Gay Marriage - a Conservative Idea

[nate_sf]

Is it any wonder Corporate America has begun embracing Gays and Lesbians in order to attract the "best and brightest" employees? While it's becoming more common that some of us are becoming parents, the vast majority of gays and lesbians in the workplace do not have children to restrict them from dedicating more time to their jobs than their counterparts with families. I believe some/many employers believe that gay and lesbian employees may be able to be the faithful, hardworking employees they need to to stay late and keep things running while hetero families with two working parents and children find themselves needing to take time off work to deal with their children's needs. Where would Mr. Burns be without Smithers..?

[nate_sf]

>When you say they've "adopted that model" do you mean

>to say that these are couples that have been rigidly

>monogamous for the entirety of their relationship? How many

>long-term gay male relationships do you know of that actually

>work that way? The ones I'm familiar with have been opened up

>(to varying degrees and under varying rules and conditions).

 

This is the "elephant in the room" that Brooks touches on but is otherwise something that's not often directly talked about in the context of gay marriage. Brooks sees gay marriage as the opportunity to allow gays to have "committed" relationships, but what he means full well is monogamy, and that us heathens will be given the opportunity to be tamed. Yet this flies in the face of all those long-term gay relationships many of us know, that have been opened up in one form or another through the years. Are these people less "committed" to each other because they've developed a relationship model that works for them? And there lies the cultural difference between marriage and civil unions: marriage equates with monogamy, while civil unions recognize a committment to a long-term/life relationship but does not directly imply monogamy in the same way marriage does.

 

Of course, this is not to say gays cannot have monogamous relationships, or that marrying creates monogamy with either gays or heteros. But expecting the institution to transform behavior is foolish.

[nate_sf]

>... If you like your promiscuous, oh-so-boehemian San

>Fransisco escort life of fucking lots and lots of guys without

>any monogomous commitment... >

 

You must be Jeb Bush's secret speech writer!

 

(See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/11/13/state0340EST0012.DTL )

 

What did we ever do to deserve all this abuse?

x(

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>I think the important thing is whether the spousal commitment

>is one of a monogomy of intimacy - i.e., is your spouse the

>only person with whom you're intimate? - which, ultimately, is

>a different question than the one of: "do you ever fuck

>anyone else?"

 

That's a very 60's, liberated attitude, one I find very two hard to reconcile with the beginning of Brooks's essay:

 

"Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations."

 

Are you sure YOU'RE not the leftist with designs on changing the institution of marriage?

[Doug69]

>That's a very 60's, liberated attitude, one I find very two

>hard to reconcile with the beginning of Brooks's essay:

 

I didn't say I agreed with Brooks' essay - and I certainly don't agree with his view that having "several sexual partners in a year is committing spirtual suicide." Spiritual suicide? From fucking 3 people in 12 months? I'd say Mr. Brooks revealed some serious woodlawn-like neuroses with regard to sex by using such histrionic, melodramtic condemnations to describe an innocuous act.

 

>Are you sure YOU'RE not the leftist with designs on changing

>the institution of marriage?

 

Other than the fact that it allows only straight couples and excludes gay couples, I don't advocate any changes in the institution of marriage at all. I don't think that sexual monogomy (as opposed to intimacy-monogomoy) is a critical part of the institution, but I think it ought to be preserved as a rule.

[Doug69]

>Well, that's the problem that arises when you make shit up --

>like referring to the opinions of "the vast majority" of

>social scientists when the truth is you haven't actually read

>the opinions of the vast majority or even of a sizable

>minority on this subject.

 

This is inane. I haven't looked at the vast majority of ballots cast in the recent gubenotorial election in California, but I still know that Arnold Schwarzenegger received the vast majority of those votes. I haven't treated the vast majority of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, but I still know that the vast majority of them die of the disease. I haven't read the vast majority of studies on whether cigarette smoking causes cancer, but I still know that the vast majority of such studies conclude that it does.

 

Get it, imbecile? You can know what the vast majority of studies in a certain field conclude even though you haven't read the vast majority of those studies, by reading the reports and findings of experts in the field who have read the vast majority of such reports.

 

If you had actually read any of the

>studies you claim exist, it wouldn't be any trouble for you to

>describe them.

 

This is just as dumb. I've read court cases compiling such studies, expert reports characterizing the consensus of such studies, journal articles discussing such studies, and even a couple of studies themselves. If you believe that my needing to search before being able to cite these studies by title and publication means I never read anything on this topic, are you under the impression, as you seem to be, that I give a fuck?

 

Instead, your habit is to claim your opinion

>is supported by lots of "studies" when in truth you have no

>idea whether it is or not. When someone calls you on it, you

>often cop out with the words "I won't do research for you."

 

If the research is readily available, then I post it, as I have done many times to give the lie to your fabrications. If it takes more work than I am willing to do in order to complete a post on this site, then I won't. It's that simple.

 

>I'm not sure about that. The one study I have read about that

>would bear on the issue -- and I will go look it up if anyone

>wants me to -- is a multi-year study that focused on children

>whose parents were divorced early in their lives. If I

>remember correctly, the study's authors concluded that

>children who come from such homes find it much more difficult

>to believe that they will be able to have a committed

>relationship with another person.

 

I'd like to see this study. If you really read it, you would have been able to post the citation to it. And if the study concluded with what you claim, it didn't contradict, or even relate to, anything I said.

[Doug69]

>I'm not the one who wishes to alter the concept of marriage.

 

Yes, you do - you wish to eliminate it as the arrangement which the state prefers and encourages its citizens to enter into. You wish to deprive it of its status as the paramount intimiate relationship. You seek to equate it with numerous other types of relationships which are less permanent and less exclusive. Those are pretty drastic changes to the concept of marriage which you advocate.

 

>But nor do I support continuing its

>state-sponsored monopoly on acceptable living/coupling

>relationships. And I don't see why, if others wish to pursue

>alternatives, that that should be such a threat to marriage,

>if it's really all it's cracked up to be.

 

I really wish every gay person could read this. It's so funny how so many gay people and their admirers revel in mocking social conservatives who claim that gay people are hostile to traditional concepts of family and want to dismantle the institution of marriage. "Oh, what are they talking about," say such knowing sophisticates, "we want to be PART of families. How can we be a threat to marriage? They say that the gay agenda seeks to destroy marriage only in order demonize us. How evil."

 

And yet - there are numerous gay people like you, Devon, who ARE hostile to marriage, and who DO want to deprive it of its special, preferred status, and make it no different than a whole slew of alternative relationships (which ones: polygomy? serial spouses?).

 

Many gay people, particularly the leftists feminist lesbians who infected many gay rights organizations, were originally OPPOSED, vehemently, to gay marriage, on the ground that marriage is a patriarchial, oppressive institution which should be dsetroyed, not expanded. Then, they came up with a different plan - "let's support gay marriage, because that's the best way to destroy marriage, since once it's opened to same-sex couples, then we can argue it should be open to polygomists and all sorts of alternative lifestyles, and thereby totally destroy the institution." They say this openly. You sound like you share that goal - the goal which many social conservatives, to great scorn, insist is one of the goals of the gay rights movement.

[AdamSmith]

Then, they came up with a

>different plan - "let's support gay marriage, because that's

>the best way to destroy marriage, since once it's opened to

>same-sex couples, then we can argue it should be open to

>polygomists and all sorts of alternative lifestyles, and

>thereby totally destroy the institution." They say this

>openly. You sound like you share that goal - the goal which

>many social conservatives, to great scorn, insist is one of

>the goals of the gay rights movement.

 

And your point is...?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>>I'm not the one who wishes to alter the concept of marriage.

>

>

>Yes, you do - you wish to eliminate it as the arrangement

>which the state prefers and encourages its citizens to enter

>into. You wish to deprive it of its status as the paramount

>intimiate relationship.

 

But that changes nothing about the concept of marriage. Why is marriage suddenly rendered meaningless merely because the government stops doling out special perks and subsidies to those who enter into it?

 

>>But nor do I support continuing its

>>state-sponsored monopoly on acceptable living/coupling

>>relationships. And I don't see why, if others wish to

>pursue

>>alternatives, that that should be such a threat to marriage,

>>if it's really all it's cracked up to be.

 

>I really wish every gay person could read this.

 

Me too, but appeals to my megalomania aren't sufficient to change my mind. I'm listening, though, Doug; really, I am.

 

>It's so funny how so many gay people and their admirers revel in >mocking social conservatives who claim that gay people are hostile >to traditional concepts of family and want to dismantle the

>institution of marriage.

 

I won't deny that I have sometimes mocked social conservatives, but the fact is that I come from a background of social conservatives and know many of them to be good people. I happily participated in my little brother's wedding, which took place in a church and was so traditional that he and his lovely wife didn't even hyphenate their last name. I wished, and continue to wish, them all the best, as I would any two people who choose to enter into that arrangement. Moreover, I believe that my brother and his wife are temperamentally well suited to the the things marriage asks of them, and have an excellent chance of making that institution work for them.

 

I also believe that the same is NOT true of many people, and that our society has reached a place where it not only can but should accomodate more than one ideal when it comes to relationships. I believe in a society where marriage is something people actually CHOOSE, and don't enter into just because they're supposed to.

 

>Then, they came up with a

>different plan - "let's support gay marriage, because that's

>the best way to destroy marriage, since once it's opened to

>same-sex couples, then we can argue it should be open to

>polygomists and all sorts of alternative lifestyles, and

>thereby totally destroy the institution." They say this

>openly. You sound like you share that goal - the goal which

>many social conservatives, to great scorn, insist is one of

>the goals of the gay rights movement.

 

But YOU'RE the one supporting gay marriage, while simultaneously arguing for a change in what monogamy should be understood to mean. Again, I haven't advocated a single change to the institution of marriage. I have advocated expanding non-marital options that reflect the reality of how more and more people in today's society actually live. Unlike you, I have enough respect for social conservatives to be willing to leave their sacred institution alone. In return, however, I am unwilling to continue to subsidize their living arrangements at my expense.

[woodlawn]

>>Well, that's the problem that arises when you make shit up

>--

>>like referring to the opinions of "the vast majority" of

>>social scientists when the truth is you haven't actually

>read

>>the opinions of the vast majority or even of a sizable

>>minority on this subject.

 

>This is inane. I haven't looked at the vast majority of

>ballots cast in the recent gubenotorial election in

>California, but I still know that Arnold Schwarzenegger

>received the vast majority of those votes.

 

That's a good example of the way you make shit up and just hope nobody calls you on it. According to every news report I read, Arnold got fewer than 50% of the votes cast for alternate candidates in the recall election. If you know of a report stating he got the "vast majority," let's see it.

 

 

>Get it, imbecile? You can know what the vast majority of

>studies in a certain field conclude even though you haven't

>read the vast majority of those studies, by reading the

>reports and findings of experts in the field who have read the

>vast majority of such reports.

 

Then why not simply refer us to one of those? If you've actually read such a report, it shouldn't be a problem.

 

>If you had actually read any of the

>>studies you claim exist, it wouldn't be any trouble for you

>to

>>describe them.

 

>This is just as dumb. I've read court cases compiling such

>studies, expert reports characterizing the consensus of such

>studies, journal articles discussing such studies, and even a

>couple of studies themselves. If you believe that my needing

>to search before being able to cite these studies by title and

>publication means I never read anything on this topic, are you

>under the impression, as you seem to be, that I give a fuck?

 

Oh, I know you don't give a fuck about all the times you've been called on a statement that "the vast majority of studies support my opinion," because you keep doing it even though time and time again you've been unable to back up your statements. I just want to make sure everyone reading your posts knows that you have this habit of making up bogus "studies" in order to give your opinions an air of authority they don't deserve.

 

>>often cop out with the words "I won't do research for you."

 

>If the research is readily available, then I post it, as I

>have done many times to give the lie to your fabrication

 

You're lying again. You've never posted anything that shoots down my arguments. The last time you tried was in a thread about HIV drugs. You kept saying over and over again that these drugs allow HIV patients to lead healthy lives "indefinitely," but the article you posted stated that their effects can last "up to five years." That's a good example of the way you exaggerate or just plain lie about this stuff in order to pretend you know more than you do.

 

>If

>it takes more work than I am willing to do in order to

>complete a post on this site, then I won't. It's that

>simple.

 

As in, "I could beat you up anytime I want to, but I don't want to right now." Uh huh.

 

>>I'm not sure about that. The one study I have read about

>that

>>would bear on the issue

 

 

>I'd like to see this study. If you really read it,

 

If you really read what I posted -- which is quoted above -- you would know that I said I read about it. See the words? They are right there in front of you.

 

>And if the study

>concluded with what you claim, it didn't contradict, or even

>relate to, anything I said.

 

Once again, your dyslexia is preventing you from reading something that is right there in front of your face. My post said the study "would bear on the issue." Can you see those words?

[Doug69]

>>I'd like to see this study. If you really read it,

>

>If you really read what I posted -- which is quoted above -- . . . '

 

Where's the study? I thought you said you'd post it if anyone wants to see it. I told you I want to see it. So where is it?

 

>you would know that I said I read about it. See the words?

>They are right there in front of you.

 

If there's one thing I learned from this forum, it's that people who are desperate for sex and companionship will idealize escorts to the point of worship and reduce themselves to a state of giggly reverence typically found in teenage girls in the presence of a television heartthrob.

 

But if there are two things I learned from this forum, the second one is that the fact that you say something does not make it true; in fact, it's usually the opposite.

 

>>And if the study

>>concluded with what you claim, it didn't contradict, or even

>>relate to, anything I said.

>

>Once again, your dyslexia is preventing you from reading

>something that is right there in front of your face. My post

>said the study "would bear on the issue." Can you see those

>words?

 

Try again, bitch. I made a point regarding the possible lack of harm to children from their parents' sexual promiscuity (as opposed to intimacy promiscuity), to which you replied: "I don't know about that," and then immediately after talked about the study you claim to have read. The only possible meaning of this is that you believe that study casts doubt about what I said, when, in fact, it does not in any way contradict anything I said. Why must you deny the obvious meaning of what you say?

[woodlawn]

>Where's the study? I thought you said you'd post it if anyone

>wants to see it. I told you I want to see it. So where is

>it?

 

The study I referred to is described in great detail in the book "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce," by Judith S. Wallerstein. Prof. Wallerstein, of U.C. Berkeley, conducted this study of a group of children of divorced parents over a 25-year period, making it the longest study of its kind ever done. I heard an interview with Wallerstein on NPR earlier this year and got the book. I believe it is now available in paperback.

 

>If there's one thing I learned from this forum, it's that

>people who are desperate for sex and companionship will

>idealize escorts to the point of worship and reduce themselves

>to a state of giggly reverence typically found in teenage

>girls in the presence of a television heartthrob.

 

No argument there.

 

>But if there are two things I learned from this forum, the

>second one is that the fact that you say something does not

>make it true; in fact, it's usually the opposite.

 

Unlike you, Doug, I don't just make up a statement that legions of learned studies support my opinion without having any idea whether the statement is true. As I have just demonstrated.

 

>My

>post

>>said the study "would bear on the issue." Can you see those

>>words?

 

>Try again, bitch. I made a point regarding the possible lack

>of harm to children from their parents' sexual promiscuity (as

>opposed to intimacy promiscuity), to which you replied: "I

>don't know about that," and then immediately after talked

>about the study you claim to have read. The only possible

>meaning of this is that you believe that study casts doubt

>about what I said,

 

You just don't want to acknowledge that you have a problem with English, Doogie. If I wanted to convey that something I read contradicted your statements, I would simply write that. Instead, I wrote that the Wallerstein study "bears on the issue." Why do you find such simple sentences so hard to understand?