Discrimination? Certainly Not!

My take on one of the most annoying and ill-reasoned arguments against marriage equality.

Share:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Reddit

85 comments to Discrimination? Certainly Not!

  • 51

    At least you no longer seem to think that all gays and lesbians automatically speak for all other gays and lesbians, except for you, of course, since you’re superior.

    Superior? No. Remember? You threw me out of the gay and lesbian community and insisted that I couldn’t possibly be gay because I didn’t agree with and support every single statement made by other gay and lesbian people.

    But on the other hand, unlike “real” gays and lesbians, I have no problem with saying that telling someone else to commit suicide is wrong. That is clearly beyond the capability of gays and lesbians like Loki.

  • 52
    Loki says:

    So you acknowledge that gays and lesbians don’t oppose bullying in every situation. Thank you.

    Nope. I made a point about priorities. As you can tell by reading the posted quote.

    Actually, it was not.

    So, even though your own quoted evidence says it was, it still wasn’t? As always your own evidence proves you wrong.

    Let me quote the original statement for you.

    Good!

    The word “repugnant” appears nowhere in there, or even in that entire comment.

    That is because you were not quoting the original statement at all. The original statement is this, “Guess what, it is wrong, and I never said it wasn’t. I was addressing the fact that you were trying to amplify one person‘s repugnant statement onto an entire community. I was not addressing the morality of the statement, but, rather, your attempt to smear others with it.”

    This is the statement you used as evidence of your point. And in it the behavior is specifically called “repugnant.” And, adding in the parts you deceitfully eliminated, specifically states that behavior is wrong. Do try to keep up.

    Indeed, it makes it clear that telling other people to commit suicide is perfectly acceptable if you think they are an “insufferable blowhard”.

    And now you are lying about that quote to. Notice how you keep using the word “clear.” It’s very important to understanding your posts. When you use the word “clear” what you mean is “I happen to be inferring this, even though it is not supported by the text at all.” The fact that your evidence can not support your own positions by themselves is proof of you incessant lying.

    One can always bank on gays and lesbians being unable to condemn the behavior of other gays and lesbians.

    You claim to be gay. I am condemning your behavior. Therefor this entire argument is false on its face.

    Instead, they blame other people, just like your long screaming tantrum in which you try to deny that you claimed all the examples I brought forward were “imaginary”,

    Something which never happened.

    or when you refused to take accountability for your lies about Evan Hurst not endorsing the hate post I cited.

    Which, of course, also didn’t happen.

    And it gets even better.

    Your posts always do!

    Perfect. You have just demonstrated that you rationalize everything based on “social coercion”.

    In the future learn what words like “rationalize” and “excuse” mean before using them. This is what, the fourth or fifth time you’ve misused the word. No, that wasn’t a “rationalization,” that was a statement of fact. You can tell because there is no “because” clause in it. Rationalization requires such a clause. “Because X happens, Y is okay.” Knowledge is power!

    This is why you are so hateful towards gays and lesbians who make choices with which you disagree.

    Please, offer some objective evidence I am “hateful” towards anyone. Not condescending, not in disagreement. And offer something that stands on its own, without you having to make “clear” what it means.

    Your attempts to blame all of your problems on “social coercion” is short-circuited if you acknowledge that gays and lesbians can make choices — because then you would be responsible for the consequences of your own actions.

    And what consequences would those be, exactly? What, exactly, am I responsible for? Please inform the group in specific detail what you mean by this.

    Anywho, I actually did acknowledged that gays and lesbians make choices. Here, let me quote myself, “I acknowledge that gays and lesbians can make their own choices as much as anyone else.” And allow me to quote myself again, “Because I have no problem with that percentage doing what it wants.” So please, admit you are lying.

    With pleasure.

    Good.

    You claimed Savage never referred to individuals, then tried to claim that he did. Game, set, match.

    I didn’t, and you failed to respond to the claims in the passage. Game, set, match. Do you wish me to requote that rather lengthy passage again? Okay, “You are lying. I said, ‘since he is speaking about gay Christians’ therefor my previous claims are, in fact, completely in line with my current claims. what you are doing is, in fact, deliberately lying about two separate clauses in two separate sentences.

    Clause #1: “it is a religion that has chosen to hate Gays”

    This is about the religion and not the individual participants.

    Clause #2: “Being Christian and gay is like being a Jewish Natzi”

    This is an analogy about specific people in that religion. Do try to keep them straight.

    I made statements about the former clause, I made statements about the latter clause. Do not attempt to get them confused in the future.”

    You refused to answer. Therefore, you are incapable. After all, that’s what you stated, isn’t it?

    Yes, I did refuse to answer. For the reasons stated. And no, that is not what I stated. You never asked for evidence I could answer, which is what I asked from you. Do you see the difference? I asked for evidence of something, you did not. In fact, as I provided a response to that question, I did prove I was capable.

    Now answer the question that started this whole tangent, “Which is ‘So cheating, to you, is more dysfunctional than suicide, homicide, or drug addiction?’ Please, answer the question.”

    This is a great example of how gays and lesbians like yourself are failed by the gay and lesbian community and its adherence to dogma over rationality. Clearly, you are unable to follow the same rules you impose on others and thus are exposed as a hypocrite.

    Or, rather what you mean to say here is, “ARRRGH! You won’t move from a point no matter how many logical fallacies I throw at you! So if I throw enough mud at you, hopefully some of it will stick! You can’t possibly counter everything I say, can you?”

    Lie. You have repeatedly questioned my sexual orientation.

    Note, again, this is not accompanied by a quote. You can find all of my other quotes, and yet not this one. Even though you keep stating I said so “repeatedly.” Again, I never stated you were not gay. And the fact that you still have yet to find a quote from me stating you are not gay, even though I’ve asked for it multiple times now, is all the proof anyone needs to know it is a lie.

    Also note the subtle shift in the goal posts. This claim went from “You stated I was not gay” to “you questioned my sexual orientation.” The former is definitively provable, and the latter is very amorphous and vague. What a wonderful example of rhetorical fallacy.

    That is, of course, because gays and lesbians like yourself use the assertion that all gays and lesbians think the way that you do to hide your logical and intellectual fallacies

    What logical and intellectual fallacies? Note how I’ve referred to specific logical fallacies in relation to your posts, and you’ve never stated such about mine. You just are glossing over that fact, aren’t you?

    A gay person who dissents throws that all out of whack and requires you to make arguments based on things other than your minority status, which you clearly cannot do.

    And yet I am obviously causing you no small amount of consternation. What’s really gotten you upset is that I am preforming what is called an “Apocalypse” which means “lifting of the veil.” Instead of getting angry with you, I am showing how you put together your arguments. I’m showing the thought behind your arguments. I’m exposing you for what you really are. And you can not handle it. Hence why you keep resorting to lying about comments that are fairly easy to look up.

    It’s the only way to deal with a Bad Jackie.

    Gladly.

    Where, in that article, am I quoted? Which one of those people quoted in that article is supposed to be me? Which one, precisely?

    So now provide a quote proving that you criticized McGreevey and that the gay and lesbian community is wrong to call him a hero.

    I shall, instead, provide a quote from you where you thought I criticized McGreevey and that the gay and lesbian community was wrong to call him a hero, “Meanwhile, why are you so against acknowledging someone who has been hailed as a hero by the gay and lesbian community?” In fact, I’m “so against acknowledging [him].” Isn’t it interesting how you’ve suddenly changed your claim?

    Except when gay and lesbian bloggers do it, of course.

    No, it is still creepy then. Hence why I do not give my personal email address to websites.

    My guess is Evan Hurst, given the identical fisking style of your posts and the fact that you have desperately tried to spin and cover up for him and his hate speech.

    So, you think Evan Hurst has less knowledge of the content of his own articles than you do? That’s a hilarious claim to make after you based so much of your prior claims off my missing something in his article. Also you claimed I was one of the people quoted in that McGreevey article, of which Evan Hurst was not one.

    But I am not seeing a side by side comparison of grammar, spelling, word choice, sentence structure, prior knowledge and so on. Which is what I asked for.

    Lie. You said they were imaginary.

    Nope. I did not. As I proved to you in a rather lengthy post you, apparently, excised. The proof you are lying can be found right here.

    Lie. In fact, I have already identified one as Priya Lynn,

    Lies again. You identified one as Priya Lynn after the comments posted. Let’s look at the chain of events.

    Post #1: October 8th, 2010 at 6:10 am This is post which you pulled for evidence of your claim.

    Post #2: October 8th, 2010 at 6:12 am This is the post you, after realizing how badly you bungled went back and claimed you really meant all along, even though if you had meant that post, you would have used it in the first place.

    Post #3: October 8th, 2010 at 6:52 am This is the post where you identified Priya Lynn. Note how it happens after my two posts.

    Unless I am a time traveler, I quite literally could not have been lying in those prior posts. Oh, and you never actually provided any evidence (which is what we are talking about) on the subject of Priya Lynn, you merely claimed you had it. Do I really have to explain the concept of time to you?

    which is no doubt why you are suddenly backpedaling. You haven’t the capability to criticize her for her behavior.

    A. There is no behavior to criticize.
    B. Wasn’t backpedaling at all, do to that whole concept of time. The second law of thermodynamics.

    Again, you seem to think someone not moving from their original statements is backpedaling. Considering how easy it is to confirm what said original statements are, well that just makes you a not particularly careful liar.

  • 53
    Loki says:

    Really, Loki? Again, you’re stating that no one here, just for starters, has ever questioned my sexual orientation?

    This has no relation to the quote it is in reference to. It is entirely a non sequitur.

    Yes, Loki, we’re all aware that you think every example I have posted is “imaginary”.

    Oh, lying again! A quick perusal of my posts will reveal that I do think some are imagined, some are cherry picked, some are lies, some are distorted and so on. But by no means did I say I think every example was “imaginary.” I said your version of the “gay and lesbian community” was imaginary. Do try to keep up.

    I think it speaks volumes for how little the gay and lesbian community has to offer that it is terrified of condemning the statements of its members and instead has to deny them in the face of clear evidence.

    And there’s that imaginary “gay and lesbian community” of yours. I think it speak volumes about you that rather than admit you lied or made a mistake or crafted a world view not based on reality at all, you double down on it. Bad Jackie! Bad!

  • 54
    Loki says:

    Superior? No.

    So, your position is that you have never made any claims to be superior in any capacity than anyone else? Good to know.

    Remember? You threw me out of the gay and lesbian community and insisted that I couldn’t possibly be gay because I didn’t agree with and support every single statement made by other gay and lesbian people.

    Not what happened, at all. But hey! It is fun to pretend.

    But on the other hand, unlike “real” gays and lesbians, I have no problem with saying that telling someone else to commit suicide is wrong.

    Neither do the people here. As has been repeatedly demonstrated by them, and repeatedly ignored by you.

    That is clearly beyond the capability of gays and lesbians like Loki.

    I rather enjoy that I have become your personal demon. Clearly (to barrow your favorite word), I am causing you considerable unrest and unpleasantness. Hopefully it will help you resolve your Bad Jackie moment, and then you can come out into the sun with the rest of us.

  • 55
    Allen says:

    You threw me out of the gay and lesbian community and insisted that I couldn’t possibly be gay because I didn’t agree with and support every single statement made by other gay and lesbian people.

    Who is “you”, exactly? Oh, I see. It didn’t take you long to go back to thinking the “gay and lesbian community” is a monolithic organization where everybody agrees with every statement made by everybody else. I realize your sense of superiority is based at least partly in the belief that you’re a martyr, but the fact is we’re all individuals, and not all of us question your sexual orientation. It’s the facts we’re questioning, or rather your lack of them.

  • 56
    Neil says:

    when you have people stating that someone is “not gay” on no more evidence than the fact that their statements don’t match approved gay dogma, you make it pretty obvious that whether or not one is considered gay or lesbian depends on your agreement with the hive mind.

    Oh, Mr 30, you under sell yourself. Your statements go beyond not matching an assumed dogma. They’re more anti-gay than the majority of anti-gay crusaders. I can well imagine it would be irksome to have your sexuality questioned by someone posting here, but really, it’s hardly unreasonable to suspect you might only be posing as gay as a strategy to obtain status as an insider critic. Your level of vitriol towards your fellow queers is pretty intense. It’s a bit rich to be in such high dudgeon about receiving a bit of pique from some individuals after they’ve read your comments.

    What is really offensive is your apparent conflation of all criticism and protest as bullying, at it’s worst nasty comments left on your blog, and comparing that to the horrors of actual physical and verbal assaults in person by groups amongst school age children driving queer or assumed queer kids to take their own lives. This is false equivalence. Your behaviour here strikes me as outrageously precious. Again, I’m hardly surprised you’re the butt of taunts with the attitude you’re displaying.

    Criticise individual opinions all you like. The wholesale attack on an entire population based on the sexual orientation they have in common is not anti-dogma. It’s bigotry.

  • 57
    Ben in Oakland says:

    Wow, neil. I never even considered that. Pick 1:

    Dallas is a homo-hatin’-homo, or

    Dallas is a homo-hatin’-straight-boy(?) posing as a homo-hatin-homo.

    That’s even MORE twisted, and I thought being a homo-hatin’-homo was about as twisted as anyone oculd get.

    But in either case, the real question remains: why is anyone bothering to pay any attention to him whatsoever, unless it is for the intellectual exercise of deulling with an unarmed, or at least somewhat unhinged, man(?).

    As my not-so-saintly mother might have said: “Never mud-wrestle with a pig. You only get dirty, and the pig loves it.”

  • 58

    Instead of getting angry with you, I am showing how you put together your arguments.

    Indeed you are attempting to do so. And in the process, you have demonstrated how you deliberately lie in doing so, such as your claim that Evan Hurst and Truth Wins Out had never endorsed or supported the statements I pointed out.

    Incidentally, that sort of evidence is what convinces me that you are Evan Hurst. Only a complete imbecile could miss the fact that Evan Hurst endorsed and supported those statements, and only a complete fool would make such a ludicrous statement as to claim that it wasn’t their fault because a link went to the comments rather than to the post. This is so ridiculously incompetent that it’s clear that it is willful omission instead.

    And here you’ve gone and done it again.

    Lies again. You identified one as Priya Lynn after the comments posted. Let’s look at the chain of events.

    Yes, let’s.

    Is this it, Dallas? You got HIV from some guy, and now all gay people are bad people?

    You really should read the citation first, Ben.

    By the way, the person who sent those emails — and there are more than the ones I posted — is esteemed commenter and representative of the gay and lesbian community Priya Lynn, who commands a great deal of respect and adulation from her fellow gays and lesbians, including Regan DuCasse, Jim Burroway, and Timothy Kincaid, at sites such as Box Turtle Bulletin and others.

    And no; I am HIV-negative — much, it seems, to the chagrin of others in the gay and lesbian community who evidently would much prefer that I get sick and die. Or kill myself.

    And please note the date for reference.

    North Dallas Thirty
    September 11th, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    In short, I identified Priya Lynn long before the posts you cited. Despite having this information clearly and readily available, you chose to say otherwise — making it clear that you are lying.

  • 59

    Is this it, Dallas? You got HIV from some guy, and now all gay people are bad people?

    Since you gave only this line from a potentially longer e-mail, it’s not possible to know the context in which it was written. As presented, it’s a huge leap of assumption, is none of the writers business, and is rude. However, extrapolating the quote above to “I hope you have AIDS” is absurd.

  • 60

    A bit of additional context then, Baltimore Lightning.

    This is the post with the phrase to which you’re referring, which was from Ben in Oakland.

    This is the post in response to Ben’s comment in which I cited Priya Lynn.

    Ben’s comment wasn’t to what I was referring at the time; Priya Lynn’s emails were.

  • 61

    Ah, yes, you left off the first part of the quote when you cited it from your blog:

    You’re not posting at any where nere the rate you used to,

    It makes little difference to the context, other than add a possible note of concern, which I guess you removed since it makes it sound even less like your claim of “I hope you have AIDS.”

  • 62
    Scott says:

    Okay, very quietly, very calmly….
    ND30, would you please just state your own personal opinion on gay marriage? I’ve only seen your replies and responses and don’t believe I have a clear take on your view. Just give your opinion as to why or why not same sex marriage is appropriate, and if possible, why you think you hold that view.

    Likewise, what is your personal reaction to the recent suicides and stories of bullying? What reaction would you like to see from others – whether it be gay individuals, or the so-called gay community, as well?

    Just curious.

  • 63

    He stated it here:

    Marriage is to recognize, promote, and support the relationship that is most beneficial to society, which is two consenting unrelated human adults of the opposite gender.

    Plural, child, and bestial marriage don’t benefit society, nor is there an automatic “right” to marry what sexually attracts you.

    No explanation was given as to why it is most beneficial. Procreation was not offered, showever, so it must be of little import.

  • 64

    It makes little difference to the context, other than add a possible note of concern, which I guess you removed since it makes it sound even less like your claim of “I hope you have AIDS.”

    You should be aware, Lightning, that this also is a person going around stating that I have an eight-year-old chained up in my basement to molest.

    Her “note of concern” is less about my well-being than it is hoping for my illness.

  • 65

    Yep, that was a stupid and offensive remark. Thanks for the link, though; it’s always helpful when you give one, as it makes it all the easier to see you’ve lied, again:

    You’re one sick puppy, I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest if you had an 8 year old chained up in the basement to molest.

    As insulting as the remark is, it does nothing to bolster your claim about her hoping you get AIDS. Then there’s the fact that it’s a completely different user name, so I’m not going to automatically assume it’s the same person.

  • 66

    ND30, would you please just state your own personal opinion on gay marriage?

    With pleasure.

    I do not support same-sex marriage.

    First, marriage as it exists today is designed primarily to legally facilitate and financially subsidize (at taxpayer expense) the outcome of what overwhelmingly happens in opposite-sex couplings — children.

    That is because it is good for society to encourage these couplings to stay together, facilitate the legalities around the children they produce, and provide them an offsetting economic benefit to cover the cost of raising children. It encourages people to act responsibly and to take care of the offspring their activities produce — which then pays back society later when these children grow up and can support their parents who can no longer work.

    This is the misunderstanding around procreation. Marriage is not necessarily to encourage people to procreate; it is to deal with the fact that their activities within marriage have a high likelihood of resulting in procreation.

    As a result, same-sex couplings do not fit into this. Their activities, regardless of age or biological status, do not result in procreation under any circumstances. That renders many of the legal protections that are in place to protect the well-being of children, i.e. property division and such, as cumbersome and meaningless, and ends up subsidizing, at taxpayer expense, an impossible outcome.

    That’s the practical part.

    From another side, the gay and lesbian community values of free love, limited attachment, and complete freedom to sexually experiment are incompatible with the requirements of marriage. A culture that worships youth and beauty and considers monogamy to be outdated at best and harmful at worst is not suited for marriage.

    Finally, the activism for same-sex marriage seems primarily based on a strong desire to strike out against organized religion and the amorphous rhetoric that same-sex marriage would in some way solve the gay and lesbian community’s problems. There is little to no emphasis placed on how same-sex marriage would in any way enrich or provide benefits to society in exchange for the cost, or how same-sex marriage helps the gay and lesbian community in any other way than in attacking religious beliefs and religious people.

    In short, same-sex marriage provides no real benefits to either society or gay and lesbian couples other than appealing to base hatred of religious beliefs and avoidance of confronting the real cultural and values issues that cause the problems within the gay community — while legally binding people within a structure that is incompatible with their cultural values and imposes a cost on society without any real return.

    Likewise, what is your personal reaction to the recent suicides and stories of bullying? What reaction would you like to see from others – whether it be gay individuals, or the so-called gay community, as well?

    I hate to see them. And it frightens me as a society that we are becoming so coarse that someone was willing to do this sort of thing to another human being — and that we have so devalued human life to the point where people consider suicide.

    My advice is the same as I gave on GayPatriot yesterday.

    My advice to children and teens is always the same; no matter what you may think, people do care about you. The question is whether you care enough about yourself to believe it — and whether you have the strength to realize that your value comes, not from what other people place on you, but what you think it is.

    As far as gay and lesbian individuals and the community, I suppose it would be to decide whether it wishes to mourn the corpses, accept that only the very worst of humanity wants these kids to kill themselves, and work with others to understand that bullying is a universal problem, or if it wants to pick them up, lash them to a parade float, and drive it down the street screaming about how this proves that all Christians want to kill gays and that Sarah Palin signs cause suicide.

    Ultimately I’m hoping for the former.

  • 67

    As insulting as the remark is, it does nothing to bolster your claim about her hoping you get AIDS. Then there’s the fact that it’s a completely different user name, so I’m not going to automatically assume it’s the same person.

    That I can clarify.

    And helpfully, it’s on a thread where she’s being called out for sending similarly-nasty emails to other people.

  • 68

    . . . the gay and lesbian community values of free love, limited attachment, and complete freedom to sexually experiment are incompatible with the requirements of marriage. A culture that worships youth and beauty and considers monogamy to be outdated at best and harmful at worst is not suited for marriage.

    So because not all gay folk want to be monogamous, gay couples who believe strongly in monogamy and want to legally marry can just forget it?

    the activism for same-sex marriage seems primarily based on a strong desire to strike out against organized religion and the amorphous rhetoric that same-sex marriage would in some way solve the gay and lesbian community’s problems.

    I want to get married because I love my husband, and I want the same legal protections for our relationship that straight married couples have. I’d want that regardless of how organized religion feels about it. Also, as a matter of fact, it would solve a lot of problems for us. Even things as simple as filling out forms. I hate having to check the “single” box on tax and other legal forms; it’s demeaning and it hurts. I’ll not bother with the very real legal and financial aspects, as you seemingly think they don’t really exist.

    There is little to no emphasis placed on how same-sex marriage would in any way enrich or provide benefits to society in exchange for the cost, or how same-sex marriage helps the gay and lesbian community in any other way than in attacking religious beliefs and religious people.

    There’s plenty of emphasis given, you just choose to ignore it, apparently.

    In short, same-sex marriage provides no real benefits to either society or gay and lesbian couples other than appealing to base hatred of religious beliefs and avoidance of confronting the real cultural and values issues that cause the problems within the gay community

    Encouraging stable relationships benefits society. If you can’t see how marriage would benefit same-sex couples, you either have no understanding of what we are denied, or no understanding of what it means to be in a committed relationship, or a simple, callous disregard for other people. As for hatred of religious beliefs, when those beliefs are used to demean and belittle us, and make us second class citizens, the anger is understandable. Futhermore, the anger is a reaction to the denial of marriage, not the cause of the desire for marriage.

    legally binding people within a structure that is incompatible with their cultural values
    You have the nerve to say marriage is incompatible with my cultural values because I’m gay? You get upset when people say rude things to you, then turn around and insult other people’s values?

    imposes a cost on society

    And what cost is that, specifically?

    without any real return.

    Balderdash.

  • 69

    Dang it. Messed up the HTML at the end:

    legally binding people within a structure that is incompatible with their cultural values

    You have the nerve to say marriage is incompatible with my cultural values because I’m gay? You get upset when people say rude things to you, then turn around and insult other people’s values?

    imposes a cost on society

    And what cost is that, specifically?

    without any real return.

    Balderdash.

  • 70

    You have the nerve to say marriage is incompatible with my cultural values because I’m gay? You get upset when people say rude things to you, then turn around and insult other people’s values?

    Of course I have the nerve. After all, that’s what the gay and lesbian community is saying.

    But here’s the funny thing: Joy’s right. Gay male couples generally don’t view monogamy as the defining characteristic of a loving, committed relationship. Studies of male couples in long-term relationships have found that most gay male couples do allow for some “outside sexual contact,” as they say, contacts that I wouldn’t characterize as “affairs” or “cheating.”

    And if you want even more detail, according to the gay and lesbian community, heterosexuals should be more promiscuous like gays and lesbians are.

    I agree with Katz when he says that monogamy is “one of the pillars of heterosexual marriage and perhaps its key source of trauma.” It’s almost impossible for two people to be all things to each other sexually, and the expectation that two people can or should be all things to each other sexually — that they should never find another person attractive or act on that attraction — does a great deal of harm. Human beings didn’t evolve to be monogamous, and everything from divorce rates to recent impeachment proceedings prove, I think, that the expectation of lifelong monogamy places an incredible strain on a marriage. Being monogamous is hard work; it’s not natural (even disgraced virtuecrat William Bennett concedes this point!) and it doesn’t come easily to human beings or very many other mammals. But our concept of love and marriage has as its foundation not only the expectation of monogamy but the idea that where there’s love, monogamy should be easy and joyful.

    Since I don’t demand or expect complete fidelity from my boyfriend, I’m not traumatized when he finds another guy attractive. Unlike a lot of straight couples, we’ve found a way to make our desire for others a nonissue in our relationship. Indeed, as most heterosexual swingers report, the times we’ve had sex with other guys have actually enhanced the sex we have with each other. Far from tearing us apart, the times we’ve had sex with another man — the times we’ve had sexual adventures together — have renewed and refreshed our intimate life.

    All of this came rushing into my head when our friends — the couple with the three girls — announced that they were separating. The wife wants to have her sexual adventures, the ones she missed out on by marrying so young. Since there’s no room in their marriage for nonmonogamy — since they can’t even consider a sexual adventure together — their marriage has to go. It’s a shame, isn’t it? A little nonmonogamy could have saved their marriage, I’m convinced, but they can’t conceive of being together, of being married, without being sexually exclusive. So the desire to have sex with someone else, to finally go and have that ah-fay-yah, to have those adventures, means their marriage has to end.

    It’s too bad for those three girls that their parents aren’t gay men, isn’t it?

  • 71

    And what cost is that, specifically?

    Two things.

    One, a cut in tax rates — which, if you subscribe to the Obama Party ideology, is a bad thing, because it reduces the amount of money that the government is collecting and thus harms “the poor”.

    This was obvious during the Obamacare debate. The Obama Party had the opportunity to reduce or eliminate imputed income tax on employer-provided health benefits for domestic partners, similar to how the Republican Congress and Bush administration had removed the tax on non-spousal distributions from retirement plans in the 2006 Pension Protection Act; however, the Obama Party refused to do so because it would take too much revenue away from the government.

    Two, delivering those thousand-plus government benefits that gay and lesbian people keep bandying about costs money, and it has to come from somewhere.

    All of this cost is being covered by the taxpayers of the future. The labor it’s going to cost to take care of you in your old age is going to have to come from the future as well.

    That is why we subsidize childrearing today — because, in order for our society to continue and be able to pay and care for itself, we need to constantly be replenishing our population. Countries like Japan and regions like Europe are facing a demographic crisis precisely because their emphasis moved away from supporting families to supporting individual convenience.

    And I thought this was an interesting comment.

    Encouraging stable relationships benefits society. If you can’t see how marriage would benefit same-sex couples, you either have no understanding of what we are denied, or no understanding of what it means to be in a committed relationship, or a simple, callous disregard for other people.

    Correction. As someone in a committed relationship, I have an excellent perspective on what is involved, and that is precisely why I have my attitude; bluntly put, my relationship is stable without marriage, I could care less about being “denied” because I am perfectly happy with what I have, and I am just now having a front-row seat on how the first wave of same-sex marriages in California are collapsing.

    It was interesting to me to read that the plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 case had not taken advantage of California’s domestic partnership law and had not gotten married when it was legal. Clearly these individuals, if their testimony about their relationship with each other and with their families was to be believed, hardly needed marriage.

    Actually, I’d ask you the same question, Lightning. Maryland allegedly recognizes marriages contracted elsewhere; have you and your husband gotten married and made that public commitment? If not, why not?

  • 72
    Jason D says:

    “Of course I have the nerve. After all, that’s what the gay and lesbian community is saying.”

    I’m part of the gay community and it’s absolutely NOT what I’m saying. I neither voted, nor elected Savage or any other gay person as head of the gay community.

    And that, ND30, is your favorite little tool in your arsenal. “the gay community” which you ascribe whatever characteristics best fit your argument despite there being no governing body, no elected officials, or any official doctrine or beliefs. Makes all your argments easy, though, doesn’t it? Just find something you object to, ascribe it to “the gay community” and bam, you have your reasoning for why gays don’t deserve XYZ.

    You’re stereotyping, in other words. Stereotypes have a kernel of truth, yes there are Jewish folks who are good with money and black people who like watermelon, but stereotyping is where you hold all members accountable for a trend or characteristic that some members may or may not have. Which is exactly what you do. Because Savage, or a survey of X gay folks say gay men aren’t monogamous, then suddenly none of us are monogamous? Even the lesbians? I’m monogamous, does this suddenly make me not gay? Or not a gay man? Do my partner and I not exist suddenly?

    You cannot withold marriage from all gays just because some gays aren’t monogamous. By that logic we shouldn’t let white straight men roam around free because most serial killers are white and straight.

    It’s also laughable because monogamy is not a legal requirement of marriage. Swinging couples are not rounded up, arrested, and divorced by proxy. Monogamy is a cultural and social expectation, not a legal one. A couple does not have to promise to be monogamous, nor do they have to fulfill that promise if they make it. I’m monogamous, but I don’t think it’s for everyone, and I’m certainly not naive enough to think it’s a requirement that all currently married straight couples fulfill or care to fulfill.

  • 73
    Neil says:

    And what cost is that, specifically?

    One, a cut in tax rates – …

    Two, delivering those thousand-plus government benefits that gay and lesbian people keep bandying about costs money,…

    Ah good, we’re back on topic. The cost to society of ending discrimination against same-sex couples is loss of revenue and expenses incurred by recognising more couples.

    Discrimination is a solution to the fiscal problems of the state.

    A blunt utilitarian policy where a minority loses for the benefit of a majority relies too heavily on cynical self interest for its political endurance. A rhetoric of moral fear and social decline is necessary to sustain such a policy. The primary tactics to delegitimise a minority are to invoke concerns about children (procreation, fertility, bad influences, pedophilia) and disease (sexually transmitted or otherwise, unhealthy lifestyles). As was demonstrated in the court case Perry Vs Schwarzenegger, none of this rhetoric stands up to direct scrutiny. As is demonstrated in society and government, the rhetoric works nonetheless.

  • 74

    Just because you value “free love, limited attachment, and complete freedom to sexually experiment” doesn’t mean I do. The fact that you consider “monogamy to be outdated at best and harmful at worst,” has no bearing on my complete disagreement with that statement.

    That fact that marriage is “incompatible” your “cultural values” doesn’t mean it is with mine.

    You wanna ride on the back of the bus? Go for it. Just quit trying to drag me back there with you.

    You wanna keep paying into the system that benefits others while it spits in your face, that’s your right. But kindly take your hand off my wallet.

    Question for you, ND30: Have you and your sex partner visited Six Flags over Texas? If not, why not?

  • 75
    Tom D says:

    Hey Dallas, you haven’t posted an entry on your own blog since September 5. Is that why you post so much here? Because you can’t get anyone to read your own blog? To be honest, it makes you look like a parasite, leaching off someone else’s readership, a readership you can’t build on your own. That seems like the absolute antithesis of conservative values. Wow, it must really suck to be you and live life feeling like you do.

  • 76
    Scott says:

    Asked and answered; weak arguments that yet again had to be bolstered with “and what the gay community does is just down right mean to those poor Christians minding their own business.”

    If he’s gay, he sure is carrying around a lot of guilt from somewhere. Sad, really. Regardless, I can stop reading his comments. Thanks for the forum, Rob.

  • 77

    Just because you value “free love, limited attachment, and complete freedom to sexually experiment” doesn’t mean I do. The fact that you consider “monogamy to be outdated at best and harmful at worst,” has no bearing on my complete disagreement with that statement.

    That fact that marriage is “incompatible” your “cultural values” doesn’t mean it is with mine.

    Are you talking to me or to Dan Savage, Lightning? ‘Cause I think you’d be much better off taking it up with him, if you don’t like those.

    You wanna ride on the back of the bus? Go for it. Just quit trying to drag me back there with you.

    You wanna keep paying into the system that benefits others while it spits in your face, that’s your right. But kindly take your hand off my wallet.

    You know, this always interests me. Honestly, I have a great life — a job (actually two jobs, now), financial stability, a partner who loves me and I him, a nice house, a great career, and the respect of my professional colleagues — and you act as though I should be miserable because I’m at the “back of the bus” and having my face spit in.

    I guess I’m enjoying life entirely too much to be as dissatisfied with it as you’d like me to be. Why do you think that is?

    Question for you, ND30: Have you and your sex partner visited Six Flags over Texas? If not, why not?

    I have, but he’s never had the pleasure. He wasn’t able to come out and visit but once when we were dating, and then once I moved to be with him, we weren’t exactly going to fly back to Dallas to go to Six Flags. That, and with his back, rollercoasters aren’t the best things for him.

  • 78

    A blunt utilitarian policy where a minority loses for the benefit of a majority relies too heavily on cynical self interest for its political endurance. A rhetoric of moral fear and social decline is necessary to sustain such a policy. The primary tactics to delegitimise a minority are to invoke concerns about children (procreation, fertility, bad influences, pedophilia) and disease (sexually transmitted or otherwise, unhealthy lifestyles). As was demonstrated in the court case Perry Vs Schwarzenegger, none of this rhetoric stands up to direct scrutiny. As is demonstrated in society and government, the rhetoric works nonetheless.

    So I suppose the lesson here is that it’s only a matter of time until child marriage and plural marriage become law, because that certainly is a case of minorities losing for the benefits of the majority.

    And of course, it will come at the hands of judges, who, quite contrary to our Constitution, actually rule the country and ensure that people truly do not have the right to vote on matters as they choose.

    Hey Dallas, you haven’t posted an entry on your own blog since September 5. Is that why you post so much here? Because you can’t get anyone to read your own blog?

    I’m curious. Would you apply the same logic to Rob’s hiatus from this blog, say the amount of time between August and October in which he didn’t post at all?

    Then again, I suppose your argument is an improvement over that made by Priya Lynn, so perhaps I should applaud you for at least not hoping that I was disabled by disease.

    To be honest, it makes you look like a parasite, leaching off someone else’s readership, a readership you can’t build on your own.

    Yes, because we all know the absolute measure of one’s worth is how many readers one has at one’s personal blog.

    But since you don’t have one, I can say that I have more readers than you do, which I suppose then makes me a better person than you are. Right?

    That seems like the absolute antithesis of conservative values. Wow, it must really suck to be you and live life feeling like you do.

    Not really. But I guess if the only way you and yours can get through your miserable days is to imagine that mine is worse, it would seem a bit churlish to disabuse you of those notions and remove one of the small comforts you have in your poor, poor, persecuted existence.

    If he’s gay, he sure is carrying around a lot of guilt from somewhere. Sad, really. Regardless, I can stop reading his comments.

    Don’t worry, Scott; no one, myself included, was under the impression that you were going to read them in the first place. I just figured I’d be nice and humor you; that way, your knee-jerk reaction just looks that much more so.

  • 79

    Are you talking to me or to Dan Savage, Lightning? ‘Cause I think you’d be much better off taking it up with him, if you don’t like those.

    You’re the one here saying gays don’t deserve marriage because that’s what all gays are like; I’ve not seen any comments from Mr. Savage. Regardless, you can’t make that claim then act like you’re separate from it. You especially can’t assert that those are my values because I’m gay, but are not yours, even though you’re gay.

    You cannot claim that absolutely 100% of a particular population has a particular set of characteristics, as you’ve done repeatedly, while claiming to be part of that population while lacking one or more of those characteristics. Unless, of course, you’re either woefully misguided or simply dishonest.

    I guess I’m enjoying life entirely too much to be as dissatisfied with it as you’d like me to be. Why do you think that is?

    I imagine it has to do with projection. You want to think I hope you’re miserable, when I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. I said, quite clearly, if that’s what you want for yourself, that’s just fine (yes, I paraphrased but I did not change the message). That would imply strongly, actually, that I think you’re happy with it.

    Oh, dear! I deliberately misinterpreted what you wrote. Then again, I’ve done it to make a point, rather than to attempt to deceive other readers.

    You mean you don’t live in Texas? But Dallas is in your name, therefore you must! Just like Baltimore is in my name, therefore we simply must live in Maryland, rather than, say, 700 miles or so away, in a state with an (un)constitutional amendment denying us the right of marriage.

    Not said to me, but what the heck:

    Then again, I suppose your argument is an improvement over that made by Priya Lynn, so perhaps I should applaud you for at least not hoping that I was disabled by disease.

    Ah, yes, a lie becomes true, if you repeat it enough times.

  • 80

    gahhhhh . . . stupid HTML screw-up again.

    Are you talking to me or to Dan Savage, Lightning? ‘Cause I think you’d be much better off taking it up with him, if you don’t like those.

    You’re the one here saying gays don’t deserve marriage because that’s what all gays are like; I’ve not seen any comments from Mr. Savage. Regardless, you can’t make that claim then act like you’re separate from it. You especially can’t assert that those are my values because I’m gay, but are not yours, even though you’re gay.

    You cannot claim that absolutely 100% of a particular population has a particular set of characteristics, as you’ve done repeatedly, while claiming to be part of that population while lacking one or more of those characteristics. Unless, of course, you’re either woefully misguided or simply dishonest.

    I guess I’m enjoying life entirely too much to be as dissatisfied with it as you’d like me to be. Why do you think that is?

    I imagine it has to do with projection. You want to think I hope you’re miserable, when I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. I said, quite clearly, if that’s what you want for yourself, that’s just fine (yes, I paraphrased but I did not change the message). That would imply strongly, actually, that I think you’re happy with it.

    Oh, dear! I deliberately misinterpreted what you wrote. Then again, I’ve done it to make a point, rather than to attempt to deceive other readers.

    You mean you don’t live in Texas? But Dallas is in your name, therefore you must! Just like Baltimore is in my name, therefore we simply must live in Maryland, rather than, say, 700 miles or so away, in a state with an (un)constitutional amendment denying us the right of marriage.

    Not said to me, but what the heck:

    Then again, I suppose your argument is an improvement over that made by Priya Lynn, so perhaps I should applaud you for at least not hoping that I was disabled by disease.

    Ah, yes, a lie becomes true, if you repeat it enough times.

  • 81
    Neil says:

    So I suppose the lesson here is that it’s only a matter of time until child marriage and plural marriage become law, because that certainly is a case of minorities losing for the benefits of the majority.

    Plural marriage will have to argue its own case. The assumption that once two people can marry without gender specified leads to polygamy/polyandry is a fallacious slippery slope argument.

    Child marriage is irrelevant. An even more oblique slippery slope argument.

    The only country that has same-sex marriage and polygamy is South Africa. Polygamy came first. No country with same-sex marriage has adult-child marriage. Countries that do have adult-child marriage only allow the opposite sex to wed. For instance, in Saudi Arabia there is no age of consent in marriage. It’s legal for a 90 year old man to marry a two year old girl.

  • 82
    Bobby in Seattle says:

    Additionally, NOTHING changes, in regards to marriage law, by allowing same-sex couples to marry. The same laws apply – inheritance, child custody, divorce, survivor benefits, adoption, etc, etc, etc. Nothing changes, the way current laws are written now. We’re not asking to change any laws by allowing same-sex marriage. Simply asking to partake in what is currently allowed by others. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    Plural marriages would require a completely new set of marriage laws covering all those differing aspects of marriage.

    “Clearly” (to use a term used too often by one poster) anybody equating “same-sex marriage will lead to plural / child / animal / toaster” marriage is an idiot for doing so.

  • 83
    DN says:

    gah – I leave for a few days and now *look* at how much the troll has eaten the fodder you guys leave for him!

  • 84
    Kira says:

    I find it interesting that people worry that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy. As I understand it, polygamous marriage doesn’t involve a man and his wife each marrying another woman (for example), but instead multiple male-female marriages between the man and wife#1, wife#2, etc.

    I understand the “permissiveness to different forms of marriage” argument, but that’s honestly a slippery slope and I don’t buy it. But how on earth is gay marriage factored in?

    Even under coventry laws (in which a woman ceases to exist when married, as marriage was until fairly recently), you could find a way to justify polygamy It has nothing to do with redefining marriage as the joining of two legal entities.

    Qua?

  • 85
    YN says:

    “The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.” –Anatole France

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>