Nope. Harsh language is out as well, as the whole storm-in-a-thimble crap about Psyops making fun of the Religion of Pee in Ashcanistan proves.

"I won't join Tarranto in his suggestion that maybe Sullivan has a less-than-thorough appreciation for the female body and its reproductive cycle."

Oh, I will. DAMN. Taranto (one R, Ace) took an f'ing sledgehammer to Andy there. Low blow? Sure. But c'mon, Andy brings it on himself.

Seriously, will the "I used to remember when Andrew Sullivan was kinda cool" meme *ever* get old? That's the ultimate dis. It's worked on rock bands for decades, and now, it's fun to employ on histrionic-prone bloggers, too.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

P.S. Was there a worse decision by Lieutenant Gorman than to collect that ammunition? After all, once the smart guns were employed, the reactor didn't get damaged-- it took the dropship crash to do that. In the meantime, the flame units just created obscuring smoke, which was an obvious "duh" moment (you're in-fucking-doors, people).

But, again, how come none of the Marines spoke up beforehand? Didn't anyone realize they were descending into a reactor complex? I blame Hudson for not reading a schematic right-- really shitty FRAG order they had there.

We've completely neglected the one (still approved) method of psychological pressure... The Comfy Chair

(After all, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition)

the spanish inquisition!

yeah, that was my first thought too. harsh language is out as well.

interseting though is that the same people who are so vehement that ANY kind of coercion is out are the same peopl ewho are claiming that they should now be released. after all, they surely have gotten all of the intel out of them by now.

and i do think the exploding rounds vasquez and frost used were what damaged the reactor. the drop ship went down in that.... field. they should have withdrawn until they found a different viable weapon.

rats. it was vasquez and drake. not frost, that rock-n-rolled.

Chalk up one more vote of approval for Taranto's spot-on calling out of Sully's hysterical squeamishness about the v'jayjay. This is highly common (though not universal) among gay men - many if not most of them view the idea of going down on a woman with a revulsion roughly equivalent to how most heterosexual males view the idea of giving a guy a rimjob.

And yes, in Sully's view harsh language is out too. Look how approvingly he talks about how Israeli interrogators win over their prisoners by patiently discussing the Koran with them and gaining their trust. How civilized; how reasonable; how sophisticated.

What a douche. Sometimes talking nice-nice just won't do the trick; when that happens, bring on the fake blood - hell, bring on the real blood; the pigskin; I'll pee on a few Korans myself if that's what it takes. These animals need to be defeated and humiliated; any attempts at bargaining with them so far have just encouraged them to step up the pressure until they get more concessions.

"His blog now consists largely of post after post bewailing the "torture" and "abuse" of the enemy," Taranto writes.

Andrew Sullivan turned the corner when he joined the Left's first shreiking criticism of the invasion: The outrage for allowing the looting of Iraq's museum.

Remember that hullabaloo? Those assholes making a big deal of the supposed museum looting while our soldiers were dying by the handful. Fuck Andy and the guy he rode in on.

"many if not most of them view the idea of going down on a woman with a revulsion roughly equivalent to how most heterosexual males view the idea of giving a guy a rimjob."

Wait-- you can go down on a woman???

Huh.

Does bbeck know this?

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Before the internet, I never knew what a rimjob was. Thanks, Algore, for taking my innocence.

Of course this revulsion stems from Andy's hatred for his mother for not protecting him from his evil father. Andy acts out his hatred for his father by doing exactly what would make his father disgusted and disappointed.

I mean, why else would a man want to penetrate another man's anus., (or vice-versa) What could possibly be another motive?

Two points:
1) No, the complaint doesn't arise from actually objecting to torture. Rather, the complaint stems from objecting to anything that actually works. Because if it works, that might help Bush win, and then we'd never get the basic human right of homosexual marriage imposed by judicial fiat, you know.
2) If, as terrorist apologists insist, we shouldn't blame Islam for these terrorists because they don't really represent true Islam, then why should they still get the protection from Muslim belief? (Idea stolen from someone else).
Well, I actually have the answer: of course, Muslims who don't intend to engage in Jihad want to distance themselves from those who use violence...but the truth is that if someone follows the Five Pillars, no one can say they aren't Muslim. In fact, no one can say they are even bad Muslims. The Islam religion deals with theology not in the marketplace of ideas, but the battlefield of ideas. The winning side must have had Allah's support, and so must be right.
It's why we need to kill all the terrorists, or coerce them to recant, even if we have to use fake menstrual blood.. Period (pun intended).

Taranto's a hack. He could have ripped Sullivan any number of ways for his torture posts, but instead went in the lamest direction possible -- essentially accusing him of being afraid of cooties. He might as well have accused him of having AIDS-related dementia, too. Fucking hack.

If he wasn't such a hack, he would have made the point Ace makes. Sullivan now seems to equate "torture" with any form of religious humiliation. That's pathetic enough in itself; but what really pushes Andy into scumbag territory is that he justifies his position mainly on dignitary grounds. It would be one thing if he disapproved of humiliating terrorists because it might cause a backlash among Muslims and endanger our guys in Iraq. But he seldom comes at it from that angle. His big problem with it is that it's corrupted America's "soul" or whatever -- irreparably, in fact, according to his latest post. Which makes him ten times the hack Taranto is.

As I've said before, the freak-out advisory really doesn't capture the essence of Sullivan. It's not so much that he's constantly nauseated or appalled; it's that he's constantly demoralized. If an institution with which he's allied (America, say, or the Church) doesn't behave in precise accordance with his own set of values, he can't simply denounce it. He obsesses about it, declares its moral authority in mortal jeopardy, and eventually ends up threatening schism. It's the end of the world 24-7, and all harm, whatever the nature, is "irreparable." Fucking, fucking, fucking hack.

Bart: Fuck Andy and the guy he rode in on.

LOL. Thanks for making my Saturday at work a little more bearable.

I didn't mean it literally, of course, Retread.

Ha!
I'm here all weekend. Try the veal, it's de-lish. Goodnight, everyone.

If you want to read something really funny...

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/10/21/Southpinellas/Driver_in_fatal_accid.shtml

So Allah, would it be your contention that Andrew Sullivan is, in fact, a hack?

I'm still fuzzy on this whole "hack" thing.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Dave -- Would it be your contention that Taranto isn't?

Dave -- Would it be your contention that Taranto isn't?

Isn't that his whole format - using snarky, surface-level criticisms and going for the cheap conservative laugh? It seems like it's his job description. I don't think you can claim surprise when his writing and analysis exactly match his column's intended style.

Cheap laughs, yeah. But I don't know whether he intends for his criticism to be "surface-level." I think it just ends up that way.

A thumbnail psychoanalysis of Sullivan would have been fine (although still dumb) if he had gone on to make Ace's more substantive point. Humor in the service of, or as a garnish to, serious argument is always welcome. But he didn't. It's like ordering an entree and having the waiter bring you a single sprig of parsley.

A matter of expectations, I suppose. Taranto does go for the deeper point occasionally, but in a "Best of" type column, I think grabbing the lowest hanging fruit (as it were) is SOP.

"I mean, why else would a man want to penetrate another man's anus., (or vice-versa) What could possibly be another motive?"

From what my gay friends tell me, I think you're getting this backwards. The orientation towards one's own sex starts as more of an emotional than physical thing - especially for those who realize before puberty that "all is not well down below," as one friend put it.

After that's in place, I guess you just work with the equipment you have.

In other words, to answer your question directly, if gay men had vaginas they'd gladly fuck each other in those. If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass a-hoppin'.

Does that clear things up a little?

I admit that what Taranto wrote was a cheap shot.

But I enjoyed it, all the same.

I'll admit that I thought Taranto was taking a bit of a cheap shot when he went after Andy for teh ghey thing, but Lord, his act is getting old. Allah summed it up pretty well, particularly the suicidal Euro-trendy notion that acting forcefully to defend our interests somehow cheapens America's "soul."

Yeah, it's become a cliche, but there was a time when I really did like Sullivan. Back around the same time I thought Springsteen was cool, as I recall. One of these days, after I get around to giving my bathroom grout the really serious disinfecting it so desperately needs, I'm going to have to go back and look through some old issues of TNR and see if he was always this pathetic.

Knemon, it's obvious we have a fundamental disagreement. You seem to believe that people are born, or "wired," gay, whereas I believe homosexuality is sympton of a deep rooted pathology in one's self that goes back to childhood.

Homosexual men with magically appearing vaginas would change everything about homosexuality as we know it. Everyone knows the homosexual world revolves around the penis. Penis. Penis. Penis. Haven't you ever seen the gay pride parades?

Seriously, though, a vagina is the anti-queer. No, I really believe the motives of engaging in homoseual activity are rooted in disconnection between a male authority figure and a boy.

I'm not one to deign to have knowledge of what "causes" homosexuality, but I've been around enough gay men to know that gay sexual attraction is more than just an accommodation to emotional attachment.

"You seem to believe that people are born, or "wired," gay, whereas I believe homosexuality is sympton of a deep rooted pathology in one's self that goes back to childhood."

I don't see the relevance of the origin. If it's "rooted in childhood", quirks of genetics, or hormonal imbalance within the womb, or response to intra-family dynamic, or ... whatever ...

... whatever the origin, what does that have to do with my earlier post?

In fact, you contradict yourself - at one point you say it's a complicated psychological dealie, the next minute it's an obsession with "penis. penis. penis."

You could turn this around - doesn't the *hetero*sexual male world revolve around the vagina. Vagina. Vagina Vagina? Haven't you ever seen Spring Break on MTV?

I'm phsyically drawn to the ladies. (Well, just the one, now. Don't want Mrs. Knemon getting the wrong idea).

I also am emotionally/romantically drawn to them, in the sense that I can't imagine being in a "relationship" with another man. Drinking buddy, sure. Trying to keep house and raise a family? Uh, no. I wouldn't trust most of my male friends to look after my *car* for a week.

I've always assumed that both factors are also at work with homosexuals - because they're complicated human beings, but more specifically because that's what they tell me.

*

Just out of curiosity, have you discussed this with actual, real live homosexuals? Because they can give you better answers than me. I'm not even a *metro*sexual. That would require shaving more often and wearing more than 2 different shirts.

Seriously, though, you're probably right that this comes down to fundamental disagreements in world view. Just another one of those paleo/South Park splits that isn't going away any time soon.

There is a serious point in Taranto's low blow. Fear of women and their cooties is a noticeable part of the psychology of jihadis and apparently their apologists. Sure it's a low blow, but if it gets Andy to shut up about fake menstrual blood, it will all have been worth it.

Look at the James Smith character (how long did Eszterhas work on thinking up that name?) in Showgirls. "Baby, I got towels." Now there's a man. We wouldn't be in this stupid war if the Middle East had more James Smiths, who represents the noblest of Western ideals: complete comfort with strong sexually independent women like Nomi Malone, even when they're menstruating.

Fear of women and their cooties are what's driving Islamic radicalism. Look at Mohammed Atta's priorities, shaving and scrubbing his body and his final instructions that no women should touch his body after he died. Presumably, he wanted his body to be uncontaminated by women so that he could be pure when he finally gets to bang 72 women at once in the afterlife. Not only are these 72 women cootie-free and don't menstruate, but they are kind and will tell him how much they appreciate his preparations for their big date and how clean and hairless and handsome he is. They won't even mention the steering yoke sticking out of his fucking head and all the glass and aluminum shards poking out of his skin.

I say give these guys in Guantanamo the Carrie treatment. Buckets of pigs blood. If Andy still complains, then we'll know Taranto is wrong.

The penis penis penis remark was tongue-in-cheek. But there is no contradiction there. As I stated earlier, the homosexual man wants to hurt his father in the worst way possible. What better way to hurt a father than for his son to be loving another man's piss-pump and being anally penetrated by a guy wearing a leather vest and lipstick?

I do know several homos, but no I haven't discussed the details of queer life with them. I would like to, but I truly feel sorry for these chaps and would find it difficult to upset them any further.

They, like all people, just want to be loved and accepted. I got no problem with that. But I do have a problem with normalizing sexual deviant behavior. Up until about 30 years ago, the AMA agreed with me, until they got all PC. Heck, they don't acknowledge how harmful homosexual sex is, anymore.

"tongue-in-cheek."

This conversation keeps getting dirtier, huh? Heh.

*

"I do know several homos, but no I haven't discussed the details of queer life with them."

I'm not saying you have to ask them to rate the different types of lubricant or anything. I meant more along the lines of our earlier discussion: "Which came first, your physical attraction to other dudes, or the emotional one?"

I realize this is not the type of thing most straight men, let alone most conservative straight men, really want to spend their time talking about.

Most of my info is coming from friends who happen to be gay, so when we run out of other stuff to talk about, eventually this comes up.

Do you have any gay relatives? I mean, of course you do, because everyone does. Let me rephrase that: do you have any openly gay relatives you're on good enough terms to ask about it?

*

"Heck, they don't acknowledge how harmful homosexual sex is, anymore."

Homosexual sex isn't harmful per se.
Promiscuous (male, anal) homosexual sex is more harmful than promiscious (vaginal) heterosexual sex, for obvious phsyical reasons.

And, boys being boys, whether straight or gay, lots of male homsexual sex is of the fleeting, frantic kind.

Lefties won't admit there's any problem at all there. Righties won't admit there's any solution other than Exodus Ministries aversion therapy stuff.

Encouraging committment and monogamy as a moral norm regardless of orientation would seem to me to be the way out of this societal impasse - but that's what makes me a RINO. Still, half a loaf is better than none, to my way of thinking.

*

ps - if you do ask them about this kind of stuff, you should probably keep the "piss-pump" stuff in check. Many gay men do have a great sense of humor about this stuff, but in these days of PC lawsuits you can never be too careful.

Here is a very good, dispassionate analysis of how homosexual activists used modern psychological marketing techniques to make it practically impossible to oppose them. The first chapter mentions the same thing Bart does, which is how homosexuality got declassified as a mental illness by the APA.

Almost no one knows about the book that laid this campaign out, but everyone should. After the ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s was written by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, both gay activists and Harvard educated social scientists, who admit the following:

We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay--even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence. [...] To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labeled 'moral choices and sin' and give the religious intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it."

As for my "cred," I've got two homosexual cousins. They're brother and sister, their father was absent for most of their lives, their mother was overbearing (in a Jewish family - imagine that,) and at least one of them was sexually abused at a young age, even though he probably doesn't call it abuse.

You'll find a similar pattern of family and childhood dysfunction in most gay people's lives, particularly gay men.

"You'll find a similar pattern of family and childhood dysfunction in most gay people's lives, particularly gay men."

Not the ones I know.

I'm sure that homosexuality *can* be caused, or triggered, or whatever, by such.

But there are way too many cases where you can't identify such causes. So it becomes circular - "He's gay, so he must have had a dysfunctional childhood, which caused his gayiosity."

I lived in Long Beach, CA for a number of years, precariously positioned at the border of the straight and gay sections of town. During that time I saw and interacted with many, many, many gay folk. While completely anecdotal, both my wife and I noted that in a large number of cases, you could just "tell" if someone was gay.

That led us (in this incredibly scientific investigation) to the conclusion that there is at least some genetic component to homosexuality.

Hey, it's as scientifically valid as Bart's one-size-fits-all pop psychology treatment.

As Sue Dohnim notes, the whole nature/nurture controversy re homosexuality is usually brought up by way of arguing that homosexuality is a choice, for which people can be judged, or a birth condition, to which no blame can be attached. This is nonsense.

Suppose it were proved that pedophilia or arson had a genetic component. Would this make them somehow okay? We’d just figure that these unfortunate people still needed to be stopped from doing what they were born wanting to do, whatever it took. Conversely, if homosexuality isn’t socially harmful, then it matters not at all whether you’re gay because you were born that way, because of family trauma, or because you swore you’d go gay if the Astros won the Series. In general it seems as though people take a position on nature/nurture based on whatever position they’ve already taken on homosexuality in general.

When did you know/realize you were heterosexual?

tubino - I dunno, fourth grade I guess. Maybe a little precocious.

Some people grow up always knowing they're gay. Some "realize" it late in life.

Claims about genetic/hormonal causes seem to me more plausible applied to the first group. Unfortunately, the sample sizes are way too small on most reports of a new "gay gene," or "gay brain wrinkle," or whatever.

I've got problems with the glory-hole culture. I've also got problems with the straight Spring Break/Bluetoothing culture.

Not because it's (roaring preacher voice) SIN that's DOOMING them to HELLFIRE! (although you never know ...). Because it's narcissistic and dangerous and psychologically complicating and hardly the best use of one's time.

I guess you could say my social mores are both more and less permissive than society's at large. Same-sex couples don't bother me. Freaky-deaky sex clubs, catering to whatever gender and persuasion, do.

Is that so wrong?

Five

I say it's gloves off when it comes to the wiener hound. Candy Andy has forfeited the benefit of the doubt with all his insinuations of naziism when it comes to people who don't agree that terrorist prisoners just need some good lovin'. I have absolutely no fucking problem with Taranto's theory, either. Can anyone here remember one favorable thing Fozzy the Bareback Bear has ever said about a woman? I'm sure he believes that menstrual blood must be one of the ickiest substances on the planet. I used to be pissed off at the extremely humorlessLeon Wieseltier for giving Andy shit when Sullivan was head editor on the New Republic, for Sullivan's supposed trivialization of the magazine by running numerous articles on pop culture issues. Now I think Wieseltier was presecient.

I usually really like Taranto, and I liked that piece because anything that kicks Sullivan around is amusing, but trying to imply that Excitable Andy is ascared of those icky menses because he's a homo isn't just a cheap shot--it's a clumsy shot.

I can appreciate that it's all part of the overall act that Sullivan isn't worth taking seriously, but he could have still achieved that with better aim.

I have been reading Andy for years (I used to donate to his site, before I realized I was paying for his secret vacations), and, honestly, I can't think of a single woman he's ever said anything good about, with the exception of Camille Paglia.

cindy sheehan?

Has it ever bothered anyone else that the gay lifesyle is referred to as an "alternative lifestyle "when spoken of to kids in schools? It always seemed to me that that was a really sly way to legitimize it.

cindy sheehan?

Well, i will admit you've got me there.

I agree with Allah. Taranto is being a hack. All the same, I quite enjoy reading Best of the Web. He may be a hack, but he's a witty and sometimes insightful hack.

I want to say that some of my remarks about Andy don't reflect to well upon me or my attitudes and were clearly homophobic. So, yeah, I undermined any points I may have had about Sullivan's now-evident insanity. The guy just pisses me off, because I once held him in rather high esteem.

I was with him all the way on the gay marriage issue and the hope for "normalizing" homosexuality (for homosexuals), i.e., the hope for making gayness a relative non-issue in American culture. But there is clearly something deranged about Andy's aboutface on so many issues after Bush "betrayed" him on gay marriage.

"...trying to imply that Excitable Andy is ascared of those icky menses because he's a homo isn't just a cheap shot--it's a clumsy shot."

In the spirit of conceding points, I will acknowledge the Excitable Andy also had a major cow about the possibility that male soldiers may have accidentally splashed their own urine on the Koran while taking whizzes. So the fear-of-female-body-fluids theory may be... leaky.

Re: Torture. Victory or defeat in was is almost exclusively about intel. In view of that, getting the intel is so important that any means whatsoever is justified. What isn't justified is torture for its own sake. That is how you draw the line. If you know a prisoner knows something you need to know to win, you get it. If the prisoner doesn't know anything useful, you lock them up until the war is over.

Same-sex couples don't bother me. Freaky-deaky sex clubs, catering to whatever gender and persuasion, do.

Is that so wrong?

Yes

What's this 'I'll take Taranto over Allah' supposed to mean? Is this some sort of weird gay sex thing?

And why is that, VRWC Agent?

What's this 'I'll take Taranto over Allah' supposed to mean?

Earlier in this thread, I called Taranto a hack. ITTOA evidently thinks he's less of a hack than I am. Which might be, and probably is, true.

I need to start peppering my comments with tiresome, shopworn references to the haughty French-looking Senator from Massachusetts who by the way served in Vietnam. That'll reduce my hack quotient.

Uh, I wasn't serious. I though someone wd make some gross comment, like it's an Allah sandwich. Then we cd theorize who stuck what where. Sorry.

I meant to type thought, not though.

Allah, didn't you kind of exhaust that particular set of references last year, to great hilarity? No need to go back. Hackwards and upwards.

Where's ace? He's starting to act like he has a personal life.

Allah: It would've been a cheap shot on Taranto's part, EXCEPT...

Have you EVER seen a single issue that Sully didn't view through the prism of his own sexuality? The man's been demanding his readers acknowledge his gayhood for years now; why get pissy when Taranto does exactly that?

In fact, after watching Sullivan pull that particular sthick for close to five years now I'd say he's about due; just like he was due to get jacked up (that's UP, you pervs!) over his every-subject hysteria.

And why is that, VRWC Agent?

Lighten up, Francis. ;-)

Where's ace? He's starting to act like he has a personal life.

Three words: Donation drive. Val-U-Rite.

I don't believe Ace is much of a drinker. I've never seen him post drunk. Can any of you say you haven't?

Oh, I take that back. He does drink when he gets nervous on the radio.

Very interesting. Thankyou, Sue, for the links and clearing up my mistake about the AMA and APA.

Knemon, you wrote earlier that you believe homosexuals to be "complicated human beings"
I agree, but would phrase it differently -- they are complicated human beings because they are emotionally troubled.

To my knowledge, I have no relatives that are gay/lesbo.

Tubino asked what age did we realize we were heterosexual. I never did "realize" my sexual orientation, (unless he means "realize" by the first time having sex with a girl). Then again, I never realized I was a boy. It was all so obvious and never needed any contemplation.

(The issues of race, sex, racism, bigotry were only introduced in my youth by well-meaning liberals who felt they needed to "raise awareness" and educate us. Before that, everything was cool. From Sue's snippet: "Straights must be taught..." Perfect example of social engineering. They leave out their strategy of shaming us normies into submission by making up words like "homophobe.")

"when we run out of other stuff to talk about, eventually this comes up."
Knemon: How 'bout them Cowboys!
Gay friend: Yeah, did you see that game. It was awesome.
(Long pause)
Knemon: So. How's your love life?
Gay friend: Oh! Well. Let me tell you, I met this gorgeous man with the cutest butt. I hope he calls me. You'd just love him.
Knemon: Ya, sure. Sounds great. Ahh, how 'bout them Cowboys!

Sue Dohnim opines: You'll find a similar pattern of family and childhood dysfunction in most gay people's lives, particularly gay men.

I'll add, And particularly strippers, too. I concede, as Knemon points out, there are exceptions but most have the background that Sue mentions. I don't have the statistical studies to back it up except personal life-experience. The parallels of the nude dancer and homosexual man are numerous when it comes to family background. Strict religious but hypocritical fathers, absentee fathers (abandonment), alcoholic/abusive fathers, cheating fathers, to name a few.

Geoff raises an interesting aspect of being able to "tell" someone is of the gay lifestyle. Sure, you can tell because they want people to know. It's a cry for help, attention. I realize as I write this that I'm sounding over-simplistic. But, as I said before, they, like everyone else, have the desire for love and acceptance and the trappings of alternative lifestyle suits their needs. They have a community that accepts and encourages them and at the same time they can display their emotional scars on the surface. "See, Dad, this is what I've become. I hope you're happy."

Geoff is absolutely correct in calling out my amateur arm-chair psychology. But I bet Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, would side with me over the liberally social. (By the way, Freud contribution to psychology is, year by year, being minimalized by college psych departments. It's only a matter of time before he becomes a footnote in a textbook. He simply isn't PC enough.)

"In general it seems as though people take a position on nature/nurture based on whatever position they’ve already taken on homosexuality in general."

Utron, I agree. My feelings on the morality of homosexuality have probably influenced my position. But I'm okay with my standards of morality guiding me rather than current social trends.

Knemon and I agree on the separation of the everyday run-of-the-mill homosexual and the sub-humans that are into the depraved sexual behavior. I don't equate the two, or lump them both inot the same category. I do, however, believe those perverts are filling a void in their lives as well; and that may be the only way for them to associate with fellow humans.

I can never claim to know the origins of homosexuality. It's only a guess based on what I know and see. My opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else's -- homo or hetero. After all, in the end, we can only speak for ourselves. So maybe ALL the H-mo's don't hate their daddy. But it sure is odd how most of the gay community has a specific, common thread.

I don't believe Ace is much of a drinker. I've never seen him post drunk. Can any of you say you haven't?

Only when I was risking, perchance, some spring awakening!

iirc, the 'fake menstrual blood' had to do with the context of the woman interrogator simulating putting her hands down her pants, pulling them out, and then smearing her red coated fingers all over the guy.

So Andy mentioning 'menstrual' has some non-cooties context as opposed to her doing a Josey Wales/Ten Bears Knife-Across-The-Palm deal and rubbing her non-menstrual blood all over the detainee.

To put this in terms that Catholic Andy might better understand, during the winter months when the flu bug is going around, I'll take a red marker and dab a couple of spots in each of my palms.

When some nose-running, coughing body introduces themselves and wants to shake, I hold up my hands and say 'Sorry, stigmata'

Eh, lots of communities have common threads. And there's always exceptions that can parse that down into "okay not everyone's like that". If they're not having ANONYMOUS RECTAL INTERCOURSE!!! on your coffee table I don't think it's a big enough deal to spend so much time dwelling on.

I know I have lots of kinky hetero sex tastes that people could psychoanalyze favorably or not against me, so I'm more of a mind to not try to guess why someone else likes doing one thing with their nethers while I do something else as long as I get the same respect to privacy.

Sullivan, on the other hand, has already given in to the idea that a person's sexuality is fair game for speculation if he can get a political angle on it. That's another thing he's gone to the dark side over.

I know I have lots of kinky hetero sex tastes that people could psychoanalyze favorably or not against me

It's okay, Dick Morris likes the toe thing too.

When some nose-running, coughing body introduces themselves and wants to shake, I hold up my hands and say 'Sorry, stigmata'

Bwa ha ha ha!

I read over Taranto again and I've changed my mind about his piece. It seems to me now that his entire point is that Sullivan's continued invocation of the fake menstral blood is that the added cringe factor of that kind of blood is exactly what psyches out the subject of interrogation. And that's not torture, it's a mind game. One that plays on a islamofascist's fear of women.

The jab about Andy not being familiar with female biology was a throw away, not the conclusion.

I'm more of a mind to not try to guess why someone else likes doing one thing with their nethers while I do something else as long as I get the same respect to privacy.

On a more serious note, that is the great Faustian bargain of the sexual revolution, isn't it? How's that working out for our culture so far?

I'm more of a mind to not try to guess why someone else likes doing one thing with their nethers while I do something else as long as I get the same respect to privacy.

On a more serious note, that is the great Faustian bargain of the sexual revolution, isn't it? How's that working out for our culture so far?

Pretty good for me!

There are some pretty obviously harmful sexual tastes. I do not think homosexuality is one of them on it's own, any more than I think that any sex that involves penetrating a woman is rape vis a vis the crazy Andrea Dworkin-fem-bots.

Pretty good for me!

Was that the question?

There are some pretty obviously harmful sexual tastes. I do not think homosexuality is one of them on it's own, any more than I think that any sex that involves penetrating a woman is rape vis a vis the crazy Andrea Dworkin-fem-bots.

How are those two beliefs linked?

Normalizing homosexuality has led us to a brawl over the definition of marriage, our society's fundamental building block. Getting the answer wrong, as with no-fault divorce, can have terrible consequences.

Is it really worth this just so people will be less disapproving of they find out you have a thing for leather/shaving/armpits/whatever? (As if people actually would be less inclined to dwell on gossip like that at your expense ...)

Private has always been private. I'm not convinced we've done ourselves any favors with public attitudes toward private matters.

Was that the question?

Okay, let me clarify. From my point of view, it's working out just fine.

Bummer if it bugs you but homosexuality has been normalized. That genie isn't going back in the bottle.

As for how those beliefs are linked, I would definitely say it's equivilent for someone; say a either a radical femminist or a strict fundamentalist; to psychoanalyze faults into someone else's sexual behavior in order to attach a social stigma to it. Be it normal heterosexual relationships or homosexual ones.

If you're not gay, why go to lengths trying to reason that anyone (or at least most) who IS must be gay as a result of some soft of psychological trauma, as Bart argued? How is that different than some chimerical man-hating femminist trying to pin normal heterosexual male urges on some inherent mysogynistic attitude towards women?

Furthermore, if there is a corelation between past abuse and homosexuality, what's the point? Is it comforting for some people to know that someone behaves differently because they're damaged in some way? Does it have any bearing on whether or not homosexuality is immoral or should be socially tolerated?

VRWC, I was actually going for a joke: do you object to my approval of same-sex couples, or my *dis* approval of freaky sex clubs?

But the joke didn't work. Ah well.

/drunken

"Private has always been private. I'm not convinced we've done ourselves any favors with public attitudes toward private matters."

I'll drink to that.

No, wait, I probably should quit while I'm still able to see the screen.

VRWC, I was actually going for a joke: do you object to my approval of same-sex couples, or my *dis* approval of freaky sex clubs?

I went for the joke too. So which of us is dancing on the other's feet? And if you're leading, please take your hand off my ass.

Why, Mr. Agent, you really know how to treat a female impersonator.

So, how bout those Cowboys?

The reasons why I go to great lengths to understand the truth about homosexuality:
1) I don't see the upside of normalizing such behavior if it is not indeed normal.
2) By not treating homosexuality as merely a choice of lifestyle and sex-style, we get bogus legislation like same-sex marriage.

Here in Massachusetts, I was told that I opposed civil rights if I opposed gay marriage. The gay community and their supporters equated their marriage ban with the plight of people who are black.

That argument would have been universally giggled at thirty years ago. But now, gays have rights. Not just the rights that we all share, but extra rights to suit them and their choice to pack fudge.

Sortelli, I don't care what others do for fun as long as doesn't affect me. Redefining marriage affects me because it is perversion of state's authority and an affront to my sensibilities.

What's next, suing the Catholic church for violating the 14th Amendment for not marrying same-sex couples. That's where we are heading.

I would definitely say it's equivilent for someone; say a either a radical femminist or a strict fundamentalist; to psychoanalyze faults into someone else's sexual behavior in order to attach a social stigma to it.>

The social stigma predated feminism or psychoanalysis. Let's not pretend it's some artificial academic construct.

If you're not gay, why go to lengths trying to reason that anyone (or at least most) who IS must be gay as a result of some soft of psychological trauma

I didn't notice I had done that. And I don't think it matters.

Is it comforting for some people to know that someone behaves differently because they're damaged in some way? Does it have any bearing on whether or not homosexuality is immoral or should be socially tolerated?

Morally, who cares? Heterosexual men tend to want sex with as many attractive women as then can manage. Morality (and the realities of courtship/marriage) is at odds with that. Does it matter whether the urge is biological or learned? You do what you are supposed to do or you deviate at your own cost. Even if they two things aren't precisely the same, the rule also applies to wanting members of your own sex.

Basically, this comes down to how you view culture, received wisdom and morality. I see these things at a minimum as the collection of wise words I would want to pass to my own children and that my forebearers wanted to pass to me.

I can't possibly argue kids into understanding some of the harder lessons I've learned. They just haven't been there. But the kids will be poorer if they don't take those lessons to heart all the same. And just as I somehow managed to get wiser than the kids, there are multitudes who were wiser than I.

So here is my crude test for throwing out traditional moral values: Am I rejecting them from a position of vastly superior knowledge and experience? Or am I rejecting them because another theory sounds plausible and I don't really have good knowledge of what happens when the old rule is abandoned? Morally, the rule that almost always wins is: Do what your grandparents would have advised.

Final point (and I apologize for taking so long). There is nothing about being immoral that commands intolerance. We respect individual conscience too much for that and the most valuable right someone has is the right to be wrong. We don't have to embrace or encourage what we think is immoral and we can even speak against it. But that does not mean we do not tolerate people who believe differently.

Scientifically, this stuff is a mystery. Morally, it seems pretty clear. Then again, I'm a knuckle-dragger, so what do I know?

What's next, suing the Catholic church for violating the 14th Amendment for not marrying same-sex couples. That's where we are heading.

Eh, I doubt it.

Okay, what a unique comments log. This is real simple. The parts don't fit unless one is a guy and the other a girl.

The social stigma predated feminism or psychoanalysis. Let's not pretend it's some artificial academic construct.

Oh, I definitely agree that it's not. But there's plenty in academia who like to swing it around like a claw hammer when it suits them.

Actually, I'd go so far to say that there are lots of things that social stigmas are good for dealing with, like our old buddy Cedarford. People should be shamed about expressing certain ideas or behaviors.

I didn't notice I had done that. And I don't think it matters.

Didn't see any of that from you, no. The reason I mentioned it is that I could see a lot of that psychobabble aimed at ME because of what I like to do in intimate moments with my lady. (Spankings? You must hate your mother! etc)

I think it's a mistake to bark up that tree and try to judge someone's sex life from outside like that. Didn't see that from you at all, again, but that was my point when I said that I'd rather give someone's sexual preference the same respect and privacy I'd want for mine.

Morally, from my point of view, I can't see anything wrong with same-sex marriage. That doesn't color all of my beliefs like it does for Andrew The Living Freak Out Sullivan, in fact, I'm positively apathetic about the idea. I'm convinced that in twenty years we'll have accepted the idea and wonder what the big deal was.

Futhermore, allowing monogamous same sex couples to be seriously committed to each other will go a long way to curing some of the problems facing the gay community now, I think.

It's not my bag, but I can see how someone who's never going to be allowed to have a normal relationship by the rest of society would throw caution and dignity to the wind and go bang strangers in an alleyway.

I respect your opinion and don't expect to change it, but the "this is how we've handled marriage for all this time let's not mess with it" argument doesn't move me, and I don't see any threat to our culture coming out of publicly accepted homosexuality... so long as it doesn't become some exercise in thought control by forcing other people to change their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, that is where a lot of gay advocacy ends up and it's a shame that there's so much antagonism there. If someone should be allowed to chose their own lifestyle it stands to reason that they should be allowed to chose one that includes a religious rejection of homosexuality.

Okay, what a unique comments log. This is real simple. The parts don't fit unless one is a guy and the other a girl.

I dunno, man. I've got video evidence of some girls getting around that problem and they seemed pretty happy about it.

I stopped reading Excitable Andy long ago, and I only learn of his tantrums indirectly through sites like this one.

Here is a blog I have been hooked on, she is kind of an eloquent bag lady with interesting original thoughts on things, which is a depressingly rare thing these days:
theanchoressonline

Where's Ace? Oh, don't tell me he woke up in some strange woman's bed this morning!

Frontline has an online program about torture....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/view/

Yeah it's biased, it's PBS, but still worth a viewing.

Quoting Sortelli: "Morally, from my point of view, I can't see anything wrong with same-sex marriage. That doesn't color all of my beliefs like it does for Andrew The Living Freak Out Sullivan, in fact, I'm positively apathetic about the idea. I'm convinced that in twenty years we'll have accepted the idea and wonder what the big deal was."

If your position is that "Morally from my point of view I can't see anything wrong with same-sex marriage", then mightn't the following statement of yours cement your position as incoherent?..."in fact, I'm positively apathetic about the idea" (same-sex marriage)

The most prominent cliches in public disputes over issues such as same-sex marriage are exposed as fallacies by the very first step one must take in drawing out the implications that arise from the logic of morals.

The first thing to understand about a moral proposition is that it is distinguished at the root from statements of the merely personal, subjective taste. It is not consintent with the logic of morals to say, for example "X is wrong" and yet to insist at the same time the that "people must be free to pursue X as it suits their own pleasure".

Is there some reasoning you could provide as to re-align your statement to accord with the logic of morals?

In other words.... what do you appeal to in saying that "Morally, from my point of view, I can't see anything wrong with same-sex marriage" ?

If someone should be allowed to chose their own lifestyle it stands to reason that they should be allowed to chose one that includes a religious rejection of homosexuality.

There is a difference between allowing something, which we clearly already do in the case of homosexuality, and reengineering a basic societal unit by legal fiat in order to make homosexuals feel more respected. I'm not expecting your opinion to change, but I think a revusion for social engineering and respect for the law of unintended consequences urge restraint.

Other societies are already committed to gay marriages. Why not let their experiments play out instead of joining them at the bleeding edge?

"and reengineering a basic societal unit by legal fiat"

The best argument against this is: the unit's already been reengineered quite a bit. (And it's all Nevada's fault! What isn't, really, when you think about it?)

Seriously, when two heterosexual strangers can get married in a drive-thru window by Elvis, and people who've lived together for decades can't ... that seems a little odd.

You can say that gay marriage would be the straw that broke the camel's back, and would issue in a fundamentally different "unit" that up until now has been strained but not broken. That's Stanley Kurtz's argument, with tons of data from Europe allegedly backing it up.

What you can't say is that (civil) marriage as it exists in the West today is something sacred or even particularly special. Again: Drive-thru windows. Elvis. Britney Spears.

Always strange to watch heterosexuals discuss homosexuality.

That said.

There is a difference between allowing something, which we clearly already do in the case of homosexuality, and reengineering a basic societal unit by legal fiat in order to make homosexuals feel more respected. I'm not expecting your opinion to change, but I think a revusion for social engineering and respect for the law of unintended consequences urge restraint.

There are a lot of assumptions made here that don't accurately reflect why gay marriage is necessary. While some out there talk about acceptability and personal dignity and the respect of peers, that is not why I'm supportive of it.

Simply put, open homosexuality is here to stay. That Pandora's box has been opened in society. The question left to us is how best to fold it within society in the most constructive way. The gay community is full of destructive behavior, from promiscuous sex, to increasing meth abuse, to disproportionate rates of alcoholism and suicide.

So, what should we reasonably do about that? You can disapprove of it all day long and discuss the finer points of male sex (notice how no one ever discusses lesbian sex disapprovingly? It's always a hang up on who's putting who's c*ck where), you can call it immoral, you can cite health reports and scripture until the end of the day. But that doesn't fix anything. It doesn't aid society, it doesn't help homosexuals, it does nothing to protect their children.

Marriage is probably the best solution. If you take homosexuality and straight-jacket it into a societal expectation of monogamy and rearing of children, that would go quite a ways in mitigating widespread damaging behaviors.

It's a bit like having a backyard you've let go. The weeds have crawled in, choking growth of the valuable plants. You could go "Eff it. That stuff's not supposed to be back there, and I'm just going to let it go. Can't be bothered." Or, you could tend to it, prune out the bad elements, cultivate some order, and give it some direction.

Right now, sad to say, the Right's attitude is basically "Eff it."

It's not helping anyone at all.

The best argument against this is: the unit's already been reengineered quite a bit.

To its detriment, no?

when two heterosexual strangers can get married in a drive-thru window by Elvis, and people who've lived together for decades can't ... that seems a little odd.

A man and a woman may marry imprudently (their orientation, BTW, is irrelevant). This is not an argument for changing the definition of marrage to allow two men, a parent and child, or a woman and her doberman to do the same.

If the argument is that we should change the definition of marriage to celebrate stable living arrangements and sexual fulfillment, I see no principled argument for stopping with same sex marriage or the number two. And neither will the next group.

This drama is already playing elsewhere. Let's see how the story turns out before deciding whether to stage it here.

If the argument is that we should change the definition of marriage to celebrate stable living arrangements and sexual fulfillment

We already have. That ship sailed long ago.

homosexuality is here to stay... The question left to us is how best to fold it within society in the most constructive way.

Which contemplates a careful consideration of cost, does it not? As I've said, this story is already unfolding elsewhere. We have no compelling need to join those countries on the bleeding edge when we can observe the consequences of such a major change from a safe distance.

notice how no one ever discusses lesbian sex disapprovingly

I don't think it matters. The most vocal proponents of same sex marriage (and, again, sexual orientation of the players is irrelevant) are men so the issue tends to be discussed that way. I wouldn't read any more into it than that.

Right now, sad to say, the Right's attitude is basically "Eff it." It's not helping anyone at all.

The first rule of healing is that you do no harm. If gay marriage strengthens families, marriage and society, we will see that played out elsewhere. If it does not, we will see that too. I do not see the emergency that would force us to embrace this ignorantly when we can make a more informed decision at a later date.

I suspect the proponents of same sex marriage fear that the results will be less salutory than they theorize.

We already have.

I believe children are still a huge part of the current thinking. Especially at the level where marriage is practiced rather than just written about.

I don't think it matters. The most vocal proponents of same sex marriage (and, again, sexual orientation of the players is irrelevant) are men so the issue tends to be discussed that way. I wouldn't read any more into it than that.

You have this exactly backwards. It is lesbians, by far, who are most interested in gay marriage. If you look at the marriage stats in Massachusettes, you'll find lesbians are a disproportionate share of same-sex unions.

The first rule of healing is that you do no harm. If gay marriage strengthens families, marriage and society, we will see that played out elsewhere. If it does not, we will see that too. I do not see the emergency that would force us to embrace this ignorantly when we can make a more informed decision at a later date.

Well of course you don't see the emergency. You're not gay. You're not faced with the issues on a day to day, even hour to hour basis. You don't see the destruction up close and personal. Nothing loves a social advocate more than a witness.

Which contemplates a careful consideration of cost, does it not? As I've said, this story is already unfolding elsewhere. We have no compelling need to join those countries on the bleeding edge when we can observe the consequences of such a major change from a safe distance.

The issue is this. While you wait, you are watching marriage, both in Europe and America, disintegrate all around you. You don't agree with gay marriage. Fine. Homosexuals decided they were going to bypass you. Now we have civil unions and domestic partnerships. And, under equal opportunity, heterosexual couples are now entering these domestic partnerships, further eroding the institution.

You're viewing this almost inversely. By holding out against gay marriage, other relationship structures sprang up to replace or mimic it. These are less a central bond than a loose confederation of personal interests. Marriage in general is going to go to crap in Europe. The laws and the state are making the institution irrelevant.

The best thing to do would hitch the gay marriage issue onto the larger marriage issue. Put conditions on gay marriages. Say "We will allow gay marriages if domestic partnerships are aboloshed and divorce laws are tightened."

There is an opportunity here to strengthen the institution for all.

Instead, you wait. Fiddle while it all burns down. It's your prerogative. Just be ready to take your share of responsibility for the flaming aftermath.

The Shrill Shill has at last responded to Taranto, and I'm sorry to report that he has him dead to rights.

If you look at the marriage stats in Massachusettes, you'll find lesbians are a disproportionate share of same-sex unions.

His does that conflict with what I said?

Well of course you don't see the emergency. You're not gay.

And? Are you saying gay America is going to spontaneously combust of we don't aribitrarily change the definition of marriage to suit them immediately? If so, what about all those opressed foursomes, family members and pet owners who are also being denied?

This is not an argument. It is an attempt to disqualify someone who disagrees with you.

While you wait, you are watching marriage, both in Europe and America, disintegrate all around you.

Some european countries are on the gay marriage bandwagon. It's not saving the institution?

You don't agree with gay marriage. Fine. Homosexuals decided they were going to bypass you.

They don't have the numbers to bypass me. They have to persuade non-gay Americans to join them or, in the alternative, bypass the democratic process entirely.

By holding out against gay marriage, other relationship structures sprang up to replace or mimic it.

Which turn out to be bad ideas. OK. And what are we doing to roll back the bad ideas? Nothing. It would be the same with same sex marriage; even if it turns out to be a destructive change, it won't be undone. Which is an excellent reason not to adopt it ignorantly.

Say "We will allow gay marriages if domestic partnerships are aboloshed and divorce laws are tightened."

I don't have to give on the former to embrace the latter.

Fiddle while it all burns down. It's your prerogative.

To the degree things are burning down, it is because of the kinds of untested social engineering experiments you mentioned. Your argument is that we should do more of what has proven so harmful to undo the harm. Libs make the same arguments about expanding government programs. I'm not buying either argument.

Just be ready to take your share of responsibility for the flaming aftermath.

You might want to rephrase that.

Why do we have to talk about gay marriage and homosexuality all the time? Why can't we talk about Ace's sex life for once?

His does that conflict with what I said?

You said men are primarily the ones pushing for gay marriage. If you're even slightly acquainted with the movement, you'd see lesbians and women are the driving force.

And? Are you saying gay America is going to spontaneously combust of we don't aribitrarily change the definition of marriage to suit them immediately? If so, what about all those opressed foursomes, family members and pet owners who are also being denied?

This is not an argument. It is an attempt to disqualify someone who disagrees with you.

The "What next? Women marrying sheep?!" argument isn't worthy of comment. Don't get stuck on stupid.

I think, if you're going to wax knowledgeable on the subject, you should have some passing familiarity with the gay community. Thus far, you've shown no such knowledge. No emergency? Do you think, had gay marriage been available and the pressures of monogamy been brought to bear on the gay community decades ago, the HIV epidemic would've been as bad in this country?

Some european countries are on the gay marriage bandwagon. It's not saving the institution

No, because Europe got wrapped up in domestic parternships. Gay marriage became an after-thought. The damage is done. That could've been prevented had people like you not stood in the way of gay marriage. Instead, you opened the doors to partnerships that hetersexuals in Europe are taking advantage of in droves.

They don't have the numbers to bypass me. They have to persuade non-gay Americans to join them or, in the alternative, bypass the democratic process entirely.

They already did. Look at the number of fortune 500 companies offering DP benefits. The private sector is rapidly filling the vaccuum for marriage benefits and protections that the government has refused. Marriage becomes more irrelevant by the day.

Which turn out to be bad ideas. OK. And what are we doing to roll back the bad ideas? Nothing. It would be the same with same sex marriage; even if it turns out to be a destructive change, it won't be undone. Which is an excellent reason not to adopt it ignorantly

You cannot roll back the bad ideas until you eliminate the conditions that engendered them. You have to point out how gay marriage would be bad. I know why domestic partnerships are bad. They create looser, more easily broken bonds that leads to general social decay. Marriage shouldn't and wouldn't be the equivalent of DPs. Marriage would be a much more powerful bond, as it should be. Instead, you equate the two as equally threatening. Which is wrong on its most basic level.

I don't have to give on the former to embrace the latter.

You will never get the latter without embracing the former. Guaranteed. You can choose to look at the world as how you wish it were, but it'd be a mite more useful to stare at reality and see it how exists. You're not going to be able to roll back DPs without having something better to replace them with.

To the degree things are burning down, it is because of the kinds of untested social engineering experiments you mentioned. Your argument is that we should do more of what has proven so harmful to undo the harm. Libs make the same arguments about expanding government programs. I'm not buying either argument.

Well, you're arguing gay marriage and DPs are the same thing. They're not. One requires a strong legal bond that is difficult to undo, the other all the registration required for a library card.

You might want to rephrase that.

Nah, I like my verbiage just fine.

"the flaming aftermath"

Band name?

You said men are primarily the ones pushing for gay marriage. If you're even slightly acquainted with the movement, you'd see lesbians and women are the driving force.

I said men are the most vocal. And as I recall, putting lesbians out as the test cases was a tactical decision.

The "What next? Women marrying sheep?!" argument isn't worthy of comment.

A principled argument that allows same sex marriage but draws the line at the number two, consanguination, and the rest of the possible varations for redefinition would go a long way to proving your superiority.

Sully never had a good response to that either when I used to debate him on usenet.

I think, if you're going to wax knowledgeable on the subject, you should have some passing familiarity with the gay community.

Familiarity with marriage would be more to the point.

Do you think, had gay marriage been available and the pressures of monogamy been brought to bear on the gay community decades ago, the HIV epidemic would've been as bad in this country?z

Yes. Successful marriage follows from monogamous commitment, not the other way around. If people are not impressed enough by AIDS, and chastened enough by monogamous love, to throttle back their more promiscuous impulses and less safe practices, I don't think sending out wedding invitations would make a very big difference.

Is it making a big difference where gay marriage is already adopted? Is the institution of marriage in those countries rebounding in strength?

Gay marriage became an after-thought. The damage is done. That could've been prevented had people like you not stood in the way of gay marriage.

I see. "True same sex marriage" just hasn't been tried yet. Where have I heard that kind of argument before?

Marriage becomes more irrelevant by the day.

And who was pushing for the DP laws and practices you blame that on? And who was against? But we should trust you this time, right?

Not persuasive. And your flight from empiracal observations about gay marrage does not add to your case.

You cannot roll back the bad ideas until you eliminate the conditions that engendered them.

By that logic, welfare reform would have been impossible until poverty and unemployment were wiped out.

Marriage would be a much more powerful bond, as it should be. Instead, you equate the two as equally threatening. Which is wrong on its most basic level.

Or, marriage would itself be changed for the worse by redefinition and everyone would be the worse for it, albiet more equally so. Again, this calls for empiracism, not theorizing. The empiracal facts do not seem to be in your favor, not that it seems to concern you at all.

You're not going to be able to roll back DPs without having something better to replace them with.

We disagree.

One requires a strong legal bond that is difficult to undo, the other all the registration required for a library card.

I thought one of the arguments was that marriage was as easy as a drive past Elvis at the window. And divorce is hardly more difficult. Isn't that what gay marriage is supposed to be magically saving us from even though it has failed to do so anywhere it has been tried?

Robbie, I don't get it. Why are gay conservatives so liberal when it comes to homosexuality?

As a conservative, I want equal rights for all; no special extra-constitutional rights for any. And I'm totally against social engineering. But you, (correct me if I'm wrong -- I'm making assumptions), want to re-define marriage, have "gay rights," and introduce homosexuality into the grade school curriculum by having national "coming out days" celebrated in high school. And you want the government to solve the gay community's problems.

That's all liberal bullshit. You're implying that their problems are the fault of society. Doesn't that phrase set off bells and whistles in your head? Sounds like the typical liberal clap-trap.

Nobody is stopping any two adults from loving each other and starting a family. The last time I checked it wasn't illegal for anyone to go out and start a happy and prosperous family.

My main concern is the hijacking of the gay rights issue into a civil rights issue. There are no civil rights being violated.

The gay marriage thing was a coup for divorce lawyers, anyway.

I said men are the most vocal.

And you'd be wrong. But, hey, I only spend gobs of time around the community. What do I know.

A principled argument that allows same sex marriage but draws the line at the number two, consanguination, and the rest of the possible varations for redefinition would go a long way to proving your superiority.

Sully never had a good response to that either when I used to debate him on usenet.

Well, what's your argument for two? That's the way it's always been? Do you have a principled argument aside from that? I think monogamy is the safest, most stable form of relationship, best suited towards the rearing of children. I think when you introduce more people into a marriage arrangement, there's an inherent imbalance and instability involved.

Familiarity with marriage would be more to the point.

You asked what the emergency was. I pointed out, if you were familiar with the gay community, you would see that much of the destructive behavior is an emergency.

I see. "True same sex marriage" just hasn't been tried yet. Where have I heard that kind of argument before?

Well, has it? Have we tried gay marriage in an environment where out of wedlock partnerships are not supported by the state or corporations?

And who was pushing for the DP laws and practices you blame that on? And who was against? But we should trust you this time, right?

People wanted protections for their families. You denied that to them. They sought them elsewhere. Wanting legal protections for your family is far more understandable than denying them to others. So, who is most at fault for this development?

By that logic, welfare reform would have been impossible until poverty and unemployment were wiped out.

No, we replaced it with alternatives. We created an environment where work was more highly valued and necessary. The problem with welfare was not the poverty, but the government dependency it created. Once that dependency was removed, once we created an atmosphere that made working an imperative, people's situations improved. Same with gay marriage. Once you create an atmosphere where monogamy and stability are encouraged, where responsibility within a single relationship is expected, we will see people change.

Or, marriage would itself be changed for the worse by redefinition and everyone would be the worse for it, albiet more equally so. Again, this calls for empiracism, not theorizing. The empiracal facts do not seem to be in your favor, not that it seems to concern you at all.

What empirical facts? We don't even have any for gay marriage without DP alternatives. We do have statistics which show if you offer heterosexual couples marriage-lite, they will take it in increasing numbers, leading to more out of wedlock births, less stable homes, and more social chaos.

I thought one of the arguments was that marriage was as easy as a drive past Elvis at the window. And divorce is hardly more difficult. Isn't that what gay marriage is supposed to be magically saving us from even though it has failed to do so anywhere it has been tried?

Marriage is a more difficult proposition than a DP. A DP is simply a looser bond. Gay marriage would slow down DPs and their effects on the family unit. This is an indisputable fact. Were gay marriage to exist, DPs would be unecessary, and there would be an almost air-tight case for repealing them.

The longer you deny gay marriage, the longer the DP situation continues, and the more ingrained it becomes in the culture. It's undeniably damaging.

Instead of taking realistic measures to combat this, you seem to believe DPs can be fought and overturned all on their own.

It won't happen. Too many co-habiting heterosexuals have signed on. You're trying to dam up a resevoir of heterosexual activism. That usefulness has passed. The water has gone over and around. The question now put to you is how best to channel it.

Instead you insist you're going to stand your ground while everyone goes around you. Which is your choice, but that village downstream is about to be wiped out while you're being all cute and useless.

One more thing, to my homosexual friends.

This is two separate issues for me.

One issue is the morality of homosexual sex, for both men and women.

The other issue is the attempt to treat homosexuals like they are different from other human beings based on the sexual preference.

Robbie, I got news for you. I don't think you're any different, better or worse, for wanting a big, long piss-pump to play with than I am for wanting big pair of boobies and full, round j-lo type of ass to snuggle up to at night.

I will, however, question what the hell happened to you that motivates you to like guys. But that's my right and prerogative. And I'll be damned if I'm going to accomadate YOUR sex preferences when I don't get special treatment or mine.

Robbie, I don't get it. Why are gay conservatives so liberal when it comes to homosexuality?

Actually, I'm not liberal about it. For a start, I'm against hate crimes laws. I'm not even comfortable with discrimination laws. They grind against my libertarian impulses. Furthermore, I don't believe gay marriage is a civil rights issue. If it were a civil rights issue, then I'd be ok with courts sweepin on in and having their say. I'm not. I think the best arbiters of gay marriage should be the legislatures and the electorate.

That doesn't mean I don't think gay marriage should happen. It should. I simply believe argument, debate, and persuasion are the best paths to go about it.

That said, gay marriage would be no more social engineering than regular marriage would. Is heterosexual marriage social engineering? Is not a societal expectation of monogamy and stability with the force of government behind it social tampering?

Why is that kind of engineering good when directed at heterosexuals, but not homosexuals? Homosexuals have families and spouses and children that need protecting as much as anyone else.

Why shouldn't homosexuals be held up to the same expectations everyone else is? Why should they not endure the same social pressures towards monogamy? Because, right now, there's no pressure. There's nothing to aspire to. There's no expectation.

I'm not sure what you mean by grade-school cirriculums. Unless you're conflating me with the entire gay rights movement, which would be a mistake as I am more often at odds with them than not. I think discussion of the issue has its place in high schools, however the overtly sexual nature of many of the groups advocating it bother me a great deal. There is a balance that could be struck, but the more radical elements don't seem to want to settle for that. With them, it's all or nothing, and that is something I very much disagree with.

I will, however, question what the hell happened to you that motivates you to like guys. But that's my right and prerogative.

You can question it all you like. I doubt any answer I could give would satisfy you. A lot of my gay friends had shockingly normal upbringings. We don't know what causes it. I don't believe there's a gay gene that automatically makes someone gay, but I do believe some people tend to have a greater disposition for it, and various experiences (not necessarily abusive or sexual) can be triggers or play certain roles in sexual development. It's a complicated thing, and we may never get to the bottom of it.

And I'll be damned if I'm going to accomadate YOUR sex preferences when I don't get special treatment or mine.

I don't want special treatment. I want equal treatment. I want the same opportunities, benefits, and protections for a relationship with my (future)spouse that come with your spouse. Nothing more, nothing less.

Well, this thread really got off the rails didn't it? One mention of G#y P%rn C@ck and everyone was everywhere.

I only spend gobs of time around the community. What do I know.

I spend most of my time outside the community. Whatever goes on inside the house, what I hear outside is mostly guys.

Well, what's your argument for two? That's the way it's always been? Do you have a principled argument aside from that?

It works. But I don't want to let an important point pass, either: you are the one demanding change. The burdens of proof and persuasion are yours.

I think monogamy is the safest, most stable form of relationship, best suited towards the rearing of children.

What could be more stable, then, than siblings (of whatever sex) marrying?

And I believe the jury is still out on whether gay households, as a rule, provide the same degree of suitability for rearinig children. Probably why "for the children" has not really been the movement's argument to date.

Have we tried gay marriage in an environment where out of wedlock partnerships are not supported by the state or corporations?

As you point out, we are already past this pristine point in this country. Even of your "true same sex marriage" notion were valid (and for my money, it sounds just like the claims about "true socialism" and "true marxism" that get passed as excuses for the abject failuere of those approaches), this would no longer be the country for trying it out.

We have civil unions and the like. Just like Canada and Europe. It would be rational to expect that if we continue to do as they have done, we will get what they have gotten. I find it telling that you are unphased by that.

Wanting legal protections for your family is far more understandable than denying them to others. So, who is most at fault for this development?

The "legal protections" twaddle is what gave us civil unions and the like, alright. And it was nonsense then, too. POA's, joint ownership of property, etc. were already available. When I used to debate this ages ago, it usually devolved into complaining about the tax code.

The real objective as far as I have seen is to force a degree of respect for the gay lifestyle through legal battering. (Can't happen that way, BTW.) If marriage gets trashed along the way, it's not like gays are worse off so who cares? From that point of view, it is better that marriage die as an institution than continue to endure it as something same sex couples cannot share. This belief would certainly explain why same sex marriage advocates are so unconcerned about any potential costs of this brazen exercise in social engineering.

You have given too much away in the desire to blame the rest of us for what you have done to date. The fact is, you have done it and by your own reasoning have created an environment in which "true same sex marriage" can't happen. All you can do is replicate what has so far failed elsewhere. I'll pass on following that kind of a lead.

gay marriage would be no more social engineering than regular marriage would. Is heterosexual marriage social engineering?

What you call "heterosexual marriage," the actual term for which is simply "marriage," has been tested over a long time. Same sex unions are a novelty created out of nothing but wishful thinking and theory. We are promised that it will rescue the institution, prevent AIDS, and so on, but it has done no such thing any place it has been tried. It is major change to a bedrock institution by legal fiat. I'd say it is classic social engineering.

Why should they not endure the same social pressures towards monogamy?

As I said before, the committment to monogamy comes first. A happy marriage follows. You have the cart before the horse.

I don't want special treatment. I want equal treatment.

You have equal treatment; you just aren't satisfied that you can marry as other people do. That's understandable. What you want is equal results - equal pleasure - and the power to reshape our most basic institutions to serve that desire, consequences be damned.

You bear the burden of persusaion. I am not persuaded.

ANDY FEAR VAGINAS

He sees vaginas as evil

That's reall it

ANDY FEAR VAGINAS

As do most of the straight guys here. This is as close a discussion to hetereosexual sex as it gets on this blog. It's all gay marriage all the time, or all women are golddigging hos, or wouldn't it be fun to pull out my dork and stick it in my co-worker's face jokes.

You would think ace would be more upfront about it and at least work in some rainbow colors into his webdesign.

I like vaginas.

And I like to confront my fears. A lot.

Interesting blog, does this site get lots of activity or is it usually slow around here?

I don't suppose there's any way to seal threads after 72 hours or something...? I hate watching these cockroaches tiptoe in and jerk off in the comments.