was deeply disappointed at Rick Warren’s being permitted to play such a prominent role in President Obama’s inauguration. I find such unnecessary gestures of moderation & inclusiveness to be completely misguided.
As for the levels of dishonesty some Christians will stoop to in order to further their ‘homosexuals as militant anti-Christian Nazi bigots’ narrative, I will defer to the axiom that a picture is worth a thousand words. I’ve long found that this image sums them up.
posted by Debrah on
Perhaps this comprehensive and provocative offering will serve to peel the onion for the wannabe b!tches of the world.
posted by Debrah on
“Pray tell, Debrah, what would you have us — and I mean us as individuals — do about ‘the disconnect’?”
************************************************
I wouldn’t “have you” do anything. I’m merely pointing out, as only one of myriad observers, what is seen as a bizarre contradiction within so-called gay culture.
I wouldn’t expect you guys to actually do a thing. This marriage between overt sexual expression so often displayed alongside the professional arena would appear to be a cemented feature.
Yet anyone pointing this out will be assailed as “vulgar”. And the same little men who sashay around like the cross-dresser in the first installment of “Silence of the Lambs” (with Jodie Foster) will be whining that “outsiders are disrespecting us and casting aspersions”. An enormous pity-party will always ensue.
Which is no doubt why most successful gay men like Anderson Cooper choose not be labeled. Their work would be forever overshadowed by the “be gay, think gay, do gay, talk gay, support gay, defend gay!” mindset.
What serious professional who wishes to appeal to the masses wants to make being gay such a prominent headline? Yet so many cannot comprehend this.
Each time an attractive actor comes on the scene, all the “man” blogs go crazy hoping he’s gay and discussing everything from his azz to his lips to his tush.
One has only to check some of the comments at “Towleroad” to get a whiff of the emphasis of everything sexual. It’s very amusing, yet self-defeating for those who want to be taken seriously.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like those “man” blogs. LOL!
So often, even the most serious and low-key gay men feel compelled to tout the gay agenda inside their professional lives and they ruin relationships by showing this childish side.
A heterosexual man talking about these kinds of issues (like a hetero equivalent of Perez Hilton) would be laughed off the street. You simply cannot call someone like PH a “leader” of anything but grotesquerie.
And if this is what your agenda looks like, so be it.
A kind of nonstop masturbation of the senses.
The anything-goes mindset, does go, in the entertainment business, but few other professions.
Being gay is not some exotic feature that needs constant illumination; however, gays have perhaps used their angst to propel themselves into thinking that everyone on the planet needs to be enveloped inside their set of insular concerns.
No gay person is held back from doing anything. It’s a choice to constantly display the fact that you romp with someone of the same sex. And when you try to make yourselves a “minority” simply because of “fur-trapping” or “poop-shoot-chasing”……it gets extremely tiresome.
And let me say that I am not a champion of the heterosexual world or of heterosexual men. Indeed, none will tell you that I have ever been their grand defender.
If you think I’m hard on gay men, perhaps you need to talk with a few heterosexual men with whom I’ve had issues.
I’m not encumbered by “groupthink” the way many are.
Nothing I have ever witnessed is more insular and self-serving than the mindset of gay culture.
Yet there is the constant refrain of “Who are you people who would question us?”
“We just want what we want!”
“Who are you, anyway?” “You must display your cyber-DNA if you want to criticize!”
The answer to all this is that I am a citizen of this country and of the world.
A well-educated, well-traveled, politically-aware, justice-driven, and pistol-packed female specimen of curiosity regarding the highly complex nature of human existence.
I call out what I see as contradiction and hypocrisy where I see it.
Making “friends” is not my goal in life; however, providing a balm for the noise, the grit, and the tyranny from the overblown and hyped-up “minority angst” among us is a sideline goal.
posted by Lori Heine on
“If you think I’m hard on gay men, perhaps you need to talk with a few heterosexual men with whom I’ve had issues.”
O-kay. Several paragraphs of utter purple, Debrah, and at the end of it all you’ve still managed to…not say one damn thing that makes any sense.
You pack a pistol. How nice. So do I, which is why ordinarily cheap shots from cyberspace stay there. We’ll probably never meet. I can’t tell you how fine I am with that, because if you speak anything like the way you write, you’d probably give me a migraine.
You have basically confirmed that you’re typical of the sort of loudmouth who runs around passing judgment on people you’ve never bothered to get to know. And please don’t bother to give me any sunshine about all those gay friends of yours. No self-respecting gay person would want anything to do with your brand of ignorant contempt.
You know next to nothing about me, so if your remarks are directed at me you are too ignorant to bother listening to further. To the degree that they may be (as they seem to be) aimed at the men here, again, all I can say is that I hope someday you get real help for your problem — whatever it is.
People don’t generally change their behavior because some strangers rants at them. Though if some unshaven nut from the park wandered over and treated you to a sermon, I’m sure that it would be a major turning-point in your life and inspire you to devote your life to the Sisters of Charity or something.
You seem, in general, to be this guy’s cyberspace equivalent.
And I know that I have used the word “cyberspace” at least three times. (A sigh, eye-roll and clutch of the pearls is now appropriate.)
Your behavior is not logical. Just sayin’.
posted by Debrah on
Lori Heine–
Your rants designed from the fantastic invention that someone is talking to you, personally, have just about reached their expiration date.
For a while now I have looked over your tendency to make believe that what I write is directed toward you.
I’m sorry to say, but you’re offerings here are just not interesting enough to spark a “flaming war”.
Who has anything against you?
Although, judging from the lack of responses to most of what you wrote on these fora before I made a huge deal about the men here ignoring “lesbian angst”….and a few of them made a comically concerted effort to engage your milquetoast dialogue…….
……..I can understand why you’d like to keep the drama going for a while.
Please do everyone a favor and google the words “metaphor” and “imagery”.
No, I do not carry a weapon. LOL!!!
“Pistol-packed” means potent or strong. Get it?
“You have basically confirmed that you’re typical of the sort of loudmouth who runs around passing judgment on people you’ve never bothered to get to know.”
*************************************
No, I’m not a “loudmouth”. Never have been.
When I walk into a setting, it’s usually other people coming over to me wanting to chat.
And, indeed, I am a very charming-chatty.
Serious, when the situation calls, however.
Lori, get with reality. I don’t actually give an eff what anyone else does. No intelligent person tries to change behavior on some blog; however, we are all here to give opinions which might serve for thought in our real lives.
If your world is so tiny that you have to pretend that everything is for your consumption, then I might suggest (although, I really don’t care what you do) that you widen your perceptional screen.
You have just reminded me why I always like to be around, talk with, and engage men much more than women……
…….no matter their sexual orientation.
If you are the beacon of “logic”, G/d help the “gay world”.
posted by Debrah on
I’ll add this by saying to anyone here….(I’d better use Lori’s name before she overdoses on ad hominems and beats me over the head on her next installment!)…..
…….if you cannot read and come into contact with wildly differing opinions without writing something so painfully bland as the (1:11 PM), which is, after all, a vivid exercise in how not to try so hard to employ acerbic wit when you have none…..
…….then perhaps beating someone over the head with a Bible and “libertarianism” is the next best thing!
The rest of us will still have our freedom of speech. And there’s not a thing anyone will ever do about that.
Not even tyrannical fur-trappers.
posted by Lori Heine on
Well again, Debrah, that was…whatever it was. Whew!
As I believe I already mentioned earlier, I am aware that you are not specifically targeting me with your grand flourishes of rhetorical whatever. Appreciations and sincere thanks be.
My point remains, as it has not been addressed. What do you hope to gain here? You prefer to “engage” men. Terrific — cosmic! But engage them to do what?
I’m asking because they generally tend not to. They are, for the most part, ignoring you. The few who choose to “engage” you are simply getting mad (for which I really can’t say I blame them).
Most rational people, when they express their freedom of speech, have some clear reason in mind as to why they persist in doing it. Surely you know that simply going back and appealing to “freedom of speech,” in and of itself, is an admission that you don’t really know (or care to admit) why the hell it is you’re making the effort of speaking in the first place.
Do you wish to convert them to your point of view? If so, you might want to get around to it eventually. Besides all the self-indulgent rhetoric about what a rare and inspiring character you are, we learn little.
You think gay men talk excessively about sex. As a matter of fact, so do I. But that is not because they are gay, it is because they are men. If you like “engaging” men so much, one would imagine that by now, you’d know that.
I suppose you are hoping your Sisterhood of the Traveling Spandex is going to enlighten some of the poor, benighted male souls here. Maybe you will. But if you eventually got around to treating some of the men you’re lecturing as if they were actual human beings, you might have better luck with that.
posted by Grant on
I have to say, I love me some Lori Heine right now!
Off topic (sorry): I had tried to post a lengthy missive about the quality of argument between Lori and DragonScorpion in another thread, but it never made it through the server – so kudos to you both. I don’t agree entirely with either perspective, but the civility in which both points were written was certainly refreshing as well as enlightening.
To David Link’s post: I agree; gay is the new Galileo. We’re about the last group in civil society against which open hostility can be publicly accepted. But this too will go the way of the earth-centered universe, and other such ideas we now consider silly or curious.
posted by BobN on
Is “fur-trapper” meant to be some derogatory reference to lesbians?
posted by DragonScorpion on
Lori, you are dealing quite artfully with the troll. I think the fact that this is coming from a female, too, has her quite perplexed. I think she figures most women will jump right into the man-bashing.
You are quite right that she is being ignored at this point. At least by me. I don’t even bother to read her posts anymore. At all. I, and I suspect most others have elected not to feed the troll.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Thank you very much, Grant. I appreciate that. Sorry that your post didn’t go through, I would have liked to have read it. I’ve had the same trouble as I have a tendency to be verbose. I started using a word processor to save myself the aggravation.
I, too, have enjoyed the exchanges with Lori and some others. All of us here are often very passionate about what we believe but I think many of us are trying to convey our perspectives in a civil manner (with those who are capable of it). Granted, some days are more difficult than others…
posted by J. Bruce Wilcox on
To David Link: Thanks so much for your take on things here- I’m working on a written piece about sexuality in general which I hope to be fully blasphemous to both religion and heterosexist culture- but won’t go any further into that now…
To Debrah: I clicked on your link. By far I’ve never seen a more egotistical b!tch in my life. If I could get a bunch of nasty words past the censors I’d use every one of them to describe you. As a male I wouldn’t get any nearer to you than a thousand mile long pole would permit. You take the cake. Of course- you take it nowhere. And don’t male bash around me as I’ll rip you to shreds.
I’m a not/heterosexual man who is completely open to my rather remarkable sexual life experience and also to my completely remarkable artistic and creative experience and the DIRECT SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE I’m presently having- at 56 years old.
You should just kill yourself and do us all a favor.
posted by Debrah on
I’m assuming the (7:57 PM) commenter has arrived to display his special brand of Couéism.
As the French would say…..Tous les jours à tous points de vue je vais de mieux en mieux!
What more can one say?
With a few strokes of the keyboard, he’s made even a patent-leathered, lacy minstrel like Perez Hilton—the “dah-ling of gay activism”—blush.
Simply astonishing with those threats.
When disagreement arrives or any opinion surfaces which is not totally in support of the “gay agenda”, threats ensue.
I’ve seen this occur many times; however, the suggestion for someone to “kill” themselves is a new feature I haven’t witnessed before.
It’s usually a threat of bodily harm or “law enforcement officers” when these little men can’t handle disagreement.
And certainly any written work on the “heterosexist culture” from such a person will be riveting.
The “heteronormative” vibe is all the rage now, eh?
“By far I’ve never seen a more egotistical b!tch in my life.”
**********************************************
Thanks! Effort does pay off.
Without a doubt, most of the commentariat here adore your brand of “debate”.
However, I can only hope that what you’re packing between your legs is larger than your brain…..because if it isn’t, you’re in trouble.
posted by Bobby on
“No gay person is held back from doing anything. It’s a choice to constantly display the fact that you romp with someone of the same sex. And when you try to make yourselves a “minority” simply because of “fur-trapping” or “poop-shoot-chasing”……it gets extremely tiresome.”
—Debrah, if a heterosexual man enjoys fornicating his wife in the ass he has nothing to worry about because nobody is going to find out. When society sees a man and a woman together holding hands they don’t imagine their sex lives. But when you’re gay, you don’t need to tell people what you do in bed, they already imagine it.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Is ‘fur-trapper’ meant to be some derogatory reference to lesbians?”
BobN, I’m really not sure. If so, it is one I haven’t heard before. Looking back to the post on “Vulgarity,” I think we probably have one here.
I have tried to be nice to this person, but I’ve got to say she’s one of the strangest cases I’ve ever encountered online.
One minute she’s chastising gay men about how naughty they are, the next she’s asserting that she loves men so much she wants to “engage” with you. Charming as the notion must be to you all.
She’s all over the place. Gays are filthy-dirty to her, and her prim sensibilities are just so OFFENDED. But I am a “fur-trapper,” whatever that is. I just love how certain straight people can be about our sexual habits.
We are, in fact, a blank screen for their fevered little projections. If they aren’t fantasizing about those of the opposite sex going straight and falling in love with them, they’re recoiling in horror over those of the same sex supposedly lusting after them.
They’re legends in their own minds.
Maybe she’ll come back and tell us what, exactly, a “fur-trapper” is. It sounds absolutely delightful. I don’t know about you, but I can’t wait.
posted by TS on
well, it only took the Church, oh, 4 centuries to formally admit that their (mild) repression of galileo was for naught. they still haven’t apologized for many much more severe repressive actions they were responsible for.
so, they still need about three centuries to come around on that. and there’s not enough room in the future for both secular freeisms like homosexuality and conservative religion. one or both will be gone before the end of this century.
posted by Bobby on
“We are, in fact, a blank screen for their fevered little projections. If they aren’t fantasizing about those of the opposite sex going straight and falling in love with them, they’re recoiling in horror over those of the same sex supposedly lusting after them. ”
—That would explain the popularity of films like “Chasing Amy.” Yet if Hollywood ever makes a film about seducing a straight guy, “Chasing Harry?” all hell is gonna break lose.
In fact, the heterosexual world is full of inconsistencies, only on Fox News they condemn the molestation of boys by female teachers with the same kind of fervor they condem any molestation. But if you look at other channels they think it’s perfectly fine for a 13 year old boy to sleep with his 25 year old teacher. They don’t realize that even if it’s statutory rape doesn’t make it right. Otherwise why give long sentences when the teacher is a male and he molests a girl or a boy?
posted by Debrah on
“—Debrah, if a heterosexual man enjoys fornicating his wife in the ass he has nothing to worry about because nobody is going to find out. When society sees a man and a woman together holding hands they don’t imagine their sex lives. But when you’re gay, you don’t need to tell people what you do in bed, they already imagine it.”
***********************************************
Bobby, in a sense, that’s true…….except for the fact that percentage-wise, one would have to admit that regular sessions of anal sex between hetero married couples is not common.
And they certainly don’t make a point of broadcasting it. Quite the contrary.
In fact, I have only met one hetero couple in my life who even discussed engaging in anal sex on occasion. Incidentally, they had been married for two decades.
Moreover, you will only see hetero anal sex performed inside the caverns of the most gutter-ready pornography.
Are you really saying, also, that most gay men have long and enduring and monogamous relationships?
I realize that all this is being encouraged and gays are now “talking it up”; however, the AIDS epidemic in this country didn’t become what it became all those years ago from gay men being in monogamous, stable relationships.
Everyone—straight or gay—pays in some way, large or small, for promiscuity. And those of us who are highly sexual have, at one time or another in our lives, been promiscuous.
I would venture that the opportunities which exist for the spread of disease by using the colonic cavern of the body for sex would prompt anyone to become less promiscuous….
…..if they value their own body.
In any case, I believe that observers are also able to “imagine” what heterosexuals might be doing in bed as well.
And judging from some of the gay blogs, most are not shy about discussing it.
LOL!
You see, gays have no leg to stand on with this “woe is me” schtick regarding their sexual practices. This country and taxpayers have paid billions as a result of those practices.
Very good that safer sex and less promiscuity is now touted among many.
posted by Debrah on
“In fact, the heterosexual world is full of inconsistencies, only on Fox News they condemn the molestation of boys by female teachers with the same kind of fervor they condem any molestation. But if you look at other channels they think it’s perfectly fine for a 13 year old boy to sleep with his 25 year old teacher. They don’t realize that even if it’s statutory rape doesn’t make it right. Otherwise why give long sentences when the teacher is a male and he molests a girl or a boy?”
************************************************
As you may recall, I have made similar points on this blog.
Women are always given more of a pass, but don’t you think in some respects, it’s because of the very nature of how the sex act is performed by men vs. women?
There is a small case to be made on that score.
All things being relative, a case can also be made that girls mature at an earlier age than boys, so boys would be more vulnerable, emotionally and psychologically.
As a side bar: It should be noted that men reach their sexual peak around the age of 20.
Women reach theirs around the age of 40.
Ah, the tricks of nature.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, in a sense, that’s true…….except for the fact that percentage-wise, one would have to admit that regular sessions of anal sex between hetero married couples is not common.”
—True, I read only 20% of straight couples have tried anal sex.
“And they certainly don’t make a point of broadcasting it. Quite the contrary.”
—Neither do gays, but when you tell people that you’re gay the first thing they think about you is that you take it up the ass.
“Are you really saying, also, that most gay men have long and enduring and monogamous relationships?”
—No, absolutely not. Most gays are promiscous, even among those who have relationships there’s a lot of threesomes, sex with outside partners and cheating.
“I realize that all this is being encouraged and gays are now “talking it up”; however, the AIDS epidemic in this country didn’t become what it became all those years ago from gay men being in monogamous, stable relationships.”
—True, and all the barebacking doesn’t help either since it creates stronger HIV strains. Still, the breeders can be just as irresponsible, why do you think they’re always getting girls pregnant?
“I would venture that the opportunities which exist for the spread of disease by using the colonic cavern of the body for sex would prompt anyone to become less promiscuous….”
—That’s where I disagree. If you’re in a monogamous relationship and your boyfriend barebacks without letting you know, you could catch something. It’s the same reason some men to go Thailand, have sex with a hooker, and then the poor wife finds herself with syphilis later on. Promiscuity with condoms is better than monogamy without them (unless the relationship is truly monogamous).
“You see, gays have no leg to stand on with this “woe is me” schtick regarding their sexual practices. This country and taxpayers have paid billions as a result of those practices.”
—I think the only reason they pay is because HIV has already spread into the black, hispanic and white communities.
“Women are always given more of a pass, but don’t you think in some respects, it’s because of the very nature of how the sex act is performed by men vs. women?
There is a small case to be made on that score.”
—You mean because men penetrate and women get penetrated?
“All things being relative, a case can also be made that girls mature at an earlier age than boys, so boys would be more vulnerable, emotionally and psychologically.”
—They are, specially since boys are bad at expressing their feelings, so they repress them and act on them later on.
“As a side bar: It should be noted that men reach their sexual peak around the age of 20.”
—Well, I doubt that, I’ve been with 20 year olds that couldn’t keep up with me and 40 year olds that had the stanima of a horse. My experience is that men are horndogs as long as they can get it up. And if they can’t now they can take Viagra.
“Women reach theirs around the age of 40.”
—-Maybe that’s why cougars are so popular, unlike girls in their 20s, they seem more sexual and more willing to try new things without wasting too much time with dinner and dancing.
posted by Lymis on
Ummm… if “only” 20% of straight couples have tried anal sex, that is still roughly FIVE TIMES the total gay population.
Obviously, anal sex is a straight thing.
posted by Debrah on
Most people who are repulsed by the idea of anal sex being synonymous with “making love” couldn’t care less who performs it, it’s still icky….and will always be.
When trying feebly to make a case that this practice is so “common”, one might deal with percentages so as not to appear totally off-the-wall.
“The popular estimate that 10 percent of the male population and 5 to 6 percent of the female population are exclusively or predominately gay/lesbian is based on the Kinsey Institute data published in 1948. Since then Kinsley has been widely debunked, as more than 55% of the men surveyed were either prisoners, sex offenders, or male prostitutes. Laumann and Associates (1994), using the national probability Health and Social Life Survey combined with data collected in the General Social Survey, found that 2.8 percent of men and 1.4 percent of women identified as gay or lesbian, while 7.7 percent of men and 7.5 percent of women reported homosexual desire. Michaels (1996) analyzed the limited available data and estimated that in the United States 9.8 percent of men and 5 percent of women report same-gender sexual behavior since puberty; 7.7 percent of men and 7.5 percent of women report same-gender desire; and 2.8 percent of men and 1.4 percent of women report homosexual or bisexual identity. An analysis of U.S. census data has provided the most solid evidence of the presence and certain social characteristics of lesbians and gays among the general population. In the 1990 census, gay and lesbian respondents could identify themselves as unmarried partners. Estimates from the 1990 census indicate that 1.63 percent of people aged 15 and older nationwide reported themselves as unmarried partners of the householder.
Certain areas have higher percentages. In 2006 San Francisco reported the highest percentage of individuals identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (15.9 percent). Seattle reported 12.9 percent.
posted by Aubrey on
I wouldn’t want to assume, based simply on people I know, who in the US is doing what with whom. Otherwise I would think all heteros under 35 were into anal sex. (Who knows?)
Purely anecdotal, but take it as you will…
I have 2 younger brothers, both hetero. While in college – one Ivy League, one a State Community College/State University (we’re talking 10 years ago now) – I had conversations with each of them (not both at one time.)
Both described how common anal sex was on college campus. One brother’s girlfriend would specifically request it as opposed to vaginal sex. The other brother said he and his girlfriend (later wife) mutually agreed to explore sexually. This brother also said it was more common than not among his friends.
Perhaps this is a generational thing. I don’t know. I’m not sure why it really matters anyway.
Speaking of assumptions based only on personal experience – I could name 3 hetero couples (not my brothers) where anal sex also includes the husband being penetrated (by a dildo). Believe me, I didn’t ask. This detail was offered to me. I wasn’t sure what to say in return.
But the point being, again, that it is not always prudent to assume one’s own world reflects the reality at large. That practice involves a certain kind of narcissism.
And, Debrah, I have to ask you – how do you know that hetero anal sex is only found in ‘the most gutter-ready pornography’? This is actually a serious question.
Again, I had to go to some hetero males to get some perspective. Maybe it’s the control group I used, but each person I asked told me anal sex was pretty much a requirement in every hetero porn flick. I really don’t have any idea if that is correct.
Debrah, let me also add – in another attempt to say one’s own life experience is not a necessary template for this world, even this specific country – my partner (now husband) and I have been together 22 years. In 2 weeks it will be 23 years. Married 5 years. We have been together as a couple longer than any relationship my 2 hetero brothers have had, longer than any relationship I personally know of among my hetero friends.
Obviously this doesn’t represent the gay community.
I am really amused when I read Debrah’s comments about gay sexuality, gay couples, etc…
Because I also read another site similar in format to IGF, but addressing a more ‘liberal’ viewpoint. On that site there is a straight woman who is constantly commenting on any article posted – and her comments usually criticize gay males for having abandoned their gay promiscuity. She has made claims that since same-sex marriage has become an overriding topic in the gay community, gay males do not revel in their sexuality the way they once did.
I have to smile and shake my head as some straight women damn us if we do, and some damn us if we don’t…
Now should I make any gross generalizations based on those 2 people?
posted by Debrah on
“True, I read only 20% of straight couples have tried anal sex.”
******************************************
Who knows?
And who can ever rely on anyone being honest about their sexual practices when being surveyed?
No doubt the prison population has lots of people trying any orifice available.
*****And they certainly don’t make a point of broadcasting it. Quite the contrary.*****Debrah
“Neither do gays, but when you tell people that you’re gay the first thing they think about you is that you take it up the ass.”
Bobby, please. I highly doubt that.
However, the practice has always been, and is still, touted and promoted with abandon by gay men. All those YouTube networks with uploads from all over the globe with gay men subscribing as their social/sexual playground do not exist as mere cyber dust.
As we’ve seen here, it’s only when these things are illuminated that gay men serve up the church lady act about how “vulgar” it is to talk about what they seem to adore.
That’s the comical disconnect.
But who would care? Until recently, I never bothered to explore this issue; however, the hypocrisy and lack of taking responsibility—(all the while sobbing and writing commentary desperately trying to align with “Selma and the civil rights movement” of the mid 20th century)—is grotesque.
A previous commenter melodramatically opined:
“…….gay is the new Galileo. We’re about the last group in civil society against which open hostility can be publicly accepted.”
*****************************************
Ultra-hyperbolic.
Beyond mention, really.
The reason that your “group” might be met with resistance by those who choose to waste the time actually working against SSM is because your “cause” is nothing close to real causes and the real “hostility” that REAL persecuted groups in history have endured.
Race and ethnicity have no place inside the gay movement. Those “groups” were not persecuted because of the way they had sex. They could not go inside and outside a closet whenever they chose or whenever they felt it convenient.
Many gay men want to be gay, socially, and simply because they do not formally identify as gay in the professional world, double-dip through life and expect to have it both ways.
They expect both the gay world and the straight world to accept them on their own self-serving terms.
No other “persecuted group” ever had such freedom and autonomy and choice in their “persecution”.
In my opinion, those men are one breed you might wish to confront for such hypocrisy. Not the hetero world who are simply trying to understand why anyone believes that the word “marriage” is so golden.
It’s endlessly embarrassing to see intelligent men crying over not being able to legally “marry” other men.
And as much as some cannot accept this, much of the population feels the same way.
That will never change.
Try actually having a talk with 20-somethings. Like me, they wouldn’t work against SSM and like all of us at that age, will vote “Yes” for just about anything……..
……..but so many still think of the whole idea as totally different from marriage between a man and a woman. But what the heck! Anything goes!
My main issue is a technical one. No one seems to understand the definition of “marriage”. Find a new word!
posted by Debrah on
Aubrey–
First of all, I have to say I haven’t found anyone with your name ever since I was a child. I had a second cousin who became a professional model of some acclaim in his teens and twenties whose name was “Aubrey”.
Not exactly an ordinary name.
As you illustrate, we all have our experiences and our own perceptional screens; however, I would still venture to say that your rhapsodies regarding the pervasiveness of, and the desire for, anal sex is highly suspect.
But who knows? Who fundamentally cares?
Except the gay community has always had a vested interest in making it seem so “common”.
Whether the entire universe craves such an experience or not will always be left inside the confines of their own bedrooms……
…….although, as the old series “Queer As Folk” so ably illustrated, some gay men like it right out on the dance floor.
We can try, and I can certainly put on a good show of downplaying the grotesquerie and agreeing with you; however, most might take issue with a comparison—on a general level—of practices.
Your long-term relationship is certainly something to be admired.
As you mention, lasting relationships are a challenge for everyone. I do think, however, if gay couples were like yours instead of yours being such an exception, SSM would be more palatable.
I don’t know if you realize it or not, but marriage between a man and woman was ostensibly designed for protecting the bonds of a family procreating and raising children. A union that can only take place between hetero couples.
It’s the only way you and I showed up on the planet, Aubrey.
Given that reality, no matter how flawed heterosexual marriages might be (reflecting the flaws in all of us) they are still the unique and natural biological building block for perpetuating life on the planet.
I’m willing to give that reality its own place in this world without the word “marriage” being bastardized.
I personally do not think marriage is such a “holy” institution and simply do not place such significance on it unless a couple wants to have children. Then, IMO, it’s important for the mother and the father to marry.
I happen to live in the midst of three significant universities. “Progressiveness” abounds and there’s a student or a 20-something on every street corner.
It’s a fallacy to pretend that most of these views are “generational”. Most people who are either at university or are just starting out in life really don’t know or care enough about most political-cultural issues unless they are directly affected. Like most of us at that period of development, they will go along with the mood and the patina of what is offered up to them as “progressive”.
I think too much is read into the idea that everyone will be pro-gay-marriage in the next generation. I’ve read that chimera over and over again and I think it’s naive.
“And, Debrah, I have to ask you – how do you know that hetero anal sex is only found in ‘the most gutter-ready pornography’? This is actually a serious question.”
****************************************
Aubrey, when I am thrust (pun intended) inside a steaming cauldron not of my own making, I generally do my research and familiarize myself with the surroundings.
Recently, there was an issue that arose which, necessarily, piqued my interest in this subject—one, like so many of those 20-somethings, that I never quite fully explored.
Suffice it to say, I’ve done a bit of research as well as many discussions, privately, with people in the medical field. As well as countless private conversations with friends, acquaintances, and even total strangers on this whole topic.
Incidentally, that woman you mentioned above who was nonplussed about gay men supposedly becoming less sexually promiscuous sounds a bit like a “fag hag”—(a term someone here used derisively to describe hetero women who have close gay male friends)—working for her own down-low moment.
posted by BobN on
However, the practice has always been, and is still, touted and promoted with abandon by gay men. All those YouTube networks with uploads from all over the globe with gay men subscribing as their social/sexual playground do not exist as mere cyber dust.
You know… if you unclick the “anal” checkbox on YouTube, you can see other ways men have sex with men.
Just a suggestion. You seem to be in a rut.
posted by Debrah on
“You know… if you unclick the ‘anal’ checkbox on YouTube, you can see other ways men have sex with men.”
*****************************************
Are we to glean from this morsel that most of you guys are now going to adopt the methods that the illustrious Throbert has been touting for so long?
Throbert is certainly a great teacher and an able writer. He once gave the visitors to my blog an interesting introduction into frot and they were thoroughly delighted!
posted by Aubrey on
Debrah,
I wouldn’t have classified my statements as “rhapsodies about the pervasiveness of, and the desire for, anal sex.”
I would say I mentioned a limited number of incidents re: anal sex in the hetero community.
And by ‘generational’ I was thinking of a possible explanation as to why my brothers and their peers were perhaps more open to this.
But “highly suspect”? Why, because you weren’t aware of this?
In reading your comments I have noticed a tendency on your part to take a single episode or example and create a gross generalization out of it. (gross in either sense.)
In my mind these repeated generalizations weaken your arguments. Take that as you will.
Ok, on to just a quick couple of thoughts.
One – re: your answer on porn. Why would you talk with people in the medical field? Are medical professionals more aware of where hetero anal sex is to be found in porn? I didn’t quite get that one.
Second. More seriously. RE: marriage. It seems to me an argument could honestly, and historically, be made that would say marriage was first, and foremost, designed as a means to control property and wealth.
And, no, this historical review wasn’t designed by a gay activist.
Those pesky academicians again (my mother was a college lit prof – UCLA, UC Berkeley; too many nights growning up hearing profs talk about the history of women in European culture, etc…)
If you’d be interested I would gladly pull together a list of reference materials.
Another question on ‘marriage’ – you have decided that marriage is a legal (?) contract only for procreative purposes (am I right? you say so above).
So for hetero couples who do not have kids – for any reason, inability (age, medical, etc…), disinterest – should they then not be allowed to marry?
Should a marriage license only be given by the state if a couple agrees to procreate within a given period of time? Should it be revoked if they don’t? Should they have kids first, then marry?
And what about those gay couples who have children? I have read your comments where you expressed your disdain for gay couples adopting, and for IVF methods, etc. (does that same attitude apply to hetero couples as well).
But given that gay couples do adopt, and gay couples do have children through IVF, surrogacy, etc… (as do hetero couples) – should those gay couples with children be ‘allowed’ to marry?
Or is marriage only tied to some kind of ‘natural’ procreation for you?
How constrictive must the definition be for you? (that is an honest question as well)
[full disclosure – my husband and I have a 3 1/2 year old son we adopted at birth.]
And I realize you are aware of this, but ‘marriage’ is not the natural and biological building block.
Procreation occurs outside of marriage. And given the totality of human existence on this planet, even that human existence within some definition of civilization, most procreation has happened outside of marriage.
There is an obstinancy to this argument that only procreation ‘deserves’ a marriage license.
That is not what we practice in this country now, even for heterosexuals. And it hasn’t been what was historically practiced, either.
But I think you know that already. And it obviously doesn’t matter for you. Which is your perogative (again, you know that.)
Have to go pick up my son from pre-school.
Oh yes – one last thing. My name. It is a family name. Revealing the British in me.
posted by Debrah on
Aubrey–
I can see by your laundry list you’ve engaged this argument so many times that you perhaps wake up in the middle of the night to check Wikipedia for its next entry on “marriage”.
(And don’t remind me that most inside the academy do not use Wikipedia as a reliable source.)
You can spare me more source materials from a college professor.
And save the little “gotcha” interludes from above.
I don’t think children and procreation should be prerequisites for anything; however, I, and most people on the planet, apparently, think it’s a better idea for one partner in a “marriage” to have a working d!ck and the other partner have a working vagina, to actually call the bond a “marriage” without employing lots of marriage license…(sorry, I couldn’t help myself…LOL!)
Gay couples don’t actually “have children”, themselves….unless you call having sperm from an overweight, decrepit, and formerly drugged-up rocker from Yasgar’s Farm fame….artificially inseminated into a female lesbian partne— “having children”.
And, obviously, gay male couples are out of their element on this one, totally.
Aubrey, marriage is not a sacred institution for me and many others. I’m merely pointing out that if two heteros in love choose to have kids then they should get married. Otherwise, who cares?
If they can’t or don’t wish to have kids, so be it. The fact remains that “marriage” is specifically for a man and a woman.
Procrustean-izing the word only weakens YOUR argument. Why are you guys tethered to such a heteronormative word?
Civil unions take care of the financial constructs, as I’ve said before. For both gays and straights.
My senses tell me that for many gays, this “marriage thing” is yet one more issue being used to keep the “movement” going and to put on a charade of “victimhood”.
Perhaps we all should talk with a few women who have been married for decades and gone through the throes of giving birth to, and raising, children to find out what “victim” really means. LOL!!!
A culture doesn’t change its sexual habits in a mere decade or two. Most heterosexuals in their teens and twenties haven’t all of a sudden jumped on the poop-shoot-train as a regular activity; however, if you choose to believe otherwise, who cares?
Lastly, I won’t go into why I had discussions with my friends inside the medical profession on this issue.
Guess!
posted by Bobby on
Debrah, whatever marriaged was designed for originally doesn’t matter. I would never force a church to perform a same-sex wedding, I believe in freedom of religion. But outside the church marriage is just a civil procedure like adoption, getting a driver’s license, a real estate license, etc.
If marriage is such a sacred thing why does Las Vegas make a mockery out of it with drive-thru weddings, weddings by Elvis, and other silly stuff?
posted by Bobby on
I forgot to ad one more things. There are companies that make great money hooking up men in their 30 to 50 year old men with Russian and Colombian beauties. True, maybe some of those couples fall in love, but more often than not it’s a marraige of convenience, the sexy girl wants to live in America with a greencard while the “ugly” guy wants to have a hot piece of ass every night. Straight people have no problem changing the definition of marriage when it suits them.
posted by Lori Heine on
Marriage was “designed” to be a business transaction, in which a husband purchased one or more wives. They then became his property. The only restriction on the number of wives he could buy, in many traditional societies, was how many he could afford.
Arguments for “tradition” from yet another hetero with her mind in the gutter.
How charitable of these trolls to come “slumming” and enlighten us.
posted by Aubrey on
Debrah
At least we get some clarification from you. So now marriage is for heterosexuals because, well, just because?
I’m actually disappointed. There really isn’t a rational argument from you on this. I can accept that this is your belief, but there really isn’t any substantive response from you to my previous questions.
I am not sure why you totally avoid any query to the substance of your argument.
(Oh wait, you aren’t going to respond to a ‘laundry list’ of questions! And then you’ll make some pitiful remarks about in vitro… Snide remarks and insinuations aren’t reasons, nor wit.)
Debrah, gay couples do ‘have children’. We adopt children, as do heterosexual couples. We have children by IVF, surrogacy, etc…, as do heterosexual couples. We have children from previous heterosexual relationships.
You keep avoiding the fact of families in which gay couples have children. (Disparaging remarks about David Crosby included.)
The issue isn’t really how children are conceived, is it? You don’t apply that standard to heterosexual couples. Maybe I misunderstood you.
I thought your argument was that marriage should be legally tied to children (‘procreation’). You seem to reiterate that thought in your most recent comment.
That is why I asked what you call the ‘laundry list’.
I’m a gay man legally married to another man, and we are parents of a yound child.
I hadn’t stayed up nights ‘honing’ my ‘gotcha’ questions.
As a parent I associate and interact with parents – hetero and homo. The last 4 years has been an amazing introduction into how families are made. And how much love and devotion there is to children from hetero and homo parents.
I don’t know if you have children, but my interest in your reply was because I do have a child. And I tried to understand how your comments would apply to my life.
The questions I asked came to mind in a rush; they were trying to understand how your stance would actually be applied in the real world.
And essentially your only reply is that “The fact remains that “marriage” is specifically for a man and a woman.”
An excellent example of ‘circular logic’.
Or perhaps you simply believe marriage is not about procreation (as you stated), but about procreating. Marriage is not designed to protect the children. Marriage is defined by the genitalia.
So let’s just cut to the chsse. It is clear you are comfortable with your prejudice.
Which I can understand. We all find our comfort zones.
But your arguments don’t acknowledge the world all around you.
Debrah, I wasn’t trying to play games with you. I don’t have the time, nor the mental energy, for that.
posted by Debrah on
Aubrey–
Let me begin by saying that it’s actually a pleasant experience having these exchanges with you simply because you’re a grown-up. You’ve presented your thoughts and your subsequent questions to me in a studied and calm manner without going all ballistic.
Even though you know that many of those questions are basically rhetorical little “gotcha” items.
Aubrey, some of you guys often wish to go back through the centuries and lecture on the idea of what “marriage” was, as well as the way many children were, and are, conceived outside “marriage”…….
……..but everyone knows all that.
This the 21st century. Not 200 A.D.
You have your sights set on giving new definitions to “marriage” with the idea that everyone needs to change the way we look at it and that I need to “acknowledge the world around” me.
Then why return to tales from centuries ago to try to make your case?
As Bobby illuminated, marriage has been and will always be used in bizarre ways. I’m not concerned about “why” a couple chooses to marry. This is about the term “marriage” being used and how far down on the totem pole we’re expected to go in order to morph it into whatever….or for whomever.
It’s not about all those bad and strange marriages in the world. The issue is a technical one, fundamentally.
Of course I wasn’t saying that marriage, itself, standing alone as its own idea, was the “building block” in the literal sense, and you made it clear that you understood that, but still persisted in splitting hairs just for the sake of argument.
Let me refine my statement: I’m willing to allow the institution of marriage its own unique place, not because of any sense of “tradition”—(although I adore some traditions)—but because it was intended to solidify and provide a strong and cohesive structure for building a family and perpetuating life between a man and a woman. A stronger base is provided for a child who is the product of a stable marriage. Protecting property and wealth are a feature of this idea, obviously.
Even if the single parent is affluent (as many gays are because all they have to worry about is themselves!) and can provide well for a child, it’s better for children to experience a father and a mother inside a family unit; however, many like you, Aubrey, are no doubt great parents and are capable of raising great kids.
But I defy anyone to say that you and your partner are the norm inside the gay community.
And yes, there are some atrocious hetero parents out there who warp their kids for life; however, this is not really the issue at hand.
We can go ’round and ’round about irresponsible people everywhere, but the core issue is the appellation “marriage” being used by same-sex couples.
Even though I am personally not a huge proponent of marriage and despite having had several serious relationships and proposals, I’m told that I run from it.
Consequently, I’m not trying to “save” marriage for the heterosexuals of the world. It’s just a simple fact that they OWN that institution. It’s a hetero thing.
Revisit the Denzel Washington analogy I made on another thread and the point his character was making about another subject. A somewhat gross analogy; however, his sentiment is clear.
If you want to change something from its original, call it something else.
It’s astonishing how many from your camp simply cannot engage this argument without nasty diatribes or else cutting off detractors and shutting down further comments.
This makes them appear not only infantile, but provides a great example that no one can really explain why the word “marriage” has to be bastardized and used by same-sex couples.
If I were gay—and militant as some are—the last thing I’d want to pick up and use as my own would be a hetero appellation to characterize my relationship with another human being.
Again, the legal and financial concerns of gay couples are covered quite well with civil unions. This “marriage” chimera is for the movement and to force everyone to sit up like Stepford clones in a New Hampshire wedding parade and say aloud—-“Same-sex marriage is just like heterosexual marriage!” “There is no difference at all!”
“The ‘common folk’ need to be enlightened!”
Or, whatever……
All the above notwithstanding, on a daily basis in my own life, I don’t spend time on this issue and would not work against same-sex marriage. I look at this topic as just one more loopy idea that yet another self-described “minority” has dreamed up to try and “be like” the very people they say they do not want to “be like”.
Gays now use the term “heteronormative” as a snide allusion to its predecessor “sexist” as a way to describe the heterosexual world (and straight males always get the brunt of their sexed-up, tattooed, and pierced-nipple world)…….
……..all the while screaming for the state of matrimony (a heterosexual given) inside the same-sex orbit.
Curious, that.
posted by Pat on
If you want to change something from its original, call it something else.
Debrah, as you seem to have acknowledged above, marriage has changed over the past 2000 years. Yet, we still call it marriage.
If I were gay—and militant as some are—the last thing I’d want to pick up and use as my own would be a hetero appellation to characterize my relationship with another human being.
The last thing? So are you saying that, if gay, you would like to enter a relationship (if you found the right person) that emulates marriage as much as possible, but simply not call it marriage.
posted by Debrah on
“Debrah, as you seem to have acknowledged above, marriage has changed over the past 2000 years. Yet, we still call it marriage.”
***************************************
One thing that has not changed (although I don’t pretend to be an expert on the institution) despite all the gyrations through the ages is that it is a union between a man and a woman.
Whatever else, and however else, its features are expressed inside society, “marriage” is accurately defined in this way.
“The last thing? So are you saying that, if gay, you would like to enter a relationship (if you found the right person) that emulates marriage as much as possible, but simply not call it marriage.”
******************************************
If I were gay, I wouldn’t even be entertaining the thought of anything remotely close to “marriage”.
“My love” or “my baby dah-ling” and I would simply be a couple born of destiny. Lost forever inside the throes of torrid, red-hot carnal bliss!
Never to be compared to anything mortal…..for we would belong to the ages.
LIS!
No Pat, I’m very comfortable not being like everyone else and would not wish to use the very pedestrian word “marriage” if I were gay. And if I were gay, I would wish to be a man.
posted by Pat on
One thing that has not changed (although I don’t pretend to be an expert on the institution) despite all the gyrations through the ages is that it is a union between a man and a woman.
Whatever else, and however else, its features are expressed inside society, “marriage” is accurately defined in this way.
Debrah, each time marriage has changed, it usually changed to something that it wasn’t before. So while you might be comfortable with the various changes that already have occurred with marriage, and have not objected to the changing of the word marriage, you are not willing to accept change marriage to include persons of the same gender. Okay, I get that.
If I were gay, I wouldn’t even be entertaining the thought of anything remotely close to “marriage”.
Why? Even if it was not called marriage? Is it because you yourself simply don’t want to get married?
No Pat, I’m very comfortable not being like everyone else and would not wish to use the very pedestrian word “marriage” if I were gay.
That’s interesting, but I don’t get your point here. I’m not sure what being gay or straight has to do with not being like everyone else. Even the staunchest individualist has similarities with most other people. I’m sure you’re not suggesting that we use a different term for marriage for every different couple that does get “married” even though you advocate individuality for persons and couples.
“My love” or “my baby dah-ling” and I would simply be a couple born of destiny. Lost forever inside the throes of torrid, red-hot carnal bliss!
Never to be compared to anything mortal…..for we would belong to the ages.
You would only do this only if you’re gay, but not if you’re straight? Would this include anal sex? 🙂
And if I were gay, I would wish to be a man.
Interesting. Even though I’m gay, and I obviously would prefer to have sex with men, I would still want to be a man if I were straight. Because even if I ever was promiscuous (and trust me, I never was), I would still be spending much more time not having sex than having sex. So I would have to be comfortable with what I am 99% of the time.
posted by Debrah on
….”you are not willing to accept change marriage to include persons of the same gender. Okay, I get that.”
******************************************
It’s not for me, personally, to accept, and I don’t think you would even care if other people accepted it or not.
I simply will not view “real marriage” as anything other than a union between couples of the opposite sex; however, as I have said before, we can pretend.
“That’s interesting, but I don’t get your point here. I’m not sure what being gay or straight has to do with not being like everyone else. Even the staunchest individualist has similarities with most other people. I’m sure you’re not suggesting that we use a different term for marriage for every different couple that does get ‘married’ even though you advocate individuality for persons and couples.”
******************************************
This is quite simply an overwrought exercise in parsing words for the sake of argument.
You know the point I was making.
If I were gay, I wouldn’t be on the “gay marriage” bandwagon just because it’s now a feature of “the movement” and it’s suppose to prove some semblance of “equality” (which really cracks me up).
I merely mentioned being very comfortable not being like everyone else to illustrate that if I were gay–or whatever!–I wouldn’t be going along with anyone’s idea of a “movement” or the idea that life would be better if I could only “marry” and have it be the law of the land.
How one expresses him/herself sexually isn’t the best way to try to distinguish oneself and appeal for “specialness”. And that’s what so many gays try to do. Some wouldn’t have an identity at all if they couldn’t scream to the world how GAY they are.
As an individual, sexual identity would not be highlighted in my life.
“You would only do this only if you’re gay, but not if you’re straight? “
***************************************
All Diva expressions of love I assume would stick with me, no matter what sexual orientation. Albeit, modified somewhat as needed for practical purposes. LOL!
And yes, as a hetero woman, I am a passionate lover when in love.
“Would this include anal sex? 🙂 “
***************************************
I could only hope not, but since we’re speaking theoretically here, if I were like most gay men and engaged in the practice, I’d also understand why people are most often repulsed by it.
It’s really dressed up in photos and videos with young, fit, muscular men showing their button holes amid the six-pack abs; however, it’s about as appealing as seeing the photo of a plastic, 3-inch layer made-up platinum blonde with saggy silicon t!ts trying to smack together a set of pouty lips for the camera.
Las Vegas dime store fare.
“Interesting. Even though I’m gay, and I obviously would prefer to have sex with men, I would still want to be a man if I were straight. Because even if I ever was promiscuous (and trust me, I never was), I would still be spending much more time not having sex than having sex. So I would have to be comfortable with what I am 99% of the time.”
*******************************************
Ha!
I have a very strong sense of reincarnation. Not saying it’s something to “believe in”. Just that I’ve had lots of déjà vu experiences in life. As if I’d been to a place not for the first time when I’m visiting.
The first time I visited the Todaiji Temple in Japan, it was very early morning and I went up to the Big Buddha for a peak. All of a sudden, a heavy breeze blew through the temple door (on what had been a very humid and quiet morning).
I had the sense that I’d definitely been there and was being sent a message of familiarity. I lived in Tokyo for a few years in the late 80’s and went back again in the 90’s and this last visit was the first time traveling the entire length of Japan and down through “old Japan”.
So yes, coming back as someone of the opposite sex would be something more interesting.
And none of us knows that we haven’t been here before as a totally different entity.
LOL!!!
I’ve mentioned this before, but for my personality it would be easier to be a man….although, I enjoy being a woman and all its pleasures.
I just can’t stand the little meek, mousy wallflower types who allow men to control them and abuse them.
The above is off-topic somewhat, but your query needed some depth. GIS!
posted by Debrah on
Here’s a weekend bouquet for you guys.
You’ll get a kick out of this one.
That’s OK. You don’t have to thank me.
Media-ite is the new website started by Dan Abrams this past summer.
It’s worth subscribing because you get a comprehensive view of the news each day. Dan and Lester Holt were about the only ones I could stand watching at MSNBC. Too bad he left it to “mush-mouth” Matthews.
posted by BobN on
Societies come up with social structures. At various times, some cultures have set up alternatives and parallels to marriage, both to accommodate extra-marital sex and to channel homosexuality. Some cultures instituted concubinage. Some pederast mentoring. Despite Debrah’s strident refusals, some societies just opened up marriage, either to multiple spouses or to same-sex relationships.
That has little to do with our situation, except as a realistic historical understanding of what is possible. In OUR culture, based on the Western tradition, marriage has long been monogamous, thanks, not to the Bible, but to the Romans. Over the centuries, it had become exclusively heterosexual. It had also forced out, especially in the last couple hundred years, extramarital relationships, even to the extent of criminalizing them in much of Europe.
What we had was a culture that offered one and only one legal relationship that covered ALL heterosexual couples, regardless of age, regardless of fecundity, regardless of sexual activity, regardless of personal idiosyncrasies. ONE STRUCTURE.
Is it really ridiculous for same-sex couples, whose relationships find parallel opposite-sex relationships covered by marriage, NO MATTER how odd the relationships might be, to see marriage as the logical legal structure for which to fight? It’s not like this society had developed “civil unions” for other purposes and we’re just ignoring them.
This last point raises another example. For centuries, some same-sex couples have used this society’s only other mechanism for extending family, adoption. If no one objected, this often worked for a couple. Lack of objection, of course, was usually based on a failure to understand what was going on.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Excellent essay. Also at the centrifuge that connects sex, is IDENTITY.
Channeling sexuality initially was about that. Integrating clans, property and children is what maintain the support of a community.
People just LOVE knowing who is who, what is what, and aligning hierarchies around who they think is inferior and easy to control…or should be.
The more powerful churches and so on ARE disregarding more expansive and current scientific information, as well as historical context.
But all mitigation has to be examined also.
And DEBRAH, THAT is the reason for certain analogies expressed regarding blacks, Jews and gays.
All are minorities that have been excluded and more specifically brutalized throughout history.
Regardless of that minority status, the dominant cultures in different and CURRENT eras, still consider said minorities a threat, OR the struggle for more parity in different social constructs and the consequences of being isolated from them still goes on.
That’s all.
You’ve called me names before because of your misinterpretation of trying to put context to a socio/political subject.
There have been GENERATIONAL consequences that affect the aforementioned minorities.
You’re from the school that if the gays, blacks…(fill it in) didn’t get angry, challenge or display some kind of outrageous behavior, the dominant culture would be more amenable and less prejudiced against gay people.
In other words, the onus of removing anti gay sentiment is on gay people.
While I happen to think that although there are plenty of folks, gay, straight, black or white who obviously don’t care about public image and expression that embarrass their respective communities, the point is, NOTHING impresses those more firmly committed to their bigotry, fear and ignorance and fomenting THAT instead.
The gay community has examples like Lt. Daniel Choi, or Col. Fehrenbach, or historical figures like Alan Turing.
But the media is mostly interested in the most PRURIENT examples of gay people,to display in the mainstream, NOT the sober, scandal free ones.
We have straight, venerated allies like Maya Angelou and Sen. John Lewis, but does anyone in the more powerful media outlets CARE to listen to these good people regarding THIS subject?
David Link has stirred up and important aspect of consistency in what church doctrine, or even a very committed person of faith fails in.
That our diversified nation requires a certain standard within it regarding one’s belief.
A Jehovah’s Witness cannot and won’t accept blood and organ donation, although a new medical intervention not mentioned in the Bible. But they sure as hell can’t tell the rest of us WE can’t accept such a thing for OURSELVES.
And they can’t engage the government to deny it to any other citizen who wants it.
Someone’s religion will be offended by something someone does freely and legally in America any day of the week.
Like using contraceptives, dancing and eating beef and working on the Sabbath.
We allow individuals to go on about it for themselves, and our government enforces NO religious belief here.
So the point of David’s essay is, whatever offense certain people take with homosexuality, they’ll just have to live with it, and understand that gay people have the same potential, responsibilities and so on as any citizen, so equal respect, protection and access to what other free citizens have must be accepted too.
Both sides waste a lot of time and energy on the conflict.
But it wasn’t gay people that started it, nor was it gay people engaging brutality to enforce anything on the dominant culture.
And the perceptions of threat and offense on the anti gay side have reached obscenely ridiculous proportions.
An affectionate gay could SHOULD be able to hold hands, walk close and peck each other without fear of being assaulted or arrested.
As long as things are out of balance THAT way, I’d say it’s the opposition that needs to rethink it’s tolerance levels.
Exhibitionism, vulgarity, and so on are not a GAY THING.
An ex soldier and police officer I had to work with yesterday is turning out to be very juvenile and annoying with his dirty jokes and so on in a business setting in mixed company.
He’s a straight guy, and it would be and has been the same for me if he’d been anyone else.
You can harangue gay folks all day long about what you think of them, but at the end of the day, THAT’S not the problem.
The problem is the straight world entitling themselves compromising the self reliance and security a gay person should be able to have without their interference.
Being vulgar and so on, last I checked, aren’t grounds for Constitution discrimination.
posted by DragonScorpion on
BobN & Regan DuCasse: Excellent posts by the both of you. I very much agree.
posted by Lori Heine on
There is no difference between subjecting the people to the whims of a majority and subjecting them to the whims of an individual tyrant.
The founders of this republic intended to safeguard us against both.
There may be typos here so forgive me. I just slicced a finger open unwrapping a box of cigars and it’s been bleeding all over the place so I’m holding it in the air while I type with one hand.
Yes I know — cigars. Insert any joke you like.
Seiously, this is why freedoms — which are the same for eerybody — were what the founders emphasized instead of itemizing a long list of rights.
posted by Pat on
It’s not for me, personally, to accept, and I don’t think you would even care if other people accepted it or not.
I get that, Debrah. We’re just expressing our own opinions here. I was just trying to get at your opinion.
I simply will not view “real marriage” as anything other than a union between couples of the opposite sex; however, as I have said before, we can pretend.
I get that as well. You have accepted all the various changes that happened with marriage, and had no need to pretend, but you are hung up on the gender thing here.
You know the point I was making.
Debrah, I don’t play semantics games. If I knew what you meant, I wouldn’t have asked. I still don’t quite get what you mean.
I merely mentioned being very comfortable not being like everyone else to illustrate that if I were gay–or whatever!–I wouldn’t be going along with anyone’s idea of a “movement” or the idea that life would be better if I could only “marry” and have it be the law of the land.
That could possibly be true for you. But yet, so many straight people rely on marriage. In fact, even the ones that are rich choose the marriage route, as opposed to not getting married and spending tens or hundreds of thousand of dollars to secure half of the rights that married persons have.
How one expresses him/herself sexually isn’t the best way to try to distinguish oneself and appeal for “specialness”. And that’s what so many gays try to do. Some wouldn’t have an identity at all if they couldn’t scream to the world how GAY they are.
The funny thing is straight people highlight their sexuality everyday for people to see. Since you are straight, you don’t see it. But for gay people it’s loud and clear.
I could only hope not, but since we’re speaking theoretically here, if I were like most gay men and engaged in the practice, I’d also understand why people are most often repulsed by it.
Perhaps, but I don’t see an outsider being repulsed by anal sex any more than the traditional straight sex activities. Of course, my advice would be, if a particular sexual activity repulses you, don’t engage in it. What’s interesting is that even though straight persons do not have the same “need” as gay persons to engage in anal sex, a significant portion still do.
I just can’t stand the little meek, mousy wallflower types who allow men to control them and abuse them.
But that’s pretty much how marriage was expected to me. The change of this to a more equal partnership is much more than the change in the gender requirements.
Anyway, I feel more sorry for these women, and can’t stand the men that exploit this.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Oh and Debrah,
If YOU were gay, how do you KNOW what you’d do?
You’re not confronted with anything to test what you would do.
Yet, you go ON and ON and ON about what YOU think gay people should do, and how they should go about dealing with whatever comes their way.
This seems to be the only subject in which hetero people, with a straight face, lecture gay people not only on how to live, but WHAT they are, and most often posit those lectures as if gay people are either broken straight people or are faking being gay somehow.
Yet, no man would lecture a woman who has born children that HE is more expert on childbearing and dealing with the monthly cycle more than a woman.
Yes, it’s THAT ludicrous, the way you express your ADVICE to people who didn’t ask for it.
You also speak with considerable condescension as if gay people have reacted childishly to the things that have happened recently.
It’s anything FROM, casual murder of gay CHILDREN, to millions of faceless strangers trying to divorce you and sending your legal security into YET another round of rules and regulations that would make anyone dizzy it’s so convoluted.
And you’d have us believe YOU’D deal with it with less tears, anger, anxiety and confrontation?
Your BS load has gone too deep to shovel, my dear.
You have NO appreciation of just how much courage and patience it’s really taken, because at the end of the day, it’s the opposition that’s willing to put a lot of time, money and effort into SPITE of gay people.
Anything to create complications, distractions and fear of gay lives.
The opposition brought this, and gay people morally cannot sit by and allow it, nor wait to be accepted and loved.
Our civil laws must manifest that gay people’s lives require equal protection and access to the self reliance that our nation is SUPPOSED to hold so dear.
It’s not racist to discuss race and the proper context in which it connects to the history of disenfranchised minorities.
You like to think that because I UNDERSTAND that anger and anxiety, it’s condescending to gay people to be that way.
But you insult that at least, because I also understand just how pernicious, and intractable, even in subtle ways, bigotry can be, I empathize strongly with gay adults.
I don’t have to be gay to do THAT.
And I don’t speak as if expert on BEING gay, but I can on how even subtle prejudice can be damaging and how situations of utter helplessness to fight it in a crucial time in one’s life has reverb hard to ignore.
I understand that and the difference between and action and a REACTION.
You say all you do without being willing to wear the shoes of gay folks…with a pebble in them.
You know a lot about what you don’t know and what isn’t so.
You’re just a common snipe who likes to stir things up, but isn’t offering anything that’s helpful or needed.
posted by Lori Heine on
Of course, Regan, our resident fag-hag won’t “engage” you because she has made clear that she only “engages” men.
I do agree with most of what you’re saying, however. I engage people not on the basis of sexual attraction but intellect, and evidently you do, too.
I keep trying to make the same point over and over — which is that it should not be necessary for us to win everyone over to liking homosexuality, or even to having a neutral stance on it. This country will quite simply not survive if we keep on vying for government power to tyrannize one another. We are always getting in each other’s faces about personal stuff — which shouldn’t really be anybody else’s business in the first place — precisely because we’ve all decided that, as that old Rodney Dangerfield joke says, “There oughtta be a law.” Every time we don’t like something someone else does, even when it has nothing to do with us, there oughtta be a law against it — and so we keep on turning the guns of government against one another.
I don’t care what you do, what Debrah does, what Bobby does or what anybody else does with regard to their mutually-consensual relationships with other adults. And you should not need to worry whether I care or not. That is the bottom line.
posted by Debrah on
Regan DuCasse aka Regan Sharpton—
Unfortunately, you seem to be a member of the groupthink, obnoxious, and hyperbolic set from the ‘hood who’s looking for another cause, for your own has long grown stale.
What’s wrong?
Finally discovered that it’s hard out there for a pimp?
Your incoherent froth is frighteningly similar to that offered up by so many of the semi-literate “diversity” hires in the Humanities Departments of this country’s universities.
You’ve discovered the thesaurus; however, you’ve yet to understand exactly how to put the bounty to accurate use.
To put a fine point on your declasse rant: You, madam, are quite simply a liar.
And a verbally sweaty one.
It was not I who “called you names”; however, I can understand why someone would.
I merely pointed out on some previous, long ago thread that you deposit “archaic drivel”.
You’ve done nothing in the interim to prove the contrary.
Any proponent of this “gay marriage” agenda who would utilize your brand of “support” is, sadly, in possession of an agenda whose future is in its past.
And oooooo-baby!.
Our resident cigar-smoking fur-trapper cannot resist riding on the back of any commenter here in order to have something to say.
Perhaps Billy Jeff Clinton can give her a few tips on what to do with those cigars.
Are you happy now, Heine?
I have tried to ignore your milquetoast attempts for a dust-up, but I see you have no shame and will even ride on the back of the resident “Ms. Sharpton”.
Enjoy!
posted by Lori Heine on
Debrah, you are one strange chick. A “dust-up?” Dream on. “Milquetoast?” Maybe my treatment of you has been milquetoast. More likely it’s simply that I don’t regard you as worth the trouble.
Half the time, you’re frigging incoherent. The rest of the time, you’re just annoying.
You treat people on this board like garbage because, evidently, that’s what you are. You’ve got a filthy mind and a filthy mouth.
I guess garbage is as garbage does.
It’s a good thing we all know plenty of decent straight people. We certainly wouldn’t get a very favorable impression of them if you were the only example we had.
posted by Debrah on
(((((((((((((() YAWN ())))))))))))))))
More rants from the “nice lady” who calls other women “fag hags” for engaging gay men in conversation.
Such archaic tendencies! And such a bore.
And for days kept digging for a fight with someone who ignores her.
Trés comical!
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âSeiously, this is why freedoms — which are the same for eerybody — were what the founders emphasized instead of itemizing a long list of rights.â ~ Lori Heine
There is one very big flaw in this, âall men are created equalâ. Not only did this, in practice, exclude women, but it excluded non-white, non-land-owning people as well. The Thirteenth Amendment is another example. Such a provision shouldn’t really have been needed if the founders REALLY believed in liberty and justice for all, but yet, it was extremely necessary.
And the Fourteenth Amendment, which should have kept things like segregation & Jim Crow laws from evolving, but it didn’t. It took something like the Voting Rights Act to ensure that blacks who, constitutionally were equal to whites, truly do have a “right” to vote and not be unfairly barred from it or public accommodations.
No, I think history shows that sometimes a government has to be a little more assertive than mere generalities about the freedoms that supposedly everyone has.
posted by Lori Heine on
“And for days kept digging for a fight with someone who ignores her.”
A little bit nutty and a whole lot slutty. I guess she sits in her trailer all day and thinks up this stuff.
“Perhaps Billy Jeff Clinton can give her a few tips on what to do with those cigars.”
You’re going to start ignoring me? Really? You promise?
Until the next time you get back from turning tricks and decide to lecture us sinful gays again, I guess.
posted by Lori Heine on
DragonScorpion, I think you’re missing my point. Those freedoms were asserted, even though the founders were imperfect human beings and products of their era.
Freedoms do not grow more plentiful because they are enumerated by government.
As a matter of fact, the only legitimate reason for the very existence of the U.S. government, and that of the states, is to protect our freedoms.
It is not the government’s place to “be assertive” about the freedoms we have. It is ours. The main contribution to our freedom that the government can make is to stop trying to take it away from us.
I appreciate that you want to expand government protection to include everybody. But the main thing we need to be protected from, at this point, is our government itself, with all its endless words and deeds.
posted by Debrah on
Ms. Heine–
If these fellow commenters would be objective and honest in their assessment of your recent posting habits and what you’ve attempted to do, they’d tell you that it has been your own feverish efforts to attack and try to inject yourself inside conversations of which you have no part.
I looked over your it, initially, and attempted to move on.
Even one of your buddies mentioned, albeit a bit overstated, that I had made an extra effort to be kind to you at the beginning.
In retrospect, it was a mistake on my part…..for your own very backward mentality came through quite clearly.
You’re obviously not well-equipped for situations when people are not in agreement with you. You go straight for ad hominems…….then try to talk about church and religion.
Nauseatingly pathetic.
But that’s OK. I’ve been envied by other women all of my life. Not a problem.
I don’t know if you’ve always had trouble with reading comprehension; however, you have a decided handicap in that you often think someone is talking to you, and you put a huge rant together…..only to be told that you “read it wrong”.
Your lack of reading comprehension was the reason—ever—for there to have been an exchange between us.
You pulled the same thing with your buddy “Dragon” once as well.
In your need to “fit in”, you often come across as a vagrant Girl Scout.
You’re basically a very nasty person, and are dumb enough to believe that if you dress that stench in “going to church language” that people won’t see how very insecure and what an empty vessel you are.
Deal with your trash talk that you throw out to others. Then, and only then, will your self-righteous diatribes be anything but what they are.
A bad butch in a meadow.
Lastly, I have to LM-T’s-O!!! with regard to some of your insane remarks above.
You obviously have such class envy that you want to drag your own neighborhood into your rants.
LOL!!!
posted by BobN on
Our resident cigar-smoking fur-trapper cannot resist riding on the back of any commenter here in order to have something to say.
OK, now I’m really confused. Cigar-smoking is clearly a reference to those “daddy videos” that involve cigars, boot-licking and submission. But then there’s that “fur-trapper” term again, which I think is a crude reference to lesbians. But, wait, it’s followed by “riding on the back”, which brings us back to gay male activities.
Note to the pro-frot contingent: “riding on the back” need not require penetration, of course.
posted by DragonScorpion on
They were imperfect beings, yes. And they weren’t as clear as they should have been. Much of this was, no doubt, completely unforeseen. And much of it was simply reached by compromise. All the more reason why the government, through the people, must uphold and at times expand upon or clarify these freedoms, ensuring that the law is applied evenly, ensuring that everyone is afforded equal protection and due process. These two, I should add, are âfreedomsâ that are essential but were not a part of the original Bill of Rights.
You said freedoms do not grow more plentiful because they are enumerated by government. Unless I am misunderstanding you, I beg to differ. Let’s take the right to vote. Clearly, it is a right but not necessarily an absolute freedom. It is a right which CAN be denied to persons under 18 or felons or non-citizens. It is a right that was NOT granted to racial minorities or women. And so, that “freedom” to vote really wasn’t much of a freedom. For a good portion of country’s history it was only a freedom for white, land-owning men.
New Amendments changed this. Sort of. And clearly needed to. The 14th Amendment stipulated in what should have been clear enough language that: âNo 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.â
But yet, in many parts of the country, particularly in the south, barring racial minorities from voting and public accommodations continued on until the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act.
I would suggest you consider people living under totalitarian systems like the Chinese government. While we may claim that our freedoms come from a higher power, the Chinese government proves otherwise. People, including individuals or groups or organizations or governments have the power to take freedoms away from people. Who protects from that? Who, really, ensures that these freedoms are guaranteed?
The government, our government, is the only entity with the power to stop individuals, groups, organizations and foreign powers from harming us or curtailing our freedoms. Whether we are talking about local law-enforcement, the FBI, the National Guard or the Army. And this is, of course, largely why we have one though there are many other reasons.
We the people, through the law, elections, protests, threat of revolution, etc. keep our own government from curtailing our freedoms. But we have to agree on what those freedoms are. Freedom of speech, for example. And of course, to prevent chaos, there must be exceptions to these freedoms from time to time. Like in the case of yelling fire in a crowded theater. Inciting a riot. The production and distribution of child pornography.
One cannot engage in those activities and legally claim ‘I have freedom of speech’. You can, however, make such a claim when you get arrested for calling the Mayor a fool. Unlike many other countries, in which ‘hate speech’, like denying the Holocaust can be punishable by the government. In our country we allow people to say even indefensible things. We can be as racist and inflammatory as we want to be and the government cannot really punish us for doing so.
Is this because some higher power gave us a freedom? Or because this is a freedom that “We the people” decided upon and agreed are freedoms which, with rare exception, cannot be abridged by our government (and not just the Federal government, anymore).
When government agencies or officials have tried to do this, however, or passed laws that would, fortunately, we have a system that allows us to challenge these laws or actions. We can thank the judicial branch for this, as that system has overruled countless laws as unconstitutional. They have slapped down the government when it overreaches. And sometimes they fail at that. It isn’t a perfect system. No one ever said it was going to be.
I can somewhat agree with you here. In fact, I mostly agree with you here, though we likely disagree on specifics.
I’d be the first to admit that the government often goes too far. But keep a few things in mind, the people often petition for this. Like those who are voting to strip away recognizing equality for same-sex couples, or basic protections like discrimination in employment and public accommodations to homosexuals. Or those who clamor for more and more security every time there is a new threat of terrorist attack â whether these measures work or not, regardless how much it invades our privacy, regardless what it costs. It’s up to all of us, or should be, to decide how far is too far. And fortunately, we do have laws which protect freedoms that our government could certainly ignore, like the Chinese government does to it’s people. And even a simple majority cannot just piss those away. Like freedom of speech.
I think the difference between us, fundamentally, at least appears to be that you oppose the very concept of government intervention and government protection beyond the original Bill of Rights. Whereas I believe in expanding them as needed, though ideally as carefully, inclusively and incrementally as is reasonable.
posted by Lori Heine on
DragonScorpion, I know your views are the majority opinion. But by forever treating the freedoms of those formerly shut out in the cold as if they are new, we are basically saying — what?
Maybe it is necessary to do that. But what we’re really doing is declaring that they held the title to those freedoms anyway. Whether it was granted to them by the majority or not.
I don’t care what the Chinese do. They live in an atheistic society, so of course they think all goodies come from powerful human beings. That is not (or was not in the past) the way it was thought of here.
I oppose continual government intervention because when the government thinks it giveth, it also thinks it can taketh away. Look at what they want to do to gays in this country now. Don’t think for a moment that the theocrats, if they get their way, will amend the Constitution to deny us what is extended to everyone else.
And Debrah, people in glass houses should keep away from rocks.
Those who need professional help the most never seek it, and you are living proof of that. You need a shrink STAT.
You have by far the filthiest mind of anybody who comments here, yet you ride in on your high horse and pronounce judgment on gay men.
You have attempted several times to appeal to my selfishness (the one impulse you can probably understand) to say “it’s not about you.” Until the fur-trapper garbage, indeed it wasn’t. What you are evidently incapable of understanding is why a lesbian might find it irritating that gay men are being treated disrespectfully.
You are the biggest head case I have ever seen in cyberspace, and that’s saying something because I’ve seen a lot of them. If I don’t “read for comprehension” when I scan your posts, it’s because I don’t consider them worth the bother.
As for DragonScorpion, if he has a concern he wishes to address to me, he is quite capable of doing it himself. Indeed, he has. Your childish desire to try to cajole other people over to your “side” of the playground is pathetic.
Go scratch all your filthy itches, then come back and brag some more about it. And then pass more high-minded judgment on the gay men here. Your need to parade your neuroses before the other commenters on this blog is truly strange.
This is a political website. If you are interested in debased sex, there are surely other sites that would titillate you more.
posted by Debrah on
Ms. Heine—
Hilarious!
Your backward attempts at playing the schoolmarm here are scorchingly pathetic.
Let’s go back and review YOUR behavior.
After I bent over backward looking over your lack of reading comprehension and was overly nice to you after your embarrassing ad hominems that made you look like a fool—(with my posts as well as your buddy “Dragon’s”)—you kept plowing.
Get this fact, and get it now: You couldn’t rev up much of a dialogue with anyone here until you started that pathetic and gratuitous “defense of gay men”.
What a desperate individual you are. Keep plowing, because these men are capable of defending themselves. You’ll need to come up with a better grade of BS.
Your “defense” is to try to save yourself from oblivion in the arguments you think you’re making.
Don’t ever instruct me on anything. People like you who “go to church” and wax self-righteous are the scum of the earth and often cause the most problems for society.
If you want to instruct someone, get over to a few of those “man” websites and lecture them in your backward fare.
Many gay men already know they need to clean up their act before pretending to be “marriage-friendly”.
Your defense of gay exhibitionism and the overt grotesquerie is a new feature in your schoolmarm schtick, it seems.
It was YOU who made a direct nasty comment toward me.
Remember that, you dishonest self-righteous freak.
If you can’t take the push-back from your filth, then don’t attack someone with your backwoods anti-hetero bigotry. It’s obvious that you have trouble dealing with hetero women who befriend or engage gay men or you and your fellow fur-trappers wouldn’t need to use words like “fag-hag”.
I’m guessing the silly show “Will and Grace” really got you stirred up. LOL!!!
Don’t EVER forget that you are the culprit in all this. Don’t use the men here now to try to save your filthy azz.
Ram your self-righteous phony and pious church lady logorrhea up a dark place…..left to your imagination.
And no one here should be fooled by your act. You love this dust-up you’ve created.
You haven’t had this much attention since someone winked at you at a Melissa Etheridge concert.
posted by Debrah on
TO “BobN”–
Seriously, if you’re going to try to analyze the proceedings, you’ll need to read the material first.
Accurate reading comprehension of the thread above will show that I did not respond to either of the two women’s comments, initially.
Heine, verbally handicapped as she often is, then proceeded to make a direct nasty comment and used Regan’s post in order to do it. That’s “riding on the back” of someone else.
With the nasty comment thrown in by the schoolmarm who carries a Bible as she spreads her hetero bigotry, I responded as anyone should.
The outside world isn’t responsible for the fact that some of these people are not equipped with anything but left-over ad hominems and are often annihilated by their own buffoonery.
It’s endlessly hilarious to watch them thrash about when given some of their own.
Try reading below, “BobN”, so you’ll understand from where the “cigar” allusions derived. It was poor Heine who made a pathetic show of her cigars and then even invited jokes from others.
Lori Heine offered up this comment and is now screaming about someone else’s “filthy mind” when they mention what SHE WROTE HERSELF.
Is the woman in need of the psychiatric help she’s talking about? They say only those in real need of such help dwell on the subject.
***** “There may be typos here so forgive me. I just slicced a finger open unwrapping a box of cigars and it’s been bleeding all over the place so I’m holding it in the air while I type with one hand.
Yes I know — cigars. Insert any joke you like.” *****
No one bothered to respond to her corn pone. LOL!
Consequently, when she kept plowing and then directed her trashy church lady filth my way, I reminded her of her loopy “cigar” comment……
…….as only I can do.
So, “BobN”, try to analyze any situation using all the facts next time.
It’s so much more illuminating that way…..as well as more honest.
posted by Patrick on
Hahahaha
One big ad hominem after the next.
What a typical fag-hag… looking for attention…never really gets it in a positive way.
Most people would call a person like that a DOUCHEBAG.
This line is especially hilarious-“Consequently, when she kept plowing and then directed her trashy church lady filth my way, I reminded her of her loopy “cigar” comment……”
wait for the last part(self centered to the extreme)…
“…….as only I can do.”
….yeah, douchebag.
heh heh does any one here even care about her rants?
Besides her?
I didn’t think so.
posted by Debrah on
Stellar.
It appears that Heine’s soul mate has shown up.
Nothing illustrates the brand of grotesquerie that observers witness all the time than this.
Good job.
This person has to be the Southbridge, Massachusetts visitor who skulks around on my blog incessantly.
Thanks for the illustration at (10:58 AM). Nothing could have made my previous points any better.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I’m sure by this you meant: if the theocrats get their way the Constitution WILL deny to us what is extended to everyone else.
This would be true, I have no doubts at all. One reason I’m so deadset against supporting them, in spite of ND30’s screeds at the hypocrisy of Democrats and how they haven’t done anything for us lately. They haven’t done as much as I’d like, but a hell of a lot more than most Republicans!
All this is a very valid concern. I’ve long believed that the government, outside of keeping order, enforcing sensible regulations, etc. should be expanding upon rights more than removing them.
A very basic set of examples of expansion would be: Ending slavery. Free speech applies to the Internet. Racial minorities and women are allowed to vote. Marriage cannot be prohibited on the basis of gender.
Some examples of what should NOT have ever been: anti-miscegenation laws, Jim Crow laws, segregation in schools and the military.
Again, some things need to be clarified. I realize that you disagree with marriage being a civil contract, but this aside, it is a civil contract and has been for a very long time now. It is also a civil contract that was once not eligible to interracial couples. Some states or territories had no laws stipulating this. Others enacted such laws later. These sorts of laws should never have been allowed in the first place. As a rule, denying equal protection and due process should not happen.
In the case of same-sex couples. Most states did not stipulate that a woman cannot marry another woman. It was just sort of taken for granted. Many states have since done this, even through their constitutions. Again, this sort of thing should never happen. However, since the law didn’t actually allow in most states for same-sex couples to marry, clearly, a law would have to be enacted making it clear that same-sex couples CAN legally marry. This would be an example of expanding rights.
Perhaps it would help to think of it not so much as expanding freedoms or rights, but rather, clarifying or updating them. Asserting that this particular freedom which we’ve long taken for granted, cannot be denied to [insert group here].
I’m sure it is clear how important this is, particularly in our society, where supposed guaranteed freedoms didn’t actually apply to various groups.
It is, however, a very valid question which I think you are raising or would want to: how do we keep the government; or majorities of people via the government from oppressing minorities?
A strong constitution with key protections, certainly. In fact, I think it could use a little more strengthening to remove such things as âpopular sovereigntyâ from our legal system.
To conservatives I would argue this is also why a strong judiciary is important, as they have a tendency to protect those in the minority by applying the law evenly. As we can see, legislators aren’t all that concerned about egalitarianism much of the time. And sadly, neither are the people. Majorities will steamroll over minorities any chance they get.
Thank goodness we don’t live in a pure democracy, where most all changes in law would be put to popular vote!
posted by Patrick on
LOL… really that is too funny…’cause there is no such thing as a proxy server.
posted by Lori Heine on
DragonScorpion, I did indeed mean to say “if the theocrats get their way the Constitution WILL deny to us what is extended to everyone else.”
And actually, I agree that marriage should be a civil contract. If people want a church to bless their union, that should be a separate matter.
Maybe there is no way to protect freedoms for minorities except by continually restating and redefining. I don’t know. But it does trouble me that we are looking to the government to acknowledge these freedoms. It can just as easily deny as it can acknowledge.
How do we keep the government, or the majority, from oppressing minorities? It would be nice if we could appeal to the majority’s self-interest. A nation that oppresses one group can just as easily turn its guns, at some later time, upon another. Everybody is part of the majority in some ways, and of a minority in others.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~”Maybe there is no way to protect freedoms for minorities except by continually restating and redefining. I don’t know.” ~ Lori Heine
I really think so. Unfortunately. And if the government doesn’t acknowledge them, then effectively, we can’t exercise them and therefore we don’t really have them.
I share your concerns, though. One thing that I’m particularly concerned about, other than this new popular sovereignty where people’s rights can be voted away by popular vote, is some of the censorship going in Europe.
When I see boycotts by Al Sharpton and his ilk against Don Imus â who I thought was an idiot who habitually made offensive, racist statements â I worry just how much time free speech has left. While I realize that NBC doesn’t have to adhere to the 1st amendment, when people are demanding that non-official citizens be censored and/or fired for expressing unpopular viewpoints, the chilling effect to free speech is very similar to government censorship.
This country could use a hell of a lot more live and let live…
posted by Lori Heine on
Dragon, I think we agree on more than we disagree. The problem is that if you merely “share my concerns,” (as do a lot of other people who don’t really do anything about that), then the country is doomed.
No, really, as Dandy Don used to sing, “Turn out the lights, the party’s over.” If we truly have surrendered all our power to a government with nuclear weapons, humanity will never be free again.
We probably won’t get another chance to try the experiment in freedom our founders did two hundred and forty years ago.
We have all become satisfied with a thin veneer of freedom. The gullible, childish mass of sheeple in this country have been persuaded that they need nothing more. There are many countries in this world we can look to to see what happens when the State no longer feels it even needs to permit the people a thin veneer.
When that happens here, it won’t just suck to be gay, it will suck to be human.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I suspect that you are right, we do agree more than we disagree. I like to use that sheeple line, too, Lori. I think we do surrender too much. I despise much of the paternalism of our society. Smoking banished not only from sidewalks but from cars. New taxes of $1 per pack last year was outrageous. And I don’t even smoke! I don’t agree with mandatory seatbelt laws, except those applying to children. And why the hell don’t they have them in school buses? Still, I’m glad the government made car manufacturers put seat belts in or else we probably still wouldn’t have them in low-end model cars.
But I also think things like civil rights are important. Minorities are too easy to push around; to exclude. That’s our history, not just the U.S.’s, but humanity’s.
And marriage. I don’t like the government in the religious âinstitution businessâ, I really don’t. But I think protections and certain benefits for couples who commit themselves to sharing a life together benefit them and society at large to an extent. So I’m in agreement with “civil unions”. In our society, that is called “marriage”. So I that’s what I support for us.
I think where you lose me is on stuff like seeing civil marriage and the benefits conferred in it as some sort of enslavement to the state.
I guess I still see shades of gray, rather than mere black and white on the whole big government/small government question.
As for life being miserable for humans… I wouldn’t worry too much about that. Within a generation or two we will have probably destroyed ourselves. If not through wars, WMD’s or poisoning the environment we eat, sleep and breathe in (and everything in it), then we will have engineered the humanity right out of us with machines.
Probably our best hope as a species is that fate pushes a reset button for humanity leaving enough left to start all over and try this whole experiment in civilization over again. Otherwise, often times I feel that our prospects as a race are pretty grim.
Oh, the discussions you and I could have! On a happier note, have a nice day! 😀