This needs to stop. No one is wishing this on anybody’s campaign teams, and it is an unwanted distraction. This is obviously not the candidate’s fault, but by actions such as these, it seriously hurts the candidate, and in the end, hurts the Republican Party. It just proves that, in some instances, the democrats are right, and those looking for change are right. The biggest question is… how many times will it take for it to sink in the DC leadership.
When I recieve letters asking for money to defeat the democrats and take back the senate, things like this make me hesitate. From here on out, I refuse to give the GOP leadership in congress a penny until they clean up their own act, and stop being hypocrites.
Update: Apparently, this has been known about for a while: more from the youtube link of a 1982 news report investigating Craig:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZXaaFbo6Oo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Epolitico%2Ecom%2Fblogs%2Fjonathanmartin%2F0807%2FLarry%5FCraigs%5FproRomney%5Fvideo%5Ftaken%5Fdown%2Ehtml[/youtube]
It’s not the homosexuality that bothers me, as it is hiding under the “family values.” Leadership knew about the innuendo, and I’m not naive enough to think they didn’t investigate this thoroughly. Cocaine and male pages… that sounds familiar.
UPDATE #2: If Senate leadership weren’t aware of this behavior, they must’ve been the only ones (besides apparently myself).
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RntWGPEjoo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eblogactive%2Ecom%2F2006%2F10%2Fsenator%2Dlarry%2Dcraig%2Dwhats%2Dwith%2Dgay%2Ehtml[/youtube]
Andrew Sullivan mentions his own feelings on this matter, as one who understands the pressures of living a closeted lifestyle:
But my sympathy vanishes when it comes to people who support amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, as Craig did. There are limits to what you get to do to protect your own secrets, and being willing to permanently destroy gay men and lesbians’ chances to marry the people they love, and with whom they have found happiness, is way, way outside them.
Craig seems to have made a habit of voting against laws that would secure the rights of gay men and lesbians. In addition to supporting the Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, he voted against a bill that would have banned job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, against expanding the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation, and was rated zero by the Human Rights Campaign in each of the last three Congresses. I truly can’t imagine what it would be like — how little self-respect a person would have to have — to amass that sort of voting record while cruising for gay sex in airport restrooms.
You can agree or disagree with Sullivan’s lifestyle or beliefs, but he has a point.
UPDATE #3: This just keeps getting worse. According to this rollcall:
After he was arrested, Craig, who is married, was taken to the Airport Police Operations Center to be interviewed about the lewd conduct incident, according to the police report. At one point during the interview, Craig handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, “What do you think about that?” the report states.
So let me get this straight, this guy gets busted, and then tries to force his way out of it by his position in the senate? If I break the “thou shalt not hate” thing, I have to admit, I don’t shed many tears for blatant hypocrits.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
This seriously hurts the candidate Tommy?
I doubt it. Nice try though.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
I didn’t take this as a slam against any candidate, Jason. This, on Tommy’s part, was a respectable plea for the people who claim to be pro-family and pro-marriage to start acting like it. No more, no less.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Jason,
No, I didn’t name names because I don’t want to make this a candidate issue. Using something like this is below any level I would go. It hurts the party, and is an embarassment for Romney, regardless. If he tries to hide it (liek wishing it away), then I will be upset.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
[...] post by Tommy Oliver and software by Elliott [...]
August 27th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Don’t be a prick, Tommy. Don’t blame the others in Congress for one hypocrite’s actions. If you don’t like what Craig did, then don’t give Craig money. But don’t blame McConnell for the fact that Craig was soliciting sex.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
TLG,
Read the above update.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
*deleted by request of poster*
August 27th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Oops, misread that, delete post 7, please. A new response is on the way.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
TLG,
You know these guys have professional dirt diggers, some probably on payroll. This guy had to go on network news and basically deny that he Mark Foley’d some male pages. Are you saying that Dennis Hastert didn’t know about this either. I’ll give money to candidates I think are worthy, but I’m not giving money to leadership caucuses.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Tommy,
I don’t buy it. You put it up and linked to it. I have no problem with that. And I would have no problem with you saying Romney should be in hot water, fair game IMO. But I do think you are being rather dubious to say you were trying to save Romney some face and just talking about how this hurts the party and then say it seriously hurts Romney and he shouldn’t wish it away. Which one is it?
What do you propose he do if you indeed say it isn’t his fault? Saying we shouldn’t tie Romney down with this, then implying we should kind of disingenuous. If you really just want to talk about the problems of corruption in congress then why bring Romney in this and say he can’t wish this away. Let’s talk about the senators who are causing the problems and the lobbyist who fees on the system of corruption.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
I’ve written my own reaction to these stories and I do not think highly of people using this for guilt-by-association political purposes.
Tommy’s on thin ice on this one. There are plenty of Craig stories out there that don’t mention Gov. Romney at all which would have made his original point just as well without dragging Romney’s name through the mud along with it.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
I’m not punishing Romney Jason. It hurts every candidate and the party. This is the kind of crap I’m sick of from gopers.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Um — anyway –
1) Leadership in 1982? OK, post 5 still holds true.
2) This kind of goes to confirm what I know — most of the people who wave the “family values” flag are just doing it to cover up some shortcoming of theirs. People who have strong families don’t feel the need to impose their view of life on other people. People who can raise strong families don’t need the government to stop two men from getting married so they can pretend that they’re doing something for their kids. I’ve been raised by a loving mother who does all that she can to care for me — and never once and she felt the need to blame any of her shortcomings on anyone else, unlike these self-righteous so-cons. Only because the South — the home of social conservatism and the only reason it thrives — is such a miserable failure in family values does it feel the need to attack gays. The South has the highest abortion rates, the highest teen pregnancy rates, the highest murder rates, the highest divorce rates, the highest obesity rates … overall, it’s just a LOT MORE DYSFUNCTIONAL than socially liberal areas. But they don’t blame that on their own asinine redneck culture! No, blame the gays! It’s their fault! I’d call them assholes, but I don’t want to insult assholes like that. Want REAL family values and social progress? LEGALIZE gay marriage, STOP imposing your PERSONAL views on other people, and STOP pretending that “one size fits all.” If you let people MANAGE THEIR OWN LIVES instead of TRYING TO RUN THEM FOR THEM, then things will work out socially.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
I said he can’t wish this away only after you accused me of using it. That was an angry comeback.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Tommy,
Fine, then why make the insinuations and link to a story connecting Romney? I think everything I said in #10 is correct and Thomas in #11 has some great points as well.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
“TLG,
You know these guys have professional dirt diggers, some probably on payroll. This guy had to go on network news and basically deny that he Mark Foley’d some male pages. Are you saying that Dennis Hastert didn’t know about this either. I’ll give money to candidates I think are worthy, but I’m not giving money to leadership caucuses.”
THAT LEADERSHIP IS GONE.
There are a lot of legitimate reasons not to contribute, but don’t use this one prick dirtbag as an excuse because you want to be in denial about the fact that our party’s not doing so hotly right now — I want to believe they’re doing better, too. But they aren’t. Don’t contribute because they’re not governing properly, not because of some lame-ass prick Senator.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Yea, I think it hurts Romney, just like Vitter hurt Rudy, just like I’m sure we’ll have some jackass come out and embarress Thompson at some point. That’s beside the point of who he represents. He embarresses ALL OF US.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
No, he EMBARRASSES HIMSELF. If people want to misconstrue it, that’s their own shortcoming. It hurts us as a party, but it does not EMBARRASS US AS A PARTY — it embarrasses SENATOR CRAIG. NO ONE ELSE has done anything wrong as far as we know.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Jason, I linked the story because it was the first one that came up under relevent links on Google. To be honest, who he supported is beside the point to me. He could’ve been Thompson’s chief errand boy, he needs to go.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
TLG,
Sorry your point holds no water. Only 2-4% of the population is gay. How could people against gay marriage all be gay? I know it makes your position easier to defend in your mind if you can just conclude every one is gay deep down, but that is not the case. I am 100% against gay marriage and 100% for women.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
TLG,
That’s a good point you make. However, after the Foley debacle when they knew (and not all of that leadership is gone), I’m skeptical of the current bunch. I’ll give to certain candidates (and senate candidates), but how else do you punish them? If you don’t vote for them, they lose their job. By not contributing to the leadership caucuses, you let them know you’re not happy with them.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Tommy,
If Romney new Craig’s problems than he has some answering to do, but beyond that scenario your posting and comments up until #17 kind of miss the mark of the point I think you are actually trying to make.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
It hurts us because now the DNC has more of this crap to push on voters, TLG. It hurts the party.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
What criteria did you use for the google search? I just did a Google news search on Craig and the politico article is nowhere to be found.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
“Sorry your point holds no water. Only 2-4% of the population is gay. How could people against gay marriage all be gay? I know it makes your position easier to defend in your mind if you can just conclude every one is gay deep down, but that is not the case. I am 100% against gay marriage and 100% for women.”
Where did I say that they’re all gay!?
I just meant that we seldom really see a family values candidate who has really practiced what they preach! In other words, they aren’t even doing themselves what they’d seek to impose on others.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
23 — Right, but that doesn’t EMBARRASS US. That embarrasses Senator Craig. He’ll be used at our expense. It’s a little psychological trick, but if anyone else in the GOP feels embarrassed over it, then that guilt and embarrassment isn’t justified.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Maybe a couple of my comments were over the top (that was bcause I got pissed at your first one), but I don’t see where the post did. In my opinion, it is not good for any of us to this guy to go out there and apparently take to coke and male pages. Yea, it’s a headache that no candidate should have to deal with, and I don’t wish this on anybody. Remember though, some here (I don’t remember, but I don’t think it was you) had a field day with Vitter and the SC chair for rudy, and it wasn’t me then either.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Is everyone here absolutely certain that this is true? Regardless of veracity, the damage is done just by the report.
Liberals (and now some anti-Romney folks) can cheer! Hurray! Score another one for the ________ (fill in the blank here), those Conservatives are such damn hypocrites! Woohoo!
Seriously, this is probably all just a drive-by MSM setup. Vitter did not hurt Rudy, Craig won’t hurt Romney – even if this is all true. Fact of the matter is if Craig is guilty, Craig has hurt Craig. Same applies to Vitter or any other person.
Also, supporters will give the benefit of the doubt. Seems like the liberals and those who don’t support will have Craig (and Romney by association) strung up & disemboweled.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Thomas Alan,
The politico article wasn’t in the original post. I added that one in the update when I checked on the 1982 thing which was mentioned in the Boston article.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
.. which was the most recent one I came across when looking it up.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
and the second most relevent story up is on the politico video itself, TA -from cbs news.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I did not want to read the links, looks like Craig did plead guilty. So string him up! Have at him! Tare him to shreds!
August 27th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Jason,
I’ll change that link to directly connect it to the youtube site, itself, so those don’t have to go through the politico article.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Tommy:
The Politico article was in the topic well before the “Update” where you talk about 1982. And the Boston Globe article makes no mention of the 1982 section. Heck, you even say in the update that it’s “more” from the politico article. Furthermore, in the article you insinuate that Gov. Romney’s taking down Craig’s endorsement was an untowards action.
Would you like to apologize for making a thinly disguised hit piece now?
August 27th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Thomas Alan-
The politico piece was directly mentioned in both the Boston article and the next article by CBS news under relevent pieces at the time. The politico article directly linked to this action, which I changed for Jason, and is now posted via youtube above. I think you need to quit thinking everything is used for personal gain around here.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Go to relevent news regarding Senator Craig under google. First is the Boston article, which directly metntions Jonathan Martin and politico. Second is the cbs news blog post, which also is about the Politico article.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Results 1 – 10 of about 1,861 for Larry Craig. (0.12 seconds)
Browse Top Stories
« View all web results for Larry Craig
KTVU.com Republican Larry Craig was arrested at Minneapolis airport in June
CNN – 21 minutes ago
Larry Craig of Idaho was arrested in June at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Roll Call newspaper reported Monday that Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho …
Senator Craig withdraws from Romney campaign role Boston Globe
Sen. Craig arrested in airport men’s room; admits to disorderly … USA Today
Idaho Sen. Craig pleads in airport arrest USA Today
Arizona Republic – New York Times
all 366 news articles »
Sen. Craig’s 1982 Denial Of Improper Dealings With Congressional …
CBS News, NY – 2 hours ago
Larry Craig’s 1982 denial that he was involved in homosexual activity with teenage pages: “When I have people telling me that a whole series of false …
August 27th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Right now, the cnn article has taken over for the boston one, which was first linked when I searched. Directly below it is the CBS News.
How about an apology for me by accusing me of lying?
August 27th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
TLG, has the weird view that politicians want to “impose family values”. I’d like tyo hear what he’s talking about. If he’s talking about politicians who speak in favor of families than is he opposed to people speaking in favor of the family?
I’ve really got no idea what this “imposing family values” means.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Yes you do. “pro-family” politicians tend to want to “clear up the muck” in the airwaves, “protect marriage” by banning gay marriage, and impose religious values.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
AS the cbs news article WAS DIRECTLY ABOUT THE POLITICO ARTICLE, POSTED BY THE POLITICO CRYPT ON CBS’ SITE.
Sen. Craig’s 1982 Denial Of Improper Dealings With Congressional Pages (!!)
By Josephine Hearn
(The Politico) Okay, people, some GREAT video off of YouTube. Sen. Larry Craig’s 1982 denial that he was involved in homosexual activity with teenage pages: “When I have people telling me that a whole series of false accusations are being made against my character, frankly, it makes me made as hell.”
Bonus feature: The NBC reporter for this piece was a very cute early-’80s Lisa Myers.
(Thank you to Crypt colleagues Jonathan Martin and Josh Kraushaar for help on this story.)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/27/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3210187.shtml
August 27th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
And I have no problem if all politicians did was to just speak in favor of the family. But they want to use guns to impose their will on others.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
PS — From the other thread — something I posted that I want to bring here –
“Well, then! But do you see what your hatred of homosexuals, you so-cons, does to people? It compels them to degrade themselves like Sen. Craig did. Ugh. Disgusting — Craig, yes, but so-cons, too.”
Your disgusting ideology forces gay people into the closet and instead of being able to express their sexuality in a healthy way — ie; a loving relationship and potentially marriage — even prominent figures resort to heading to a restroom for sex.
It doesn’t justify the act. I think it’s disgusting. But don’t try to pretend, so-cons, that it isn’t partially your fault that some gay people act this way. You treat them like they’re sub-human and they’ll reply by doing things that aren’t so savory, because you won’t allow them to live normal lives like everyone else.
Do you even WANT them to live normal lives? Is there some secret agenda — do you think they should be “punished” for some sin against your god or whatnot?
This is an outrage. Social conservatism is a national outrage. The mainstream of this party — the mainstream of AMERICA — people who have respect for others — has got to revolt.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
You’re changing your story. A minute ago the politico story wasn’t even in your topic until you found the 1982 story. Now you’re spinning.
Yes, I think your reporting on this was a smear at Romney. The very article itself is of only mild concern for a 2008 blog (I notice the Gonzales story never merited its own post). Your grasping at excuses for your choice of articles proves it for me.
Posting this for the good of the party. Yeah right.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Nusrat, what do you mean by “impose religious values”?
As far as the government controlling what it owns (the public airwaves) and not creating new institutions (gay marriage), is that it?
August 27th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
[...] Watch as I catch one of these rumor-mongering filth peddlers (a Thompson supporter) in their own web of lies. Sphere: Related Content [...]
August 27th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Thomas Alan,
I said the politico story was mentioned in the boston article, and was directly linked to it by the cbs news article which was next in relevence.
When I looked it up, Boston.com was #1 and cbsnews was #2, and the boston article mentioned it, while the CBS ARTICLE DIRECTLY DISCUSSED IT.
No, what you are doing is looking for any reason to attack someone.
“posting this is good for the party. yea right.”
For those of us in reality, you call out the party when it fails you. Ignoring it doesn’t make it go away.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
“TLG, has the weird view that politicians want to “impose family valuesâ€. I’d like tyo hear what he’s talking about. If he’s talking about politicians who speak in favor of families than is he opposed to people speaking in favor of the family?
I’ve really got no idea what this “imposing family values†means.”
It’s part of this BS “traditional values” campaign. The campaign against gays is most important.
Telling gay people that they’re not legitimate as couples.
Telling them that they don’t deserve marriage or any other form of equal rights.
Telling them their sexuality is a “choice” or a “sin.”
Trying to ban gay adoption.
Telling gays that their relationships contribute to the decline of civilization.
Forcing schools to recognize bogus creationist “science.”
Funneling federal tax dollars to fund religious charities, violating the 1st Amendment.
Campaigning against judges that respect the 1st Amendment — ie; 10 Commandments in the courts.
It’s subtle, too –
Oh, vote for Romney, he’s got such an amazing wife! It’s so #*$!ing nostalgic for a time that never really existed except in the minds of so-cons, right? A perfect wife who raises perfect little boys and doesn’t try to overshadow her man. Bash Thompson’s wife because she’s younger and ambitious. Bash Giuliani because he’s had rocky marriages. But Ann Romney? A 1950′s Goddess. A perfect little housewife. She’s better. She’s superior. The self-righteousness is amazing from you so-cons.
And … can someone explain to me why abortion and divorce rates are highest in the South and lowest in the Northeast — those godless fag lovers seem to be doing alright by your terms.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
THE POLITICO STORY WAS MENTIONED IN THE BOSTON STORY, and directly below the boston link was the cbs news link, which mentioned the 1982 story. Some of you are ridiculous.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
“Nusrat, what do you mean by “impose religious valuesâ€?
As far as the government controlling what it owns (the public airwaves) and not creating new institutions (gay marriage), is that it?”
We’re not “creating a new institution.” We’re simply including people who deserve to be included.
You and I both know that the government regulates far more than just the public airwaves and you’re a liar if you say that it’s not true. Unless you consider CBS, NBC, ABC “the public airwaves.”
August 27th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Check this out: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/craig-regrets-guilty-plea-involving-bathroom-incident-2007-08-27.html
Interesting twist in this story. Sen. Craig apparently is saying he’s actually NOT guilty.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Thomas Alan,
Now I see that you’re a blogger on committed to romney, which has taken many cheap shots at Thompson. Do wyou want me to point them out?
August 27th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
“..able to express their sexuality in a healthy way.”
Healthy Homosexuality? Have not heard that one yet. Is that like a healthy poison?
How do you reconcile your disgust for Craig’s solicitation as a “Libertarian”?
August 27th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
“watch as I catch one of these poor souls in a lie”
from your site.
I changed the above link because Jason said it appeared bad, and I did that for him out of respect. It seems you have no respect by accusing me of lying on your site. Of course, this was the same site that once had posters and commenters wanting to look into the history of Thompson’s first marriage, and has made fun of Thompson’s wife’s appearence.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
The politico article wasn’t in the original post. I added that one in the update when I checked on the 1982 thing which was mentioned in the Boston article.
What I said. The youtube was mentioned in the bostonglobe article. The next article in relevence was the cbsnews article, which directly mentioned the 1982 story. So I checked the politico article.
No spin here.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
cwpete, maybe you don’t understand what a libertarian is.
Libertarianism is a political ideology professing the belief that one does not have the right to impose force against anyone else. It’s rather shocking that you’re in disbelief that I don’t have any personal opinions about anything or that I don’t want the government to ban it or whatnot.
IT’S UP TO HIM AS TO WHAT HE DOES WITH HIS SEX LIFE. But I think it’s disgusting to engage in sexual relations with someone you don’t know, could (and likely does) have a sexually transmitted disease, and you don’t know if you share common morals and values with. Relationships, to me, are mostly about intellectual compatibility.
Thanks for admitting that you believe homosexuality is “poison.”
Out of curiosity, can you tell me your opinions on homosexuality? Do you think it’s a choice? Why would a person choose to be homosexual? Is homosexuality a sin against your god? Do you think they want to indoctrinate, recruit, or hurt children? What is the mindset of homosexuals? These answers should be telling.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
More on the case: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/27/AR2007082701305.html
Apparently, Craig’s “lewd misconduct” amounted to “tapping his foot” while he was in a bathroom stall, which is supposedly a “universal signal” that you want to engage in lewd misconduct with the person in the stall next to you. I’ve never heard of such a universal signal, and (especially if the Senator from Idaho was pushing out a real big potato) tapping of the foot might be perfectly acceptable.
I suggest suspending judgment until the full story comes out.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
TLG, I’ve not seen any creationist education policies in any of the South. It’s all happened in Pennsylvania and Kansas.
If that’s all you’ve got than the word “impose” must mean “speak in favor of” in your language.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I was so happy to read about how the Democrats were fighting in FL over the DNC yanking their delegates.
Now they must be happy over this.. The worst political mistake is to be a hypocrite to family values.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Maybe Sen. Craig was tapping his foot in Morse Code…
tap tap tap…L-E-T-S-E-N-G-A-G-E-I-N-L-E-W-D-M-I-S-C-O-N-D-U-C-T…
August 27th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
cwpete,
My thoughts exactly. This makes me furious.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
econ grad stud, are you really going to sit there at your computer and type out to me now that you don’t believe at all that there’s any “intelligent design” being taught in southern schools?
No, impose does not mean “SPEAK IN FAVOR OF,” though that contributes to it because politicians can greatly change the mood of the country. But when gays cannot adopt in some places, when they cannot openly serve in the military EVEN AS TRANSLATORS without being kicked out, when they cannot get married, when they have to worry about whether their orientation might cost them their job (even in some PUBLIC jobs) — THAT IS A PROBLEM. It doesn’t help to have people like you saying that their relationships are illegitimate or disgusting hacks like cwpete say that homosexuality is like poison.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
JS,
They have similar signals that were reported on the news here one night, something like dropping your keys in a mall bathroom is a signal that you are looking for sex.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
It’s a low blow and every wretched rumor-mongering filth peddler who tries to exploit it should be condemned accordingly.
Thanks Thomas. I now know who I respect. I respect most Romney supporters here, and most know that I try and be fair, for the most part with them. But apparently not you. Backtrack all my posts and see where I’ve tried to smear any candidate.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
The above is from Thomas Alan’s blog:
blog.electromneyin2008.com/
August 27th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Tommy,
Oh come on, that’s ridiculous. I’m sure people accidentally drop their keys in mall bathrooms all the time. If there really was an uber-secret signal to initiate “lewd misconduct,” I’m sure it’d be a little more uncommon than that. Local news stories are notorious for giving weight to stupid stories during slow news weeks.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
As far as Criag, it appears he was a mercenary. He said what his constituents wanted to hear and showed them what they wanted to see but lived his life as the immoral man he is.
Apparently there are indications he did what Mark Foley did. He also has been keeping up this betrayal of his wife for years. He’s been illegally engaging in public lewd behavior before he’s got caught.
It says nothing about liberalism, conservatism, or even “family values”. What it demonstrates is that most politicians are lying chameleons who will do _anything_ to be elected.
We already knew that so I guess we’ll try to pretend there’s something else here besides another worthless politician.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
TLG,
Wanna re-hash our homosexuality debate all over again? You should know what my positions are regarding homosexuality by now. Out of respect to other readers & posters, let’s not threadjack this to a homosexuality debate again.
I welcome guys like you who shove homosexuality down our faces. This only serves to energize the so-con vote. So keep it up.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
JS,
It’s the truth. They had a sting operation at Northgate mall in Chattanooga when an undercover cop got picked up by one looking, and he ratted it out.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
all over local news at the time
August 27th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
If all this arrest amounted to was the tapping of one’s foot in a bathroom stall, I highly doubt that a senator would have pleaded guilty to the charge at hand just for the sake of not causing a fuss. Especially in light of 1982. That just seems crazy.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Craig was a known homosexual, going back a while, as Tommy pointed out in his post. It was even posted on a gay blog that he was involved with someone in the bathroom of Union Station.
If I knew it, you have to know that the GOP Senate knew it, not mention the dems and a whole bunch of other people inside the beltway.
Now he’s trying to back away when he was caught red handed? Please.
It’s also ironic that he was one of Mitt Romney’s biggest Senate backers and organizers in the West. What with Romney being the family candidate and all. Can’t have someone who propositions guys for oral sex in bathrooms as one of your campaign leaders. Although, if I recall one of McCain’s guys got caught doing the same thing not too long ago so I guess him and Mitt are even now.
All in all this isn’t that big of a dealm but it is a huge embarassment for the GOP. Fortunately it happened now and not 2008 and no one cares about Idaho.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
cwpete…
how are we shoving homosexuality down your faces? Just ignore it if you don’t like it, but don’t you dare hold a gun to someone’s head saying, “You cannot adopt a kid” for no reason other than arbitrary ones.
It’s amazing that you think we are the ones forcing it down your faces. Astounding.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
And when I say “hold a gun,” I also mean using the gun of the government.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Nusrat no one is holding a gun to your head telling you, you can’t adopt because you’re an active homosexual.
It’s not a federal issue anyway. States decide these things. Constitution doesn’t give the federal govt the authority to regulate adoption. In Massachusetts you can adopt a kid if you’re a practicing homosexual. In other states you can’t.
It’s really easy: Want to adopt?
Move to Massachusetts.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
“TLG,
Wanna re-hash our homosexuality debate all over again? You should know what my positions are regarding homosexuality by now. Out of respect to other readers & posters, let’s not threadjack this to a homosexuality debate again.
I welcome guys like you who shove homosexuality down our faces. This only serves to energize the so-con vote. So keep it up.”
Yes, I do want to re-hash it because you remind the non-homophobic people as to why they shouldn’t vote for the same person you would.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
That’s not a moral argument. “Don’t want me to hold a gun to your head telling you not to do X? Move to another neighborhood.”
That’s bullying, plain and simple. Try again.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
“A practicing homosexual.”
Would you ever refer to someone as a “practicing heterosexual”? Like it’s some craft? It’s a goddamn sexuality.
econ grad stud, since when have you been concerned about the Constitution not authorizing this or that?
And the debate isn’t this, either, which is a cop-out: “WANT TO ADOPT? MOVE TO MASSACHUSETTS.” THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OTHER STATES SHOULD LEGALIZE IT, TOO.
Strawman alert, anyone?
August 27th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Nusrat,
Yes, just ignore and be passive? Typical libertarianism. If I adopted that attitude I’d be nothing. I’m supposed to just standby idle while something harmful goes on? Works for abortions right?
“how are we shoving homosexuality down your faces?”
By TLG comments such as this one:
“We’re not “creating a new institution.†We’re simply including people who deserve to be included.”
I guess when you lose the argument, you can always attempt to re-write the rules so you can then win.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Nusrat, so-cons were the bullies in school. I should know; I was mercilessly teased in middle school by undoubtedly future so-cons about my sexuality.
Kind of funny how the so-cons have the same mindset as twelve-year-olds about homosexuality: “EW GROSS FAGGOT.” I heard the same shit throughout middle school and even a little bit of high school: “That’s against what God wants!” “It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!” “That’s gross!” Blah, blah, blah…
So-cons just never decided to grow up.
Maybe it’s more fun to live that way?
August 27th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
“I guess when you lose the argument, you can always attempt to re-write the rules so you can then win.”
Huh? The argument is over whether the rules should be re-written. I say they should, you say they shouldn’t.
Does the fact that I want the rules (laws) of marriage to be changed mean I lose?
You’re a fool!
“Typical libertarianism. If I adopted that attitude I’d be nothing. I’m supposed to just standby idle while something harmful goes on? Works for abortions right?”
CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHY HOMOSEXUALITY IS HARMFUL (and also answer my other 8340 questions that you’re ignoring. Typical so-con).
Just call me a faggot or something, please; drop the pretense and act out on what you’re feeling and believe. It’s more honest that way.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Nusrat,
You would prefer the “gun” of the government to force the legalization of gay marriage over the will of the majority of the country including the top dem. candidates. Yours is not an argument over the government per say but who holds the “gun”. And it’s a little ironic that you have referred to our country’s military on this site as hired killers while it is you who wishes to use the metaphorical “gun” so much.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Absolutely not. I wish there to be no gun.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
I’d like you to find any post from me that can be considered a cheap-shot at Thompson. I’m confident I’ve always treated him fairly. But you’re changhing the subject.
Since I’m in the position of proving myself, here goes:
Original post: You claim that the Martin article sites actions “such as these” as hurting a candidate. The actions mentioned there is mainly Romney taking down the Craig endorsement.
Post 3: You claim that Romney wants to “hide it (liek wishing it away)” which would be a follow-up to the original post.
Post 14: You deny there being any connection between the two.
Post 19: You claim that both showed up first in google.
Post 29: After I confront you with the politico article not being on google you state that the politico article was not in the original post. Furthermore, you state that you only put it up afterwards because of the 1982 story.
Post 31: You immediately contradict yourself and state that the next most important article is about the politico article. You then cover up post 29 with an avalance of posts trying to prove that you got the politico article from a CBS sourse.
In any case my “update” at the electromneyin2008 site was too harsh (using symetry from earlier in the post). I apologize for that. However, I do stand by the statement that you have been caught in a web of lies.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
“You would prefer the “gun†of the government to force the legalization of gay marriage over the will of the majority of the country including the top dem. candidates. Yours is not an argument over the government per say but who holds the “gunâ€. And it’s a little ironic that you have referred to our country’s military on this site as hired killers while it is you who wishes to use the metaphorical “gun†so much.”
No, Nusrat and I would prefer that there be no state-sponsored marriage. But as long as they’re doing it, they shouldn’t discriminate.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Scott, btw.
if you actually knew my view on marriage, you’d be apologizing for misrepresenting me. The government, state or federal, should have absolutely no job in defining or subsidizing anything to do with marriage.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
TLG,
Grow up man. Lose the four letter words & the F_G word. I may disagree with homosexuality, but I’d never degrade them in that way. Just because you are one or just because you are arguing for them, should not give you reign to say those things. The rules should apply fairly & equally to all. Agreed?
You seem capable of intelligent expression without having to resort to those words.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
The cbs news article is the politico article,
and I admitted to Jason that yes, I got carried away after he accused me of it. I said that a long time ago.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Think, IT DID FIRST SHOW UP IN GOOGLE. I posted the page in Comment 37. and then I posted the cbs link which is to politico, discussing the 1982 case.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I said in 14 or 17 that yes, it hurts Romney, just like it people talked about Rudy and Vitter. It hurts all the candidates. Because I said that it hurts to have something like this doesn’t make it go away.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Why did you state it was not in the original article?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
TLG, you have this view we’re afraid of you or hateful towards you. In fact I’m glad you’re here. You present your philosophy (libertarianism) well. We don’t agree on what it means but that’s to be expected.
At one time we had a liberal Democrat on the site and that added to the diverse opinions. In the same way your philosophical group’s opinions add to what is already here.
As far as hashing out homosexuality, I don’t see what the point is. We have different understandings of:
1) Morality
2) Human Nature
3) Society
Without a common view on those three I don’t see how we can avoid speaking past each other?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Exactly, econ grad stud. To you, a gun is a perfectly morally acceptable means of imposing morality. TLG and I are against violence. Is that a radical position to take at all? Violence is wrong.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
post 3 was the one where I got mad and said that after Jason said I was using it. Eventually, he understood the point I was making, which I acknowledged.
I’m not accusing you specifically. Your blog that you contribute to, however, has taken Thompson to task on his wife, and commenters there were openly talking about trying to find out the details of his first divorce. I don’t fault you for it personally, but don’t play the “high and mighty” game, and then link over here.
By the way, it seemed you changed your post around after the fact as well on your site.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
“TLG,
Grow up man. Lose the four letter words & the F_G word. I may disagree with homosexuality, but I’d never degrade them in that way. Just because you are one or just because you are arguing for them, should not give you reign to say those things. The rules should apply fairly & equally to all. Agreed?
You seem capable of intelligent expression without having to resort to those words.”
OK, now answer my original questions, okay? Thanks. Bye.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
TLG:
“CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHY HOMOSEXUALITY IS HARMFUL”?
Laws are on my side here TLG. How about you convincing me of the “joys” & benefits of homosexuality.
Tell me why you think society’s most important institution should be re-written to suit the whims of 2% of the population?
Tell me what is to prevent any other group such as polygamist from doing the same thing? Do you favor polygamy? Would you be against multiple “consenting” adults forming such a relationship?
This is a Pandora’s box.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I’m not “arguing for them,” I’m one of them. I am bisexual — so if you’re going to tell me that my natural attractions are “poisonous,” I’d like to know why.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
because the original link to the politico article was a screwup, so I changed it directly to the video to be more fair, as Jason was correct when I looked back. What I was saying (even if you took it differently) was that the youtube was mentioned in the original article, and then I linked to it when I read the article.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
I think government is a more important institution than marriage, thank you.
Gay marriage should be on the same plane as heterosexual marriage because the government shouldn’t be discriminating. Unless you’re going to say marriage is about child-rearing, and then I’d want to know if infertile couples (straight!) should be allowed to get married?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
I’ll tell you my opinions on polygamy later when you won’t use them as strawman arguments.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Nusrat, I’ve said nothing about guns.
As far as violence being wrong?
Sure. However there are things worse than violence. Or do you feel it was wrong for Americans to violently revolt in 1775?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
The politico article was directly referencing the youtube, which is what i used in the language.
#2- I added the politico article originally in an update, not my original post.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
TLG:
I want to second what EGS posted in #92. Despite our many many differences, I do enjoy our conversations very much.
I thind that when your brain catches up with your heart, you’ll be far more socially conservative..
August 27th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
You have said something about guns. You think that using a gun to force people not to adopt because of their homosexuality is perfectly acceptable.
Are you implying that homosexuality is worse than violence?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
It worried me more then a little when Romney gave Craig such a prominent role in his campaign. I’m about as far from “connected” as anyone can imagine, but even I’d heard more then a few seemingly credible rumors about Craig. His “problems”, from what I’d read, seemed to be a fairly well-known “secret” in Washington.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Nusrat,
I stand corrected for an earlier post with regard to your views. However, your belief to live and let live falls into the sin of omission which is not caring enough for your fellow man to oppose that which is wrong.
Are you a total pacifist? If someone were trying to kill a family member of yours, would you become violent in defense? Was our entrance into WWII justified after the attack on Pearl Harbor? Just trying to get a sense of where you’re coming from.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Self defense is obviously OK.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
“Gay marriage should be on the same plane as heterosexual marriage because the government shouldn’t be discriminating.”
That is just it. Couldn’t polygamist use the same argument? TLG, I think I’ve answered your question very clearly here. Again, how is this not a Pandora’s box?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Nusrat, I’ve never mentioned using guns on anyone.
As far as adoptions. Most adoption agencies decide for themselves who they will adopt to. Only a few states have decided to not allow practicing homosexuals to adopt. There’s no use of guns involved in this process of trying to adopt.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
“TLG:
I want to second what EGS posted in #92. Despite our many many differences, I do enjoy our conversations very much.
I thind that when your brain catches up with your heart, you’ll be far more socially conservative..”
Now that you’re done your arrogant bromide-fest, can you please answer the questions I asked you about half an hour ago?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
You haven’t mentioned them, but in wanting there to be laws, you are implying that guns would be the reason to comply. Unless, of course, these laws would be voluntary.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
econ grad stud — Jesus Christ, the gun is a metaphor!
cwpete — Yes, I believe that polygamy should be on the same plane, but then I’d argue that STATE-SPONSORED **STRAIGHT** marriage opened the Pandora’s Box because it was sanctioning relationships in the first place.
So what you’re saying is: yes, the state should discriminate. Okay, fair enough, now defend that, please. Better?
Also, answer my original questions.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Jason, I linked the story because it was the first one that came up under relevent links on Google. To be honest, who he supported is beside the point to me. He could’ve been Thompson’s chief errand boy, he needs to go.
Thomas Alan,
You took me completely out of context. I said it was the first one I searched for. I never said it was the politico article. I was talking about the boston globe article, which titled “Senator Craig Withdraws from Romney Campaign Role”. Instead of forming your own conclusions, make sure you got the facts correct.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
As a bit of fun:
See what a culturally, ethnically, religiously, and politically correct cartoon looks like-
http://www.iranian.com/Satire/Cartoon/2006/March/Images/pc.jpg
August 27th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
You still haven’t answered why it is you claimed in #29 that the politico article wasn’t in your original post. You claimed that you hadn’t put it in until you decided to post the 1982 accussations.
By the way, it seemed you changed your post around after the fact as well on your site.
Yes. I already apologized for the original post. I mimicked a phrase I had used earlier in the post. It was changed within seconds and I changed it again a while later to make it less personal.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I did the exact same thing. The politico article was in my UPDATE OF THE ORIGINAL POST.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
When I put it up, I put the quote directly under Update, and then I changed it to the youtube
August 27th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Heh, I like 114.
DO NOT OFFEND MOHAMMAD.
When’s the last time you saw an atheist or gay “death-to-x” rally? Shouldn’t we all be focused on DEFEATING MUSLIM TERRORISM?
(Nope, gotta defeat the fags at home first!)
August 27th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
and placed it under “update from the above linked politico article”
August 27th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
This doesn’t make any sense. Now you’re saying that you originally put up the Martin article to show the 1982 accussation?
Well they why did you need to update it as some sort of revelation 20 minutes later?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Because I looked into the 1982 accusation after I saw the martin article mentioned in the original boston globe article, which mentioned the politico article with the ABOVE YOU TUBE. Jason said it sounded like I was going after Romney, so I switched from using the quote of the youtube to using the youtube directly, to make it more fair.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
TLG:
What question would that be? The dangers of homosexuality? How it can be poisonous? You should know this,
-They often engage in risky sexual behavior.
-Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime
-Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of “committed” typically means something radically different from marriage.
-STD spread more frequently by way of homosexual sex verses heterosexual sex.
-Homosexuals are at increased risk for this rare type of cancer, which is potentially fatal if the anal-rectal tumors metastasize to other bodily organs.
-Can lend itself to a higher degree of compulsive behaviors.
-Violence, In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.
-Greater Risk for Suicide.
-High Incidence of Mental Health Problems among Homosexuals and Lesbians
-Reduced Life Span.
TLG, if even half of this stuff is true – then in no way whatsoever is homosexuality a healthy choice. Sounds poisonous to me. I’ll avoid it like I would a rattle snake.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Enemies foreign and domestic ought to have a subheading for hippies. Or I’ve always thought so TLG.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
My original post only had the boston globe article, I went back and updated it after I looked into the Martin politico blog while rereading the article. The next article under relevence was the cbs news article which paraphrased the politico article, and I used the original article instead of the cbs one.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
The Boston Globe article doesn’t mention 1982. It’s mentioning of the politico article is all about Romney:
After reports of Craig’s arrest, the Romney campaign made private a YouTube video in which Craig also praised Romney. That move was first reported by The Politico website.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Everything in 122 is correct.
THIS IS WHY WE HAVE TO MAINSTREAM HOMOSEXUALITY INSTEAD OF PRESSURING HOMOSEXUALS TO STAY CLOSETED AND LIVE SOME CLANDESTINE LIFESTYLE.
Homosexuality in and of itself does NOT mean that ANY of those things you listed will happen.
That is BEHAVIOR of many HOMOSEXUALS. That is NOT HOMOSEXUALITY.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
“-Greater Risk for Suicide.” “-High Incidence of Mental Health Problems among Homosexuals and Lesbians” Really? Oh wow. I wonder why.
“-They often engage in risky sexual behavior.” “-Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime”
And you don’t think that if you banned heterosexual marriage and adoption that there’d be rampant heterosexual “risky sexual behavior”? Certainly if they had the opportunity to marry, they’d be more apt to settle down with a monogamous partner. Cause and effect.
“then in no way whatsoever is homosexuality a healthy choice.”
August 27th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
TLG, we were thinking the same thing.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
That’s right. I checked out the article and there was the 1982 story, which was THE ONLY THING I mentioned. I didnot mention the other part until Jason made it an issue.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
“TLG, if even half of this stuff is true – then in no way whatsoever is homosexuality a healthy choice. Sounds poisonous to me. I’ll avoid it like I would a rattle snake.”
IT’S NOT A CHOICE.
WHY WOULD SOMEONE CHOOSE TO BE A HOMOSEXUAL, GIVEN THE STATS YOU JUST GAVE?
Can you please answer the questions I asked you almost an hour ago?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
and even then, I never mentioned it (Romney connection) in the original post, only in the comments when Jason said “I doubt it”.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
TLG: #112,
“Yes, I believe that polygamy should be on the same plane,”
Well at least you are consistent. Let everybody do whatever they want and don’t ask any questions at all ugh? The chicken in every pot sort of a thing never works. Leads to total anarchy. This is why I can never accept the philosophies of social liberalism.
“So what you’re saying is: yes, the state should discriminate. Okay, fair enough, now defend that, please. Better?
Any state has a right to govern themselves. They have to impose & force some law & order or the state will implode on itself. It is not discrimination when the requirements are not met. The requirements I’m referring to here are one man & one woman. What you are asking for is special treatment since you don’t meet the requirements. Since you refuse to meet the requirements, you are attempting to re-define the institution of marriage, which imposes homosexuality.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
cwpete,
I’ve gone through those points with TLG before only to be accused not looking of homosexuals as individuals therefore he disregards the facts of the group to which those individuals belong.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
The Martin article was in the post well before the update.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
cwpete, think of TLG as a mathematical function.
TLG = 1/(x-1)
Now when we try to insert 1 into x (ei discuss moral issues), we got nonsense responses.
I simply don’t think there’s a rational (to us) answer that can come from TLG concerning moral issues.
That’s not to say he’s irrational. It’s just that he exists in a belief system that we do not. We can’t discuss matter unless our belief system overlap with his. Here our belief systems are a disjointed set.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
TLG:
“That is BEHAVIOR of many HOMOSEXUALS. That is NOT HOMOSEXUALITY.”
“Everything in 122 is correct.”
Fine, would you agree with the statement that homosexual behavior is poisonous?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
“Since you refuse to meet the requirements, you are attempting to re-define the institution of marriage, which imposes homosexuality.”
That’s a circumstantial ad hominum attack.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
No it wasn’t. I updated and added the Martin post, which I directly quoted in an UPDATE. It is in the exact same place where I link to the youtube. Jason was the only comment before the update.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Scott,
Yes, I know. I’ve been through my own rounds with TLG in the past. I just have not learned as quickly as you & EGS.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
and I used it to quote Martin about the 1982 story, not about specific connection to any candidate.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
In fact, the post is exactly the same as it was before, only in place of Martin’s quote is the youtube video itself.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Scott, don’t you dare! Don’t you dare!
“I’ve gone through those points with TLG before only to be accused not looking of homosexuals as individuals therefore he disregards the facts of the group to which those individuals belong.”
I DO NOT BELONG TO THE GROUP OF MEN WITH SAME-SEX ATTRACTIONS THAT HAVE PROMISCUOUS SEX. THEIR BEHAVIOR DOES NOT DICTATE MINE.
Am I angry? Like hell I’m angry — because I’m being told that I’m a poisonous, promiscuous person for having same-sex attractions.
“Any state has a right to govern themselves. They have to impose & force some law & order or the state will implode on itself.”
History shows the opposite — the more power a state gets, the more likely it is to fail.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
“Fine, would you agree with the statement that homosexual behavior is poisonous?”
NO. If two men are in a loving relationship, IT IS NOT POISONOUS.
Why can’t we say that PROMISCUOUS BEHAVIOR is poisonous?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
EGS:
“We can’t discuss matter unless our belief system overlap with his.”
Yes, you are absolutely right on with that one. Different worlds, different perspectives, and in some cases – different realities.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
TLG,
“Why can’t we say that PROMISCUOUS BEHAVIOR is poisonous?”
For once, you & I are in agreement here. I think I’ll retire on this high note.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
I’ve also stated in the past that same-sex attracted people are to be afforded compassion and that there is no sin in the attraction itself but only in acting out on the temptation much as it is with those heterosexuals outside of marriage. If there is no understanding on the virtue of chastity the conversation becomes pretty fruitless.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
“I simply don’t think there’s a rational (to us) answer that can come from TLG concerning moral issues.”
No, it’s because I am a moral person and you are not. You think it’s okay to force other people to do what you want (but never the other way around, conveniently enough — notice that you never want force to imposed on you. As long as you’re okay with things, there’s no problem) and I don’t. This is more or less objective — you cannot prove that you have the right to impose force on someone else.
You set arbitrary guidelines for morals and basically dictate that whatever irritates you or isn’t mainstream should be banned or controlled. You want the state to shape society to your liking. Times are changing and you don’t like it. People of my generation – and most of yours, for that matter – are tolerant of homosexuality and you don’t like it. Therefore, you want the government to step in.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
“EGS:
“We can’t discuss matter unless our belief system overlap with his.â€
Yes, you are absolutely right on with that one. Different worlds, different perspectives, and in some cases – different realities.”
No, I’m living in relaity — one in which homosexuality isn’t a choice — and you’re not.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Scott,
Not to open a new can of worms, but as devil’s advocate, are you saying that they are allowed to feel that way, but have to repress their feelings?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
That undoubtedly lead to high shrink bills, if nothing else.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
“I’ve also stated in the past that same-sex attracted people are to be afforded compassion and that there is no sin in the attraction itself but only in acting out on the temptation much as it is with those heterosexuals outside of marriage. If there is no understanding on the virtue of chastity the conversation becomes pretty fruitless.”
Yeah, it’s okay to be gay, but just don’t get into a relationship with a another guy or have sex with him like normal heterosexual couples do.
Imagine that being gay were the norm and they told you that it’s okay to be straight, but not to date women or have sex with them.
You can’t even fathom it? It’s just that ludicrous? Right?
Yeah, that’s how gays, lesbians, and bisexuals feel.
There we have it, though — he feels that being gay (not a choice) is like adultery (a choice)!
August 27th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Tommy, it’s not devil’s advocate — that’s what he’s saying. Read my post 151 for more.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
TLG,
Personally, I don’t think there’s a gay switch that you can turn on or off. If it is not a birth trait, my theory is that it is developed at such an early age that the person has no control over it. It’s that person’s life, and I’d rather they be happy then have to deal with the pent up anxiety (ie.. Brokeback Mtn. like) for the rest of their lives So I’m not one to cast stones at anybody. I don’t think marriage should be decided by the federal govt. The official sanctity of marriage belongs in the church, and anybody else could go to the courthouse and get “unionized” in states where it could be deemed legal.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Tommy,
One can acknowledge a feeling without acting out because of it concerning the heterosexual, homosexual, or for that matter, the bi-sexual. That was my point.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
See, the difference between a Tommy Oliver and a cwpete is that Tommy uses common sense to realize that homosexuality is not a choice.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
“Imagine that being gay were the norm and they told you that it’s okay to be straight, but not to date women or have sex with them.
You can’t even fathom it? It’s just that ludicrous? Right?”
Problem is with this scenario is that if it were true, nobody would be in existence to have an imagination to begin with.
Damn! There goes my common sense muddling up the fantasies again! I got to stop that!
I don’t know about you guys but I have to work in the morning. Good night!
August 27th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Scott, so is my 151 accurate?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
“Problem is with this scenario is that if it were true, nobody would be in existence to have an imagination to begin with.”
TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO MY HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO, YOU’RE MISSING THE POINT
PLEASE TRY AGAIN THANK YOU
WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ****ANYTHING****?
Two men can’t reproduce? Nope! I guess they can’t! You caught me! You’ve figured me out!
Now go answer my questions from 80 minutes ago.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Wait, I see his logic — you shouldn’t have sex unless you can reproduce.
Gotcha.
So I’m assuming you’ve never had recreational sex, right?
August 27th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
You know what, anti-gay-ers here? Here’s what you can do, in a totally free society, to fight against gays.
You can protest.
You can write books on the subject.
You can “tsk tsk” when you see two guys holding hands.
You can do just about anything you want but use the gun of the government to force them to not do something you disapprove of.
Is that ok? Or do you want the force?
August 27th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
They want the force.
[lol star wars joke goes here]
August 27th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Oh, and by the way…”just about anything you want” obviously doesn’t include violence…but I think people who read my posts here kind of understand that I’m agaisnt violence.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
That’s what the JUST ABOUT was for. :O
August 27th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
TLG,
Men and women are designed by the natural law to “fit” together for a greater purpose than only self gratification. As you know, I do not believe those afflicted by same-sex attractions choose it at all but it is a cross that has to be carried.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
TLG…this is exactly what we get down to when we admit that rights come from the government rather than “natural rights”. It’s a shame that we actually have to use our brain cells to fight bigotry.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
TLG,
I’ve mentioned that my views on gay marriage are different from most so-cons (to the extent that I’m more or less in favor of it), but I’m constantly finding myself arguing against you on this issue. I think you really ought to find arguments to defend your position. Because these simply don’t hold water. What in the world does it mean to say that the government “shouldn’t discriminate”, and therefore homosexual marriage should be legal? Leaving aside the utter banality of the statement, it strikes me that you’ve managed to knock down entire theories of government. The government, almost by definition, “discriminates”. It discriminates when it gives 15% tax rates to some groups, and 35% rates to others. It discriminates when it gives tax breaks to small businesses and entrepreneurs, rather then homemakers or technicians. Necessarily a government sets up various categories of taxation, benefits, etc. They’re meant to discriminate.
Now if all you mean by discriminate is, they ought not treat certain groups unfairly, then we’re back to square one. Because you’ve never bothered to justify your belief that this particular discrimination (as opposed the one that discriminates between corporations and individuals for taxation purposes, for instance) is unfair. What exactly are your criteria for “fairness”? Is it unfair because somehow, mystically, every individual has a right to have marriage license? This would seem to be a somewhat peculiar distinction. It makes no sense at all as a policy matter, and fares little better on a moral standpoint. If everyone is “entitled” to have a marriage license, without actually having done anything that constitutes marriage, then marriage is a meaningless distinction. Could I, for instance, be “married”, with all the various privileges, benefits, and social assignation that attach to that term, to myself?
Now to be sure, libertarians might argue that government should subsidize or encourage various categories for just this reason (among others). But, it hardly makes any sense to argue that, as long as it’s going to be a meaningful distinction (the only sort of distinction a government can plausibly promote), then it absolutely MUST be distinguished to include homosexual pairings. You never actually defend that argument. And there are perfectly good defenses available to you, that don’t involve calling others lunatic bigots (which makes me reluctant to stay in the pro-gay marriage camp). For instance, the one I’ve made repeatedly, is that marriage has primarily evolved into an institution centered around monogamous, committed relationships. That these are the central aspects of it, and thus gay marriage meets the criterion.
But, there’s more then a little sense to the idea that marriage is an institution the government has created to facilitate long-term couplings, precisely because long-term couplings are beneficial to society through child-rearing. That is to say, society promotes marriage because people are going to have sex, produce children, and the state would rather they do so in a way that makes it more likely that these children don’t become menaces to society. I’m not arguing that gays rearing children will create children who are menaces to society. It has nothing to do with that, as an argument.
But, gays aren’t particularly likely to produce children “accidentally”, or haphazardly. Any gay individual who chooses to have children has to do so with considerably forethought. They either must adopt (if they’re allowed), or deal with artificial insemination. In other words gays who have children want to have children, and probably relatively likely to create a “stable” environment for them to grow up in, without any encouragement from the government. I think that’s a persuasive argument. I don’t happen to agree with it. Or at least I don’t happen to agree that marriage ought to be defined in that way. But, it’s perfectly plausible for the government to devise marriage along those lines. And there’s more then a little historical evidence to support the idea that marriage did indeed arise primarily as a result of the need to cope with children.
As for your question about “infertile heterosexual couples”, it makes even less sense. There’s no such thing as an “infertile heterosexual couple” in an abstract sense. There are individuals who are infertile, but there’s no way of easily weeding out those individuals from the broader group? How would you propose the government a law on marriage that leaves out heterosexual couples who happen not to be able to reproduce? Would you require some sort of test for virility? Would you require that marriage only be valid after two people have shown they can legitimately produce off-spring? Make them shag half a dozen times in front of cameras, to see if they produce offspring? It sounds fairly draconian to me. And what’s more, why in the world are you demanding such a standard, when you don’t apply it to any other form of governmental activity. Governments produce overly broad legislation ALL the time. They produce legislation which is intended to promote a certain practice, or lead to a certain result. It’s intended to. But, it doesn’t always work that way.
Just to give one obvious example, tax-cuts. We love tax-cuts. And one of the reasons we love tax-cuts is we believe, at least I believe, and I’m sure you do as well, that tax cuts tend to lead to growth of the economy. That when we give people more control over their finances, they’ll invest it, or create new capital, or become entrepreneurs, or create nest eggs, or invest it in education for their children or themselves. And all these things tend to lead to a healthy and productive economy. But, not all people who’ve materially benefited from Bush’s tax cuts have used the money in ways that have directly benefited the economy, or even themselves in any substantial manner. Some of them, alot of them even, just buy a few extra beers a week, or a extra cd every month or so, and do nothing to materially improve their situation, or ours (as an economy and society). But, the government doesn’t say “well, sheesh, some of these people won’t promote our desired ends here”. They say “well, this might be a bit of an overbroad policy, but on the whole it’s the best way we can, economically, promote our goal”. It doesn’t have to be perfect, or apply perfectly to every individual it encompasses.
But, let’s say the government had, for instance, a whole class of people who were definitionally unable to contribute to the economy. Maybe they all take whatever money they have, and burn it. Or stuff it under their mattresses. Or bury it in the earth. Or, better yet, let’s say this whole class of people reacts to tax cuts not at all. They don’t increase spending, or even increase saving for any conceivable end. They don’t build new capital, or found new businesses. They do nothing to promote the government’s interests, or they’re behavior doesn’t materially change as a result of tax cuts. And they’re indentifiable. They all live on K street for instance. I can’t say in such an instance I’d fault them for not extending the tax cuts to these K-Streeters. Anymore then I’d fault them for not extending small business tax credits to the man on the street. It simply wasn’t intended for them, and no hard feelings. I think you have to deal with arguments of that nature before you can say anything more then what I say about gay marriage. That, on the whole, society’s better off encouraging monogamous, committed relationships, generally, then trying to encourage specific relationships which (increasingly) tend to go awry.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Make them shag half a dozen times in front of cameras, to see if they produce offspring?
as long as I don’t have to watch
August 27th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
After reading much of the thread I missed while typing that behemoth of a post, I agree with TLG and Nusrat as far as homosexuality goes. There is no doubt in my mind that a significant portion of the “problems” gays have in terms of health, or lifestyle, is a result of homosexuality being stigmatized by society. And that’s one of the reasons I’m fairly supportive of gay marriage. Because I think we ought to encourage them to enter committed relationships, and to practice monogamy. We’re not going to stop this behavior, even if we believe it’s immoral (which is a question I still wrestle with as a religious person) by waging any sort of “war” on it. Homosexuality has existed, and was fairly common place (relatively speaking) even in the height of Regency or Victorian England. It can’t be weeded out. But, I’m a bit conflicted here, in the sense that I absolutely believe sexual mores have extended outrageously beyond any reasonable bounds. I’d just rather focus on things we can actually reasonably do to change the culture. Promote monogamy. Attach huge social stigmas (much greater then currently exist) to fathers, or mothers, who leave children. To divorce. To our general culture which worships at the altar of Hollywood, and the glamorous lifestyles of the rich and famous. And that means an awful lot of action, most of it individual and community action, not governmental action. It means voting for moral leaders. It means trying to take back some foothold in academia and the media. It means giving our children positive alternatives to sex, drugs, and rock and roll. And of course, as I said, promote monogamy and commitment (here I’d use the government).
August 28th, 2007 at 12:17 am
On the actual incident (the point of this thread presumably), I agree with Hugh Hewitt on this one. Craig ought to resign immediately. Vitter as well. I’m perfectly contented to see us utterly clean up our house in this regard. If Ted Stevens has to go as well, so be it. I think it’d be a wonderful thing for the GOP to send a message: “these guys might sneak through the cracks, but when we find them, we’re relentless and unforgiving”. Serious unethical conduct is utterly unacceptable in our elected representatives.
August 28th, 2007 at 6:55 am
But… but… Larry Craig preached ‘family values’. What do you mean, that he’s a hypocrite? That can’t be! That’s impossible! That makes it seem as if supporters of family values only do so to make themselves feel better about their miserable lives, which is of course ridiculous.
Seriously, there are two groups of social conservatives. One group has been caught, the other hasn’t been caught… YET.
You might say, that isn’t funny. And it isn’t, because it isn’t a joke. It’s a truism.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:00 am
cwpete: ‘Liberals (and now some anti-Romney folks) can cheer! Hurray! Score another one for the ________ (fill in the blank here), those Conservatives are such damn hypocrites! Woohoo! ‘
There’s nothing conservative about them (or you, for that matter). It’s religious totalitarianism. I get annoyed when the media calls Ahmadinejad an ultraconservative, don’t you?
‘I did not want to read the links, looks like Craig did plead guilty. So string him up! Have at him! Tare him to shreds!’
Isn’t that what would happen to gay people if it was up to you? “Of course, it’s written in the BAHBLE.”
August 28th, 2007 at 7:05 am
econ grad stud: “As far as the government controlling what it owns (the public airwaves)”
So you think the government OWNS the public airwaves? I take it that you’re for the Fairness Doctrine?
cwpete: ‘Healthy Homosexuality? Have not heard that one yet. Is that like a healthy poison?’
No, healthy poison would be like an non-repressed social conservative.
‘Now they must be happy over this.. The worst political mistake is to be a hypocrite to family values.’
Proponents of family values seem to disagree with you.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:08 am
cwpete: ‘Yes, just ignore and be passive? Typical libertarianism.’
Actually, I believe the word is ‘liberty’. There are a lot of things going out there that I don’t like. Yet I’m not calling for you to be frog-marched to jail (even though it would be amusing to watch). You need to get over yourself and understand that not everything you don’t like needs to be against the law. (That would also help you if you are secretly engaging in the very behaviors you condemn.)
‘If I adopted that attitude I’d be nothing.’
And how would that be any different from the current situation?
August 28th, 2007 at 7:10 am
Matt –
“…What in the world does it mean to say that the government “shouldn’t discriminateâ€, and therefore homosexual marriage should be legal? Leaving aside the utter banality of the statement, it strikes me that you’ve managed to knock down entire theories of government. The government, almost by definition, “discriminatesâ€. It discriminates when it gives 15% tax rates to some groups, and 35% rates to others…Necessarily a government sets up various categories of taxation, benefits, etc. They’re meant to discriminate.”
Well, you’ve got to understand where I’m coming from, here. I’m someone who supports voluntary taxation and no state intervention in anything except regarding law enforcement, a judiciary, and a military. But as long as government’s going to get involved in something, it ought to apply equally to everyone.
“…What exactly are your criteria for “fairnessâ€? Is it unfair because somehow, mystically, every individual has a right to have marriage license?”
You ought to take this up with the Federal Government; they seem to find it important that they distribute marriage licenses. All I’m saying is that as long as the government is going to promote healthy relationships, I don’t see why any particular brand of it should be excluded.
“that don’t involve calling others lunatic bigots (which makes me reluctant to stay in the pro-gay marriage camp). For instance, the one I’ve made repeatedly, is that marriage has primarily evolved into an institution centered around monogamous, committed relationships. That these are the central aspects of it, and thus gay marriage meets the criterion.”
One of the sad facts that you’ll find is that most of them truly are bigots. cwpete, for example, quite obviously hates homosexuals. I don’t see how a reasonable person could draw a different conclusion, after he called them poisonous and the behavior destructive and called it a choice.
More in the next post…
August 28th, 2007 at 7:14 am
“But, there’s more then a little sense to the idea that marriage is an institution the government has created to facilitate long-term couplings, precisely because long-term couplings are beneficial to society through child-rearing. That is to say, society promotes marriage because people are going to have sex, produce children, and the state would rather they do so in a way that makes it more likely that these children don’t become menaces to society. I’m not arguing that gays rearing children will create children who are menaces to society. It has nothing to do with that, as an argument.”
See, even if this argument did make an enormous amount of sense, it still wouldn’t justify state force.
“As for your question about “infertile heterosexual couplesâ€, it makes even less sense. There’s no such thing as an “infertile heterosexual couple†in an abstract sense. There are individuals who are infertile, but there’s no way of easily weeding out those individuals from the broader group? How would you propose the government a law on marriage that leaves out heterosexual couples who happen not to be able to reproduce? Would you require some sort of test for virility?”
You can take this up with so-cons, as they seem to think that the inability to reproduce is a sufficient reason to deny a couple marriage rights.
No they don’t, but they like to say that to mask their homophobic tendencies.
“Just to give one obvious example, tax-cuts. We love tax-cuts. And one of the reasons we love tax-cuts is we believe, at least I believe, and I’m sure you do as well, that tax cuts tend to lead to growth of the economy. That when we give people more control over their finances, they’ll invest it, or create new capital, or become entrepreneurs, or create nest eggs, or invest it in education for their children or themselves. And all these things tend to lead to a healthy and productive economy. But, not all people who’ve materially benefited from Bush’s tax cuts have used the money in ways that have directly benefited the economy…”
I don’t look at tax cuts as a gift from the state, Matt. I look at it as money rightfully belonging to citizens of this country being returned. Tax cuts are a moral issue, to me. We don’t need to talk about how they help other people before justifying their existence.
“But, let’s say the government had, for instance, a whole class of people who were definitionally unable to contribute to the economy. Maybe they all take whatever money they have, and burn it. Or stuff it under their mattresses. Or bury it in the earth. Or, better yet, let’s say this whole class of people reacts to tax cuts not at all. They don’t increase spending, or even increase saving for any conceivable end. They don’t build new capital, or found new businesses. They do nothing to promote the government’s interests, or they’re behavior doesn’t materially change as a result of tax cuts. And they’re indentifiable. They all live on K street for instance. I can’t say in such an instance I’d fault them for not extending the tax cuts to these K-Streeters.”
I can, because you have no right to lay a finger on their money. They can do whatever the hell they’d like with their money, INASMUCH AS IT BELONGS TO THEM. I’m missing the part where you got the idea that it was okay to IMPOSE FORCE UPON PEOPLE IN ORDER TO TAKE THEIR MONEY TO ARBITRARILY REDISTRIBUTE.
More later, I have to go to school.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:16 am
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘I should know; I was mercilessly teased in middle school by undoubtedly future so-cons about my sexuality.’
You don’t sound like a person who would take kindly to ‘merciless teasing’. And you sound intelligent and articulate enough to defend yourself. Why didn’t you teach them a lesson?
cwpete: ‘I may disagree with homosexuality, but I’d never degrade them in that way. ‘
Ah, like degrading them by calling their lives poison.
econ grad stud: ‘As far as hashing out homosexuality, I don’t see what the point is. We have different understandings of:
1) Morality
2) Human Nature
3) Society’
Correct. You share the understanding of people like Mullah Omar and Ahmadinejad. Apparently, you think (or not think) that’s good, I know it’s bad.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:23 am
econ grad stud: ‘As far as adoptions. Most adoption agencies decide for themselves who they will adopt to. Only a few states have decided to not allow practicing homosexuals to adopt.’
That’s discrimination. Children should not be put in families without a father and a mother, regardless of whether it’s a gay couple or a single couple. But it does show the bias that the states you so admire have, to allow singles to adopt, but not gays.
cwpete: ‘TLG, if even half of this stuff is true – then in no way whatsoever is homosexuality a healthy choice.’
Is your (alleged) heterosexuality a choice? It may be a choice for you, if you have to force yourself to watch the cheerleaders. As for your argument about ‘healthy homosexuality’ being like ‘healthy poison’, let’s examine your claims. The point was that homosexuality is not necessarily unhealthy, or whatever, while poison is. Not one of the points you make (my, you sure do have a fascination with homosexuality) prove that homosexuality is necessarily bad.
Furthermore, you have to weigh it against the alternative. The alternative is not ‘putting gays to death and no one will make that choice’, it is to force them to live lives like this hypocrite, Larry Craig.
But logic isn’t your strongest faculty, so I can’t blame you for something you did not choose.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:34 am
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Am I angry? Like hell I’m angry’
Don’t they say that those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make angry? You’re not very good at being angry, while the socons are experts at saying dumb things – you’ll lose at every turn.
‘because I’m being told that I’m a poisonous, promiscuous person for having same-sex attractions.’
Take is at a compliment. These people are buffoons. I really don’t understand why you care about what these people think. You need to stop trying to argue with them, if that’s what upsets you. These people can’t be persuaded, because whatever reason they might offer for their hatred is nothing but a cover for the real reason – their religious beliefs. It’s like arguing with a person who denies the holocaust. The underlying reason for his denial isn’t that he has a different historical understanding, but because he hates Jews (I imagine that there might be exceptions).
cwpete: ‘Different worlds, different perspectives, and in some cases – different realities.’
Not really. It’s just that some of us aspire to turn America, Land of the Free, into Iran, Land of the Wretched. There is only one reality, whether you acknowledge it or not. If you don’t, that merely makes you delusional.
‘Problem is with this scenario is that if it were true, nobody would be in existence to have an imagination to begin with.’
Nice dodge. Why don’t you just admit that you don’t want to answer the question?
Scott: ‘Men and women are designed ‘
Neither men nor women are ‘designed’, all have evolved. If you don’t know of the theory of Evolution, or don’t understand it, I don’t see a reason to take any of your other views on worldly matters seriously.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:39 am
cwpete: ‘I thind that when your brain catches up with your heart, you’ll be far more socially conservative..’
I almost missed this one, hilarious.
Social conservatives aren’t generally known for their intelligence. Indeed, polls show that the more educated people are, the less likely they are to be socially conservative. I think that’s because they learn to think for themselves, instead of allowing their Southern Baptist preacher to think for them. So education/intelligence is negatively correlated (not perfectly though) with social conservatism. Now, I’ll freely admit that I’m dumb as hell. And yet I’m not dumb, repressed and pathetic enough to share your views on social issues (gay people are poison).
August 28th, 2007 at 7:49 am
TLG,
I think the difference in our approach to this issue has alot to do with our difference in philosophy. You’re a libertarian, I’m not. But the problem is, when we start discussing “marriage” as a legal institution we are, as you’ve noted, beyond what libertarianism speaks to. It’s well enough to say that the government shouldn’t promote or incentivize something called marriage at all. That’s a perfectly valid position, which has understandable appeal in libertarian circles. But, it’s simply not the case that once you’ve left libertarianism, and decided “ok, they’re going to incentivize marriage regardless”, that it’s immediately clear why homosexual pairings should be included in the definition. That’s my central conflict with your argument. You’re essentially using a premise “as long as they’re promoting “healthy” relationships, they should include homosexuals” as your conclusion. It’s not at all clear that what the government is trying to do, through marriage, is promote “healthy” relationships. And it’s certainly not required that the government promote “healthy” relationships, if they’re going to choose to promote any relationships. They could be, as I noted, promoting heterosexual unions to minimize the instability that results when these unions result in children. Your task is to defend your belief that marriage ought to be about healthy relationships, commitment, monogamy, etc. Goals that include homosexuals. But, that’s a measured discussion that goes to what fundamentally a government’s goals or priorities ought to be. And given that you don’t think a government should have any goals whatsoever in this matter, it’s a discussion which you’re pretty hard pressed to have. You’re forced to deal in the language and goals of non-libertarians. So I understand why you continually fall back on the “it’s not fair” argument to justify your belief. Because fairness, and an ability to conduct one’s life as one chooses, are ideas that libertarians can relate to. A government promoting it’s “interests”.
As for gay marriage opponents, I admit I think some of them are genuinely bigots. I’ve met a few people who’ve shocked me in their vitriol towards homosexuals. And this doesn’t even count the people I knew in high school 3 years ago. But, I think a fair number of gay marriage opponents are motivated by, I think, something other then bigotry. I don’t think it’s particularly bigoted to believe that homosexual behavior is immoral. Or that it’s unnatural. I think it may or may not be ignorant or untrue. But, it’s certainly not, on it’s face, bigoted. Unless of course it’s bigoted to suggest that ANYTHING is immoral. Morality has been presented, if you study Heidegger, Kant and those fellows, as an entirely arbitrary term. I don’t believe that, and apparently neither do you given your response to “soliciting sex”.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Awakened – “You don’t sound like a person who would take kindly to ‘merciless teasing’. And you sound intelligent and articulate enough to defend yourself. Why didn’t you teach them a lesson?”
There’s quite a difference between the twelve and thirteen year old me and the seventeen year old me. I’d like to attribute some of my intellectual toughness today to the crap I got back then, though
August 28th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Grr. Didn’t mean to post that yet. Ignore that last paragraph. It’s utter nonsense, and I have no idea why I typed it.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:53 am
“You’re essentially using a premise “as long as they’re promoting “healthy†relationships, they should include homosexuals†as your conclusion. It’s not at all clear that what the government is trying to do, through marriage, is promote “healthy†relationships.”
No, I was just quoting verbatim what you gave me and ran with it. If you don’t want me to reply to that argument, then don’t make it, but you were the one who said that government promoting marriage has to do with the citizenry maintaining healthy relationships.
“Your task is to defend your belief that marriage ought to be about healthy relationships, commitment, monogamy, etc. Goals that include homosexuals. But, that’s a measured discussion that goes to what fundamentally a government’s goals or priorities ought to be. And given that you don’t think a government should have any goals whatsoever in this matter, it’s a discussion which you’re pretty hard pressed to have.”
I cannot fathom why a government would think it had the authority to get involved with marriage on a federal leve in the first place. I’m not the one saying that marriage should be a federal issue in the first place — that’s primarily something that arises from a social conservative tradition. So you need to tell me why government is involved in marriage, and then I can make the argument for why that should extend to homosexuals as well.
“Unless of course it’s bigoted to suggest that ANYTHING is immoral. Morality has been presented, if you study Heidegger, Kant and those fellows, as an entirely arbitrary term. I don’t believe that, and apparently neither do you given your response to “soliciting sexâ€.
Jesus, I hate Immanuel Kant. … Haha. You know very well my definition of morality.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:54 am
OK, then ignore my last response.
I didn’t have much to say, because it seemed a little off from what you were trying to say before. It’s okay, I’ve made some posts that I later wanted to take back because it didn’t come out the way I’d hoped it would.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Matt: ‘As for gay marriage opponents, I admit I think some of them are genuinely bigots. I’ve met a few people who’ve shocked me in their vitriol towards homosexuals. And this doesn’t even count the people I knew in high school 3 years ago. But, I think a fair number of gay marriage opponents are motivated by, I think, something other then bigotry.’
I think the overwhelming majority of gay marriage opponents are not motivated by bigotry. In fact, I’m uncertain about whether to support it (not that my support makes any difference), it seems foreign to me. It takes time to get used to something like that. But it’s a fact that people who are bigoted, hide behind the gay marriage issue. Of course, I don’t call them bigoted because of their opposition to gay marriage, but because of their pathological obsession with all things gay.
‘I don’t think it’s particularly bigoted to believe that homosexual behavior is immoral. Or that it’s unnatural.’
It depends. I don’t think that people who criticize Israel are by definition anti-Semitic. However, think about organisations that single out Israel (a country that respects human rights, by any standard) while ignoring gross violations of human rights (a hundred times worse than anything that happens in Israel) elsewhere. Those I would call anti-Semitic.
Same thing with a Christian who waives all Biblical injunctions except the one against homosexuality. It’s rather strange for someone to blacken out 99.99% of the Bible, except the parts that are convenient.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:19 am
‘There’s quite a difference between the twelve and thirteen year old me and the seventeen year old me. I’d like to attribute some of my intellectual toughness today to the crap I got back then, though’
Good for you. Anything that doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger, eh?
August 28th, 2007 at 8:56 am
TLG,
I don’t think the federal government should be involved in marriage either. Is the federal government involved in marriage? I actually know remarkably little about the institution, but it was my impression that beyond DOMA (which explicitly leaves the issue to the states), marriage is currently a state issue.
“No, I was just quoting verbatim what you gave me and ran with it. If you don’t want me to reply to that argument, then don’t make it, but you were the one who said that government promoting marriage has to do with the citizenry maintaining healthy relationships.”
I didn’t once mention healthy relationships. And I certainly didn’t say anything about healthy relationships being a necessary definition of marriage. But, I admit that I personally think marriage ought to be about something very near to “healthy relationships” (monogamous, committed, etc). But, my point was, there’s no reason to believe that this is anything more then a particular policy preference of mine. Why can’t marriage be about the government incentivizing couples who are likely to produce children, in such a way that they’re more likely to produce stable homes for these children (which in turn will lead to less crime and general deviance)? In other words, if we’re going to be incentivizing an institution that we call “marriage”, there’s no obvious reason why homosexuals need to be included. You first have to define what the institution ought to be about. I.e., what is the government promoting here? What should they be promoting? If you to my conclusion: that the government should be promoting love, monogamy, and commitment, then same sex marriage is an obvious conclusion. If you come to the conclusion that the government is promoting what I mentioned previously, then same-sex marriage is not nearly so obvious.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:05 am
“It depends. I don’t think that people who criticize Israel are by definition anti-Semitic. However, think about organisations that single out Israel (a country that respects human rights, by any standard) while ignoring gross violations of human rights (a hundred times worse than anything that happens in Israel) elsewhere. Those I would call anti-Semitic.”
Facetious comparison. Israel’s actions are chosen, making criticisms of their actions not necessarily anti-Semitic. However, homosexuality is not a choice, and so long as we are not going to state that sex and sexuality are negative aspects of humanity, then you can’t really criticize homosexuality as a practice without implying some degree of homophobia.
“Same thing with a Christian who waives all Biblical injunctions except the one against homosexuality. It’s rather strange for someone to blacken out 99.99% of the Bible, except the parts that are convenient.”
The parts that would require them to change their behaviors are all metaphorical!
August 28th, 2007 at 9:07 am
“I don’t think the federal government should be involved in marriage either. Is the federal government involved in marriage? I actually know remarkably little about the institution, but it was my impression that beyond DOMA (which explicitly leaves the issue to the states), marriage is currently a state issue.”
OK, then go back to everything I said and replace FEDERAL with STATE. You’re right, it is a state issue right now. But everything I said still holds true if you just go back and replace STATE for FEDERAL.
“If you to my conclusion: that the government should be promoting love, monogamy, and commitment, then same sex marriage is an obvious conclusion. If you come to the conclusion that the government is promoting what I mentioned previously, then same-sex marriage is not nearly so obvious.”
Right. So we really ought to take this up with the individual states. I highly doubt that any of them would go down the route of saying that it’s only to promote child-bearing, because then the obvious conclusion would be to ban anyone who is infertile from getting married. If it’s about raising families, then there is no reason to exclude homosexuals, and if it is about promoting loving relationships, then there is no reason to exclude homosexuals. The only way out for these state governments is for them to say that it’s about child-bearing, but that opens a Pandora’s Box for them.
Class is over, more later…
August 28th, 2007 at 10:03 am
fire the bastard. what a hypocrit. I AM SO TIRED OF THESE IDIOTS. these guys get so arrogant. we need term limits.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Keep the govt out of our bedrooms, our paychecks, our right to own a gun (within reason), and a woman’s reproductive system (within reason).
August 28th, 2007 at 10:49 am
TLG,
“Right. So we really ought to take this up with the individual states. I highly doubt that any of them would go down the route of saying that it’s only to promote child-bearing, because then the obvious conclusion would be to ban anyone who is infertile from getting married. If it’s about raising families, then there is no reason to exclude homosexuals, and if it is about promoting loving relationships, then there is no reason to exclude homosexuals. The only way out for these state governments is for them to say that it’s about child-bearing, but that opens a Pandora’s Box for them.”
I’ve explained why infertile couples don’t have to “obviously” be excluded at all. For one thing, the government doesn’t have to pursue a goal in such a way that everyone who’d conceivably advance that goal is included, and everyone who won’t is excluded. Advancing heterosexual unions more generally is a fairly clear shorthand for the government’s purposes. To be sure, some individuals will be “infertile” and some simply won’t choose to reproduce. That’s perfectly fine as a policy matter. As I said, government’s create policies which are overbroad all the time.
They look at a variety of actions they have available, they look at the goal they’re trying to achieve, and they promote the policy which seems most likely to lead to that goal, without including too many individuals who aren’t going to promote their goal, and without tailoring the program so narrowly that it becomes practically impossible to enforce. Weeding out infertile couples from the broader pool of heterosexual couples is simply draconian, impractical, inefficient, and a waste of governmental resources (not to mention imperfect, since hardly is infertile in an absolute sense). Excluding homosexual couples isn’t. So a government with a goal that centers around child rearing doesn’t HAVE to include homosexual couples. They might want to, for various reasons. Or they might have a different goal entirely (monogamy, commitment, etc), that is in fact promoted by same-sex couples. But, I wouldn’t blame them if they stuck to heterosexual couples under the circumstances.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:05 am
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Facetious comparison. Israel’s actions are chosen, making criticisms of their actions not necessarily anti-Semitic.’
I believe the crazies would argue that because gay sex is a choice, it is legitimate for them to be hateful (oh, I’m sorry, “opposed”). I’m not sure they actually believe the insanity they put out, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. Especially the ones who are not really intelligent and believe whatever their pastor tells them.
However, homosexuality is not a choice, and so long as we are not going to state that sex and sexuality are negative aspects of humanity, then you can’t really criticize homosexuality as a practice without implying some degree of homophobia.’
Well, if it comes from the person himself, maybe. But the people who say that homosexuality is immoral, the religious people, claim that God told them that it is immoral. It’s not really coming from them. Their pastor may be to blame for focusing excessively on something that is a miniscule part of their religion.
As for homosexuality being unnatural, that’s what I believed until I read a persuasive rebuttal. The argument has an intuitive appeal, mainly because gay couples cannot reproduce. As long as they are not constantly throwing it in gay people’s faces, I would not call that person bigoted. But that’s just me.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Peter: ‘Keep the govt out of our bedrooms, our paychecks, our right to own a gun (within reason), and a woman’s reproductive system (within reason).’
You must be a liberal. Last time I checked, conservatism was about imposing my religious beliefs on others. I am bound to do that, or Jupiter Optimus Maximus will strike me down.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:57 am
“I believe the crazies would argue that because gay sex is a choice, it is legitimate for them to be hateful (oh, I’m sorry, “opposedâ€). I’m not sure they actually believe the insanity they put out, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. Especially the ones who are not really intelligent and believe whatever their pastor tells them.”
I wasn’t addressing the crazies, I was addressing you (you’re crazy in your own right, though). Of course they believe it, it’s motivated by religious fervor.
“As for homosexuality being unnatural, that’s what I believed until I read a persuasive rebuttal. The argument has an intuitive appeal, mainly because gay couples cannot reproduce. As long as they are not constantly throwing it in gay people’s faces, I would not call that person bigoted. But that’s just me.”
Let’s apply consistent logic and also say that Nazis aren’t bigoted unless they “shove it the faces of Jewish people.” Um, no. Bigotry comes from beliefs — you’re still a bigot if you think being gay is a choice, that homosexual relationships are invalid or meaningless, that it’s a terrible sin, that gays shouldn’t have the same rights as everyone else, etc.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
“For one thing, the government doesn’t have to pursue a goal in such a way that everyone who’d conceivably advance that goal is included, and everyone who won’t is excluded. Advancing heterosexual unions more generally is a fairly clear shorthand for the government’s purposes. To be sure, some individuals will be “infertile†and some simply won’t choose to reproduce. That’s perfectly fine as a policy matter. As I said, government’s create policies which are overbroad all the time.”
But if you’re going to EXCLUDE those who cannot reproduce, you can’t make exceptions for infertile people! Otherwise it’s just a blatant display of anti-gay bias! THAT IS NOT PERFECTLY FINE AS A POLICY MATTER IF YOU’RE STILL EXCLUDING HOMOSEXUALS. Don’t you see the inconsistency..?
“Weeding out infertile couples from the broader pool of heterosexual couples is simply draconian, impractical, inefficient, and a waste of governmental resources (not to mention imperfect, since hardly is infertile in an absolute sense). Excluding homosexual couples isn’t. So a government with a goal that centers around child rearing doesn’t HAVE to include homosexual couples. They might want to, for various reasons. Or they might have a different goal entirely (monogamy, commitment, etc), that is in fact promoted by same-sex couples. But, I wouldn’t blame them if they stuck to heterosexual couples under the circumstances.”
If the state’s ONLY STATED REASON for promoting marriage and sanctioning it is to help with child-raising, it would be irrational discrimination to weed out homosexuals, because homosexuals raise children sometimes, too. I will revert you back to our original discussion from this morning for that. THE STATE NEEDS A REASON and they NEED TO BE CONSISTENT. You have not provided a clear, consistent reason for the state to ONLY promote heterosexual marriages IF the intended purpose is to promote proper child-raising or to promote healthy relationships.
If marriage is about raising children, why not invalidate childless marriages? Why not allow any two people with children or who plan to have children within three years get married?
All I’m saying is — why do we include heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples if the reason is anything but reproduction (and then — why is reproduction better than adoption)? etc, etc, etc –
In the end, there IS NO RATIONAL REASON to exclude homosexual couples.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
TLG,
Sigh. You’re missing the point entirely. The state’s reason, as I described it, is clear and consistent in every facet. The state is attempting to convince those who are likely to have children, to commit to long-term relationships, because such relationships generally lead to better children, and greater social order. Homosexuals aren’t likely to have children, or to the extent that they are, they’ll either already be in long-term relationships (and therefore don’t need any encouragement), or they’ll have actively sought out children in such a way that they’re likely to provide relatively stable environments regardless of what the government does. There’s simply no reason to encourage them, so the argument goes. It’s redundant, and unnecessary. Infertile couples, as I mentioned, simply don’t exist as a group. The government has no legal means of identifying them, and hardly any practical extra-legal means. Laws can’t be reasonably crafted to exclude them. Therefore the government accepts their existence as a necessary inefficiency. Again, they do this ALL the time in other sorts of laws.
“If marriage is about raising children, why not invalidate childless marriages?”
You’re asking the wrong question and making the wrong point. At best, your argument suggests that perhaps the government has more efficient means to effectuate their goal. But, even this isn’t clear. Incentivizing bearing children directly has a number of fairly obvious drawbacks from an economic standpoint. One, is that it might encourage people to have more children which, after all, isn’t the government’s stated goal in my scenario. Their stated goal is to encourage the types of pairings which will best serve the children which are already going to be created as a result of sexual unions. I.e, procreation is going to happen, and we’re better off if it happens within the context of a monogamous, committed, relationship. Simply encouraging individuals who bear children seems a woefully silly way of accomplishing that goal.
So the question ought to be not “If marriage is about raising children, why not invalidate childless marriages?”, but rather “if marriage is about raising children, MUST childless marriages be invalidated?”. And the answer is clearly no. The government’s simply up a fairly broad policy which they think is most likely to promote their goal, while minimizing drawbacks.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Let me be clear here: even the above represented my particular view of the best “goal of marriage”, I doubt I’d exclude homosexual unions. Because I think, rightly or wrongly, excluding them sends off a signal of intolerance. And I think a little inefficiency in the institution is a small price for avoiding that signal. But, again, I don’t see my position as a necessary one. It’s simply a result of a calculation of interests on my part.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
In my opinion, it is perfectly acceptable for government to “discriminate†in a way that results in more children being raised by a mother and a father. Some say two dads can provide the same as a mom and a dad. I disagree. All else equal, any other combination if individuals organized to care for children will always be less effective than an equivalent mother and father.
For example, take a “perfectly effective†mother and “perfectly effective†father raising some kids. Now, substitute the mother with a duplicate of the perfectly effective father. Has the couple lost anything? If you believe that men and women offer identical child rearing abilities, then the answer is no. The man and woman simply duplicate each other in the same way that the two men are duplicates. However, if you believe that men and women offer different yet complementary abilities, then it must be true that the man and the woman can provide a broader set of child rearing skills to their children than can two people of the same sex. It’s not about equal rights for gays; it’s about providing children with the best possible upbringing.
TLG, you are right about the inconsistency with respect to allowing marriage for those couples who choose not to raise children (whether they adopt or have their own). I’m not sure how to deal with that. However, a government policy that supports the “traditional family†generally can only be a good thing for children (unless you believe that two gay men can provide the same upbringing as an equivalent heterosexual couple).
August 28th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
“Sigh. You’re missing the point entirely. The state’s reason, as I described it, is clear and consistent in every facet. The state is attempting to convince those who are likely to have children, to commit to long-term relationships, because such relationships generally lead to better children, and greater social order. Homosexuals aren’t likely to have children, or to the extent that they are, they’ll either already be in long-term relationships (and therefore don’t need any encouragement), or they’ll have actively sought out children in such a way that they’re likely to provide relatively stable environments regardless of what the government does.”
If you exclude EVEN ONE COUPLE, you’re being inconsistent. It doesn’t matter who is “more likely” unless you’re trying to say that efficiency is not the goal here. Why not just do what I suggested, if it’s about child-raising? Make married couples sign a contract saying that their marriage will be invalidated if they don’t have kids within three years, and also let homosexual couples with adopted children marry.
“Their stated goal is to encourage the types of pairings which will best serve the children which are already going to be created as a result of sexual unions. I.e, procreation is going to happen, and we’re better off if it happens within the context of a monogamous, committed, relationship. Simply encouraging individuals who bear children seems a woefully silly way of accomplishing that goal.”
Gay couples would be adopting children from foster homes and other unstable environments. Surely that serves the children best?
Yes, I think it’s silly, but then, I’m not a statist. I’m doing my best within the confines of statist ‘logic.’
”
So the question ought to be not “If marriage is about raising children, why not invalidate childless marriages?â€, but rather “if marriage is about raising children, MUST childless marriages be invalidated?â€. And the answer is clearly no. The government’s simply up a fairly broad policy which they think is most likely to promote their goal, while minimizing drawbacks.”
Why is including homosexual couples that have adopted children a drawback?!
August 28th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
“TLG, you are right about the inconsistency with respect to allowing marriage for those couples who choose not to raise children (whether they adopt or have their own). I’m not sure how to deal with that. However, a government policy that supports the “traditional family†generally can only be a good thing for children (unless you believe that two gay men can provide the same upbringing as an equivalent heterosexual couple).”
I don’t believe this or that about any group. I don’t see people in terms of groups, but in terms of individuals. Plenty of gay men could provide much better parenting than many straight couples. Why are we willing to grant every benefit of the doubt available to heterosexual couples, even though they have time and time again shown themselves to QUITE fallible, but homosexuals constantly have to, to quote Ann Coulter on an unrelated subject, “shout their every failing from the rooftop” or else they’ll be deemed unfit to parent? We encourage pregnant teenagers to raise their children instead of abort them while they’re fetuses, but two professional, healthy gay men can’t raise a child? That’s homophobia, pure and simple.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
“In my opinion, it is perfectly acceptable for government to “discriminate†in a way that results in more children being raised by a mother and a father. Some say two dads can provide the same as a mom and a dad. I disagree. All else equal, any other combination if individuals organized to care for children will always be less effective than an equivalent mother and father.”
All else equal?
Then it would be equal! IF ALL IS EQUAL, there is no difference between them.
I’m sorry, but I don’t view the world through peoples’ genitalia. I prefer to look at their morals, convictions, accomplishments, and character. The bizarre fixation with something as wildly irrelevant in good child-rearing as gender is nothing short of maddening.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
“We encourage pregnant teenagers to raise their children instead of abort them while they’re fetuses, but two professional, healthy gay men can’t raise a child? That’s homophobia, pure and simple.”
That’s because killing the fetus is even worse than having a baby out of wedlock. And the next step would be to adopt the child into a family (with a mom and a dad), not keep it and raise it out of wedlock.
I’m not a homophobe; I believe a homosexual can be as good a parent as any other. But raising children requires efforts from the father AND the mother. A father can be a good parent, while still being unable to offer his child the “best” upbringing (take single moms for example, they are great at what they do, yet most would agree that their children would be better served if they had a dad too). A child’s upbringing is dependent on having a good father and a good mother. Again, it’s not about the rights of the gay person, it’s about ensuring a good upbringing for the child. Let me be really clear here, GAY PEOPLE CAN BE GREAT PARENTS!! But that is not the point.
Nor do I advocate forcing anyone to do anything. I’m just saying that government is perfectly within its bounds to offer an incentive to encourage the best possible upbringing for children. If people choose to live differently, good for them, they are free to do so.
August 28th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
By “all else equal” I meant the economic interpretation of “ceteris paribus”. You often mention that some gay parents would do a better job than some heterosexual parents, which is true. I was attempting to hold this variable constant (and others), so as to compare equivalent homosexual and heterosexual parents. That is all.
August 28th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
“We encourage pregnant teenagers to raise their children instead of abort them while they’re fetuses, but two professional, healthy gay men can’t raise a child? That’s homophobia, pure and simple.â€
Also, we do let gay men raise children. It happens everywhere. This is not the issue. They want the recognition that they are equal to heterosexuals raising children, and society is free to withhold that recognition because they are, in fact, not equal. The individuals are all equal, but the sum of a man and a woman, when it comes to raising children, is great than the sum of two men, or two women.
Nor is this homophobia, else you call me a homophobe for acknowledging that two men can not create children together. I didn’t make the rules.
August 28th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘I wasn’t addressing the crazies, I was addressing you’
Well, in judging whether they are truly bigoted, I need to evaluate their beliefs.
‘(you’re crazy in your own right, though).’
Hah, thank you. It would be rather boring if everyone was a bland, humorless clone. (Yes, I know you didn’t mean it as a compliment, but I’ll take it as such anyway.)
‘Let’s apply consistent logic and also say that Nazis aren’t bigoted unless they “shove it the faces of Jewish people.‒
There is a difference, though. Nazism is based on mass extermination and would appeal merely to vicious types, while belief that homosexuality is unnatural is merely a reflection of an intellectual shortcoming.
‘Bigotry comes from beliefs — you’re still a bigot if you think being gay is a choice, that homosexual relationships are invalid or meaningless, that it’s a terrible sin, that gays shouldn’t have the same rights as everyone else, etc.’
I would say that they are just ignorant (most of the time), I don’t think there are too many people who are truly hateful. I don’t mean to justify these beliefs, but imagine an intellectually challenged man from rural Louisiana, who has never met a gay person and who has been fed anti-gay propaganda by his church and family. Can this person really be blamed for believing that being gay is a choice? Or that it’s a terrible sin? He doesn’t know any better.
I would say: blame the people who should reasonably know better, but don’t.
August 28th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Richard P: ‘They want the recognition that they are equal to heterosexuals raising children, and society is free to withhold that recognition because they are, in fact, not equal.’
You’re an interesting fellow. You’re saying that a gay couple, on average, will do worse when it comes to raising a child than a heterosexual couple. No disagreement there. You continue to say that you want to deny the rights of marriage (which can and will help in raising a child) to them, because they are not equal. That makes little sense to me. If you are unwilling to prevent them from raising children (which you are), wouldn’t you be merely hurting the child by denying the relationship of its legal guardians the protections, obligations and rights of marriage? That’s why I am for civil unions.
There sure are a lot of interesting, unorthodox people out here.
August 28th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
TLG,
“If you exclude EVEN ONE COUPLE, you’re being inconsistent. It doesn’t matter who is “more likely†unless you’re trying to say that efficiency is not the goal here. Why not just do what I suggested, if it’s about child-raising? Make married couples sign a contract saying that their marriage will be invalidated if they don’t have kids within three years, and also let homosexual couples with adopted children marry.”
This is so silly it hardly deserves a response. Efficiency does not mean that you attempt to encompass all those individuals who promote a certain goal, and exclude all those that don’t. It has nothing to do with that. It means, roughly, operating on a theory of opportunity cost. I.e., you put each allocation of resources to the best possible use. You don’t, for instance, as a matter of efficiency choose to create crime policies which are aimed at stamping out all crime. Because something called “diminishing returns” pops up, and you find that your spending something like 100000 times more resources to stop the last criminal, as you spent to stop the first (assuming it’s even possible). It’s grossly inefficient.
Similarly, it’s inefficient to create the sort of bureaucracy necessary to weed out “infertile” couples from the broader heterosexual group. You’d be wasting enormous resources, which could be better allocated to other programs, or tax cuts, or streamlining. There’s simply no reason for the government to pursue such a policy. As for couples signing contracts to have kids within three years, again, that violates the supposed purpose of the law. Because, in my scenario, the law isn’t to encourage people to have kids, but rather, to encourage people who are already going to have kids (through unsafe sex and the like) to form enduring commitments which will create a better and more stable environment for the child.
August 28th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Awakened,
The “rights†of marriage are small consolation for what is really missing (an opposite sex parent). My argument is based on the premise that a traditional marriage incentive works, at least a little. This means that with the incentive, our society will provide more traditional parenting for children than it would without the incentive, which is a good thing for children. I guess this could be a bad assumption. You obviously think it is. Having said that, I sympathize with those who want to correct the current economic ‘injustice†that exists between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples (leaving children aside), as relating to marriage rights. I agree it’s unfair, and allowing civil unions would be a solution. I’m not sure I would support such a policy though, since it would largely remove the traditional marriage incentive, which I believe actually works. If gays wish to have children, then all the power to them; however, I don’t think we need to provide them an additional incentive for them to do so. And again, this is because I believe children are best raised by a father and a mother.
August 28th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
“Gay couples would be adopting children from foster homes and other unstable environments. Surely that serves the children best?
Yes, I think it’s silly, but then, I’m not a statist. I’m doing my best within the confines of statist ‘logic.’”
It may very well serve the children best, but we’re talking about economic efficiency here. That’s largely what the government deals with, or ought to deal with, when creating policies or programs. And my point is simply that gays who decide to “have” children, are already likely to be responsible in various ways. Because it’s not something they can accomplish without considerable forethought. There’s no reason for the government to waste resources, of any kind, promoting unions which lead to stable environments for offspring. It’s redundant. So if makes you feel any better, my argument here is essentially that gays who children are ALREADY responsible, and therefore don’t need any encouragement to become so.
Although this probably isn’t very much in conflict with what Richard is saying about the ideal environment for child rearing. I tend to agree that, because of various innate differences between the sexes, children are aided by the presence of a mother and father, as opposed to some other pairing. That is, if you chose a random homosexual couple (who weren’t considering having children) and a random heterosexual couple (who weren’t considering having children), and suddenly gave them a child, on average the child would be better served with the mother and father pairing. But, as it stands I’m actually reasonably happy to concede that, because of the self-selecting nature of gay couples, gay couples who adopt may actually be better suited to rearing children then heterosexual couples.
“Why is including homosexual couples that have adopted children a drawback?!”
It’s a drawback because it’s redundant. Unnecessary to the goals the state is ostensibly pursuing. A waste of resources (and an avoidable waste) which would go to a more economically efficient use.
August 28th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
‘The “rights†of marriage are small consolation for what is really missing (an opposite sex parent).’
I’m not contesting that an opposite sex parent is really missing. However, you seem to admit that it makes at the very least a small positive difference (“small consolation) for children. That’s a start.
‘My argument is based on the premise that a traditional marriage incentive works, at least a little.’
Yes, but allowing civil unions will do nothing to de-incentivize traditional marriage. I don’t know too many straight couples who will break up to marry people of the same sex. Maybe the Larry Craig-types will get a civil union with a man, but that only serves to prevent family breakups. That’s about it. So I would argue that it would only help the children who are being raised by gay couples. As you pointed out, the situation for the children is far from ideal, the state need not impose yet another burden on them.
I assume you aren’t already married, would you consider getting a civil union with a man if civil unions were allowed? If not, how would allowing civil unions “largely remove the traditional marriage incentive”?
‘If gays wish to have children, then all the power to them; however, I don’t think we need to provide them an additional incentive for them to do so.’
Neither do I. In an ideal situation, no gay couple or single parent would be raising children. But the world is far from ideal, and there isn’t really an ethical and humane way to take away the children gay couples are raising. (Even if it was possible, there wouldn’t be enough happily married couples to take in the children.) So I think that instead of making policy out of a statement that they are not equal, we need to make sure that the children are adequately protected. It’s good for them and it’s good for society.
You’re an intelligent fellow and I’m glad we’re having this conversation.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Richard P –
#
Nor do I advocate forcing anyone to do anything. I’m just saying that government is perfectly within its bounds to offer an incentive to encourage the best possible upbringing for children. If people choose to live differently, good for them, they are free to do so. By “all else equal†I meant the economic interpretation of “ceteris paribusâ€. You often mention that some gay parents would do a better job than some heterosexual parents, which is true. I was attempting to hold this variable constant (and others), so as to compare equivalent homosexual and heterosexual parents. That is all.
-
You don’t HAVE a variable to hold constant. You don’t even have any data. You’re just making stuff up about “it works better to have a mom and a dad.” How do you know? Maybe it would be better to have three or four people. WE’VE NEVER EVEN **TRIED** IT ANY OTHER WAY. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY KNOW THAT?
Government isn’t perfectly within its bounds to offer incentives AT SOMEONE ELSE’S EXPENSE, which is why it shouldn’t be involved in marriage.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
“You don’t HAVE a variable to hold constant. You don’t even have any data. You’re just making stuff up about “it works better to have a mom and a dad.†How do you know? Maybe it would be better to have three or four people. WE’VE NEVER EVEN **TRIED** IT ANY OTHER WAY. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY KNOW THAT?”
Not to continue beating a dead horse, but you are right, I have no data. However, I do put significant weight on 100s of millions of years of evolution (or God, whichever you prefer). My very big assumption here is that humans are designed so that only heterosexual couple can create kids; therefore the heterosexual couple should be raising the kids. Maybe I’m out to lunch.
August 31st, 2007 at 9:25 pm
[...] such post can be found here: Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]