The Bigotry and Intolerance Behind the Gay Marriage Debate [Reader Post]

@Mike O’Malley:

There are many distributing thing about the $outhern Poverty Law Center one which is its consistent refusal to offer similar critique of left-wing and Islamicist hate groups.

Simply not true, you can see for yourself. They do critique Islamist hate groups. So, again, you can’t prove something you write, and it in this case, it’s easily disprove. You’re unbelievably sloppy, Mike. I guess you were hoping you found a place to vent your frustration and hatred with impunity and without responsibility to facts and the truth.

By the way, I don’t know what you classify as “left-wing” but I find it interesting you’re apparently claiming all the groups listed by the SPLC as “right-wing”.

@Tom:

Thank you for that information, Mike. It was a nice attempt at changing the subject. At least we all know you are technically capable of posting links. How exactly does this prove that the FRC research is scientifically legitimate?

What I demonstrated is that you Tom rely upon Prog-left hate groups to smear and discredit those with whom you disagree. Your logical fallacy in this instance is ad hominem argument.

The three peer reviewed studies I cited were Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170..

I’ll quote what I posted above as you appear to be confused, Tom:

“There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources: Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)”

The Family Resource Council website was linked because it provided a ready discussion. It is not however the sources I cited which were published in peer reviewed scientific journals I’ve encountered in the past. The full test of peer reviewed scientific studies are rarely available for free access on the web, so I offered a ready available substitute. Unfortunately some on the left be hatin’ on the Family Resource Council.

Your logical fallibly in this instance is known as Straw Man argumentum.

As I wrote, Tom, you can consider my point T-R-U-E as I have thus proven my point.

Would you like me to reduce my guesstimate of 5% above to a more accurate 4.5%?

Are you sure you are up to this Tom?

@GaffaUK: @anticsrocks: @Ditto: @Nan G: @retire05: @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

[GaffaUK wrote] Yeah I’ll stop commenting on American matters when Americans stop commenting on non-American matters. lol. The whole gay marriage is an open debate across the western world – and catholicism and it’s opposition is hardly predominately American! As for Anti-american – to be pro-gay marriage is hardly Anti-american. It’s called democracy and free speech – remember those things which the US imported from Europe?

Anti-Catholicism has been for the Brits what Antisemitism has been for the Germans. Brit’s have a long history of hatin’ on and killin’ Catholics. The German’s have done a passable job over the last fifty years of addressing and atoning for their essay in antisemitic homicide during the 20th century when they killed 1/3rd of the Jews in the world. The anti-Catholic English however killed 1/3rd of the Irish Catholics in the world on two occasions during 16th and 17th centuries and came close to accomplishing the deed a third time during the 19th century. Then the Anti-Catholic Brits reduced the population of Ireland from around 11 million at the beginning of the 1840s to around 4 million by 1900. Millions of Irish Catholics were either starved or worked to death on road construction. Fortunately the Americans were around to generously “import” several million religiously cleansed Irish Catholics.

Generally the Germans have worked to overcome their deadly antisemitism. The anti-Catholic Brits … not so much.

Tom It’s pretty hard to keep up with O’Malley’s empirical evidence and “personal library”
My two cents. Between 1975 and 2006 I spent over 20 years living in Laguna Beach a beautiful S. Cal. town with a large gay(25-30%of males) population. Not only were they accepted but they contributed to making Laguna one of the highest ranked communities in the U.S in per capita income, standard of living, quality of education and low crime rate.
People visited from all over the world.The gays and straights lived side by side with acceptance and respect. Churches flourished. Never perceived the gays to be any more promiscuous than single males.
It is a great town to raise a family–if you can afford it. Homophobes or those racially prejudiced generally stay away—-and that’s a good thing.

Think the coverage of the Olympics is fantastic.

Semper Fi

@Richard Wheeler:

Thanks for sharing that. I think you really zeroed in on the single most important factor: people have a hard time hating people they know, live near, work with, see every day. Like you, I’ve witnessed this myself in my lifetime. That’s why I always wonder how many gay people the hate mongers actually know. What is it that informs their feelings?

I can give a dozen different examples, but here’s my favorite. There is a blue collar guy on my work softball team who I didn’t know was gay for several years. I consider myself to have pretty good ‘gaydar”, but with this guy, I had no clue. He just comes off very regular guy. Everyone at work pretty much universally loves him. All this guy’s buddies at work are blue collar, trade guys. They’re probably on the conservative side of me on average and they have no issues with him. In fact, most of them were at his wedding this past Spring. I wonder how many people’s notions a guy like that will change in his lifetime. It’s really hard to hate someone you see every day who is just like you or me.

Agree on the Olympics. Take care.

@Richard Wheeler: You asked:

Why is your statistic relevant to my posting?

Sure is easy to discount them there pesky facts when they go against your narrative.

LOL

@Richard Wheeler:

I might add that being a straight single male for about 15 of those 20 years was FANtastic. Have you seen the girls in Laguna Beach?

Rich, I am not going to deny I’m filled with envy. As for the percentages working in your favor, I am starting to think you’re a genius!

@retire05:

Ah, more of that unique strain of unpleasantness from Retire5. Are you like this in person too, I wonder, a joy to be around?

I enjoy being called a bigot by you, by the way. A stupefying lack of self awareness amuses me. Now what was that thing you ranting about before, about how all these gays are trying to “change the whole traditional structure of our American society”. Heavens to Betsy! We should do something about this. Do you recommend torch or pitchfork?

Nan Again you misunderstand. They are not in the closet, They are out and participating in a beautiful,vibrant town. I’ll say again–25-30% of adult male population(est) Capiche?
BTW Your website shows San Francisco at 2.7%. Been there lately?? Key West 3.1% C’MON

Tom Fox in the chicken coop.

@retire05:

I enjoy your incredulity regarding my story. I’m sure it does sound like someone telling you Martians just landing on Main Street. Your ignorance regarding simple interpersonal work dynamics is harder to comprehend though. I thought perhaps your moniker indicated you had retired from a place of employment. Perhaps it means something more symbolic. Here’s a little primer on the modern workplace: yes, people do speculate about the personal lives of their coworkers quite frequently. Yes, sometimes a person makes their situation obvious, other times ambiguous (I’ve know married people who don’t wear wedding bands, and vice versa). No, gay people don’t think it’s bigotry to express surprise that someone is gay. No, ‘blue collar’ isn’t a pejorative or condescending term as you apparently see it.

The thing you will probably never understand, and this is the crux of it, is these labels wash away once you know someone. I don’t spend too much time worrying about what my neighbor or coworker does with his or her partner. You should try doing the same.

@Hard On:

I confess I hate ignorant blowhards. Does that make me a bigot? If so, accept my humble apology.

@Tom:

You hate blowhards? I guess that is an example of self loathing. But wait; I thought you liberals were such a tolerant bunch and incapable of hate in your enlightened state.

@Tom:

And your “gaydar” works how, bigot?

@Richard Wheeler: So the entire population is less than 3% gay, but the MALE population of LB is 25-30% gay? That would mean that there are close to three thousand five hundred homosexual men in LB out of a Male population = 11,398.

According to City-Data.com only about 350 of the males are homosexual.

Nice try, though.

Incidentally, in some Muslim societies and elsewhere in the world, men might hold hands or kiss, however it’s about custom, not their sexual orientation.

@Tom: @retire05:

[Tom tells Retire05 ] I don’t put you in that category though. I see whatever ails you as more likely medical in nature and deserving of my sympathy. You should get off the computer. Get outside, maybe change up your diet. There’s nothing shameful in seeking professional help either. The volatile mood disorder you exhibit can likely be alleviated pharmacologically. Good luck.

So Retire05 should seek professional help because he has a volatile mood disorder? Oh you are so much not going to like this Tom …

Promiscuity and Antisocial Personality
The promiscuous person–either heterosexual or homosexual –may in fact be more likely to be antisocial. It is worth noting here the comment of Rotello (1997), who is himself openly gay: “…the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes.”

Ellis et al. (1995) examined patients at an clinic which focused on genital and urological problems such as STD’s; he found 38% of the homosexual men seeking such services had antisocial personality disorder, as well as 28% of heterosexual men. Both levels were enormously higher than the 2% rate of antisocial personality disorder for the general population (which in turn, compares to the 50% rate for prison inmates) (Matthews 1997).

Perhaps the finding of a higher level of conduct disorder in the New Zealand study foreshadowed this finding of antisocial personality . Therapists, of course, are not very likely to see a large number of individuals who are antisocial because they are probably less likely to seek help.

Secondly, it was previously noted that 43% of a bulimic sample of men were homosexual or bisexual (Carlat et al. 1997), a rate about 15 times higher than the rate in the population in general–meaning homosexual men are probably disproportionately liable to this mental condition. This may be due to the very strong preoccupation with appearance and physique frequently found among male homosexuals.

Ideology of Sexual Liberation
A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that “the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes.” Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else–not even life and health itself–is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. Homosexual promiscuity fuels the AIDS crisis in the West, but even that tragedy it is not allowed to interfere with sexual freedom.

And, according to Rotello, the idea of taking responsibility to avoid infecting others with the HIV virus is completely foreign to many groups trying to counter AIDS. The idea of protecting oneself is promoted, but protecting others is not mentioned in most official condom promotions (France in the ’80s was an interesting exception). Bluntly, then, core gay behavior is both potentially fatal to others, and often suicidal.

Surely it should be considered “mentally disturbed” to risk losing one’s life for sexual liberation. This is surely among the most extreme risks practiced by any significant fraction of society. I have not found a higher risk of death accepted by any similar-sized population.

… but protecting others is not mentioned in most official condom promotions …. Bluntly, then, core gay behavior is both potentially fatal to others, and often suicidal. ,,,

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

Mike The problem is we are talking about two different statistics.Same thing with Nan.
Anticsrocks My prayers are with your dad and with your family.I’m sure he led a wonderful life and has much to be proud of. For your family’s sake pls. take care of your health.
Semper Fi

Ditto The Irish kiss everybody. Even when we’re sober.

@Richard Wheeler:

“The Irish kiss everybody. Even when we’re sober.”

Not true. Any self respecting Mick would not kiss a Limey.

@GaffaUK: @anticsrocks: @Ditto: @Nan G: @retire05: @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

OK perhaps GaffaUK you had in mind a British legal antecedent for the American First Amendment when you wrote:

[GaffaUK wrote] Yeah I’ll stop commenting on American matters when Americans stop commenting on non-American matters. lol. The whole gay marriage is an open debate across the western world – and catholicism and it’s opposition is hardly predominately American! As for Anti-american – to be pro-gay marriage is hardly Anti-american. It’s called democracy and free speech – remember those things which the US imported from Europe?

Now a good number of Americans originally opposed the idea of a Bill of Rights to the US Constitution because they believed that Americans already had the inalienable right to free speech and to freedom of the press on July 4, 1776. They didn’t want to leave an impression that American freedoms were limited to those spelled out in a Bill of Rights.

But from where though did American citizens get the right of free speech and freedom of the press? I don’t believe a citizen’s rights to free speech and freedom of the press were founded in pre-revolutionary English law. They did however originate from an English export to New York in 1731: one William Cosby. The kleptomaniac thug and English aristocrat, William Cosby, was appointed Royal Governor of New York. William Cosby, a cross-dresser with impeccable taste in aristocratic women’s clothing, almost upon arrival in New York imprisoned a German American publisher whom Her Ladyship His Lordship William Cosby accused of sedition and libel for publishing unflattering reports about Cosby. Under Royal Law publication of criticism of Royal officials could be considered libel whether the criticism were factual or not. The American jury in Manhattan thought otherwise and did something no British jury has ever done. The American jury nullified the Royal law. The American jury establish a right of free press in America and acquitted publisher John Peter Zenger of all charges in1735. This case helped to establish the concept of freedom of the press, the right of jury nullification and truth as an absolute defense against charges of libel and slander in American jurisprudence.

So GaffaUK, if you are aware of an earlier British law establishing freedom of speech and freedom of the press for British citizens… err … British subjects, please tell.

@Richard Wheeler: Thank you for the kind words. He is a Marine, (because once a Marine, always a Marine) who saw heavy action in the Pacific Theater of WWII; the invasion of Okinawa, specifically.

I will say this about infidelity as regards same sex couples. It is rampant.

Statistics on infidelity among same sex couples are even harder to come by, because most infidelity studies do not include lesbians and gays.

However, there at least three studies from which to cite.

In a study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak said he found that

“few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”

Pollack concluded,

“Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of ‘committed’ typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.”

In a telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine , what was described as a “magnum order” of difference was found in the lifetime rate of infidelity among heterosexual couples as compared to the rate of infidelity among homosexual couples.

Researchers concluded that

even “committed” homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage.

The book Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, by authors Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata, cites a study of homosexual male couples conducted by gay researchers.

The couples who participated had been together between 1 and 37 years.

Findings were as follows:

* 100% (all) of the couples experienced infidelity in their relationship within the first 5 years.
* Couples who remained together past the 10-year mark were able to do so only by accepting the painful reality of infidelity in their relationship.

More than 85 percent of the couples reported that their greatest relationship problems center on issues related to outside relationships.

NOTE: Data from the Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census shows that only 29% of gay/lesbian relationships last more than 7 years. – Source

There’s been a whole lot written on this thread.

I’ll repeat my position — for clarity. I’m opposed to gay marriage because I view it as a threat to traditional marriage, which I believe has persisted as an institution since the dawn of recorded history precisely because of the protections that it affords women and children, through doing a pretty decent job of helping the married couple to remain monogamous.

I further believe that the totality of existing data do suggest that gay marriage threatens traditional marriage.

Finally, I agree with the gays I cited that both equal protection under the law and reasonable accommodation could be secured by simply calling gay marriage by a different name (an excellent name proposed by a gay being “twainage”), but otherwise granting it all the rights and obligations of traditional marriage. A simple semantic distinction such as this would, I believe, satisfy the real needs (if not the fondest wishes) of both sides in this debate.

I cited noted gay columnist Dan Savage as illustrating one of the mechanisms through which gay marriage constitutes a threat to traditional marriage. Someone else on this thread defended Savage, saying that Savage writes that monogamy is advantageous for those who are capable of being monogamous, but not for many men. My position is that he’s basically playing lip service to that principle, but expresses his true feelings directly, in this New York Times quotation:

“The mistake that straight people made,” Savage told me, “was imposing the monogamous expectation on men. Men were never expected to be monogamous. Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided marriage had to be egalitar­ian and fairsey.” In the feminist revolution, rather than extending to women “the same latitude and license and pressure-release valve that men had always enjoyed,” we extended to men the confines women had always endured. “And it’s been a disaster for marriage.”

The bedrock of true marriage is fidelity. Yes, infidelity certainly exists, but it is always harmful and hurtful and it is actually quite rare — as I noted before, the average first marriage endures for more than 20 years and the average number of extramarital sex partners is zero to one. Compare and contrast this with any statistics about committed gay relationships you can quote. Any sexually active male or female knows that the male/female relationship is inherently unequal (in a great many respects), compared to what exists in a male/male relationship.

Savage is promoting a form of what has been called “open marriage.” Traditional marriage, Savage feels, has a lot to learn from gay marriage.

And that’s a big part of the problem with the reality of gay marriage — it threatens traditional marriage (and therefore the well-being of the married unit — particularly women and children) through dumbing down the concept and reality of marital fidelity.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Homophobia is more pronounced in individuals with an unacknowledged attraction to the same sex and who grew up with authoritarian parents who forbade such desires, a series of psychology studies demonstrates.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120406234458.htm

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Someone else on this thread defended Savage, saying that Savage writes that monogamy is advantageous for those who are capable of being monogamous, but not for many men. My position is that he’s basically playing lip service to that principle, but expresses his true feelings directly, in this New York Times quotation:

If the “someone” you’re referring to who “defended Savage” is me, that’s simply incorrect. I wrote that Savage is a proponent of “honesty in relationships”. Your quote is also misleading in that you’ve taken it out of context to support your assertion that Savage is pro-promesculity, when in fact the author of the arcle writes in the very paragraph that precedes that quote the following to forestall exactly the overly simplistic interpretation of his views you choose to advance:

Savage’s position on monogamy is frequently caricatured. He does not believe in promiscuity; indeed, his attacks on the anonymous-sex, gay-bathhouse culture were once taken as proof of a secret conservative agenda. And he does not believe that monogamy is wrong for all couples or even for most couples. Rather, he says that a more realistic sexual ethic would prize honesty, a little flexibility and, when necessary, forgiveness over absolute monogamy. And he believes nostalgically, like any good conservative, that we might look to the past for some clues.