Patterico's Pontifications

10/1/2014

From A Gay Republican

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:22 pm



[guest post by Dana]

From a Q & A column in the Washington Post comes this question:

Dear Civilities: I’m a gay Republican, and am often confronted by my gay friends during election season. They wonder how I could be part of a political party that, in their eyes, condemns homosexuality. I’ve alienated myself from a lot of friends over this topic and it’s hurt a lot of my relationships. What’s the best way for me to explain that my conservative views on small government, low taxation and a strong national defense outweigh anything else? Also, how do I explain that gay marriage should be supported by true conservatives, and that religious fanatics don’t represent true conservatism? — Joe R. City and state withheld

Giving the benefit of the doubt that this is a real letter, it was interesting to note that right off the bat, the columnist responds with an unfortunately accurate observation:

Your friends are not the only ones who consider the phrase “gay Republican” to be a mystery, if not an oxymoron.

Then the examples of possible responses for the gay Republican letter writer to use with his gay friends are about what you’d expect: Ted Olson and his fight to overturn Prop 8, Sen. Pat Toomey and his vote for Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), 61% of young Republicans support same-sex marriage, and the human rights aspect of it (summed up in a FB post to this column: “I could never reconcile the [Republican] party’s basic disregard for human rights, and especially towards me as a gay man. That, my friend, is the common decency that ‘outweighed all others’ for me. I can’t be part of a group who cannot understand freedom for all.”). Further, it’s about presentation:

[H]ow you tell them makes all the difference. Saying your support of small government, low taxation and a strong national defense “outweighs anything else” is needlessly insensitive and combative. How could you expect them to respond civilly to such a polarizing shot across the bow? Instead, why not say first that you believe in a government that protects the rights of all people, and that we need members of both parties to support LGBT equality? Explain how you’re helping to make that change happen within the GOP. Don’t forget to remind them of instances in which Democrats have also failed LGBT people. (After all, it was Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act and implemented the “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy.)

Just briefly, a couple of things comes to mind: it’s frustrating to see the misleading manipulative dishonesty of If you don’t accept gay marriage, you don’t accept gays. Nonsense! Your thoughts?

[Editing note: I removed the last paragraph due to an incorrect reference on my part. My thanks to Kevin M. for the correction]

–Dana

202 Responses to “From A Gay Republican”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  2. Republicans have to love the sinner and hate the sin. They have to hate that sin so hard to where their minds are filled with righteous sin-hate to where everyone can feel the hate Republicans have for the sin (not the sinner).

    This way people will vote for them joyfully and we can avoid a lot of misunderstandings in the future.

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  3. Obviously, I cannot speak for Republicans.

    As a Xianist, “Hate the sin, not the sinner”. God is so intolerant of sin, an unwillingness to seek Him and His will with its result to beget more of same, that he gave his Monogenes, His Only and Unique, in sacrifice that our stiffneckedness not be held against us.

    To count that as nothing, as unnecessary and pointless is to go it alone without Him.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  4. Not me. I mostly enjoy my sins. It’s sinners I don’t want around. They are bad people.

    nk (dbc370)

  5. well there is that, and it’s not like we’ve seen the model in Cameron’s England, where gays and Salafi are tolerated, however Xtianists like those in the UKIP get their children taken away from them,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  6. thanks everyone for a lively and interesting discussion

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  7. Both of these individuals are addled by the social matrix in which they live and by acquired habits of thought.

    1. Burlesques of marriage should not be supported by anyone and there are hardly any ‘religious fanatics’ in this country (though there are a fair number of secular ones, and they are nearer cultural control centers).

    2. Ted Olson is a scandal who should never eat lunch in a Republican town again.

    3. The courts of California had no warrant to rewrite the state’s matrimonial law, especially over the expressed objections of its voters.

    4. Employment discrimination law has proved malignant and metastatic and should be repealed. It should never have been enacted for a passably affluent social sector chock-a-bloc with self-centered exhibitionists.

    5. Burlesques of marriage have nothing to do with ‘freedom’, ‘human rights’, or ‘common decency’. The whole business is about compelling households and businesses to pay heed to affiliations they would rather ignore.

    6. Someone fancies that 61% of young Republicans want me to view them as callow.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  8. We have arrived at a point where disagreeing with a sexual preference makes you a hater.

    JD (590a3f)

  9. Quite frankly, the only reason we compartmentalize people, whether by race color or orientation, is in order to use them as cudgels in idealistic wars. We should all just be un-hyphenated Americans. I’d like to try that for once.

    Gazzer (08a644)

  10. We have arrived at a point where disagreeing with a sexual preference makes you a hater.

    Eleanor Roosevelt said that no one can make you feel inferior without your consent. There’s a blogger who has the ironic handle ‘Captain Hate’. Other than ‘Open Faced Club Sandwich’, that’s a handle I most wish I’d appropriated (from time to time).

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  11. it’s the Left’s Balkanization of America. Destroy it, make it crumble from within.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  12. the only reason we compartmentalize people, whether by race color or orientation, is in order to use them as cudgels in idealistic wars.

    No, these are everyday subcultures, some ordinary (blacks), some decadent (the society of homosexual men). Andrew Sullivan once admitted that about a year after he got involved in the gay life, 2/3 of the people he regularly associated with were drawn from 2% of the adult population.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  13. We have arrived at a point where disagreeing with a sexual preference makes you a hater.

    Appetites are rights, haven’t you heard, JD?

    nk (dbc370)

  14. We have arrived at a point where disagreeing with a sexual preference makes you a hater.

    Again, sexual preference is one thing; to say that support or non-support of gay marriage is the same as support or non-support of sexual preference is dishonest.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  15. I do not know if there is a way to say much of anything in this text message age.

    I did here something this morning by a caller to Bill Bennett that was great as far as explaining why African Americans should vote republican. She said, “Martin Luther King, Jr. wanted America to live up to what it stands for, freedom and equal opportunity for all, not to transform America into something else. [That’s what Conservatives want when they talk about the founding principles of the country, not some return to Jim Crow or slavery.]
    I thought that was great.

    For someone who thinks approval of gay marriage and society giving the legal imprimatur that homosexuality and any other kind of sexuality is the same as heterosexuality is the most important thing and essential, there is little that can be said.

    For many, to say the following may make some sense-
    Do you want a country that can tell you what to believe and how to think and how to raise your kids, or do you want a country where you are basically free to believe what you want, as long as you aren’t hurting anybody else?
    If you want a country where the government can tell you what to think, be careful what you wish for. If you want a country that is basically free, why should a baker be forced to make a wedding cake when he or she doesn’t want to? You can get a cake somewhere else. And if someone comes into your shop with a “Phil Robertson for president” T-Shirt on, and you don’t want to serve him, fine, don’t. That’s fine by most conservatives and republicans.

    furthermore-
    The mistake people make is when they link the Democrats are the only ones that care about people. Democrats in California, Colorado, and Massachusetts think it is caring to make an entire school go along with the gender identity confusion of a child, making a class of physical young women accept a physical male among them, even in the locker room and shower, because the person feels more comfortable identifying as a female. Even if you think the feelings of the one person are more important than 2 dozen who don’t want to shower with a physical boy, the reality is that forcing that kind of “acceptance” will only cause anger and resentment and will help nobody except those wanting to make headlines.

    The latter is not so much for gays, but for all of the people who have some sense but don’t want to feel they are “being mean”. It’s not “being mean” to refuse to go along with all of the LGBT agenda, it is being mean to put confused youth in the middle of some big to-do.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  16. sexual preference is all about which sex you like to make sex with

    gay marriage is all about making a commitment to somebody that’s not of the opposite sex from you

    club sandwiches are basically just fancy BLTs with turkey involved

    trannies are all about esoteric bizarre tranny stuff that has nothing to do with gays or lesbians – Amazon wants me to watch a show about a geriatric tranny but I’m not going to

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  17. I don’t even disagree with their preferences. Teh Narrative has since conflated opposition to redefining marriage with being anti-gay.

    JD (590a3f)

  18. Again, sexual preference is one thing; to say that support or non-support of gay marriage is the same as support or non-support of sexual preference is dishonest.
    Dana (4dbf62) — 10/1/2014 @ 7:28 pm

    You may think that, and I may think that, but too many people already believe the opposite and would need to be convinced of it.

    Some people who are gay and don’t care what other people think may understand that the sexual preference and marriage issues are separate,
    those who do care what other people think, who want to be affirmed that they are just as “normal” as everyone else, to not agree they can be married just like heteros is to hold to the idea that there is a difference, not an equality.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  19. the same as support or non-support of sexual preference is dishonest.

    What does it mean to ‘support’ or ‘not support’ a ‘sexual preference’? I call the help line and they walk me through it or tell me I need to upgrade?

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  20. Call me crazy but Joe Blow finds over a period of years he cannot get turned on by a female over the age of 15. Women, with all their charms and wiles make it droop.

    Remaining celibate is not an option?

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  21. Nonsense! Further, if 61% of young people (voters?) indeed support same-sex marriage

    You misread. 61% of young Republicans support SSM. Among young people of other persuasions, it’s nearly unanimous. Cross-dressing is accepted by the millennials without much comment and I have seen such individuals used in recruiting STEM graduates to “cool” software firms.

    So, is is not true that “the Republicans have to figure out a way to reach them with a message that resonates” but the other way around. Adapt or die.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  22. to say that support or non-support of gay marriage is the same as support or non-support of sexual preference is dishonest

    what’s more dishonest I think is the still-very-prevalent idea that not supporting gay marriage perforce means Team R should hold the position that gay marriage should be illegal for those who do support it

    not everything has to be codified you know

    and besides

    that ship has sailed

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  23. sorry. I did not close the tag after the first bolded word above. Editing error.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  24. When you don’t understand what the purpose of something is, you abuse it.

    “Gay” and “Marriage” don’t belong in the same sentence because it ignores what the purpose of marriage is.

    Marriage is to create and raise children in a stable environment that increases the probability of creating a healthy V2.0 society. The adjoining “marriage” contract is needed for that purpose.

    Marriage is not for expressions of love nor is marriage needed as such. You can “love” and get health care insurance just fine without “marriage.”

    In fact I would go in so much as saying “married” straights who have no children should automatically have their marital contract expire.

    But two guys can’t create a child and neither can two women. Having children raised by non-biological parents is not better than being raised by biological. 1 of each beats two of the same.

    All of this common sense is buried in the tool of “marriage” and when you don’t understand its purpose … you misuse it.

    Rodney King's Spirit (8b9b5a)

  25. #21. I too used to think cross dressers where cool. “Used to think.”

    We all grow up and those numbers will turn as they realise those “cross dressers” frequently are mentally ill with chaotic awful lives marred with abusive relationships and narcotics.

    I used to think going to lesbian bars was cool too. It is not.

    Rodney King's Spirit (8b9b5a)

  26. OT: Al Jazeera is more logical and news worthy than MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC.

    Dear god what have we come to.

    Rodney King's Spirit (8b9b5a)

  27. Oh good grief, Kevin, thanks much for pointing that out. I got ahead of myself. Will fix it now.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  28. The better answer for the gay Republican is this:

    “I believe in several things: small government, low taxes and a strong national defense, along with a belief that society must be accepting of all people. Republicans agree on the first three, and except for one noticeable faction, either agree or have no problem with the latter.

    There are no Democrats whatsoever who favor smaller government or lower taxes, and hostility to national defense is high.

    The choice are YES and MAYBE versus NO and YES. And the Democrats embrace of gay rights is only a few years old. Before that their YES was also MAYBE. The GOP is taking longer, but unless the Democrats give up on the megastate, only the GOP offers any hope.”

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  29. I would add that Republicans need to deliver a consistely compelling message to keep that 61% of young voters voting R.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  30. Politically, we do not need to win over many of the gay activist types,
    what we need to do, politically, is to make the vast majority of people who think, “don’t be mean” understand that giving people freedom of conscience is not being mean, it’s common sense and the only logically consistent approach.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  31. == If you don’t accept gay marriage, you don’t accept gays. ==

    This is how most gays and many young straight people under 40 see the situation, though, along with an increasing number of families who find they have gay children or grandchildren. Many see anyone trying to thread that rhetorical and messaging needle any other way as being dishonest, manipulative and cynical. The change in society’s views about this in a mere decade is stunning but undeniable.

    My thoughts are that political parties in general, if they want to survive, need to be aware and flexible about adapting to obvious and broad societal changes and to try to be somewhat rationally non-sclerotic in their positions. They need to carefully pick their fights. The next generation will be utterly baffled that this was even ever an issue. And I seriously doubt many of them will be Republicans or Conservatives unless some things look a whole lot different to them by then. In the meantime, and in an attempt to somewhat mitigate that eventuality, I’d like to see us welcome as many gay Republicans or right leaners as possible to the conservative fold and make it easier for them to justify being and voting Republican. That will never happen as long as they are viewed as a special category of sinners by some and openly called names by others. One need not like their full agenda or the bullying tactics they use (and I certainly don’t) to see and understand that they have worked. As someone said above, “that ship has sailed.”

    I think most of us here understand that a huge part of being a conservative is a natural resistance to change. It’s truly in our DNA. I, and several family members and several close friends of mine use this as an ongoing joke/excuse/mantra for our own inaction or stubbornness on occasion (especially related to technology). “Hey, what did you expect?? I’m a conservative–I hate change”!

    elissa (68eca7)

  32. Adapt or die.

    Adapt to what? How motivating is this issue for some random person? Decades ago, Richard John Neuhaus pointed out that 70% of the public (when asked) favored rendering unlawful 95% of the abortions performed in the United States. Some of us are waiting for the views of that supermajority to kick in.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  33. The next generation will be utterly baffled that this was even ever an issue.

    Not drinkin’ that Kool-Aid, elissa. Ciao.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  34. Young people get strange ideas. It’s a mistake for adults to indulge them too much or take them too seriously.

    nk (dbc370)

  35. I don’t view them as a special category of sinners,
    but I do view them as sinners, like the rest of us.
    That will never change.

    hey, America and American culture were never guaranteed to last. Who knows what people will think strange 50 years from now, if they are around to, or have the time to when not scraping to survive.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  36. Now the Washington Post is all concerned with small government and national defense, which is a pressing concern in many of these countries whose values they want us to adopt,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  37. I don’t view them as a special category of sinners,
    but I do view them as sinners, like the rest of us.
    That will never change.

    This.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  38. This.

    As what you agree with, or see as the problem?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  39. ==29. I would add that Republicans need to deliver a consistenly compelling message to keep that 61% of young voters voting R.==

    Dana–absolutely yes. People who are not concerned about addressing that, and them, should think more about it.

    elissa (68eca7)

  40. No. I’m glad that Reagan did not adopt the Democrat platform to keep me from voting for Mondale.

    nk (dbc370)

  41. No.

    nk (dbc370)

  42. @ elissa,

    One need not like their full agenda or the bullying tactics they use

    I’m a person of faith and am very aware of the teachings on homosexuality. But I’m also keenly aware of the teachings on pride, which is at the root of all else. So, there’s a tension, however, personally, I really just don’t care if a person is gay or not. I’m confident God will be the judge of us all who have fallen so short of glory. And frankly, one’s sexual preference is not my business – and I really don’t want or need it to be. Just be honest, respectful, polite and I will respond likewise. You don’t need to know about my sexual preferences nor me yours. And I don’t think my position is that unusual. There are just far more important things in life. However, that doesn’t mean that I support same-sex marriage. So my question to you is, seeing that you don’t believe we have to “like their full agenda”, do you think the GOP has to support everything on that agenda in order to adapt as well as reach those on the edges?

    Dana (4dbf62)

  43. MD,

    This = agree with. We are all just a lost people struggling to find, and know, redemption. God will be the judge.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  44. I just want that the vast majority of homosexuals could care less about gay marriage, as their only desire is promiscuity. Only a very small vocal minority, the good looking ones that get on tv and in newspapers, care about the issue. The vocal ones don’t speak for the rest. If you listen to them, you would think that everyone is rushing to the altar. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

    Denver Todd (25e122)

  45. I’m glad that Reagan did not adopt the Democrat platform to keep me from voting for Mondale.

    Parties change over time, and often accept planks from the other. Bill Clinton co-operated with the GOP to hold the line on spending and reform welfare. Reagan allowed a couple million illegals a path to citizenship (and I know one lady who came in under that and who is now a citizen), when that was hardly a GOP idea. At one point the Democrats were strong supporters of national defense and at another point the Republicans were not.

    To put a fine point on it, until the 1980’s the GOP got fewer votes from evangelicals than the Dems did (and in 1996 Clinton won this group again). They call themselves “the base” but they really aren’t. Johnny-come-lately and fickle as hell.

    Parties change and people change parties. The GOP’s belief in markets and small government is about 100 years old and shows no sign of ending — there isn’t a generational gap — but the idea that government should weigh in on social norms is one that has a sell-by date.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  46. I would add that Republicans need to deliver a consistely compelling message to keep that 61% of young voters voting R.

    Note that they vote R despite misgivings on social issues — much as the anonymous gay Republican in the post. If we stop being about small governments and economic freedom (e.g. nominate a Huckabee or Santorum) we will lose them faster than you can say Bob Dole.

    I only hope that ALL concerned do not turn SSM into the next Roe. But I fear that is the Democrat plan. The effort to force this through the courts, with cowardly defaults and judicial selection making it seem like a groundswell, is discouraging. People can accpt it when they are outvoted, but don’t seem to care much for being told what to do by their betters.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  47. #44: Well, I sure wouldn’t phrase it that way and attitudes have changed among many gays — it’s easy to say you don’t want something you are being denied; see Aesop. Once it becomes thinkable or possible, people reconsider.

    But there is a touch of counting coup here.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  48. As a conservative, why in the heck would I care if someone is gay?

    You can’t do anything about it, as if you should. I don’t understand this tendency among gay people to involve the federal government. All that will result in is a Cabinet position and a bunch of regulations regarding the different flavors of gay.

    I have no interest in what people do in private. Just be gay and if Mom and Dad don’t like it, don’t bother me with your issues.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  49. People can accpt it when they are outvoted, but don’t seem to care much for being told what to do by their betters.

    Insightful, Kevin.

    I disagree somewhat on the GOP’s century of support for small government, but I do hope the GOP does understand limited government and how it applies to my preferences for how you should live your private life. We are much better off when we leave eachother alone about such matters.

    Dustin (801032)

  50. Just briefly, a couple of things comes to mind: it’s frustrating to see the misleading manipulative dishonesty of If you don’t accept gay marriage, you don’t accept gays. Nonsense! Your thoughts?

    In what way is it misleading, manipulative and dishonest? You cant really accept something while at the same time denying them something everyone else has access to.

    Would it be accepting of me to say something like “Oh, I accept minority ‘x’. Just as long as they don’t marry my daughter.”? No it wouldn’t. Yet SSM opponents take it a step further and wont even let homosexuals marry each other.

    Gil (27c98f)

  51. Would it be accepting of me to say something like “Oh, I accept minority ‘x’. Just as long as they don’t marry my daughter.”? No it wouldn’t.

    Why wouldn’t it?

    nk (dbc370)

  52. Also, how do I explain that gay marriage should be supported by true conservatives, and that religious fanatics don’t represent true conservatism?

    So should “true conservatives” support polygamy too? If not, why not? After all, if a relationship involves consenting adults, and also involves the intrinsic nature of human sexuality — or he/she can’t help but be the way he/she is! (and non-monogamous males in particular can be characterized as responding to genetic-driven forces as much as, if not more than, homosexual ones) — then multi-partner hook-ups are no less legitimate than same-sex ones.

    Moreover, it’s really not a matter of being purely sarcastic about the idea that a person should have both a wife and husband, or a husband and wife, when this apparently isn’t all that uncommon:

    people.com, June 2011: In many ways, Fran Drescher and her ex-husband, Peter Marc Jacobson, might as well still be married. “We are very tight,” says the former star of The Nanny. Adds Jacobson: “We work together. Go out to eat. Travel together. I feel like I still have a wife.” There’s just one hitch: Jacobson is gay – a fact he revealed to Drescher two years after their 21-year marriage ended in 1999. “He got in touch with his true orientation,” she says matter-of-factly of her high school sweetheart. “I can’t blame him for that.”

    Jacobson confessed he might be bisexual some years into their marriage, but “he wanted to be together,” Drescher says, “and I didn’t want to punish him for being honest about his feelings.” And given their seemingly strong relationship (“We always thought we had a much better sex life than all of our friends,” she boasts), she ignored any potential red flags. “Dressing me was a big thing; he was very into fashion,” she says of Jacobson’s fascination with her wardrobe choices. “But everything could be looked at from a different perspective. You see what you want to see.”

    Mark (c160ec)

  53. It’s a personal and family thing. Your 13th Amendment may dictate my public behavior but it does not dictate my thoughts, feelings, or private behavior.

    nk (dbc370)

  54. @nk 51

    Why wouldn’t it?

    This would show that I did not accept the hypothetical “minority x” of being good enough to marry into my family.

    Gil (27c98f)

  55. GOP’s century of support for small government

    Well, from 1923 or so onward. Teddy R liked big government and Harding’s folks were just crooks. There were some folks along the way who were iffy (e.g. Rockefeller, Nixon) but that is probably the most consistent thing in the last century. Nobody’s perfect.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  56. This would show that I did not accept the hypothetical “minority x” of being good enough to marry into my family.

    I understood that. Why is that not acceptable?

    nk (dbc370)

  57. I’m sorry, you said “accepting” not “acceptable”. Strike everything I said earlier. You’re right. The minority has the right to say “take me all the way and not part of the way if you’re really my friend”.

    nk (dbc370)

  58. I understood that. Why is that not acceptable?

    I cant very well in one half of the sentence say that I accept ‘x’ but in the next half say it is not good enough for me. Either I accept it, or I don’t.

    Gil (27c98f)

  59. I would add that Republicans need to deliver a consistely compelling message to keep that 61% of young voters voting R.

    I’m not sure if the basis of that assumption is resting any less on a sea of jell-o than the belief that the reason so many Latinos in the US favor liberals/Democrats is due to Republicans’/conservatives’ opposition to illegal immigration. Or the corollary assumption that all the pervasive liberalism in countries like Mexico is somehow due to the controversy of illegal immigration being a hot-button controversy among the right versus the left there as much as here.

    Mark (c160ec)

  60. @nk oh I see. sorry we are both mistaking each others words! np.

    Gil (27c98f)

  61. Have we ever agreed on anything before, Gil? 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  62. 42. Dana, There is actively fighting, actively supporting, and then there is in the immortal words of the Beatles the philosophy of “Let it Be.” The latter is what I recommend on this issue.

    My feeling is that beyond crime and criminals and reasonable international diplomacy (obviously) you really can’t and shouldn’t control people or situations, (although god knows the Democrats try) even if you desperately want to, and for what you may feel are very good, even noble reasons. Especially in regard to human relationships you cannot change people or control their choices. Life happens. Freedom happens. Change happens. Sometimes shit happens.

    When I find myself in times of trouble
    Mother Mary comes to me
    Speaking words of wisdom
    Let it be
    And in my hour of darkness
    She is standing right it front of me
    Speaking words of wisdom
    Let it be

    Let it be, let it be
    Let it be, let it be
    Whisper words of wisdom
    Let it be

    And when the broken hearted people
    Living in the world agree
    There will be an answer
    Let it be
    For though they may be parted there is
    still a chance that they will see
    There will be an answer
    Let it be

    Let it be, let it be
    Let it be, let it be
    yeah, there will be an answer
    Let it be

    And when the night is cloudy
    There is still a light that shines on me
    Shine until tomorrow
    Let it be
    I wake up to the sound of music
    Mother Mary comes to me
    Speaking words of wisdom
    Let it be

    Let it be, let it be
    Let it be, let it be
    There will be an answer
    Let it be

    1970 Northern Songs. All Rights Reserved

    elissa (68eca7)

  63. Note however, even if the GOP takes a more libertarian view towards SSM it will still have a problem with the Democrats’ standard move of turning acceptance into obligation.

    Gays are already forcing private businesses to assist in gay nuptials, regardless of personal belief. While they can require businesses to sell to gays, they now want the power to enforce their participation in other people’s ceremonies. The next phase will be to target churches themselves, and freedom of religion will come up against “the power granted by the state” to conduct civil marriages.

    Whatever the GOP does with respect to SSM, the personal freedoms of others still need to be respected, and hopefully we’ll have someone who can make that distinction clear.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  64. hopefully we’ll have someone who can make that distinction clear.

    Even to happyfeet

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  65. The next phase will be to target churches themselves, and freedom of religion will come up against “the power granted by the state” to conduct civil marriages.

    That danger exists in states like West Virginia where there are officially authorized officiators of marriage, including ministers. Not in states like Illinois where anybody can officiate at a marriage and the bride and groom and two(?) witnesses sign at the right places on the license. And that problem is caused by religious establishmentarians.

    nk (dbc370)

  66. The next phase will be to target churches themselves, and freedom of religion will come up against “the power granted by the state” to conduct civil marriages.

    The slippery slope is steeper and slicker than ever before. Hypotheticals that would have been deemed as absurd or nonsensical years ago are standard operating procedure today.

    People have become increasingly desensitized in this era, and when my own sense of normal boundaries has become stretched to a degree I wouldn’t have thought possible as recently as the 1990s, I finally understand more fully the lessons (or meaning) of well-known stories like that of the city of Sodom and the character of Lot.

    Mark (c160ec)

  67. Dick Cheney and I supported SSM long before Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or either of the Clintons did. (But we both agree that it should be an issue for state-by-state decision by the legislative and executive branches, not a judicially imposed pretense that the Constitution addresses sexual orientation as a fundamental right.)

    It’s a plurality position within the GOP. I hope it becomes a majority position, but it doesn’t make my “top 10 list” of why I’ll be voting for one party over the other.

    In general I’m annoyed by “single-issue voters” regardless of which way they vote.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  68. It’s already happened in some of the Germany-Lites — Denmark, Holland(?) But those places are guilty of much worse so ….

    nk (dbc370)

  69. Don’t trust people under 40. Their minds have not fully formed yet.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  70. Marriage among the upper classes has always been more about social alliances than about reproduction, although reproduction remained important. Since, by historical standards, all Citizens of the United States not actually living in the streets belong to the Upper Classes, marriage in the United States will necessarily be about social alliances. I see no reason why two persons of the same sex should not form such an alliance. What they do in their own beds is none of my goddamned business (although I would appreciate a little more discretion when it comes to wearing in public sexually themed clothes that make it hard to LEAVE it none of my business). Furthermore I see no reason why a philandering Gay partner should not be punished as severely as a philandering Heterosexual.

    That said, it makes me nervous when a popular shift in common law is made without reference to legislation. A government that is willing to change the long understood definition of “Marriage” in the name of political expedience is a government that will shortly be changing the definition of “Treason” for the same reason.

    C. S. P. Schofield (848299)

  71. ” . A government that is willing to change the long understood definition of “Marriage” in the name of political expedience is a government that will shortly be changing the definition of “Treason” for the same reason. ”
    C. S. P. Schofield (848299) — 10/1/2014 @ 10:43 pm
    = = = = = = = = = =

    . . . And wait till you see what the NEW interpretation of “due process” turns out to be . . .

    A_Nonny_Mouse (f576b4)

  72. It’s a plurality position within the GOP. I hope it becomes a majority position

    I’ve heard people boast about being fiscal conservatives — or placing great value on the workings of a healthy economy — but being cultural liberals. That’s a form of cognitive dissonance, as far as I’m concerned, since one of the foundations of a healthy economy rests on the base of intact, non-dysfunctional families. Or the best way to ensure a child grows up and leads a life as a successful, well-employed adult is for him or her to come from a traditional, stable, two-couple household. Such households, of course, are becoming about as uncommon as finding fine food at McDonald’s.

    There’s an interesting anomie pervasive throughout the modern industrialized world in which more and more people choose to not marry and have few or no kids. So the aging or graying of countries throughout Europe, the US (certainly if the non-Latino populace is singled out), Canada and Japan is a trend not helped by do-your-own-thang social-cultural trends.

    Mark (c160ec)

  73. I finally understand more fully the lessons (or meaning) of well-known stories like that of the city of Sodom and the character of Lot.

    Hi Mark, please continue!
    Lessons I’d like to hear more about include:
    1. Why it is moral to offer up one’s daughters for gang rape
    2. Why it is moral to (in the process of committing genocide) kill babies and young children for their parents’ transgressions
    3. Why it is moral to kill someone for merely acting on impulse and looking back

    Gil (27c98f)

  74. Raise your hand if you are surprised that Gil showed up.

    JD (285732)

  75. Marriage among the upper classes has always been more about social alliances than about reproduction, although reproduction remained important

    I wouldn’t confuse your literary imagination with social reality.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  76. Gil, stay out of religion. You had a good comment about gays feeling that you are not truly “accepting” them unless you accept gay marriage which is very important to them. The real-life answer is that we accept people to differing degrees. Family, we accept unconditionally. Friends, we hold close and overlook their small faults (until we realize what miserable jerks they really are). People farther away, we accept only to the degree common courtesy and civil social intercourse require. It’s the way of societies. Whom would you buy an iPhone for?

    nk (dbc370)

  77. You cant really accept something while at the same time denying them something everyone else has access to.

    It’s not a bauble or a piece of public land, but a status conferred by law. You fancy your associations deserve all sorts of recognition, formal recognition that ordinary friendships do not. They should not, of course. And you have no claim to anyone’s ‘acceptance’ on terms you define.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  78. “I wouldn’t confuse your literary imagination with social reality.”

    Don’t believe me? Read a little history. ANYBODY’S history.

    C. S. P. Schofield (848299)

  79. And you have no claim to anyone’s ‘acceptance’ on terms you define.

    Well, yes, you do, but they have a right to say “no”. Co-existence is compromise. We have to live with our neighbors but they have to live with us too.

    nk (dbc370)

  80. 1. Why it is moral to offer up one’s daughters for gang rape
    2. Why it is moral to (in the process of committing genocide) kill babies and young children for their parents’ transgressions
    3. Why it is moral to kill someone for merely acting on impulse and looking back

    Gil (27c98f) — 10/2/2014 @ 1:36 am

    #1 The bible merely records that #1 occurred. It doesn’t imply anything moral about it.
    #2 & #3 You are regarding God as not being God here – a common problem with atheist/skeptic arguments. God created everything. He doesn’t answer to us.

    Gerald A (18c567)

  81. Gay marriage “is” an oxymoron. I guess that makes gay Republican an oxymoron too if you want gay marriage. This isn’t merely a religious opinion. It is definitional.

    HimboT (292a27)

  82. #1 The bible merely records that #1 occurred. It doesn’t imply anything moral about it.

    Lot was saved because he was a righteous man. This implies that offering your daughters up for gang rape falls under the banner of righteousness in God’s eyes. We may disagree on that point. But nevertheless, it does imply that females being gang raped is more acceptable than males being gang raped. Something I would disagree with.

    #2 & #3 You are regarding God as not being God here – a common problem with atheist/skeptic arguments. God created everything. He doesn’t answer to us.

    I understand that you dont think God answers to us. Im not asking him to. As a thought experiment – would you imagine it is moral to commit genocide, killing babies and children in the process? If not, good for you! You are more moral than the God of the Bible. He clearly considers it moral – in fact, it is the definition of goodness and morality to do so because what he says goes.

    Gil (febf10)

  83. 22. what’s more dishonest I think is the still-very-prevalent idea that not supporting gay marriage perforce means Team R should hold the position that gay marriage should be illegal for those who do support it

    not everything has to be codified you know

    happyfeet (a785d5) — 10/1/2014 @ 7:47 pm

    Except the fascisms, mr. feets. That needs to be codified; the fascist idea that gay marriage not only must be legal for those who do support it, it has to be mandatory for those who don’t support it.

    It used to be in this country that the idea of liberty was expressed in this way. Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose.

    The fascists have come up with a definition of “tolerance” that not only gives them the right to swing their fist, but says that my nose doesn’t really belong to me if I’m not using it for approved purposes. I didn’t build it. So they can hit it as hard as they want. And if I don’t like it, I shouldn’t stick my nose where they don’t think it belongs. Like politics and the economy.

    Ironically my views on this were influenced by a gay Dutch politician, Pim Fortuyn. who recognized that the Netherlands was, in the name of tolerance, on the road to destroying the very basis of that tolerance. Fittingly, a tolerant leftist environmentalist and animal rights activist assassinated Fortuyn in the name of tolerance. Because the one thing the tolerant progressive left can’t abide is intolerance. And intolerance is by definition having an opinion that isn’t approved by the tolerant progressive left.

    In the name of tolerance Christians must provide gay couples with facilities for gay weddings. In the name of tolerance it’s OK for an Imam to tell Muslims how to beat their wives if they even suspect their women are thinking about being disobedient. But in the name of tolerance it’s a hate crime for a non-Muslim to quote that Imam to suggest that Islam promotes violence against women. In the name of tolerance, Robert F. Kennedy can express the opinion held by many tolerant leftists. “Climate change skeptics” should be thrown in prison. As I said, this is the tolerant opinion of many tolerant leftists, but not only about “climate change.” Sean Penn said that anyone who called his buddy Hugo Chavez a dictator should be imprisoned, too.

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but nothing quite exemplifies “tolerance” as the notion that anyone who expresses a differing opinion should be silenced by imprisonment or failing that murder.

    Perhaps it’s also Mr. feets tactics of calling you names if you don’t sign onto an agenda that will only empower the fascists. All in the name of freedom and tolerance, of course. That’s very tolerant, as the progressive left defines tolerance.

    http://www.patcondell.net/laughing-at-the-new-inquisition/

    Pat Condell’s Godless Comedy: Laughing at the new Inquisition.

    I’m a conservative because I don’t feel like joining the tolerant progressive left in goose stepping toward our tolerant, progressive leftist future by empowering the government to stamp out all forms of intolerance. Such as empowering the FCC to classify the nickname “Redskins” as an obscenity, and fining broadcasters who use it.

    http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/redskins-ban-fcc-1201317855/

    The tolerant progressive left is so zealous in its pursuit of tolerance that, really, shouldn’t speech and thought that isn’t tolerant and progressive be illegal?

    Steve57 (b50fab)

  84. 1. Why it is moral to offer up one’s daughters for gang rape

    Gil, the story of Sodom is an illustration of how deviant or decadent a place can become. But if you somehow think Lot’s perverse, desperate reaction to the male townspeople trying to barge through his front door in order to rape his 2 male visitors was meant to show moral thinking, then you’ll next be telling me that Sodom is a forewarning about the sins (or “sins”) of non-hospitality.

    Mark (c160ec)

  85. God is a big meanie because Santa did not bring Gil an inflatable John Holmes doll for Christmas, too. Big mistake to engage Gil seriously. On any matter. He really is only interested in trolling his atheist cant. I won’t make it again.

    nk (dbc370)

  86. The 2012 Texas Republican platform (http://www.texasgop. org/wp-content/themes/rpt/images/2012Platform_Final.pdfsays:

    > We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to
    the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that
    have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.

    I don’t think it’s irrational to think that it’s problematic for a gay person to support this position.

    aphrael (001863)

  87. @Mark

    Lot’s perverse, desperate reaction to the male townspeople trying to barge through his front door in order to rape his 2 male visitors was meant to show moral thinking,

    No of course not. But God saved Lot considering him righteous knowing full well that this was the way that he would treat his daughters in a time of crisis, and also knowing he would later sleep with them. It was not mean to show moral thinking, but it does show contradictions and problems with what God considers righteous.

    @nk
    Thats a good way to be stuck in group-think. Dont expose yourself to outside points of view.

    Gil (febf10)

  88. 87. Go away ‘tard.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  89. 70. Marriage among the upper classes has always been more about social alliances than about reproduction, although reproduction remained important…

    C. S. P. Schofield (848299) — 10/1/2014 @ 10:43 pm

    Reproduction was central to the alliance. When king X arranged a marriage between his son and King Y’s daughter, it was so to establish a hereditary claim to Y’s throne.

    No offspring, no claim to the throne.

    There were other reasons as well. Under feudalism a noble was entitled to land in exchange for military service. The land was sufficient for the noble to maintain a force of specified size. If the noble died without heirs, or without suitable male heirs, the land reverted to the crown.

    It’s a mystery to me why people point out the historical importance of alliances through marriage, and then only tell less than half the story by implying that these families who entered into these alliances were only thinking in the short term and didn’t care if the alliance only lasted as long as the marriage did.

    Steve57 (b50fab)

  90. Get f***ed, Gil. Your “outside point of view” was spoken to Eve by a snake in a Garden.

    nk (dbc370)

  91. were only thinking in the short term and didn’t care if the alliance only lasted as long as the marriage did.

    Or were speaking as if early 20th century American manufacturers had the same priorities as the 800 member British Peerage.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  92. Don’t believe me? Read a little history. ANYBODY’S history.

    Sorry, CSP, the patriciate in this country numbers in the millions and they have their counterparts in Canada and in Britain. Chelsea Clinton did not get married to the son of a crapped out pol/scammer to cement any ‘family alliance’. You want to run it back about six generations and situate yourself in a European country with a formal nobility, that’s fine. But that’s then.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  93. I don’t think it’s irrational to think that it’s problematic for a gay person to support this position.

    Yeah, it’s gauche to admit explicitly that transgression is part of the fun (bar on subcultural message boards).

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  94. the best way to ensure a child grows up and leads a life as a successful, well-employed adult is for him or her to come from a traditional, stable, two-couple household. Such households, of course, are becoming about as uncommon as finding fine food at McDonald’s.

    Yes, but the problems there have very little to do with SSM. In some respects SSM would be stabilizing as gay men would not be marrying women for conformity or company and then having the family break down later. Same sex couples are as stabilizing to society as heterosexual couples, for similar reasons; married people are more risk adverse and aren’t (usually) competing socially for sex.

    You may have a point that children are best raised by traditional couples so they have box sexes as role models, but that doesn’t really impinge directly on SSM and alternative solutions (e.g. “uncles” or “aunts”) may suffice.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  95. box both

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  96. In some respects SSM would be stabilizing as gay men

    [chuckles]

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  97. Art Deco – it’s not that it’s “gauche to admit explicitly that transgression is part of the fun”. At least, not for me. For me it’s that it strikes me as absurd to allege that having sex with my long term romantic partner “tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit” – and while I might be willing to hold my nose and vote for someone who espoused that view because something else was more important to me, the bar to it woudl be really, really high.

    aphrael (001863)

  98. the only anti-gays I could vote for are Rand Paul and Scott Walker I think

    Rick Perry is just way too into the anti-gay bigotry thing and Huckabee is weird and creepy and Ted Cruz is pander pander

    Ben Carson is a joke

    i guess i could vote for Jeb or Romney if they weren’t such whores otherwise

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  99. And that’s exactly what leftists do, happyfeet. You stated: “the only anti-gays” you’d vote for are either Rand Paul or Scott Walker. Neither are “anti-gay. They are against gay marriage, not gay people. The same way I would argue against Obamacare because I disagree with government run health insurance and some leftist would say I’m against poor people getting health care. I wasn’t talking “health care” I was talking “health insurance”. Or when I argue about climate change and some deranged leftist accuses me of not believing in “global warming”. I don’t believe in “man made global warming” therefore I don’t believe there’s a damn thing you, me or Algore can do about it. And now Rick Perry is some kind of anti-gay bigot, Huckabee for some reason, perhaps because he’s a Christian is “weird and creepy”, Cruz is nothing but a panderer (like the entire dem party) and Ben Carson is a joke. Ha, ha. So a level headed, well educated, black surgeon, who happens to be rather conservative by black standards is a joke? You mean Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan and the entire Congressional Black Caucus including Sheila Jackson-whoever are very serious people, but Carson’s some sort of clown?

    Keep eliminating those crazy Republicans and all that’s left are the Nobel democraps. Which is what we have now. Nothing weird or creepy about Holder, the Emmanuel boys or a president by the name of Hussein when we’re at war with moslems though. That’s all perfectly sane and normal.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  100. or me it’s that it strikes me as absurd to allege that having sex with my long term romantic partner “tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit”

    Well, give it some thought. What is sex for, and how does that have an impact on how people conduct themselves and the social bonds they form? You off in a corner in 1948 pleasuring yourself clandestinely might cause little trouble. You’re off in a corner because people have inhibitions and embarrassments.

    You wish to live in a world where sex is recreational and no one knows how to blush anymore? Well, you’ve got it, along with 20% of all pregnancies ending in surgical abortion and another 30% in bastard births (not to mention unilateral divorce on demand). Collectively, we used to be better than we are, and the author of that line knows it and surmises how social relations are injured by emotions and idea sets we call culture.

    Stating it plain: that seven digit populations of ‘openly gay’ men knocking about are drawing on fuel which has a mess of other sequelae and also generates cultural disputes and political pressure on people who are not down with this. We see it and feel it. The notion that this has much to do with ‘human rights’ or ‘liberty’ will come as a surprise to the small business couple who’ve just been hit with a six figure fine for decline to bake some pushy dykes a cake.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  101. 94. …You may have a point that children are best raised by traditional couples so they have box sexes as role models, but that doesn’t really impinge directly on SSM and alternative solutions (e.g. “uncles” or “aunts”) may suffice.

    Kevin M (b357ee) — 10/2/2014 @ 9:29 am

    On the other hand, it is entirely possible and even likely that SSM even with “alternative solutions” is not a particularly good substitute for actual, legitimate marriage. By that I mean the only form of marriage to have evolved within society as marriage. Not some progressive concoction imposed by government diktat.

    Therefore, in the name of tolerance the progressive left will not permit any honest inquiry into the question of whether or not this imposed alternative labeled as if it were marriage is in fact just as good as the real thing. Sandra Korn of Harvard explains:

    http://www.thecrimson.com/column/the-red-line/article/2014/2/18/academic-freedom-justice/

    In July 1971, Harvard psychology professor Richard J. Herrnstein penned an article for Atlantic Monthly titled “I.Q.” in which he endorsed the theories of UC Berkeley psychologist Arthur Jensen, who had claimed that intelligence is almost entirely hereditary and varies by race. Herrnstein further argued that because intelligence was hereditary, social programs intended to establish a more egalitarian society were futile—he wrote that “social standing [is] based to some extent on inherited differences among people.”

    When he returned to campus for fall semester 1971, Herrnstein was met by angry student activists. Harvard-Radcliffe Students for a Democratic Society protested his introductory psychology class with a bullhorn and leaflets. They tied up Herrnstein’s lectures with pointed questions about scientific racism. SDS even called for Harvard to fire Herrnstein, along with another of his colleagues, sociologist Christopher Jencks.

    Herrnstein told The Crimson, “The attacks on me have not bothered me personally… What bothers me is this: Something has happened at Harvard this year that makes it hazardous for a professor to teach certain kinds of views.” This, Herrnstein seems not to have understood, was precisely the goal of the SDS activists—they wanted to make the “certain kinds of views” they deemed racist and classist unwelcome on Harvard’s campus.

    Sandra Korn was an undergraduate (she since has graduated) but here was not an untutored opinion. She absorbed her lessons well.

    …Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

    Actually doing the research would be a crime punishable by imprisonment or death should tolerant progressive leftists like RFK Jr. have their way. Merely using the words “to articulate a research question” is by definition intolerant. Naturally, in the name of tolerance the progressive left can not be expected to tolerate such intolerance.

    Hence the Regnerus study which did not arrive at the tolerant progressive left’s foreordained conclusion that SSM is at least as good for children if not superior to evil, patriarchal heterosexual marriage was condemned out of hand for the same reason Bill Clinton condemned the book The Bell Curve. The conclusions conflicted with progressive leftist goals, and as that good student of progressive leftism Sandra Korn observes in her editorial, the tolerant progressive left can not tolerate research that doesn’t support their political agenda.

    (The Bell Curve may have had some problems with methodology but the Regnerus study was far more rigorous than studies that promote SSM as a health alternative, as the subsequent witch hunt by gay marriage advocates failed to produce any evidence of any significant flaws in Regnerus’ research.)

    If anyone wishes to dismiss Ms. Korn’s editorial simply because she was an undergrad (a joint history of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality concentrator in Eliot House, no less) recall that Larry Summers was forced out as President of this same overpriced sewer because he opined that the reason women were “under represented” on the school’s STEM faculties was because of gender differences. Men are simply better at certain disciplines.

    It is an article of faith in tolerant progressive leftist circles that men and women are exactly the same. They are completely interchangeable, and to suggest otherwise is backwards and sexist. Naturally, former liberal in good standing Larry Summers could not remain President of Harvard University after revealing he harbored such heretical thoughts.

    It does not matter that Summer’s opinion was based upon a considerable body of research that continues to come as a complete surprise to the tolerant progressive and smarter-than-thou progressive left every time they are forced to acknowledge it. Such as this Time headline on the magazine cover from 1992.

    http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19920120,00.html

    Why Are Men and Women Different? It isn’t just upbringing. New studies suggest they are born that way.

    And this headline from Time in 2013.

    http://healthland.time.com/2013/12/03/why-men-and-womens-brains-work-differently-its-all-about-the-wiring/

    Why Men’s and Women’s Brains Work Differently: It’s All About the Wiring

    The solution to all this is, obviously, what Sandra Korn has learned from the same crowd at Harvard that forced Larry Summers out. Such research can not be tolerated.

    This is now doubly true. Back in 1992 it was merely sexist to suggest men and women are not interchangeable. That was a decade before the Lawrence decision that gave the green light to tolerant progressive leftists who wished to impose gay marriage on us neanderthals. Now, it’s not only sexist to suggest men and women aren’t completely interchangeable it’s homophobic.

    Because if men and women aren’t completely interchangeable, then it’s reasonable to conclude that there would be an advantage to raising a child in an environment with one parents of opposite genders.

    Fortunately, the tolerant progressive left is out in front on this. Even having the capacity to form the question is a crime against humanity.

    This is entirely in keeping with the original purpose of gay marriage. It was invented by tolerant leftist progressive feminists to force societies to adopt an opinion. That no one child-rearing arrangement is better than any other. Thus freeing women from the tyranny of the oppressive patriarchal institution of marriage entirely.

    Naturally, freedom of thought and speech is not compatible with forcing societies to comply with such tolerant progressive leftist foreordained conclusions.

    Steve57 (b50fab)

  102. Mr. Hoagie being against gay marriage is the same thing as being against treating gay people equally, which is the same as being prejudice.

    Republicans are stale and mired in backwards social thinkings Mr. Hoagie and I don’t see any sense in supporting them unless they’ve demonstrated a forward-thinking problem-solving attitude like Walker did with unions and Paul has done on any number of issues for example the civil asset forfeiture.

    And yes Ben Carson for president is a joke. He’s a focus on the family hate-muppet.

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  103. > What is sex for?

    Honestly? The *overwhelming majority of the time*, sex is for the pleasure of one or both participating parties. This is true for straight people as well as for gay people; for married people as well as for unmarried people, for old couples as well as for young couples.

    aphrael (001863)

  104. meanwhile, Ear Leader reminds us all why we should vote demonrat, beyond their embrace of ghey sex for all, whether you want it or not.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  105. The *overwhelming majority of the time*, sex is for the pleasure of one or both participating parties.

    And I see your problem in one sentence.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  106. Welcome to the anarchy of ideas, right here in River City.

    My unlearned, unscholarly quick thoughts:

    The only social paradigm that gives freedom is one based on the Judeo-Christian view of reality, that people were created with a free will and personal responsibility, and should be allowed to express that as long as they do not harm others.
    While this does give maximal personal freedom of expression, it still holds to a moral framework of right and wrong, it’s just that people are free to be wrong as long as they aren’t harming others. (“harming” open to definition).

    But the progression of our society has been that people do not like the concept of moral absolutes and right and wrong. People don’t want to be told they are wrong but can go ahead and do what they want, they want to be told they are just as fine as anybody else.
    Hence, the conflict of logical necessity, the only way to exist and to say there is no right and wrong is to eliminate anyone who says there is. Really, that is just a group of people deceiving themselves into thinking they (Group A) are the ones who are right, so much so they can eliminate those who say they themselves (Group B) are right.
    So there is no right or wrong, just people who are ok and those who are not allowed to exist.

    Of course, this was made possible by those in the Judeo-Christian tradition who did not see fit originally to eliminate those who believed otherwise.

    But this requires too much thought for most people, and besides, too many people don’t want to understand it anyway, like Ms. Korn, who has a perfectly logical argument, once her presuppositions are granted.

    So, is political reality supposed to trick group A into allowing group B to exist, because they are “really not group B” after all? While I agree there is no reason to make arguments for the point of making arguments, to follow this tact eventually means that there is no group B left, and those who presented themselves as “not really group B” are now telling the truth, because they aren’t, they are practically indistinguishable from group A.

    Winning elections is important, but not as important as maintaining ones convictions. Certainly there are ways one can emphasize one’s convictions in ways more appealing than others, but if at the end of the day you’ve surrendered your convictions for the sake of winning an election, the you’re just another spineless politician.

    If it is true that culture is more important than politics, and if you are saying the culture has already been lost, then maybe the politics have been lost as well, until the culture comes around.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  107. I always though Bush won reelection in 2004 in part because of conservative voter turnout for the various pro-traditional marriage items in many states. You even had the traditionally apolitical Amish organizing get out the vote drives on the basis of protecting marriage.
    So, to move away from that is to say either you don’t want to stick with what has been shown to work, or that you think in 10 years the society has changed from predominately pro-traditional marriage (and maybe let the gays do what they want, but leave us alone) to predominately traditional marriage is such an old idea, of course everyone should support gay marriage.

    If the later is true, then I think the problem, as said before, is not Obama and the democrats, but an American public willing to keep electing them.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  108. there’s a huge huge difference between not believing in gay marriage and forcing the rest of America to get in line with your religious precepts

    that’s just not how America works

    it’s not pluralistic

    it’s authoritarian

    and Team R needs to cultivate an anti-authoritarian brand to get back in the game I think

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  109. there’s a huge huge difference between not believing in gay marriage and forcing the rest of America to get in line with your religious precepts

    Mr. feets – You got the direction of forcing wrong –

    there’s a huge huge difference between not believing in gay marriage and being forced by the government to believe in it under penalty of law even if does not come from a deeply held religious belief.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  110. happyfeet
    1+1=2

    Being logical instead of funny was never a priority of yours, so I should take your comments with that understanding.
    Who is being authoritarian,
    the person who says, “If you want to be a couple go ahead, just don’t tell me to call it marriage”
    or the person who says
    “I don’t care what you &%%&!@!!^# believe, make us our cake!!”

    Yes, republicans need to make clear who is being the most authoritarian,
    but still, for some being pro-gay is more important than being anti-authoritarian.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  111. how is making a cake for a marriage you don’t even believe in something that’s in any way onerous

    christians just hate it that other people believe in it

    which is fine

    but Team R doesn’t need to endorse their hateful views

    it’s just not the proper vehicle for that

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  112. Dumb young people supported Muslim students in their attempts to prevent Ayaan Hirsi Ali from speaking at Yale University recently. Now Yale plans next week on hosting a radical Tunisian sheik who has called for the murder of U.S. troops abroad and was banned from the United States for supporting the terror group Hamas.

    Go figure.

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/yale-to-host-radical-terror-sheikh-who-advocated-killing-of-u-s-soldiers/

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  113. “how is making a cake for a marriage you don’t even believe in something that’s in any way onerous”

    how many wedding cakes do you make in a year feets?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  114. As I said previously, if a gay baker didn’t want to sell any cake, not even a day old cupcake, to a person wearing a “Phil Robertson for President” t-shirt, he/she shouldn’t have to.

    Onerousness is sometimes in the mind of the beholder.

    Of course Team R doesn’t have to support it. Had they not, all of those Amish would have stayed home, and Ohio would have gone to President John Kerry in 2004.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  115. daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/2/2014 @ 12:37 pm
    I know I sound like a broken record, but it’s the truth:
    Thinking they were wise, they became fools.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  116. MD in Philly – the problem with #114 is that this implies that if a white baker doesn’t want to sell a cupcake to a black man, he doesn’t have to.

    That hasn’t been the law in the United States for almost two full generations – and almost nobody is willing to abandon the law in question.

    So how do you draw the line? Is race just fundamentally ‘different’? If so, based on what?

    aphrael (001863)

  117. absolutely nothing is accomplished by not baking cakes for gay people’s weddings

    nothing

    it’s a momo game for the morally stunted

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  118. Uh, aphrael, laws which give sexual deviants a cause of action in these cases are fairly novel. Also, a bakery is not a monopolistic common carrier. Freedom of contract properly applies in almost all other situations. That the statutory law is asinine is not my doing.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  119. gay people are NOT sexual deviants Mr. Deco they’re just gay people for example Nate Berkus and also Ohio native Reichen Lehmkuhl

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  120. Art deco, whether or not a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is ‘novel’ depends on your time scope; in New Jersey, for example, such a law has been on the books for more than a quarter of a century now.

    So here’s my question to you: would you support repealing the part of the civil rights act of 1964 which requires that the baker not discriminate on the basis of race?

    If the answer to that is *no*, then the issue is not the moral right of the baker to refuse to do business with whomever he chooses, the issue is over what the boundaries are for where the state can say, you aren’t allowed to discriminate in this fashion.

    If the answer to that is *yes*, then you get points for ideological consistency, but your political program is going to be DOA in this generation.

    [What irks me here is the people who will say no, they don’t support such a repeal, but who insist that the question is the moral right of someone to choose to do business with whomever they choose – you *cannot* consistenyly frame the question in that way *and* support the ban on racial discrimination.]

    aphrael (001863)

  121. I don’t like the conflation of race and sexual preference. It is apples and oranges.

    “Mr. Hoagie being against gay marriage is the same thing as being against treating gay people equally, which is the same as being prejudice.”

    That is objectively untrue, Happyfeet.

    JD (285732)

  122. Aphrael, I would not mind total repeal, especially given the uses these laws are being put to. Employment discrimination law is a more troublesome problem, however.

    You could make an argument for public accommodations ordinances in Mississippi in 1963 from reasons of state. You cannot validly do that re the homosexual population today.

    That aside, no one has a right under current law commonly in force to your patronage or to your services. Only selected categories of people have a cause of action. I generally can toss you out of my shop according to my extraneous preferences (no shirt, no shoes, no service). The question is your evaluation of those categories. Blacks are a much more winsome client population than sexual deviants. That having been said, the benefit to blacks is modest as we speak, so the laws can go

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  123. I don’t like the conflation of race and sexual preference. It is apples and oranges.

    Yes. Humbug.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  124. i don’t get how it’s not true

    gay people should be treated the same under the law as straight people and that means they should have the same freedom to order their affairs same as how straight people do, which includes being able to get married and have cake

    when you treat people unequal-like that’s the same as being prejudice and that’s just so wrong

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  125. “it’s a momo game for the morally stunted”

    feets – You didn’t understand the first 200 times people patiently explained why some believed it was not right to bake that cake because you obviously think the people holding those views are insincere, morally stunted, religious freaks, arguing in bad faith, who should have been on that ship that you claim sailed or alternatively in jail for thought crimes rather loose out in public in today’s fascist failamerica.

    I gladly acknowledge your good faith, true arguments and baking expertise.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  126. i don’t like the conflation of gays people and lesbians with trannies

    it’s apples and vampire squid I think

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  127. he gets that way, when his nespresso, starts to run out,

    the Washington Post has clearly shown it’s not interested in any of the big issues, it whitewashes Clinton’s malfeasance upon the Republic, as it has to Obama, whereas W was responsible, above and below the earth, acts of commission and omission,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  128. yes Mr. daley i think people who don’t bake cakes for gay people are hateful and stupid and rude rude rude

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  129. The conflation occurs because the laws in question are *the identical laws* – sexual orientation discrimination bans were enacted by adding sexual orientation to the list of things that were forbidden bases for discrimination.

    If the law is wrong in principle, it’s wrong in principle.

    If it’s wrong *simply because you disagree with the inclusion of this item on the list*, but the idea of the list is OK, then it’s not a “it’s wrong to force people to do business with people they don’t want to do business with” issue; it’s a “it’s wrong to force people to do business with gay people against their will” issue.

    aphrael (001863)

  130. there’s a huge huge difference between not believing in gay marriage and forcing the rest of America to get in line with your religious precepts

    that’s just not how America works

    it’s not pluralistic

    it’s authoritarian

    and yet that’s exactly how the LGBT Mafia and their Demonrat supporters have approached ghey marriage and people who oppose it on moral/religious grounds.

    why are you okay with one, but not the other?

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  131. gay people should be treated the same under the law as straight people and that means they should have the same freedom to order their affairs same as how straight people do, which includes being able to get married and have cake

    why should any business owner be forced to accept any customer? business is a contractual affair: just because you offer to buy my wares doesn’t mean you have a right to them, it just means you have the right to make an offer, than i can choose to either accept or decline.

    if what you are arguing is true, that any offer made to purchase must be accepted, then the converse is equally true, that any offer to sell must be accepted by the potential purchaser. if i offer wedding cakes to ghey couples getting married, and they choose instead to buy from a fellow tribesman, rather than from me, in part because i’m straight, i can sue them into penury, right?

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  132. i don’t see where gay marriages are an imposition on people’s freedoms really Mr. red

    and I don’t see why people would turn away customers cause of gay marriage it’s just weird, but I don’t think they should be forced to serve gay people by the government

    but also a lot of people don’t wanna do business with people what are prejudice so these bakers and such would be wise to think twice before making a spectacle of themselves

    you just have to remember what mama pikachu always said

    “One must be kind,” said mama pikachu.

    “I know mama I know,” said lil pikachu, and that is how he grewed up to be.

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  133. The conflation occurs because the laws in question are *the identical laws* – sexual orientation discrimination bans were enacted by adding sexual orientation to the list of things that were forbidden bases for discrimination.

    No, Aphrael, the conceptual confusion antedated the positive law.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  134. If the law is wrong in principle, it’s wrong in principle.

    To which principle are you referring? Race and sexual deviance are not interchangeable categories. They do not get to be just because you’re used to thinking in those terms.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  135. race is sorta like being gay cause people will do prejudice on you sometimes if you’re of a certain race or if you’re gay (or both)

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  136. Shopkeepers just need to find some reason to decline a transaction that is not covered by the C-R statutes. I suggest the way someone parts their hair is as good a reason as any – or, it’s Wednesday!

    askeptic (efcf22)

  137. 120. …If the answer to that is *yes*, then you get points for ideological consistency, but your political program is going to be DOA in this generation.

    aphrael (001863) — 10/2/2014 @ 1:18 pm

    If that’s true then that’s an indictment of this generation and not the politics.

    But then I have reasons to believe it’s not entirely true, and to whatever degree it may be true the reasons for it are temporary and reversible.

    The intolerant authoritarians pretending to be tolerant and inclusive can’t but help let the mask slip now and again. And increasingly they drop the act altogether as they prematurely convince themselves that their victory is assured. Then they reveal that all they really care about is their “will to power.”

    Which is why I don’t treat SSM as a gay rights issue. And for the same reason I don’t treat anthropogenic global warming, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever the h3ll alias that particular fraud is going by these days as an environmental issue. Because that’s not what they’re about at all. They are about empowering government. And consequently empowering the intolerant authoritarians who are convinced that they should be in charge of government, who think they are the ultimate sources of morality, legitimacy, and therefore should have the power to order people about.

    It is completely unironic that, like the leftist who murdered Pim Fortuyn in the name of tolerance, that these leftists demonstrate that their cure is for “intolerance” leads to a far worse than the disease.

    Eric Holder, who just resigned as AG, empowered an already politicized and racist voting rights division to be openly racist. The fact that they refused to enforce civil rights laws in a race neutral manner is well established; the explicit policy of self-proclaimed activist AG Holder’s DoJ to pursue cases based entirely upon race meant that black election officials in Nuxobee county, MS, were free to openly disenfranchise white voters.

    And you’re worried that gays or blacks (and whites, unless we’re going to pretend black and latino racism [La Raza!] doesn’t exist) might have to shop around to make sure they’re giving their business to someone who really wants it?

    There are things in the world than societies who let bakers decide for themselves who they will or won’t bake a cake for, aphrael. Fortunately all I have to do is let the fascists demonstrate that themselves. I hardly have to say a word.

    Steve57 (b50fab)

  138. It is completely unironic that, like the leftist who murdered Pim Fortuyn in the name of tolerance, that these leftists demonstrate that their cure is for “intolerance” leads to a far worse than the disease.

    Optical mouse strikes again. It’s sort of like autocorrect or babblefish. I have no idea what was going on when it spit that out.

    There are things in the world than societies who let bakers decide for themselves who they will or won’t bake a cake for, aphrael.

    Here I do know. It just deleted a word.

    *There are worse things in the world…

    Steve57 (b50fab)

  139. First, to aphrael,
    First, I think behavior (sexual activity, wearing certain t-shirts, having misogynist, hateful, f-word filled rap music coming from your iPod ) is different from an inborn trait like color of hair or skin.
    Now, you and others may argue that sexual preference is just as inborn as skin pigmentation, I disagree. I also disagree that a personality characteristic and the expression of that in public are the same thing. I think there is more evidence for a inheritable link to alcoholism than homosexuality, but that does not excuse public drunk and disorderly conduct.

    Second, as far as I am concerned, a private business should be free to do business with whoever they want for whatever reason they want. That includes if someone wants to not serve a black person in a private establishment, let them be that way. But it also means that there is no law that says another store right next door can’t serve that person if they want to. My understanding, I could be mistaken, was that much of the problem was that there would be laws that limited what private storeowners could do, so there was an actual legal and structural obstacle for being an anti-segregationist.
    If someone wants to make a law ordering I do business with a certain type of person, let the lawmaker be first to abide by the law for a trial period before it goes into effect for the general public.
    I personally would rather be told at the door that “my kind are not served”, than find myself someplace with a dozen hostile people staring at me.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  140. i don’t see where gay marriages are an imposition on people’s freedoms really Mr. red
    happyfeet (a785d5) — 10/2/2014 @ 2:19 pm

    You didn’t understand the first 200 times people patiently explained why …
    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/2/2014 @ 1:42 pm

    Is there anybody out there that does not understand the point that feets refuses to acknowledge?

    If so, say so, and I or someone else will explain it, otherwise, we’ve been through this before, and before, and before, and…

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  141. “when you treat people unequal-like that’s the same as being prejudice and that’s just so wrong”

    When you claim that a man and a woman are the same as a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, that is just wrong. It is objectively wrong. It is anti-science.

    JD (312266)

  142. yeah but I’m pro-gay marriage so it’s all good

    I’m on the right side of history you know

    and it feels fantastic

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  143. True conservatives would not oppose free individuals’ constitutional rights to hold religious ceremonies. In that regard yes, a large number of young Republicans could be construed to “support” gay marriage, and opposition could be characterized as “religious fanaticism”.

    However, marriage LICENSING is a legal construct which was instituted with specific parameters designed to best benefit a procreative continuance strategy, and streamline the public’s inevitable interactions with the legal system in determining citizenship, guardianship, and inheritance, also known as “providing for the general welfare.” Creating special privileges and exemptions to an established and purpose-driven licensing regimen merely because a vocal minority wants it, and also wants to use the force of law as a cudgel to extort social acceptance from their critics, is not compatible with rational governance, let alone conservative principles.

    You might as well have gerbil owners demanding dog licenses for their gerbils. Because to not be regulated and sanctioned by government is somehow a sign of gerbilphobia. Trying to calmly explain WHY there exists such a license requirement for dogs, and how redundant regimens for pets of all stripes would be a complete waste of public resources requiring massive new abusive government powers, is merely inviting accusations of gerbil hatred.

    It is the height of dishonesty to ignore the voluminous well reasoned secular oppositions to special-licensing-privileges-for-gays-only, and mischaracterize it all as some spiteful religious crusade to deny natural human rights.

    Any gay person has the right, TODAY, to participate in any religious ceremony or enter a binding contract with any partner they so desire. They also have the right to apply for a marriage license which will be approved or denied based on the same established parameters upon which every straight applicant’s is processed, also known as equal protection.

    Just say no to unconstitutional liberal social engineering.

    Captain Obvious (14cc4d)

  144. You are better than that, Happyfeet.

    JD (285732)

  145. thank you Mr. JD

    but for reals I don’t get why this is an issue anymore

    it’s all to the good I think for R people to understand they lost this one and it’s time to refocus energies in more productive areas

    we’re getting there, but faster is better

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  146. How you get there matters. Except to you. You just want your way forced on everyone. Forced affirmation. Penalize those that don’t agree. It is decidedly a modern liberal fascist way of approaching identity politics, something you once abhorred.

    JD (285732)

  147. “absolutely nothing is accomplished by not baking cakes for gay people’s weddings”

    it’s an expression of freedom of choice, happyfeet. as simple as that. I wouldn’t want to force anyone to provide a good or service to me, if they chose not to. I wouldn’t care what the reason. I’d find another place to spend my money.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  148. happyfeet doesn’t like fascism except when he is for it.
    It’s like he is so superior to some of us because he is cool with SSM,
    but then says derogatory things about transvestites.
    I think transvestites are troubled, and I’ve known a few fairly well, but I would not say derogatory things about them.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  149. but for reals I don’t get why this is an issue anymore
    Um, repeating it over and over does not make it so,
    so, stop saying that.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3W5GDkgf2w

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  150. Happyfeet is not a stupid person. He just pretends to be when he repeatedly says he does not understand explanations of why people oppose SSM. It’s a thing.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  151. i haven’t never said anything about forcing anyone

    I don’t think anyways

    i think people should be free to bake cakes for whomever they want

    i think gay people should be free to get married

    i think churches should be free to not marry them

    and for sure i never would’ve forced anything pro or anti gay marriage into the Team R platform

    freedom is my favorite thing Mr. JD next to frosting

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  152. trannies I think should be free to have their own clubs all to themselves

    chop chop, trannies

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  153. I think that when you are talking to your friends, you should ask yourself, “Who is going to help me move?”; “Who is going to lend me his SkilSaw?”; “Who is going to bring me chicken soup when I have the flu?” “Is it going to be my friend or Michael Steele?” and you should conduct your conversation accordingly. This post is like the one not too long ago where some dork was fighting with his father over politics. His father!

    nk (dbc370)

  154. it’s an expression of freedom of choice, happyfeet

    and I am free to heap withering scorn on that choice Mr. Colonel

    cause it’s a tacky choice

    here you can watch as a hateful kumquat breaks into uncontrollable sobbings at the mere thought of baking a cake for a lesbian wedding

    jeeze louise get it together

    punkin there’s people in the world with real actual problems

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  155. daleyrocks, I see the preezy was in your neighborhood today touting his many economic achievements. Were you able to see him and cheer him on? I received a simulcast link to the speech from the Northwestern alumni director, but unfortunately I was otherwise engaged so I missed all the excitement. Apparently he said the republicans rejected many steps he wanted to take to help struggling American families. I feel bad about that.

    elissa (6e7d61)

  156. I refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. Ever. I’m willing to allow domestic partnerships, with privileges similar to spouses, as long they are available to all regardless of the partner’s sex. If people want a simple, non-reproductive union recognized by the law, fine. However, that is not marriage, and I refuse to call that marriage.

    I get that Kevin M, happyfeet, and company are eager to get the Republicans on the cultural bandwagon. However, the cultural bandwagon is not always a great place to be. For a while, Obama was the messiah, and even Republicans were mindlessly worshipping him. David Brooks, I believe, fell in love with Obama’s creased pants. Go back further, and supporting co-existence with the Soviets, as opposed to victory, was the in thing to do. Even further, in the early 20th century, Eugenics was the wave of history. Supreme Court decisions supported eugenic measures, and all of the in crowd with the best cocktail parties liked it. Sterilizing the unfit was cool!

    OmegaPaladin (f4a293)

  157. i don’t see how being off the cultural bandwagon is gonna help Team R “take it to the next level” as the kids say

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  158. @MD

    First, I think behavior (sexual activity, wearing certain t-shirts, having misogynist, hateful, f-word filled rap music coming from your iPod ) is different from an inborn trait like color of hair or skin.
    Now, you and others may argue that sexual preference is just as inborn as skin pigmentation, I disagree

    Plenty of people disagree with plenty of things. Happily that doesn’t speak to the validity of those things. Homosexual behavior occurs throughout the animal kingdom in nature. Humans are part of the animal kingdom so it is logical to assume it occurs naturally in us as well. Even the most basic of information searches can bring you volumes of data. You can even find videos of male lions going at it if you try. That’s ok though, you go ahead and ignore it and keep disagreeing with what you want to. It helps support your position.

    Gil (27c98f)

  159. Gil is back to comparing homosexuals to animals.

    JD (312266)

  160. Gil, we already waltzed around this one once, about what makes something “natural”, what does seeing something in the animal world relate to human behavior, etc.

    If anyone else wants to raise the issue, I’ll be willing to respond, I won’t waste my time with Gil.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  161. JD, you say so much in so few words, I’m in awe.
    e.g. “a man and a woman is not a man and a man or a woman and a woman”.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  162. I feel genuinely sad about JD’s lack of understanding. At least other commenters will argue the points. JD has made this same retort multiple times.

    JD: Its a stain on this blog’s good name that you are allowed to guest post.

    Gil (27c98f)

  163. you think in 10 years the society has changed from predominately pro-traditional marriage (and maybe let the gays do what they want, but leave us alone) to predominately traditional marriage is such an old idea, of course everyone should support gay marriage.

    What is wrong with being just PRO-MARRIAGE.

    There are many many reasons besides child-rearing that society favors marriage. Any man who has gotten married knows the difference between single and married behavior (and I suspect this goes form many women as well). Why should it be different for gays, if not more so?

    The idea that people would seek the security of marriage ought to be a good thing in a day and age when many people had been thinking the institution had died.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  164. If anyone else wants to raise the issue, I’ll be willing to respond, I won’t waste my time with Gil.

    Sure, par for the course. If you know youre wrong, dodge the issue.

    Gil (27c98f)

  165. JD: Its a stain on this blog’s good name that you are allowed to guest post.
    Gil (27c98f) — 10/2/2014 @ 7:20 pm

    Hey, anyone for a vote as to whose participation here is a bigger stain, Gil vs JD?
    Good night.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  166. But anyway, people like Gil and Art Deco are perfect examples of the folks that the WaPo think run the GOP. Happily their day is done.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  167. Gil – any opprobrium directed your way is commensurate with the mendoucheity you have displayed since you first darkened these comment threads. If you managed to get a response like that from MD, it speaks very poorly, of you.

    JD (285732)

  168. Go oil your G-string, Gil. And eat some poop. It’s natural. Dogs eat poop.

    nk (dbc370)

  169. 158. …Humans are part of the animal kingdom so it is logical to assume it occurs naturally in us as well. Even the most basic of information searches can bring you volumes of data. You can even find videos of male lions going at it if you try. That’s ok though, you go ahead and ignore it and keep disagreeing with what you want to. It helps support your position.

    Gil (27c98f) — 10/2/2014 @ 7:10 pm

    Except for the the fact that I presented you with peer reviewed studies showing that there are entire human cultures where homosexuality is unknown. They don’t even have words to express the concept.

    And at the end of the day, being the blinkered ideologue you are Gil, you rejected the evidence because it doesn’t conform to your ideology (the same reason Bill Clinton rejected The Bell Curve, and gay marriage advocates rejected the Regnerus study; it didn’t conform to their ideologically predetermined conclusions; blinkered ideologues are all the same in that when the ideology doesn’t comport with the evidence it’s the evidence that must be rejected [and the characters of those who came up with it destroyed]).

    It was really quite amusing, Gil. Just for $chitts and grins I jumped through all your hoops, and at the end (as I predicted you would) after I had overcome all your objections you simply said you didn’t care how much evidence I had to prove your sweeping statements about human sexuality wrong. You were going to believe what you wanted to believe regardless.

    I’m not going to go through that exercise again. Nor will it be necessary. You’ve long since destroyed your credibility by behaving exactly as I’ve described on myriad comment threads.

    Steve57 (b50fab)

  170. Oops. Gil’s stuff is so convoluted I may have mistaked his position. Hard to tell.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  171. Except for the the fact that I presented you with peer reviewed studies showing that there are entire human cultures where homosexuality is unknown. They don’t even have words to express the concept.

    That is not True Steve.
    I remember your studies and In their conclusion in their texts was written “rare or unknown”.
    That’s a huge problem for you. Go ahead and link them again if you want.

    Gil (27c98f)

  172. don’t eat the poop Mr. Gil he’s trying to trick you

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  173. “Were you able to see him and cheer him on?”

    elissa – Thanks for asking. I had no desire to check out his lies today let alone heckle him. I mostly hunkered down to avoid the ebola and random workplace beheadings.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  174. 170.Oops. Gil’s stuff is so convoluted I may have mistaked his position. Hard to tell.

    I though it was simple: MD disagrees with Homosexuality being a trait.
    It is clear to me that it is or that we have sufficient reason to assume it is:
    1. It occurs in animals
    2. We are animals
    3. Therefore, it occurs in us.

    Gil (27c98f)

  175. In case anyone else is interested the evidence I presented was written up in peer reviewed journals and it concerned the Aka and Ngandu tribes of Central Africa.

    And the researchers noted that the fact their languages didn’t have words or terms to describe homosexuality was exactly like other cultures where homosexuality didn’t exist. So the phenomenon wasn’t limited to just these two tribes that these particular researchers studied, and these researchers were aware of those other cultures where homosexuality was unknown.

    I’m sure Gil will accuse me of “dodging” the issue because I won’t waste my time going round and round on this AGAIN. It’s enough to point out Gil has proven he doesn’t care about evidence, and is impervious to it, when it comes to remaining faithful to his religion.

    Yes, he’s an atheist (or agnostic, or agnostic atheist, or atheistic agnostic depending on the prevailing breeze) but just because he doesn’t (or may not) have a god doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a religion.

    Steve57 (b50fab)

  176. Whatchu talkin’ ’bout, Gil?… you started what you blithely refer to as your “life” as a slowly spreading stain that puddled at the feet of your diseased, chancre-ridden, syphillitic mother. We don’t judge you, we pity you.

    Colonel Haiku (ed365f)

  177. Gil comparing gays to animals is always a good time. Sheer genius!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  178. This is from one of Steve’s prized articles:

    Given all this, the Hewletts conclude, “Homosexuality and masturbation are rare or nonexistent [in these two cultures], not because they are frowned upon or punished, but because they are not part of the cultural models of sexuality in either ethnic group.”

    It doesn’t take a strong intellect to understand that “rare or nonexistent” is the same as just saying “rare” but is not the same as just saying “nonexistent” Clearly all of this evidence is bunk. Good try Steve. Move along.

    Gil (27c98f)

  179. 171. That is not True Steve.
    I remember your studies and In their conclusion in their texts was written “rare or unknown”.
    That’s a huge problem for you. Go ahead and link them again if you want.
    Gil (27c98f) — 10/2/2014 @ 7:33 pm

    No, it’s true. And it isn’t a huge problem for me.

    The Aka and Ngandu data on homosexuality are not inconsistent with the crosscultural
    record. Homosexuality does not exist in all cultures.

    That’s an unequivocal statement from the peer-reviewed study that I won’t waste any time providing you with links, Mr. Science Denier. Homosexuality does not exist in all cultures.

    Any questions? Didn’t think so.

    Goodbye, Gil.

    Steve57 (b50fab)

  180. my cousin slept with this Ngandu dude once in college but they were both really really stoned

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  181. The peer reviewed study and the Atlantic article are two entirely different things. Which, if you’re not Gil, you undoubtedly already knew.

    Steve57 (b50fab)

  182. Gil… free to be all the wanker you can be. Express yourself.

    Colonel Haiku (ed365f)

  183. Everyone just shut up. Gil already knows what you are going to say because he knows better than you what you believe, and why you believe it.

    JD (285732)

  184. http://anthro.vancouver.wsu.edu/media/PDF/sex_paper_final_10-2010.pdf
    There it is on page one of the original article. Rare or Nonexistent.
    Anything else?

    Gil (27c98f)

  185. Original study text I should say

    Gil (27c98f)

  186. Is unknown the same as does not exist? Bueller? Bueller?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  187. Forget it, he’s rolling, snorfle

    narciso (ee1f88)

  188. 184.Everyone just shut up. Gil already knows what you are going to say because he knows better than you what you believe, and why you believe it.

    No not everyone, but this I saw coming.

    Gil (27c98f)

  189. @Steve

    Mr. Science Denier.

    Oh that’s rich!
    Where do you stand on the Theory of Evolution?
    Surely anyone accepting that theory would acknowledge the similarities between us and animals and realize that we share some traits and behaviors with them. This far outweighs what a remote culture knows or does not know about homosexuality.

    Its been fun yall. But I got a pumpkin pie to make.

    Gil (27c98f)

  190. Nonexistent means something like you don’t find it somewhere I think, but I’m not an expert on animal/gay sex like Gil.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  191. I pity the pumpkin. He’s gonna carve a quarter-size hole in a heated pumpkin and have his way with it. Then he’ll make a pie.
    Pumpkin fu*ker!

    Colonel Haiku (ed365f)

  192. i would hope that’s not true Colonel and that you’re just speculating

    happyfeet (a785d5)

  193. It may be idle speculation, feets, but I have it on good authority that Gil was terminated from David and Sons Pumpkin Seeds for lewd and lascivious behavior.

    Colonel Haiku (ed365f)

  194. Hide your cats and dogs if Gil comes visiting.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  195. so these were under-aged pumpkins then

    that’s a lot to process

    one way to process them though is to make this easy festive holiday dip

    I’m a try making this on the weekend and if it works I’ll make it for friends and such

    happyfeet (a785d5)


  196. I though it was simple: MD disagrees with Homosexuality being a trait.
    It is clear to me that it is or that we have sufficient reason to assume it is:

    1. It occurs in animals
    2. We are animals
    3. Therefore, it occurs in us.

    Gil (27c98f) — 10/2/2014 @ 7:36 pm


    There are some behaviors occasionally exhibited by animals that may appear homosexual but it is invalid to read into those behaviors the equivalent of human homosexual orientation.

    Man can adapt his way of talking, writing, gazing, gesturing in untold ways. Animals cannot. Consequently, animals often express their affective states ambiguously. They “borrow,” so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on.

    Bonobos are a typical example of this “borrowing.” These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:

    There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo’s answer to avoiding conflict.

    First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.

    Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter’s mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.

    Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly “homosexual” behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of S‹o Paulo, Brazil, explains, “When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex.”

    Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:

    “Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance–in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who’s boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason”.

    Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:

    “Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent…. And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with
    .
    Other animals engage in seemingly “homosexual” behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion

    I’ve seen male dogs grab the leg of someone who owned a female dog and refuse to let go. Does that mean they’re sexually attracted to the person?

    Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

    “Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals…. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction”.

    Ethologist Cesar Ades explains the difference between human and animal sexual relations:

    “Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological pleasure….The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the law of nature”.

    Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was cited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in their amici curiae brief in Lawrence v. Texas:

    Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena….We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer–in both the gathering and interpretation of data–come to the forefront in this situation…..With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)….With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations.”

    The “animals exhibit homosexuality” delusion is similar to evolution in that those espousing it are perceiving something they expect to see.

    Gerald A (d65c67)

  197. Homosexuality does not exist in all cultures.

    For example it doesn’t exist in Uganda or Iran, or at least not for long.

    When investigating things that everyone lies about (sex, drug use, etc) researchers need to understand that their data might be a pack of lies.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  198. For example it doesn’t exist in Uganda or Iran, or at least not for long.

    Uhh, nice try Kevin. But in cultures where homosexuality doesn’t exist they don’t hang gays from cranes or throw them in prison like in Iran or Uganda.

    In cultures where homosexuality doesn’t exist there are no punishments for it. Just like there are no punishments for flying like a bird.

    Because it doesn’t freakin’ exist.

    …When investigating things that everyone lies about (sex, drug use, etc) researchers need to understand that their data might be a pack of lies.
    Kevin M (b357ee) — 10/3/2014 @ 9:22 am

    You project just as badly as Gil. Not everyone lies about sex. Just like not everyone is an American. Why would hunter-gatherers in Central Africa lie about sex? Because you would?

    Just so you know, the researchers are leaving open the possibility that their limited research hasn’t revealed the whole truth. Which is why they leave open the possibility homosexuality may be rare. But the evidence points to nonexistent. And if it is nonexistent, that wouldn’t make the Aka or Ngandu unique because they wouldn’t be the first cultures where homosexuality is unknown. Because (drumroll please)…

    Homosexuality does not exist in all cultures.

    I know that isn’t what you’ve been programmed to believe, but that’s where the evidence leads, Kevin.

    Thinking or yourself is hard, isn’t it?

    Steve57 (b50fab)

  199. 191. Nonexistent means something like you don’t find it somewhere I think, but I’m not an expert on animal/gay sex like Gil.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/2/2014 @ 8:09 pm

    His obsession with gay animal sex is disturbing.

    Do you think this…

    … I got a pumpkin pie to make.

    …may actually be code for some unspeakable debauchery?

    Gil, whatever you do don’t tell us how your “pumpkin pie” turned out, ok.

    Steve57 (b50fab)

  200. I’m all for homosexual marriage, pedophile marriage (occasionally called Moslem-Muhammed-marriage), sado-xenophile marriage as long as no one in word, thought or deed is compelled to recognize, praise, acknowledge, serve, or accept any form marriage. It’s the compulsion, the complete and utter disregard for dissent, divergence, diversity, and humanity that contemptible.

    Sometimes… “I could never reconcile the [Democrat] party’s basic disregard for human rights, and especially towards me as a white man. That, my friend, is the common decency that ‘outweighed all others’ for me. I can’t be part of a group who cannot understand freedom for all.”).

    ErisGuy (76f8a7)

  201. 😆
    (lol)

    Yoda (cffabe)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6598 secs.