Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
As you know part of my contribution as a guest blogger has been the fact that I write much from personal experience. This particular blog is one that I’ve thought about for awhile and have had some trepidation in writing because as you will see it touches on a very sensitive topic for most males. As a boy coming of age in the 1950’s one of the unvoiced, but omnipresent topics was male homosexuality. For a male growing up in that period, among the most upsetting epithets you could be called was queer. This was especially disturbing for those entering puberty, which in the 50’s context was coming into the macho essence of your own self worth. If you were queer you were deemed to be less of a male, a wimp, a fag and most essentially a loathsome pervert who did disgusting things with other males. People were bullied and beaten at school while being called degrading names. Even though I was always big for my age, I was a gentle and sensitive boy and while when attacked I would always fight back, I would be throwing punches through tears of frustration and rage at the injustice of it all. As I cried and fought, all those demeaning epithets would be hurled at me by the jeering bystanders. If I had the temerity to be winning, then other boys would attack me from behind. Finally, a teacher or Administrator would break it up, many times though my rescuer would sneer at the fact that my crying was “unmanly”.
At the same time in the 50’s, stories would occasionally appear in the papers and TV, of police raiding homosexual nightclubs and arresting the participants for engaging in lewd acts. These stories were always couched in vague terminology since homosexuality was such a sensitive topic, indeed most discussions of sexuality in general were not considered decent topics for open discussion in the media. Even though my parents were very open about sexuality for the time and I was told the “facts of life” at a young age, they never discussed homosexuality with me. To be honest I never asked because my father was what you would call a “Man’s Man”, or “hale fellow well met”. He was large and had a history as a brawler in his youth. I wanted to be like him have his respect, so although I could ask him anything about sex, I never asked him about homosexuality. Taboo subjects interested me. The mystique surrounding homosexuality perked my interest. Through reading and from Freud, I tried to get a handle on what this strange “perversion” was and why it was considered so bad that it needed the intervention of law enforcement. My attraction was always towards women, but I wanted to understand why some men (and some women) were attracted to the same sex. There simply wasn’t enough information at the time to give me any sort of understanding and Freud’s position was among the least helpful. What I did know is that having been called queer and fag, knowing how it hurt, my empathy for those who were homosexual and how they were treated increased. It is the question of do you side with the oppressors, or the oppressed? What moved me to finally write this piece was a story out of Louisiana in the Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/louisiana-police-sting-gay-men-anti-sodomy-law_n_3668116.html It is about the Sheriff’s Office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana that has arrested at least a dozen men since 2011 for agreeing to have consensual sex with undercover police officers. What makes this case so bizarre for these times, yet so familiar when its law enforcement dealing with homosexuality, is that they were arrested under a law that had been declared unconstitutional?
“In all of the cases, the men were arrested under the state’s anti-sodomy law, which was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.
“Technically invalid yet still on the books, the state’s “Crime Against Nature” law prohibits “unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same-sex or opposite-sex or with an animal” along with “solicitation by a human being of another with the intent to engage in any unnatural carnal copulation for compensation,” according to Louisiana legislature.
“This is a law that is currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by our Louisiana Legislature,” Casey Rayborn Hicks, a Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman, told the Baton Rouge Advocate. “Whether the law is valid is something for the courts to determine, but the sheriff will enforce the laws that are enacted.”
However, the Advocate also revealed that none of these cases had been prosecuted by District Attorney Hillar Moore III, whose office could find no evidence of any crime being committed by any of the arrested men.”
Obviously, District Attorney Moore had more common sense than the Sheriff’s Office that formulated the “sting”. The statement by Mr. Hicks is thoroughly disingenuous to say the least. Knowing the “law on the books” was unconstitutional they did it anyway as their way of harassing gay men and most probably because of their own distaste for homosexuality. Before SCOTUS rulings such as Lawrence v. Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas , all over this country the police were harassing members of the LGBT community. Some of this harassment was done because of the predominant religious mores of the particular community and some was done because by nature many police officers and District Attorneys in the U.S. see themselves as macho defenders of justice and more importantly public morals.
Even today when being Gay has been favorably portrayed in the media, when there are beloved Gay celebrities and when SCOTUS has ruled in favor of Gay Marriage, there are many who are horrified by the notion of homosexuality and consider it evil. Many of these people are in positions of power today and the vileness, to me at least; of their statements railing against the notion of Gay Rights proliferate even though those rights are now being recognized as Constitutional guarantees. Below are some links that will give you an idea of the amount of anti-gay bigotry that is hysterically increasing in the face of this country becoming far more accepting of people’s inherent right to their sexual preference.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/41549/10-craziest-michele-bachmann-anti-gay-quotes
There are many more quotations available, but let me point out that two of those links refer to people who were contenders for the GOP Presidential nomination and other was from a sitting Supreme Court Justice. Clearly the battle for the human rights of the LBGT community is far from over, even though much progress has been made. The fact is there are many in the United States that for religious reasons, personal prejudice and preference will keep battling against what seems to be a rising tide. I write this to emphasize that it is not time to rest in this issue which to me has an importance far beyond just the issue of who consenting adults have sex with. I have written before about the threat that religion of the extreme fundamentalist stripe creates towards the idea of democracy. http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/05/morsi-democracy-and-problem-with-fundamentalist-politics/ . This blowback by religionists is taking place in many regions of the world.
“MOSCOW — A new law banning “homosexual propaganda” in Russia is raising concerns about the state of human rights in a country already notorious for silencing dissent.
The legislation is vague but its intent is clear: It is now “illegal to spread information about non-traditional sexual behavior” to minors (under 18), and there are hefty fines for those who disobey. Foreigners are also subject to fines and can be deported.” http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/27/19699629-homosexual-propaganda-law-signals-latest-russian-crackdown?lite
This crackdown in Russia is now being pushed to further extremes and affects visitors there:
“In an even wider crackdown in Russia over expressions of homosexuality, gay athletes and fans will be prohibited from displays of affection and the wearing of pro-homosexual rainbow pins and badges during the 2014 Olympics. Violators face steep fines and jail time, foreigners will face similar penalties plus deportation.” http://www.catholic.org/sports/story.php?id=51935
Much of this Russian zeal to crackdown on homosexuals stems from pressure coming from the Russian Orthodox Church upon Putin and other Russian officialdom. In post Communist Russia the Orthodox Church has been a major player and has undergone a tremendous resurgence. It has definitely been an important political player and Putin et. al. have courted their support. The Russian Orthodox Church probably outdoes the Catholic Church in its opposition to homosexuality. However, homophobia in Russia has a long history and in 1933 Stalin also came down hard on homosexuals and led one of his characteristic purges.
“In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor. The precise reason for Article 121 is in some dispute among historians. The few official government statements made about the law tended to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and was tied up with a belief that homosexuality was only practiced among fascists or the aristocracy. The law remained intact until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union; it was repealed in 1993.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_homosexuality
On Friday Professor Turley even posted a blog about the situation in Russia. http://jonathanturley.org/2013/08/02/russian-gays-forced-to-drink-urine-and-beaten-as-part-of-cure-by-nationalist-thugs/
Another example of “legal” homophobia around the world are the attacks on homosexuals by various African Governments and the draconian penalties for being homosexual that are being imposed:
“More than two-thirds of African countries have laws criminalizing homosexual acts, and despite accounting for a significant percentage of new infections in many countries, men who have sex with men tend to be left out of the HIV response.” http://www.irinnews.org/report/87793
As we can see there is still significant oppression of homosexuals around the world and I haven’t even gotten into the dangerous situations in many other countries for those who don’t meet the standard heterosexual criteria. In the U.S. Russia’s anti-homosexual laws have drawn praise from a source that seems a surprise, but then again maybe not a surprise at all:
“As the hub of the Soviet Union, Russia was reviled for rights abuses by many U.S. conservatives during the Cold War. Now some are voicing support and admiration as Russian authorities crack down on gay-rights activism. The latest step drawing praise from social conservatives is a bill signed into law Sunday by President Vladimir Putin that would impose hefty fines for holding gay pride rallies or providing information about the gay community to minors.
“You admire some of the things they’re doing in Russia against propaganda,” said Austin Ruse, president of the U.S.-based Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. “On the other hand, you know it would be impossible to do that here.” Ruse, whose institute is seeking accreditation at the United Nations, plans to travel to Russia this summer to meet with government officials and civic leaders. “We want to let them know they do in fact have support among American NGOs (non-governmental organizations) on social issues,” he said.
Among others commending Russia’s anti-gay efforts was Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.”Russians do not want to follow America’s reckless and decadent promotion of gender confusion, sexual perversion, and anti-biblical ideologies to youth,” LaBarbera said on his website.
In a sign of Russia’s evolving stature among some U.S. social conservatives, the Illinois-based World Congress of Families plans to hold its eighth international conference at the Kremlin’s Palace of Congresses in Moscow next year. Past conferences in Europe, Mexico and Australia have brought together opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage from dozens of countries.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/russia-anti-gay-bill_n_3530050.html
My premise is that the battle for the right to be of different sexual orientation is a subset of the battle to impose a religious based morality on people under the color of law. The issue of Gay rights is just one aspect of this threat. It has assumed almost a center stage in the battle to theocratize governments because for males all over the world, the idea of not being “man enough” hits at the core of their being. I reject the whole concept that a male’s self worth should be tied up in his sexual preferences and experiences. Many who have known me view me in macho terms. As the son of a “man’s man” I learned how to interact with other males and can talk sports, cars and women with the best of them. There is a swagger to my walk and with my height and large head many friends called and call me “Big Mike”. I played many sports and while never a good athlete I was competent as a player. Those who really know me best though see my more sensitive, feminine and in many ways better side. I’m a bit of a gossip; I love Broadway Musicals; loved Judy Garland and Peter Allen and I cry copiously in both joy and sorrow. Yes those are clichés used regarding Gay men, but these clichés apply to me as well.
I believe that for the human race finally to learn to live together peacefully and harmoniously we need to learn to stop making these distinctions about what is the natural state for perhaps ten percent of all of humans and indeed animals. Our sexual drives are complex and the need to satisfy our sexual urges is what drives us to interact with others. Sexuality needs to be viewed in its true sense as a spectrum of responses humans make in the search for pleasure and fulfillment. A good part of sexuality is curiosity and indeed one of the reasons humans have progressed so far is that we have an insatiable curiosity. This leads me to my own confession which I alluded to in the title and in my opening of this blog. In the 60’s and in the early 70’s I was an active participant in what was known as the sexual revolution. For the homosexual community the opening battle for their rights could be said to have occurred in the Stonewall Riots. I had many gay friends and acquaintances when those protests began on June 28th 1969. I even knew some who directly participated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
When news of the protests reached the media I cried in joy at the unity in fighting back against police repression and the corruption it engendered. In the following days I shared the sense of triumph coming from those protests with my Gay friends. To me looking back this was the opening shot of the fight for Gay freedom. Since I was so openly a supporter of freedom from oppression for the Gay community it was inevitable that a few years later one of my Gay male friends would proposition me. That this occurred was well known in my social group and there was good natured pressure on me to at least give it a try. This pressure arose partly because at the time I was involved in a ménage with two women and they playfully taunted me that what was good for the goose, was good for the gander. It was with much fear and trepidation that I took my male friend up on his offer. My experience was a good one and there was pleasure to be had, but it also confirmed for me that my sexual preference was for the female body. So it goes and it matters not if it had led me on a different relationship path. It was said back in the day that one could be a married man for years, but if a man had even one homosexual experience he was a queer. That is frankly nonsense and is believed by ignorant people. Admittedly I gave into peer pressure and in a sense I can’t claim that my experiment was one of courage, but I would also be lying if I denied that I was curious about the difference between gay and straight sex. The truth is that there is really very little difference except body structure and the limits that imposes. The underlying reality though is that normal human interaction between individuals doesn’t differ to any great degree and depends primarily on the personality of the participants. I look back upon my experiments in sexuality with warmth and a certain amount of pride that I was able to satisfy my curiosity along with the pleasure it brought.
However, that is not my point. What one does with their sexuality, provided it is consensual and among peers, is nobody’s business but that of the participants. One’s sexuality neither defines ones character, nor does it define one’s self worth. Those “paragons” of morality, who would call those whose sexual practices don’t conform to their own “evil,” are to my mind somewhat crazy. Why should any of us care how people get their pleasure as long as it harms no one?
In many places of the world, in many eras of civilization’s long history, religion has made sexuality a target of hatred. Some, but certainly not all religions target sexuality as a means of gaining political power. In many eras through history religion and government have had a symbiotic relationship, with religious belief being used to assist the powers that be in retaining their power and their positions atop a society’s hierarchy. We see in the Gospels of Christianity for instance a Jesus who disdains wealth, abjures the rich and would even break bread with those looked down upon by society. Jesus never once deals with homosexuality. Yet the Roman Catholic Church began under the control of the Roman Emperor and so the emphasis of Jesus strictures to “turn the other cheek” or the difficulties of a rich man getting into Heaven were downplayed and the Pentateuch’s sexual rigidity was brought to the forefront. I don’t mean to single out Christianity in this respect, because we see the same pattern existing in all great religions. Economic disparity and oppression are hard to justify morally and certainly would put any religion on a collision course with the elite’s power that they seek to share, so sexuality becomes an easy focus. Those with political power and wealth don’t mind sexual repression since it never interferes with their own pleasures and it certainly helps to keep the common folk down. Since most places throughout human history have been dominated by Alpha Males repression of homosexuality has found approval, but no more so than repression of women’s rights. The irony is that some of the most “Alpha” of males like the Spartan Army and Alexander The Great were probably gay, or at the least “Bi”. Then of course they were pagans and in many of those religions sexuality was of little import.
The prejudice against the LBGT community is a real evil that we face simply because it is a prejudice against the reality of human nature. To demonize people for their sexuality, their sex, the color of their skin or for their ethnicity is the real evil in this world. I support, nay demand, full citizenship rights for the LBGT community and if in your opposition to that natural state you want to call me queer, go right ahead, I’ll wear the mantle proudly.
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
Lonny Lloyd Roseland, Anti-Gay Vandal, Caught Targeting LGBT-Friendly Church
The Huffington Post
By Meredith Bennett-Smith
Posted: 08/08/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/08/lonny-lloyd-roseland-anti-gay-vandal-caught_n_3726338.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
Excerpt;
For weeks, parishioners of a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender-friendly church in Minnesota have arrived on Sundays and found their building covered in offensive anti-gay graffiti and broken eggs. But the congregation may be sleeping easier this week now that the man behind the vandalism was caught red-handed and confessed.
Surveillance footage showed Lonny Lloyd Roseland, of Maple Grove, throwing eggs at the Pilgrims United Church of Christ in late July, reports local CBS affiliate WCCO. Roseland, who uses a wheelchair, has been charged with third-degree damage to property and disorderly conduct.
This latest instance of anti-gay vandalism, which occurred on July 28, was the fourth such case allegedly perpetrated by Roseland since June 2, according to WCCO. On that first occasion, Roseland threw eggs at the church and wrote “church of Soddom and Gomorrah” on its walls, according to local NBC affiliate KARE 11.
“We are a very progressive voice in Maple Grove,” Pilgrims United Church of Christ Pastor Robin Raudabaugh told KARE 11 at the time. “This was a very hate-filled act.”
Gordon Klingenschmitt Slams Prop 8 Ruling, Suggests Officials Who Allow Gay Marriage Are Demonic
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/08/gordon-klingenschmitt-prop-8_n_3728083.html
Former Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt slammed the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Prop 8 in the Aug. 8 installment of his “Pray In Jesus Name” program, suggesting there was a “demon of lawlessness” among government authorities who were choosing not to enforce California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.
As Right Wing Watch first reported, Klingenschmit — who earlier this week argued in favor of discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community — notes in the new clip, “Lust is not love, and and whatever they’re doing behind closed doors is not love in the homosexual community. It is lawlessness.”
He then offered a prayer to “ban sodomy,” which he described as “a perversion,” and “not love at all.”
Klingenschmitt, of course, is no stranger to expressing anti-LGBT views. In 2012, the former Navy chaplain came forward with claims that he was able to actually “exorcise” homosexuality out of individuals on an installment of “The David Pakman Show.”
He also slammed President Barack Obama for being “on the wrong side of history” for supporting same-sex marriage, before claiming that he believes everyone is born straight.
davidm,
“However, I think you miss the point that when these activists claim they are being hurt or treated as second class citizens, the fact that once they win this culture war most of them will choose not to marry suggests that their argument is a ruse, that something more nefarious is underway. ”
*****
Those gays…they’re such a nefarious lot of folks, aren’t they? Better watch out if some of them move into your neighborhood. You never know what they may be capable of doing.
Elaine M wrote: “Those gays…they’re such a nefarious lot of folks, aren’t they?”
I had in mind “gay activists” not gays in general. Most gays are like many heterosexuals — simply deceived by the sly rhetoric of equality.
@GeneH:
Yes, I took care of my STD (Stupid, Trifling Dork). Last I heard, he got married a year and a half ago, and he is expecting. But he left one thing I wasn’t able to get rid of. It was this wooden Kitaro sword, or something like that. Which, I accidentally forgot to put in the garbage bags when I set all his crap out on the curb.
It is really good for home defense along with the baseball bat and guns and stuff. You could really hurt a person with that thing because the wood is really heavy, maybe even mahogany. Plus, it is kind of Freudian, that I sent him packing without his sword!
LOL!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeker: However, you have some of those same troubling issues with gay marriage. Particularly when it comes to child custody, and support.
I do not see why. If child custody is not mutually agreed upon in a divorce, then child custody is determined in the best interest of the child, by the court. The court will appoint an attorney to represent only the child’s interests in any such determination; social workers will be deployed to assess the options, there are many rules in that scenario that do not have to have anything to do with the gender of the parents.
Squeeker says: some laws in some states make adultery by a party a justification for an uneven split of marital assets. How will a Gay Open Marriage agreement work in that light? Will it be void as a matter of public policy?
IF adultery is committed by both parties, then the judge or jury can sort it out. Don’t you think people have brains that can solve problems like that based upon the circumstances and testimony presented?
There is no such thing as a Gay Open Marriage agreement. There would be Gay Marriage. If it is open that is up to the partners in question, EXACTLY as it is for the partners in a heterosexual marriage: If they want an open marriage, nothing is stopping them. So, should we outlaw heterosexual marriage on the grounds that problem cannot be solved by the courts? Of course not; in such a State as you describe, if adultery occurs by both parties in a heterosexual marriage, then the judge (or jury) will sort it out and come to a decision that will be binding upon both parties. Exactly what would happen if both parties were of the same gender, nothing changes.
That was a rhetorical question.
So . . . did you ever get your STD treated, Squeek?
@MikeS:
You said: “Sex is about sharing, intimacy and pleasure. That some choose to participate just to get their rocks off is also okay.”
How magnanimous of you! However, I suspect a lot of oats are going bad. Maybe it is ergot??? Here is where you can see how many:
http://www.ashasexualhealth.org/std-sti/std-statistics.html
When you were sowing yours, it was a different world. They probably didn’t even have HIV back then. And, I doubt you were doing to get back at Jesus or a priest or rabbi. It was for fun. Then, you frigging grew up.
Do you present a Jimmy Swaggert Defense, that these 11 preverts were down there cruising the park because they wanted to make a religious statement? I’m betting they were just looking to “git some.” Let me try something different:
Look at cigarettes for a minute. You had a substance, an activity that was killing and harming a large number of people. To reduce the impact, the government began educating people by putting those little “This Sh*t’ll Kill You!” messages on the packs. That didn’t really work well. People kept smoking in large numbers.
Sooo, the gov’t expanded its program to take cigarette commercials off the air, out of magazines. They started raising heck about cute little dromedaries smoking, and stud sexy cowboys. Movie producers and Hollywood joined in, and reduced the number of kewl smokers on the screen. Then, you had the whole, “You gotta smoke outside” rules, and “No Smoking Areas.” Finally, the taxes went up. On every level, from education to movies to taxes, it was “Don’t friggin smoke!”
What would you think about a person who instead said, “Hey, smoking is fine as long as you do it safely, Just use a filter, and maybe smoke less, and smoke no tar types” etc. etc. Oh, and I sowed my wild cigarettes when I was young, and I’m still here!” Above all, don’t feel guilty about smoking, and hide it, and sneak around in back alleys. And, “don’t listen to all those religious people who tell you that your body is a temple, and you shouldn’t screw it up with nicotine! I hate those religious busybody types!” Finally, when some dudes got busted for smoking in a no smoking zone, that person came to their defense and castigated the police!
What would YOU think about such a person??? What if that same person, and two of his friends, were also people who stopped smoking a long time ago, and settled down in a happy cigarette free life???
Is any of this getting through to you???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
**sniff**snort**HONK!**
SF, girl reporter,
Your response about polygamy is not related as was explained earlier to the gay marriage issue, but I have no problem with polygamy as long is it is consensual and that the laws are adjusted to answer the issues of inheritance, divorce etc. Just because you consider it simplistic does not detract from the basic concept of equal justice for everyone. That is a simple fact as well. We are all equal or we are not.
rafflaw:
You said: “When someone loves another they should have the same legal rights as any other lovers. There should be no other real reason beyond that.”
In two sentences you have managed to present the basic case for gay marriage. The problem is, your approach is way too simplistic in the legal sense. While gay marriage may or may not be desirable, depending on your viewpoint, there is a whole lot more to the affair than someone’e immediate amount of sexual heat.
After the heat has cooled, or been transferred to some new “someone”, there is still a mortgage on the house, and a pension plan, and the silverware, and kids if any, and pet doggie, and “he promised to send me to cosmetology school if I quit the coffee shop and married him!” etc. etc.
Not to mention, the next group to come down the pike, with “but the six of us luuuvvvvveee each other, and we should have the same legal rights as any other lovers.” And, as a taxpayer, say in Connecticut, you will have to pay the medical bill of all five husbands,wives, whatevahs, of the one person in the group who has a job down at DMV. Which you may not want to do.
And if five of that group are women, who pop out about 3 or 4 kids each, you get to pay all the welfare benefits if there is divorce, and put up with the impact of 15 or 20 so fatherless kids running loose in the neighborhood.
If life was as easy as you make it out to be, then Obamacare wouldn’t run to 2,500 pages+. Or any other law. Human society might be able to get by with a simple set of rules. Maybe even ones carved on stone tablets.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@OtterS:
I am sorry if that link confused you. I had not considered that possibility.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Dear Ms. SF, Girl Reporter,
For someone who calls those of us who believe that equal rights really do mean equal rights whiners; you sure are doing a lot of whining. When someone loves another they should have the same legal rights as any other lovers. There should be no other real reason beyond that.
rafflaw wrote: “When someone loves another they should have the same legal rights as any other lovers.”
Nobody disagrees with this statement. The problem is that marriage is more about a kind of love that is enduring, not the erotic sexual lust that homosexuals emphasize. The modern culture has been confused by 50 years of movies portraying marriage as some kind of wonderful romantic escapade centered around sexual feelings. Such is historically inaccurate.
Furthermore, marriage is not just about love, but about the male and female coming together in a unique bond that completes them. Governments often create incentives to promote it because children born into stable families that are married are less prone to crime, diseases and other social ills. The legal rights of lovers that you talk about are accommodated just fine with a domestic partnership like they have in California. The Supreme Court in California said that the legal rights of domestic partnerships is essentially the same as those for marriage. States can recognize same sex marriages in those states or countries that allow them to be the same as a domestic partnership in their state.
The truth is that the “legal rights” issue has been resolved long ago and is not really on the table. The reason the issue is pushed is simply symbolic. The gay activists want acceptance and approval. They want people to believe that lust = love, and that their sexual behavior is equivalent and equal to all other sexual behaviors. Their sexual behavior is not the same, and their conflation of sexual equality with legal equality has perverted the rational minds of many who consider the issue. It is a sexual liberation movement, plain and simple.
“The problem is that marriage is more about a kind of love that is enduring, not the erotic sexual lust that homosexuals emphasize.”
Enduring? 50% of marriages end in divorce. Bible Belt states have the highest rates of divorce. The highest rates of Teen pregnancies. The highest rates of STD’s. When you conflate lust and only Gay people you are letting your prejudice show.
@TonyC:
You make a lot of good points about polygamy, and I hope any future battles will be that simple to win. However, with Sotomeyor’s observation, I suspect it will be harder than that. As a practice, polygamy has a long history, and the legal issues have certainly been ironed out. But once marriage becomes a fundamental right in the sense that it is being argued, it looks to me like the door is open.
However, you have some of those same troubling issues with gay marriage. Particularly when it comes to child custody, and support. And, at some point the kid has a say in back child support, usually for two years after reaching majority. Kids aren’t necessarily bound by pre-nups and Sexual Agreements. Plus, as I pointed out, (Before some people started calling me names!!!), some laws in some states make adultery by a party a justification for an uneven split of marital assets. How will a Gay Open Marriage agreement work in that light? Will it be void as a matter of public policy?
How about the cultural milieu of gay marriage, with its long history of ambivalence toward monogamy. Could a party who has been cheated on use adultery as a justification for divorce, as permitted by many state’s statutes, or would those statutes be affected the same as others are by reference to Sharia law or some other religious laws?
All that should be very interesting to watch.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Include a link to WebMD and then act all innocent when a health care professional actually responds to the medical aspect of a link to…..WebMD?
Bragging about points you make is Valley Girl at age 13 stuff. Sounds a lot like Larry and Joe Blow. Are you all from the same astroturf outfit?
Some people have neither shame nor empathy. We call them “psychopaths.”
@MikeS:
Wow! You have a lot of nerve. You call me “nasty” and “judgemental” when you’re the one who was “god damning” people who didn’t agree with you??? Since then, the essence of your responses have been pretty much been to label me as a homophobic bigot. And now even a troll. That is a pretty typical reaction from people who based their opinions on emotions, and then try to pretend they are result of a logical thought process. They begin to mentally unravel as the contradictions mount. Don’t you therapists call that “decompensation’???
You may see yourself as Horatius, on the bridge, saving the Kingdom from hordes of ravening Southern Baptists, but you are actually just Bippy, the Circus Clown, with a seltzer bottle busily spritzing the crowd.
If you, and OS and Elaine, have had long happy marriages, then you ought to be the first here to provide wisdom to younger people, and the last to encourage cheap thrills from sleezy sexual practices. You ought to be the last to encourage the complete and total objectification of the sex act, particularly when you think about that 1 in 5 stuff. What are the three of you. . .some sort of Sekrit Sadist Society that gets off on screwing people up???
But no, instead we get a diatribe about some sleazeballs busted for cruising in the city parks. Which I guess you equate somehow to your long and adultery free marriage. Hmmm, yeah I guess some “sex” is involved in both but I am having a little trouble connecting any other of the dots. Perhaps those members of your gay victim group just aren’t able to comport their behavior the same way that you, and OS, and Elaine have. Maybe cheap hookups are all they can ever hope for. If you want to see a bigot, just go look in the mirror.
You are just mad because I am making some good points and I am not running in stark terror from your intimidation tactics.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“then you ought to be the first here to provide wisdom to younger people, and the last to encourage cheap thrills from sleezy sexual practices’
First of all what you cal sleazy I call typically human. Therein lies a good deal of your problem. You view sexuality from a skewed religious perspective and denote certain acts as sleazy and certain acts as permissible. Sex is about sharing, intimacy and pleasure. That some choose to participate just to get their rocks off is also okay. As I keep reiterating as long as it is between consenting, adult peers people should be able to enjoy themselves without the opprobrium of mindless twits, who think that religions deal in sex because of either God or morality. As I said in my article and in numerous comments following, religion chooses to make sex “sinful” as a means of controlling people and not upsetting the powers that be. I am trying to provide the wisdom of my experience with sex and part of the reason I’ve been able to have a successful, long marriage is because when I got married I had sown my “wild oats.” I’m not saying my path is what everyone should follow, you’re the one saying that.
Now I know I have known far more Gay people than you have. My experiences with them are far different than your imagination of them. You can feel that those 11 men arrested in that sting in LA. deserved what they got because you have dehumanized homosexuals in your mind. I suspect that in your mind you have also dehumanized Black people, judging from your comments. Dehumanization of a group is a hallmark of bigotry and your lack of empathy comes through your writing clearly. Gene said he felt sad for you and I understand why. Your outlook on sexuality reeks of a damaged individual, like most of those who view sex from a religious based perspective.
The reality that most religious denigration of sexuality comes from the minds of hypocrites, or sexually damaged individuals, can be seen in the pedophilia scandal of the Catholic Church. The statistics too about teen pregnancies, divorce and widespread STD’ shows the rates are the highest in the so-called “bible belt” States. Why is that if they are the most arguably religious in this nation?
Mike Spindell wrote: “The statistics too about teen pregnancies, divorce and widespread STD’ shows the rates are the highest in the so-called “bible belt” States. Why is that if they are the most arguably religious in this nation?”
It kind of makes sense, Mike, that the ones having the most problems with STD’s might be the ones most trying to do something about it. Does that seem illogical to you? Certainly the homosexual community has shouted the loudest about the AIDS problem.
“It kind of makes sense, Mike, that the ones having the most problems with STD’s might be the ones most trying to do something about it. Does that seem illogical to you?”
David,
Interesting gambit David, but failed gambit nonetheless. Those Bible Belt States means used to prevent their problems have been abject failures. The abstinence programs that emphasize that condoms don’t work is an example of that. The ignorance spread in the “virginity promises” teaches the youth that sex only really means intercourse, so the teens engage in anal sex and in oral sex which also can spread STD’s. The difficulty in those States for getting birth control by teenage women, banning of the “morning after” pill and turning school sex education programs into “abstinence only” programs has directly led to the increased rate of pregnancy. You’re horrified by lust then stop doing what you’re doing. It is the religious viewpoint of sexuality that turns normal human behavior into lust. There is nothing at all wrong or unnatural about sex, it is the purveyors of unattainable religious proscriptions of sex that creates the very idea of lust. You claim no church affiliation, yet your words unaffiliated as they may be, support the religious belief that sex is only about procreation, which in its inhumanity causes all the problems.
Squeeky wrote: “You may see yourself as Horatius, on the bridge, saving the Kingdom from hordes of ravening Southern Baptists, but you are actually just Bippy, the Circus Clown, with a seltzer bottle busily spritzing the crowd. … What are the three of you. . .some sort of Sekrit Sadist Society that gets off on screwing people up???”
ROTFLOL. Squeeky, you have me in stitches so often. Your style reminds me of Dennis Miller. I gotta have a google search box close by to look up your many references. Your intelligence and vast knowledge coupled with wit is a delight and welcome relief to the grumpiness that often permeates this forum.
Squeeker: what about polygamy?
I did address that directly. The current marriage law is well defined for two people, and needs virtually no modification (or only cosmetic modification) to accommodate same-sex marriage.
That isn’t true for polygamy; even considering one man with two wives: Are the wives married to each other, or not? If the man and one wife are killed in a car accident, does the surviving wife have rights to their children? If the man died first, and then the other wife died a day later, does the surviving wife inherit the first wife’ estate? Or half of it? Or none of it? If the man dies and the other wife in the car does NOT die, but is in vegetative state, does the other wife have any right to make medical decisions on behalf of coma-wife?
Suppose a different scenario: The man is driving alone and is brain-damaged in an accident, and in a vegetative state. Which of his wives gets the final say on his medical choices, and why does that wife get priority in any disagreement?
Polygamy, which I would not oppose on any fundamental grounds, would simply require an overhaul of the marriage contract. But I think the most straightforward definition of polygamy would contain as a subset the concept of same-sex marriage, between the multiple wives or multiple husbands: Simply that everybody is married to everybody. That doesn’t solve the problem of priority among multiple spouses, but would simplify many of the other issues.
Tony, your objections seem mostly pragmatic in regards to property and inheritance. Most of the countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Indonesia have marriage laws that allow for polygamy. Do you consider them less civilized? I guess what I am trying to ask is, do you think they manage it okay or are the problems you outline unable to be dealt with properly by these countries?
Also, I wonder if you know why polygamy was outlawed in Western civilizations and China, Russia, etc.?
Squeeker: Plus, the whole “Gays ain’t getting married or staying married in significant enough numbers to matter” thingy. Which all the parrots here continue to ignore.
The rights of a few should not be constrained because a majority does not wish to exercise that right.
I believe painless medically assisted suicide should be a right of everybody, but of course only a tiny fraction of a percent of people would exercise that right; and particularly when their life is about to end anyway and they feel they have nothing but pain left to experience.
I believe voluntary prostitution is a right, even though the vast majority of men and women would not choose to exercise that right.
I believe getting into a jet car and trying to break the sound barrier on land is right, despite the fact that it has a significant chance of lethality, and almost nobody is ever going to actually try it.
I believe hunting is a right, even though I find it reprehensible and barbaric, and only a minority of people actually engage in it.
I believe allowing those cockroaches to crawl around in your brain is your right, Squeeker, I do not want to outlaw that.
We aren’t ignoring that argument, we reject that argument out of hand; the invalidity of that argument is so apparent it does not need explication for anybody but the mentally ill. I hope that helps you.
Tony C wrote: “The rights of a few should not be constrained because a majority does not wish to exercise that right.”
I certainly agree with this principle, and you support it well with your examples. However, I think you miss the point that when these activists claim they are being hurt or treated as second class citizens, the fact that once they win this culture war most of them will choose not to marry suggests that their argument is a ruse, that something more nefarious is underway.
If there would be no need to change the definition of marriage, such as when the anti-miscegenation laws were declared unconstitutional, then there would be little argument against it. When the anti-miscegenation laws were abolished, there was barely a whimper about it. Most people were against them and only a small minority had instituted them. It kind of reminds me of the small group of people who complained against Moses when he married outside his race.
“Tony C wrote: “The rights of a few should not be constrained because a majority does not wish to exercise that right.”
I certainly agree with this principle, and you support it well with your examples. However, I think you miss the point that when these activists claim they are being hurt or treated as second class citizens, the fact that once they win this culture war most of them will choose not to marry suggests that their argument is a ruse, that something more nefarious is underway.”
DavidM,
Once again you make an unfounded assertion, based on your unsupported pre-judgments, that leads to more ominous undertones. Where is your evidence that only a small fraction of homosexuals will choose not to marry?
The evidence is in your mind and reflects your beliefs that Gay people are innately promiscuous. Your whole paragraph reflects a mindset that Gay people are basically claiming that their human rights are being abused as a ruse to turn this society into one that is Gay dominant. I must ask David if your own hold on your sexuality is so tenuous that you believe most males and females would turn Gay if same sex relationships become free of legal entanglements. I ask this not to denigrate you, but because your attitude and the attitude of many really perplexes me. I’ve admitted to having had a homosexual relationship, yet it has never emotionally threatened my being decidedly heterosexual. I believe that most human beings respond to their innate biological drives. You one the other hand feel that ones homosexuality is a conscious/unconscious choice people make and the very sanctity of our society is dependent upon people’s desires being curbed.
You may protest that you are all about freedom of choice, but your words belie it. The problem that some people with religious beliefs have with those not similarly inclined, is that those people see their religious beliefs as a necessary brake on their own behavior. Internally they feel that were it not for their religion (however one defines it) the would “go wild” with the animal lusts buried inside them. When they do their excuses become of “the devil made me do it variety.” The same “moralists” then project their own need to have something outside themselves constrain their “lusts,” onto the whole of human society. This is the fallacy. Most people do not need imposed “moral” precepts to constrain their behavior. While we use “the law” to maintain a degree of social control, the overwhelming majority, perhaps 98%, of the citizenry are law abiding and in fact have considerable restraint in their interaction with others. When laws are broken by large sections of the population it is time to look at the premises of those laws, rather than double the efforts to enforce them. One of the best examples of this was “Prohibition,” that was pushed upon this country by the Women’s Christian Temperance Union to stop the consumption of alcohol. Not only did alcohol consumption increase dramatically, but that amendment led to unprecedented lawlessness in the country and corrupted our society in ways that we still haven’t recovered from.
Unlike Alcohol consumption, the drive for Gay Rights and Marriage Equality, will not increase homosexuality in this country because homosexuality as a sexual choice is limited to those with the inclination. But the analogy holds true in the respect that society cannot legislate esoteric morality, while it can legislate the permutations of the “Golden Rule”.
If it’s any consolation, you don’t make me mad, Sqweeker.
You make me sad.
@OtterS:
And you were the one who brought up doctors for some unknown reason. If you think that latex gloves are a normal part of sex, then maybe it is you who has some sort of fascination with unnecessary pain.
Wiki has an interesting article on it.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“And you were the one who brought up doctors for some unknown reason. If you think that latex gloves are a normal part of sex, then maybe it is you who has some sort of fascination with unnecessary pain.”
What an insensitive, nasty little twit you are. Vicious little bigot from your own mouth. You don’t even have the excuse of stupidity to your shame. Narrow minded and who knows whatever else. I was the one that wrote about my sex life, not OS. DavidM also wrote about his sexual experiences and you’ve written enough for me to know that the man who winds up with you is to be cursed with a judgmental person. That is if you are indeed a “girl” and if you’re not some troll wannabe. Now if it is really “young squeeky” than I’ve been happily married longer than you’ve been alive. Add 25 years to that and that’s how long OS was married to the love of his life. But some pretentious little twerp, who admits that “she’s” swallowed her parents words because she’s too afraid of life to find out things on her own, thinks she knows more about sex and marriage than the two of us. Add Elaine to that long term married picture and we receive the peculiar idea that Squeeky’s Mom and Dad know more about life than three adults with long term marriages.
Oh yes, if as I suspect you’re one of those bigoted losers who thinks getting a rise out of “libruls” is fun, yes you do make me angry. Happy? Abject ignorance and bigotry do make me angry especially if it comes from someone who talks, but lacks morals. How do I know that last part child? It’s all exposed in what you write.