The debate over Gay Marriage has come front and center in political debates lately, and with all of the electrons that have been spilled writing about it there is one detail that should not get lost in the shuffle. I am of course, referring to the bigotry, intolerance, and hatred of… the left.
For starters, in its most basic form the debate is over how people on one side feel that marriage is between one man and one woman, while the other side feels that marriage between two adults should be recognized regardless of gender. This is one issue where I think that both sides’ arguments have merit, although one is doing everything in its power to show its viscous, ugly side. Most leftists assume that this would describe conservatives, and sadly do not realize that it is actually themselves.
Civil Unions
Gay marriage was a subject I had never really had an opinion about until around twelve years ago when I read Jesse Ventura’s first book, “Do I Stand Alone?” Mind you, back in 2000 Jesse was still a new governor in Minnesota and a breath of fresh air in the system, not the full time conspiracy theorist he’s become today. On the issue of gay marriage he looked at both sides, and his assertion was that it was wrong to discriminate against two consenting adults from legal benefits from a system that they have paid taxes into based on their gender preference. On the other side, the term “Marriage” has an important spiritual meaning in religions practiced by many Americans, and their views should be respected as well. His solution was civil unions – granting legal rights for gay couples while still respecting the people whose religious views would be offended.
This seems like a reasonable compromise for both sides, and one that I supported then and still continue to do so. In fact, contrary to the leftist notion that conservatives are opposed to “gay rights” polls show that the majority of Conservatives as well as Republicans support civil unions. So why do I oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?
The Argument Against
I am in full agreement on the legal aspects of the concept, and while I feel that respect for religious views is important that is not my main reason for opposing gay marriage. The problem is that leftists never stop once they go down a road. Just as the civil rights movement has evolved from gaining equal rights for black Americans to maintaining a permanent underclass voting block and the feminist movement has evolved from voting rights and equal pay to whining that someone else won’t subsidize their efforts to contract Herpes or AIDS, gay marriage is not an end goal, but merely a milestone objective.
When we’re worrying about the quality of education in this country I don’t think that laws that lead to pushing schools to teach our kids about gay marriage is a good idea – personally I feel that subjects like math, science, and American history are more important. I also don’t like the idea of church-affiliated adoption agencies being pushed out of the business because they won’t place children with gay couples. I would have a problem with Catholic agencies not placing children with gay couples if there weren’t also other agencies that do, but they are not the only show in town. Personally, I think that fewer children looking for families to live with is a good thing.
I also mentioned that leftist dogma has no end point, just a continuation. When the concept of civil unions came about we were assured that it was an end point and of course all leftists respected marriage itself. Now that gay marriage is the new accepted norm (among leftists), we are assured that it will stop here, and not lead to polygamy or anything crazy like someone marrying their dog. Going back and forth with a lefty buddy of mine on FaceBook I told him to remember the conversation we just had in five years when polygamy will be seen as the newest right. I assumed that it would evolve from leftist love for acquiescence to Islamic culture, but I was wrong. The subject has already come up, and from a completely different direction.
Beliefs
Before I go any further I want to try to explain the religious aspect of the objections from the perspective of the Catholic Church to help clarify its views for any leftists reading this. First, they believe in a higher being as their creator, namely God. In layman’s terms their religion is a set of beliefs that give them a code of conduct, along with various milestones in their lives that bring them closer to God. There are seven sacraments, such as Baptism, Communion, and of course, marriage. Marriage is quite important, as it is through procreation that the human race survives. Procreation is another key element to marriage – having children is a miracle and gift from God (and yes, Catholics do take science classes and understand the biology involved). For obvious biological reasons, this part is physically impossible for a gay or lesbian couple. One other note regarding procreation – many Christians also believe that life begins when the two cells meet and a baby begins to grow. I wanted to mention this last point while we’re here, although that belongs to a separate debate.1
Or, if you’d rather hear this issue explained from a direct source, here is how San Francisco’s Archbishop Cordileone weighed in:
Meanwhile, San Francisco’s Archbishop-designate Salvatore J. Cordileone might find himself at the receiving end of leftist criticism if he does what he says he will do.
In a CNA article titled “New San Francisco archbishop vows to support marriage, immigrants”, Archbishop Cordileone affirms the Catholic Church’s support of traditional marriage:
While he said that he will need time to get to know the area, the archbishop-elect anticipates that many of the challenges he faces will deal with “issues of family life,” which are ultimately rooted in “foundational philosophical issues” about the nature of the human person and the purpose of sexuality.
“Marriage is a foundational good,” he emphasized, explaining that the Church’s stance against “gay marriage” is not discriminatory but is simply rooted in the nature and definition of marriage as an institution.
Children “can only come about through the embrace of a man and a woman coming together,” he said, adding that this necessarily limits marriage to the type of union that can bring new life into the world.
“Children deserve to have a mother and a father,” the archbishop-elect said, and so “we need to do everything we can to strengthen marriage.”
In addressing “moral challenges” involving the weakening of family life, it is important to realize that strong marriages benefit all of society, he said.
He added that there is a need to lovingly welcome those who “feel alienated from the Church” due to their sexual orientation, showing them that “our stand for marriage is not against anyone, but it’s because we believe this is foundational for the good of our society.”
In other words, Archbishop Cordileone is in agreement with Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy on the nature of marriage, specifically the definition of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman only.
Back to my leftist friends, hopefully now you see why your insistence on redefining an element of someone’s values can be found so offensive. I know you don’t agree with it – all I’m asking you to do is to understand the reasoning. This is called “tolerance”, and respect for other people’s values that may differ from your own. Or another way to put it is respecting “diversity”. If you want to consider yourself tolerant and respectful of other religions, that does not mean limiting yourself to only those religions that are followed mainly outside of the US by non-white cultures. You also need to include a people that is strange, exotic and completely foreign to you – average Americans. Now I know that taken literally my overview of the faith probably has leftist secularists chuckling at the stupidity of those knuckle dragging Christians for their backwards faith, but maybe you should look in the mirror. How many of you still follow the Global Warming Climate Change cult despite the debunked science at the heart of those beliefs? For that matter, how many of you accepted as your Lord and Savior a second rate politician back in 2008? And how many of you still worship him?
Now that we’ve covered the arguments against gay marriage, let ‘s look at this from the leftist perspective. The left’s two main arguments seem to break down to societal acceptance, and legal rights.
Acceptance
Leftists have pretty much dropped the term “gay marriage” because this accurate description doesn’t seem to resonate well with average Americans, so it is now referred to as “Marriage Rights” or “Marriage Equality”. This has a twofold purpose – 1) How many people will say that they are truly against something that involves equality or rights, and 2) it’s easier to scream down opposition as hateful bigots, since respectful, intelligent dialogue has not worked as the leftists had hoped it would. When you get down to it, the co-opting of the word marriage comes down to something more basic – societal acceptance. I have some bad news for you leftists – that’s not going to happen, at least not how you are probably envisioning it. And it’s not because conservatives are bigots, it’s because your expectations are unrealistic.
Before I go any further, let me clarify that not all conservatives are angels. There are those who are anti-gay bigots, and there is not much we can do to change that. Mind you though, opposing gay marriage itself does not equate bigotry. The people who the left should be looking for acceptance from are the open minded conservatives. Based on that ultimate goal and how the left goes about pursuing it, achieving the acceptance that leftists envision is not possible.
A few years ago the satirical newspaper, “The Onion” wrote a funny article stating that “Local Gay Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance of Gays Back 50 Years” (Images in the article are NSFW-ish). In the article they talked about over the top costumes and sexual displays that led straight onlookers to decide that they were wrong that gays were just like them and that these people are in fact deviants. And this is not homophobic either – if my town had a parade and Sister Babe and I participated with her wearing a dominatrix outfit while leading me on a leash with me shirtless and wearing cheekless leather chaps along with a mask similar to The Gimp character from the movie “Pulp Fiction” my neighbors would probably view us as a bit deviant and be less accepting of us, hetero or not.2 The article was a good piece of humorous fiction, but it brings up a valid point. A recent article on National Review’s online pages (can’t find the link – sorry for lack of better citation) asserted that you can’t say that any culture should completely accept you when you are introducing an element to it that is foreign to that culture. If you are making your presence in a community predicated on how you are defying it, expecting full acceptance is impossible. That is not to say that if you are gay you can’t be accepted in a heterosexual community, but if your goal is to spit in the face of the values of some of its members it is unrealistic to expect to be fully accepted. And for those of you who think that gay marriage is no different than interracial marriage, read my previous post where I argued in favor of gays being allowed to serve openly in the military (yes, really).
Legal Rights
If achieving state recognition of non-heterosexual relationships and affording the legal protections with it are the goal, why not take that approach? As I cited earlier the majority of Republicans and Conservatives favor civil unions, and the left would have a much easier time passing said laws since the religious element has been removed from the equation. The reason why not is where the issue starts to get ugly. To the left this issue is not about rights or legal protection. It is about achieving rights and equal protection, but only in a way that is particularly offensive to Christians. I’ve written before about the leftist need to hate, and not having a Republican president forces the left to get creative in designating a target. If this argument were framed strictly around rights that could be gained through civil unions the left would most likely have achieved it. One of the ugly sides of the leftist identity politics is the necessity of permanent victimhood. By maintaining divides in society the left is able to frame themselves as champions and protectors of their groups. Anyone who actually graduates from the victim class and achieves the success (that they didn’t build themselves, of course) and wants to be identified for who they are rather than their group’s collective grievances is seen as a sellout. If gays are granted simply the legal protection and benefits, suddenly spitting in the eye of the Catholic Church might not seem as important. And of far greater importance, not having a cause to rally around could leave this segment less likely to vote for people who need to have them as victims.
Divide
The voting aspect is key, as we’ve been seeing that the president’s realizes that he can’t run for re-election on his record. His only hope is to get his base fired up and angry, hence the manufactured “war on women”, suggesting that removing dead people from voter rolls is a return of Jim Crow, and of course, portraying support for traditional marriage as extreme anti-gay bigotry. If the general electorate is getting tired of the president’s act, he figures he can get his base angry enough to focus their anger since empty promises of hope and change have left nothing to offer but divisiveness and class warfare. And in true Alinskyite fashion, the Chick Fil A fast food chain has been chosen by the left as its latest target for demonization.
This brings us to how the left treats people who don’t share their opinions.The main reason for Chick Fil A’s being targeted is the fact in itself that Cathy is a Christian and supports Christian values in the charities it sponsors. And this also leads to another dark side – the anti-Christian bigotry of the left. Part of this comes from natural opposition on highly emotional issues – abortion and gay marriage. It also comes from basic philosophical differences, such as how one views being a part of a community. To the conservative charity is volunteering time or giving money to those in need, while to the leftist being charitable means forcing someone else to give their money to the government for redistribution. Leftists also seem to have disdain for anyone who believes in a higher power other than the state. Seeing how they’ve treated Cathy and others who share his view of marriage has been disturbing at best.
Distort
We’ve seen outright distortion of Cathy’s views. It took me all of two minutes to find how the LA Times twisted Cathy’s words with its headline, “Is Chick-fil-A anti-gay marriage? ‘Guilty as charged,’ leader says.” Actually, Cathy was only asked about his views on traditional marriage, never a word about gay marriage. Yes, I’m getting into semantics here, but the headline creates the impression that Cathy expressed a dislike for gays. Chick Fil A doesn’t discriminate against gays. They will hire and promote employees regardless of sexual orientation, and will serve any customers. There are no “Queer only” restrooms or water fountains. For the reasons stated above, being opposed to gay marriage does not make you anti-gay. To give a similar example, I am very much against rape. At the Occupy Wall Street protests among the myriad of crimes committed at them, rape was among them. Because of my strong feelings on this subject when Men’s Warehouse decided to support the OWSers I decided to stop doing business with them. While I am running my own personal boycott of Men’s Warehouse I’m not taking this to its extension of labeling anyone who supports them as being pro-rape for supporting the occupiers. And I am not citing their pro-rape stance as part of the left’s War on Women. It would sound stupid if I were thinking that way, and it’s no less stupid coming from the leftists on gay marriage.
Suppress
The assault on Chick Fil A also shows a much darker side of leftist rage – the desire to kill free speech when they disapprove of it. Out in California angry leftists staged protests trying to destroy businesses who did not support gay marriage. Back in 2009 gossip columnist Perez Hilton launched a heated attack on Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean because she held the incorrect opinion on gay marriage. Perez Hilton showed his tolerance and respect for other views by blogging that “She gave the worst answer in pageant history. “She lost because she’s a dumb b—-, okay?” For people who claim to hate bullying the left certainly likes to engage in it.
…And Back
And at the end of the day we’re already starting to see a backlash, where even the not exactly conservative publications like the Boston Globe and Chicago Sun Times are picking up on the fact that clamping down on free speech might not be such a good idea. Now the right has fired back to some degree, with Mike Huckabee organizing on Facebook a “Support Chick Fil A Day” for Wednesday, 8/1. Even thought Sister Babe and I generally don’t go out to eat during the week we might go there on general principle. We also generally don’t grab fast food, but when we do it usually is Chick Fil A. And no, it’s not because of the company leadership’s religious views. We go there because as fast food goes their food is excellent. Their places are always clean, the staff members are always pleasant, and neither of us has ever had a remotely bad experience eating there. I’ve worked in enough organizations to recognize one where the employees are treated well – you can see it in how everybody conducts themselves and interacts with their customers. Maybe there is a benefit to a company’s values being guided by Christian principles.
Not to be outdone, the lefties are proposing a Gay Makeout Day for the following day, 8/2. No, it does not look like a serious effort, and I really hope that it doesn’t happen. Aside from being obnoxious I hope that anyone thinking of trying this will realize that going out of their way to behave offensively won’t help to promote tolerance or understanding. It’s not hateful of me to want to be able to eat dinner without two guys making out in front of me. I don’t want to see two transsexuals making out in front of me while I eat, nor would I want to see two lesbians kissing, even if both chicks are totally hot. (Author’s aside to Sister Babe if she’s reading this: Just kidding Sweetie – love you!) But I’m not bigoted, as I wouldn’t want to see a heterosexual couple getting it on in front of me, either. For that matter, I’m guessing that people with families would prefer to eat in peace as well. Let’s hope that sanity prevails over leftist anger on this one.
There is hope though – Antoine Dodson, of the web famous “hide yo kids, hide yo wife” bed intruder video just put out another video, this time supporting Chick Fil A. Dodson is gay himself, and doesn’t really care who makes him a quality chicken sandwich:
“A lot of people from the gay community have been coming to me and telling me that I shouldn’t eat from Chick-fil-A, and I’m thinking like, ‘Oh my God, that’s so crazy. Why?” the openly gay man said in a video posted on YouTube yesterday. “Chick-fil-A makes good meals, and I eat there quite frequently. No one is going to stop me from eating there. If I’m going to have a Chick-fil-A sandwich, I’m going to have a Chick-fil-A sandwich.”
My advice to any leftists reading this, get over yourselves. Your support for gay marriage doesn’t make you a civil rights crusader following in Martin Luther King’s footsteps, nor does my opposition make me two holes in my bed sheet short of being a Klansman. Showing the angry, bigoted, intolerant side of your ideology that tries to scream down any dissenting opinions isn’t helping anyone. For that matter, if your serious about wanting tolerance and civility, the best way to receive it is to start showing it.
Cross Posted from Brother Bob’s Blog
1 To any Catholics or other Christians reading this, what I gave was just a “seven miles high” general overview of the faith. I’m going on my Catholic upbringing as my reference point, but having spent roughly twenty years as a Born Again Existentialist my knowledge of the faith is a bit rusty. If I completely missed any of the points please correct me in the comments but don’t rough me up too badly – any misrepresentation was purely accidental.
2 Lest anyone think I was serious, no, Sister Babe and I neither I own nor wear any outfits like the ones I described. My apologies to any readers who were eating at the time, and deeper apologies to any readers who know me personally and now had that horrific image of me scorched into their minds.
Hi Tom (#148, 149),
As I wrote, Savage pays lip service to the concept that monogamy is theoretically desirable, but reveals his true feelings when he states (as quoted in #145) that monogamy is contrary to the true nature of men.
This is not a “caricature.” It’s a quote. I’ve heard Savage hold forth verbally, as I’m sure that you have. The above quote is an accurate representation of his views, and it’s antithetical to a bedrock principle of marriage. Savage doesn’t understand the intrinsic inequality of male/female relationships (as opposed to male/male relationships). He feels that spouses in traditional marriages should have the same enlightened attitudes with regard to “open marriage” that gays have in their relationships.
With regard to most of your other comments, I’ve addressed these before (including the real world data indicating that gay marriage does indeed pose a threat to traditional marriage, whatever the theoretical expectations):
With regard to the following thoughtful question:
Can we begin by agreeing on the obvious: A relationship between a man and a woman is different from a relationship between two men or between two women? I could expound on this, but the differences are so obvious that doing so would waste both my time and yours. So if the relationships are different, what on earth is the problem with honestly calling them by different names? Briefs/Panties. Shirt/Blouse. Caballeros/Damas Boyfriend/Girlfriend. Marriage/Twainaige [or whatever]
Fidelity statistics in gay marriage aren’t yet completely robust, because it’s such a new phenomenon. But the views of Savage (above) reflect the reality of the expectations of a man in a gay relationship and they are antithetical to the expectations of couples in traditional marriages. Gay culture has had an impact on the broad national culture which is disproportionate to the numbers of gays in the national population. Gays are, for example, disproportionately represented in the popular entertainment media, in screen writing as well as in performing. These people have a big microphone.
Can you think of a single television program or movie which presented adultery in traditional marriage in anything other than a very unfavorable light? Can you think of an episode which glorified marital infidelity or used it to generate a laugh (other than caricatures of politicians caught with their pants down)? Did you see “Sex in the City 2”? There’s a long gay marriage scene in which the newly married couple is already preparing for the marital infidelity certain to come and turning it into a laugh line. This is a small preview of things to come.
The fact is that traditional marriage works, precisely because it is a very big deal and because monogamy isn’t merely the ideal; monogamy is expected. In “twainaige,” there might well be less of an expectation of fidelity — perhaps even rightly so, if you agree with the views of Savage and many other gays. But the word “marriage” would retain its association with fidelity as a bedrock principle, which is almost always essential to the success of the inherently unequal man/woman relationship, often involving children.
I would at least like you to acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons to be in political opposition to official government recognition of same sex marriage (under the term “marriage”) which have nothing whatsoever to do with bigotry or homophobia.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Thanks for elaborating. My concern with this solution is I fear we’d be entering “seperate but equal” territory. These two institutions would be inherently unequal due to the reasons driving the conception of twainage, namely the belief that marriage must be protected from those who would be relegated to twainage. This would be two different things, and one would be born with a stigma attached.
Thankfully, I have not. 🙂
I think there’s a sense that with homosexuals, their sexuality is always in your face and on view. That hasn’t been my experience. Think of the times you spend with people, say people you work with, and how frequently you think about their private lives. On a day to day basis, I don’t think it’s an issue. A Sex in the City depiction of gay life is probably about as accurate as using the Dark Knight to explain how moody millionaires really behave. I understand that you’re saying that it’s the depiction that counts, accurate or not, but I also think we have to give people credit that they can tell the difference between fact and fiction.
I agree. If you believe I’ve implied that you are a bigot, I will clear that up right now and state that I don’t believe that is the case. I do however believe there are people who are motivated by bigotry in this debate, although they rarely come out and say that. And that’s a real problem because it leads to people shopping for “facts” and “studies” to build a case for an opinion that’s already set in stone, not the other way around. And there’s a line that a bigot never sees when he crosses, but that is very clear to you or I, the line where the data stops being about marriage and starts being about moral judgements about gay people, or even criminal accusations. You know you’re way past that line when the equating of gay people with child molesters gets trotted out.
@Ditto:
Science has outed you? Is that the problem?
@Brian Miller:
Project much? When did you stop molesting children? How long have you been having sex with animals? Why haven’t you informed your partners of all the sexual diseases you’re carrying?
We can keep up such ad hominem attacks with trolls like you, but they are nothing more than distractions from reasonable discussion of the issue.
Poor insecure Ditto, like Rush, women and gays are so scary.
Science outs you so you project big time. What are you so afraid of? Most people close to you probbaly already know…..
@Brian Miller:
That’s the best you can do?
“Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha…!”
What a worthless, pathetic troll you make. Goodbye putz.
“Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha…!”
@Ditto:
Yes, the truth is all I have, and you have your closet.
I like how you put quotation marks around your own laughter, even there you have to put on some sort of front, can’t even be open with your laughter.
@Tom:
You said:
“People who are denied the right to marriage are also denied the befits of the institution”
Who are these people you are talking about that are denied the right to marriage under the same rules as guidelines that apply to everyone equally? And what benefits of the institution are you talking about?
Then you said:
How can a couple be as faithful as a married couple if they can’t marry?”
How can they not marry? And are you saying that fidelity can only present if there is approval from a goverment agency?
@retire05:
I think we played this string out already. In another life perhaps, or earlier on this thread.
No I am not saying that obviously. Does being willfully obtuse bring you pleasure?
@Tom:
I was very specific in my questions directed toward you since you have a very nasty habit of dodging questions or trying to twist their meaning. And again, just like clockwork, you refer back to a previous post, avoiding answering the questions.
My purpose was to make you claify exactly who, and what, you were talking about.
Obfuscation seems to be your m.o.
You also need to thank your fellow supporter of giving sodomites “marraige” rights as the link he provided also had an article that explained your “gaydar.”
Like nowadays, we had a Mexicans in our public school in the 1950’s and 60’s.
I learned from them that, in those days, in Mexico, only Catholics could legally marry!
All the Protestants, the Jews, the agnostics, the atheists, the primitivists and others were not given any of the legal rights given to married Catholics.
But, back then, fidelity was a highly prized thing in Mexican culture.
Whether legally wed or not these couples stayed together til death.
@retire05:
Is it my responsibility to educate you on contemporary culture or on word definitions that are easily accessed through the use of Google? You have a computer. Use it. I don’t think I’ve ever asked someone in an online debate to define the meaning of a word or a term. The fact you are unfamiliar with this term, yet fancy yourself an expert on this topic is interesting however.
@Tom:
More spin from you. I never asked you to define “gaydar”, nor did I say I was unfamiliar with the term. I asked you to explain to me how it works. You gave some b/s answer about two men holding hands. How does that apply to someone in the workplace? Bottom line, it doesn’t yet you said your “gaydar” did not work at the workplace. So tell us, how does it work or is that another question above your pay grade?
@retire05:
I don’t know how it works. Intuition perhaps? Context clues? Even fashion, sometimes? I do not believe there is a scientific consensus, but you might find this edifying. Obviously the term was used facetiously, but since you’re so deathly serious about my usage, perhaps the fact I spend time around gays and treat them like human beings has made me egotistical enough to think i know a little something about them.
Since we’re playing 20 questions, how do you decide who gets cast into Hell for all eternity? Doesn’t that responsibility weigh on you?
@Tom:
B.S. The problem would seem to be Tom that you are incapable of coherently putting two thoughts together. When others press you, as they should, about your repetitive failure almost invariably you resort to ad hominem attack.
I’d wager that you don’t answer because you can not answer. Based upon my reading of what you post I’d expect that you can not answer because you are woefully uninformed and because you lack critical thinking skills.
@Mike O’Malley:
And how would one explain your continued inability to respond to multiple requests for the data underlying these statements? How many days has it been, Mike? How many times have I asked you?
@Tom:
How hard you try to twist what people say. Is that because you are insecure in your own position?
How do I decide who gets cast in Hell for all eternity? I don’t. It is above my pay grade. But where have I argued my position from a religious stance? You see, I haven’t but in order for you to attack me personally, you have to pretend I did. That is blatantly dishonest on your part.
What is obvious is that you choose to ignore the studies done on gay relationships. They are usually short term (less than 5 years), are not monogamous, often are careless when it comes to a life threatening disease, and a higher percentage of gay men were sexually molested as children as compared to heterosexual men. What’s not to support in those traits? And unless you are a divorce attorney, nobody wins by allowing gays to redefine the limitations on marriage in this nation.
@retire05:
You called me ‘bigot’ multiple times because I didn’t explain how ‘gaydar’ works, so get off the high horse.
Is that what this is about, divorce? As for “redefining” marriage, straight people already did that. 40-50% of all marriages in the US will end in divorce. And it’s not gays driving that trend as the divorce rate is highest in the bible belt and lowest in the Northeast, including low rates in gay marriage states like Massachusetts. So what exactly again are you protecting?
@Tom:
I called you a bigot because of your “gaydar” comment which I found insulting. It assumes that gays do not dress or act like heterosexuals. Not all gays are the Hollywood version of Charlie Brown’s wannabes.
The stats on gay marriage are not really out there yet, but what IS known is that of the original six gay couples that married in Massachusetts, four of them were divorced within a couple of years. What percentage does that make? Approx. 67%.
You also pointed out that the divorce rate was higher in the Bible Belt but lower in the Northeast. Why did you not also include the fact that the marriage rate is higher in the Bible Belt than in the Northeast? And you accuse others of cherry picking? Hilarious!
What am I protecting? Survival of the species.
@retire05:
This is different. I’m actually curious. Please elaborate.
@retire05:
For that matter inter-racial marriage rates are notably higher in the Bible Belt than in the secular Northeast.
But you knew the rap:
Bible Belt = bitter clingers = white supremacists
@Tom:
Dude you received substantive (if unwelcome) answers to your question from others and myself in this discussion threat.
@Mike O’Malley:
Sure. But just assume I’m forgetful and show me exactly where you substantiated those statements. Or just admit you can’t.
@Mike O’Malley:
That’s a rap?
So, Mike, you have so much time for writing embarrassing drivel like the above, but so little time for providing evidence for the so-called factual statements you make. Care to explain why?
@Tom:
A coalition of interests conducted the long assault on traditional marriage in America. That assault began in the 1950’s and was funded by several powerful Foundations. The Progressive-left Rockefeller Foundation financed much of the earliest “research”. Sex research that could be fairly ascribed to homosexual rights activists. Moreover as the population control movement’s agenda was advanced in the 1960’s, the Progressive-left Rockefeller Foundation, one of the foundations that generously funded the assault on traditional marriage in to USA, came under the sway of several Lesbian heiresses to the Rockefeller fortune. Granddaughters of Rockefeller, these lesbian heiresses had an interest in this particular Progressive-project. White supremacists were a part of the coalition too. They supplied significant funding to the effort because, like Margaret Sanger, they too desired to cull the herd of surplus Black children. As they do today. Sadly, this is American racism at its worst!
Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America
@Mike O’Malley:
That’s fascinating, Mike. I guess you would almost have no choice but to despise gay people and their allies, if that were true. You’re also obviously a committed friend of the black race if that were true, since you’ve made them aware that racist gay people are attempting to kill their children.
@Richard Wheeler: Do the math Rich.
What is YOUR source for saying 30% of the male population is gay?
According to the cite that Nan G. first posted, and which I referenced, if what you say is correct, then there are thousands of gay males.
Exactly how did you arrive at your data?
Anecdotally?
@Brian Miller: You said:
You imply that someone is gay like it is a bad thing, Brian…
Who’s afraid now?
@Tom:
If anything is fascinating it was the actual reaction of radical Black activists to the Population Control Movement in the 1960s and 1970s. The White led Population Control Movement feared the reaction of three domestic American groups to their project. One of those three groups were the radical Black civil-rights activists who indeed accused the White lead Population Control Movement of conducting some kind of war of racist genocide against Black Americans. What the White leaders and financiers of the Population Control Movement invariably found however was that radical Black activists had no actual interest in resisting or even awakening the African American Community to the racialist goals of Planned Parenthood and such. They found invariably that radical Black activists of the 1960s and 1970s were looking for funding, for financial payoff. Radical Black activists of the 1960s and 1970’s were in effect Mau-Mauing the White Power Structure for cash!
This pattern of behavior continues to this day.
Mike O’Malley
hi,
yes, that ‘s where we are, and the worst time, where the great DIVIDE is digging deeper, if we don’t rally behind MITT ROMNEY, who will give the people a good tip to get together, that is with a job unification targeting any way to start the people on a beneficial move to save itself from destructible entitlements
which now paralyze any action to get out from it,
yes coming so ever closer, it’s THE PEOPLE TIME to vote OUT the one who impose
their dangerous COMMUNIST AGENDA, and step in to a bless future as a UNITE AMERICA,
AS SHE WAS MEANT TO BE AT HER BEGINNING , WITH THE BEST LAWS OF THE WORLD,
THEY NOW ARE TRYING TO CHANGE IF THIS OBAMA REGIME IS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE,
AMERICA THE PEOPLE!!!! YOU HAVE THE ULTIMATUM RESPONSIBILITY TO CHANGE THIS GOVERNMENT OF SELF CENTER DESTRUCTIVE OF THE BEST YOU HAVE AND WHAT THE FRAMERS
WITH GREAT LOVE AND WISDOM WROTE THE CONSTITUTION, NOT A LIVING DOCUMENT BUT A FOREVER UNTOUCHABLE LAW WHICH AD SURVIVED THESE CENTURIES.
THE TASK IS NOW TO THE PEOPLE, AND YOUR LAST CHANCE TO CORRECT THE WRONG.
MITT ROMNEY WILL GET THE GOOD PART IN ,
YOU AMERICANS, YOUR JOB IS TO VOTE,
Anticsrocks Round #’s L.B. pop. 25,000. Males 12,500 adult males 8,500x .25% 2125 APPROX # of ADULT MALES idendifying as homosexual. Just my estimate from living and working as a realtor in 80’s and 90’s in Laguna Beach.Haven’t seen any statistics that would indicate otherwise.
@Richard Wheeler:
And should we expect that you have not seen any statistics supporting your … err … hunch … either?
Mike Not having an extensive dewey decimiled private library like yourself I must go with what I’ve personally witnessed in over 20 years of living and working side by side with the populace of this community.
@Richard Wheeler:
in 80′s and 90′s …
Back in the 70s and 80s there was an unusual dense cluster of African American transvestites living in the neighborhood along Elizabeth Avenue in Newark, New Jersey. That too was decades ago and that too was likely to be not representative of any national distributions of transvestites in American society. And the source for my information was personnel of a state health agency that served that population, not error prone personal observation.
@anticsrocks:
“anticsrocks says: 178
@Brian Miller: You said:
Most people close to you probbaly already know…..
You imply that someone is gay like it is a bad thing, Brian…”
No, I never implied that, it’s your typical lying projection, being in the closet and a self-hater is a bad thing. So is poor reading comprehension.
“Who’s afraid now?”
Ummmm….the self-hater who is in the closet…..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120406234458.htm
Mike I currently own a home in San Clemente, another incredibly beautiful So. Cal community. Bordering Camp Pendleton to the south and and including the former Western White House, a much more Conservative, very Marine Corps friendly populace. I’ m in Laguna Beach often.Demographics haven’t changed much over the last 15 years. Both communities are fantastic.
One sobering reflection The AIDS epidemic hit Laguna Beach very hard in the 90’s. I knew many who died. In Laguna Beach at least, the gay lifestyle was forever altered.
re 187 Spent early childhood in Queens which is as close as I want to get to Newark. Other than the airport. LOL
Semper Fi
@Richard Wheeler:
Beautiful San Clemente, you say? And you spent two decades in real estate? Then you will not need my advice about not relocating to Newark, New Jersey. 😉
Enjoy!
@Richard Wheeler:
You mean Black transvestites don’t you? 😉
Naugh, it was a married co-worker who had that particular voyeuristic interest. He had a tendency to walk a bit closer to the wild side than was prudent for a married man with kids …
@Richard Wheeler:
The Newark Museum and the Balantine House are well worth a visit. Other than that there are a couple of good schools in Newark, such as Seton Hall Law School, and the Budweiser brewery, and a cool new Mayor who seems unlikely to spend time in federal prison. Other than that … I don’t think the Italian Mafia has disposed of a body in a trunk of a car parked around Doremus Avenue for a while …
@Richard Wheeler:
I used to spend holidays a couple of times a years at family get togethers with gay friends of a gay in-law. One by one they succumbed to AIDS. Good lord, it is sad thinking about it now. One pleasant fellow succumbed within six of contracting AIDS around two years before NYC health authorities even began to suspect there was a unknown epidemic in the New York’s gay community. Gheez! One by one, what a loss.
@Mike O’Malley:
Long Beach was (and still is) hit hard by the AIDS epidemic.
We saw neighbor after neighbor sicken and die from it.
One guy, now in his early 60’s is dying of it currently.
All the meds and all the advice fell on deaf ears for this guy.
I visited with him yesterday.
He was a big guy, over 200 pounds.
Now he’s under 100 pounds.
All his homeless street punk men are hanging around like vultures to steal all his stuff before his family comes out to get it from Texas.
They’ve even made copies of his house keys so they can clean him out.
Sickeningly, they are mere months behind him in their own downward trajectory of HIV.
Hi Nan, Great post. Why isn’t stuff like this ever depicted in popular culture media? It’s compelling human drama and tragedy. And then there is the epidemic of HPV-transmitted oral cancer. And hepatitis. And herpes. And the comeback of syphilis. And drug resistant gonorrhea. There is all this mass denial going on. Peer-reviewed studies have shown that there may be a greater risk of HIV transmission in so called “committed” gay relationships, because of a false sense of security that safe sexual practices don’t need to be observed in these relationships, contrasted with ostensibly more risky casual sex.
I don’t like the popular culture glorification of premarital straight sex, nor do I like the promotion of the concept that gay sex has now been rendered relatively risk free, simply because we have anti-retroviral drugs which only slow disease progression, but which do not cure nor reliably render the patient to be non-infectious.
We haven’t discussed the Boy Scout issue, but I view the latter in public health terms, which again puts me at odds with the position of many (but far from all) Democrats.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@Richard Wheeler: I didn’t think you had any hard stats to back up your claim. Thanks for being honest about it, Rich.
Odd isn’t it? I mean there have been times in the past when you have called into question numbers and stats that those of us on the right have provided, yet when it comes to you being able to make your point, it seems that you follow a different standard.
It would foster a better conversation if you would adhere to the same standards that you hold others to.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Good post, Larry.
Your public health-oriented approach reminded me of my moms.
She was a nurse practitioner when HIV/AIDS first was ID’ed as a blood-transmitted as well as a sexually transmitted disease.
She wrote a strong letter to the editor of many papers and magazines, even public health officials trying to get the old-fashioned quarantine put in place to contain the spread of HIV/AIDS.
At the time, if you recall, gays were really into openly expressing their rights.
They did not want any stigma like a disease that put them in a ward, like TB.
So, the public health lost and Political Correctness had one of its first big ”wins.”
Turned out it was a Phryrric victory. (sp?)
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
“Why isn’t stuff like this even depicted in popular media culture?”
Simple, Larry; the reality of HIV/AIDs, which is avoidable, is not pretty and would not shine a favorable light on the homosexual life style. Two movies, both released in 1993, touched on the disaster that is HIV/AIDs. And The Band Played On showed some of the dark side when Bill Krause, himself a “gay” activist, tried to close down the San Francisco bath houses where gays went to have sex with multiple partners, often not even knowing the name of the sexual partner. Krause was labeled the gay “Hitler” by those who used the bath houses for highly promiscuous sexual encounters as recreation, not for any meaningful relationship. But it did not touch on the horrors of dying from HIV/AIDs.
Philidelphia was another movie that dealt with HIV/AIDs and although the screen writer was himself a homosexual, made the tragedy of the movie the loss of a job due to bigotry, not the ensuing horrible death caused by the disease. Again, it only touched on the homosexual “life style” briefly when Tom Hanks testifies that he contracted the disease from a chance encounter with an unknown person in a pornographic movie theater.
What bothers me is how the studies are ignored that have been done on child molestation that shows homosexual men were sexually molested as a child by (according to one study) 40% compared to the 4% in heterosexual men. Phychiatrists make the claim that those children were fractured in their sexual development by the abuse, and instead of trying to get them help, we allow them to remain fractured, which also contributes to the highly promiscuous activities. It is the same as when a capitive becomes sympathetic to their captor. Sorry, Larry, I forgot the name of that syndrome.
Then there was the alarming discovery of “barebacking” that was brought to the attention of the CDC around 2007. I find it absurd in this day and age of modern communications that some would think that simple medication would allow people to live normal lives once they contracted HIV/AIDs and willfully sought out contracting the disease. No well adjusted person would willfully seek out contracting cancer.
http://aids.about.com/od/safesexresources/a/barebacking.htm
And let’s not forget the militant way the gay “lobby” demanded that homosexuality be removed from the list of mental disorders or the real reason that created the event that brought about Lawrence vs. Texas.
To be honest about how events came about, you see, is politically incorrect.
@Brian Miller: You said:
Okay Einstein, what exactly was this? Because it sure seems like you are calling Ditto a homosexual. Here is what you said, emphasis mine:
You called Ditto insecure and said that he was like Rush who is afraid of women and homosexuals. Since you neglected to give a last name, we are left to assume that you are referring to Rush Limbaugh. Now exactly how you have come to possess intimate knowledge of Rush to the point that you are aware of who or what he is afraid of is also left out of your statement.
Then you said that science outed Ditto. So we are to believe that in some laboratory somewhere, a group of scientists have been toiling away on being able to “out” someone on the internet that posts on a Conservative forum and uses the screen name “Ditto.”
Pretty much looks like you called Ditto gay, then you said he was afraid of women AND gay people. Basically your insulting skills really need some work.
Besides all that, I really tried to see this from your point of view, but I just couldn’t get my head that far up my ass. (FYI, that is how you insult someone.)
What you ought to do is turn of your computer for once, go upstairs out of your Mom’s basement, borrow her car keys and get out once in a while.
It can do you nothing but good.
@anticsrocks:
…..hit a nerve….
The study is the first to document the role that both parenting and sexual orientation play in the formation of intense and visceral fear of homosexuals, including self-reported homophobic attitudes, discriminatory bias, implicit hostility towards gays, and endorsement of anti-gay policies.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120406234458.htm
@Brian Miller: I decided to address the psychological study you cited in a separate comment.
Also, I typed slowly to make it easier for you to follow along.
First of all, since the study is limited to college students – and a very small sampling, at that – it leaves more questions unanswered than it answers.
Secondly, even assuming it is accurate, and again, given it’s small sampling size it cannot be called accurate; the study only reflects a small, narrowly defined segment of the population that are labeled homophobic. It does not mean that all people who do not like homosexual behavior are secretly, knowingly or in any way homosexual themselves. What the study says is that SOME people who are homophobic MIGHT be hostile to gay people because they have homosexual tendencies themselves.
It would be nice to have a link to the actual study, and not some article about it. I cannot comment on the exact numbers they arrived at, or the methods they used. The article describes some of the methods in layman terms, but the study itself would be much more helpful.
LOL, and to think you accused me of poor reading comprehension. Ha!
Anticsrocks One can always question someone else’s opinion. Wouldn’t you agree?
@anticsrocks:
See, that’s why I included the link. Glad you figured it out.
More info from the study that you can deny-
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/102/4/815/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22288529