Homocon

Why hadn't I found this blog before... I read some of your entries and this is great... coming from a minority usually assumed to be liberal, it's good to see that someone else has something to say about the assumption of liberalism. Great writing I will definitely be back on a regular basis.

~Jacky

I like your blog as well and I just stumbled upon it yesterday. To Jacky, yes we're out there. Here in NYC is it definitely difficult being out as a gay conservative.....that's why I am fairly circumspect about my political ideology unless challenged. Most liberals can't really defend themselves logically. They'll just sputter, bitch and scream. Actually, I style myself as a conservative libertarian. Now I have to go back and read the above article. If liberals are really worried about living in a theocracy, they should try Iran for 6 months.

Oh come on, HomoCon, must you resort to such hyperbole?

*RUNS BLOG THAT USES EXCESSIVE HYPERBOLE*

(Yes, I'm a) Hypocrite.

Dude, this post is awesome. You should have your own radio show...

...oh, I forgot. You are gonna have your own radio show on July 23 and I'm your co-host.
_________________________
Homoon sez:
And the world will never be the same again (bwah-ha-ha!).

C'mon Homocon... Why are you so confused? Marriage IS about love, it IS about benefits, it IS about affirmation... but notice I didn't say GAY marriage. Whether they're gay or straight, the majority of people don't get married for one reason only. If I decide to get married to my partner somewhere where it's legal, for me personally, it'll be about love. After all, that's what I was taught as a child... you fall in love and you get married. And yeah, it will be about benefits too. Legal benefits have been tied into marriage more and more as time goes by and it certainly would cut out the middleman when it comes to legally protecting my partner and son. As for affirmation... that too. Straight people get their live's affirmed all the time by marrying someone. It's what society and most religions expect to a certain degree and it's encouraged and rewarded. That's why Burgess-Jackson's comment is way off... You yourself bring up the theme of liberals trying to pigeonhole all of us into a victim status. Here he is grouping any gay person who wants to get married into this narrow view of only seeking affirmation for their lives. His first sentence was actually ok, because he was distinguishing people who DO seek that validation primarily from marriage (and I'm sure there are some...) but then goes on to try and establish the whole debate as being ONLY about that issue. When I think about the possibilty of marriage in my life, it's practical thoughts that come up... and emotional thoughts... and spiritual thoughts... Right now, I don't know what my partner and I will eventually decide to do in terms of formalizing our commitment, but whatever we decide, the result will be made up of many factors, not just one, as some of those quotes would suggest.

Minor point - Spain is already a secular state - there is no state religion (Article 16 of the spanish constitution), unlike Britain, Israel or Iran, for example, with official religions.

Found your blog via Radio Equalizer.
I don't think marriage is something you're going to like when it is legalized. It hasn't done excrement for the straight community, and will probably only spread the cancer of greed-based plunder to homosexual realm, instead of being a genuine expression of love and commitment. Marriage is antithetical to liberty, but I'll have a post up about that tomorrow. I just wish so many weren't buying into this lie as though it were a magic cure-all.
Fracking snake oil, is more like it.

Well Ted, marriage is whatever people decide to make it. I know it worked, and worked very well for my parents and grandparents, married 30 and 55 years respectively and seperated only by death. On the other hand, divorce was no stranger to other members of my family. It all depends on your mindset going into it. It can be an extension of genuine love and commitment, or as you suggested, cancerous greed-based plunder. I'm inferring that you won't be getting married anytime soon, but if you change your mind, I'd probably keep the words 'snake oil' and 'excrement' out of your vows.

It's hard to imagine socialism and Catholicism at loggerheads, seeing as how they're both mutant strains of the same altruism virus.
Sooner or later, individuals realize neither system works for anything other than fattening the cats at the top of the pyramid scam.

This is the same Anal Philosopher who said that dogs have more of a right to get married than gay people.

That's fine if you don't want to have a gay marriage. Don't. But please stop trying to control my life. If I want to marry my gay partner, I'd like to be able to without strangers like you trying to interfere in my life.
__________________________
Homocon sez:
I'm sure it's tough to be you, wanting to marry your same-sex partner and meanies like me not lining up on the side of the road, waving pom-poms and cheering you on.

The entire culture has a stake in this discussion, since allowing same-sex "marriage" is a radical departure from what marriage has been since its inception thousands of years ago. You might stop to consider that a majority of the population may not care to publicly reward with spousal insurance benefits, health benefits, inheritance and property rights, and automatic child custody rights what has only recently been de-listed as a psychological illness.

There are steps that cultures have to take before they can get to C from A, and shifts in social attitudes need to occur naturally in an instance like this. I've said it before, and I guess I have to say it again -- these things don't always happen on our own personal time tables, but it's not as if there's no progress being made at all. I look back at the 60's and 70's and can hardly believe that we're grown to be so open and tolerant as a society in comparison to where we used to be.

Same-Sex marriage is not a "right" -- it's a privilege that society (perhaps) will come to bestow. Same-sex relationships themselves (without even bringing marriage into the equation) have only just recently begun seeing the mainstream light of day, and yet you're sulking that you can't get married already? I marvel at your lack of perspective.

BTW: Anal Philosopher never said that "dogs have more of a right to get married than gay people"; what he's actually said is that gay marriage is a decision for states to make, not the federal government, and that he believes that states (and not by judicial fiat -- he completely dissents with the position that judges should be allowed to force the same-sex marriage issue) should have the right to experiment with gay marriage should their populations overwhelmingly choose to do so -- you are deliberately misquoting him, which makes everything else you say suspect.

Wrong. Marriage is a right. Read the Loving V. Virginia decision if you don't believe me.

Oh yeah - you don't believe in interracial marriage, because we didn't have that for thousands of years. I forgot that you're a racist. And you believe that polygamy is fine and that wives are the property of their husbands. And that it's ok for men to rape their wives.

Sorry - I should have meant that the Anal Philosopher compared gay marriage to dogs voting.

"the proper analogy is not to slavery, which is obviously unjust, but to not allowing dogs to vote, which is just" - Anal Philosopher

http://analphilosopher.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_analphilosopher_archive.html#110791352009970295

If you're so anti-gay, then you should just do us a favor, and get some self-therapy and become straight. You obviously think it's a psychological illness that can be cured (as you state in your comment). So please try.
_____________________________________
Homocon sez:
I'm not certain what exactly your personal issues are (and you seem to have more than a few of them), but you're mistaken in your attempts to take them out on me.

#1: I misspoke -- marriage is not an "unlimited" or "unconditional" right, just as someone's liberty can be taken away should they commit a crime. What you're asking for is one of the traditional limitations of marriage to be removed. This is an issue for the culture as a whole to discuss, as it affects everyone.

#2: Heterosexual inter-racial marriage has been on the map for thousands of years. I have no idea what you mean when you make your claim that inter-racial marriage is somehow new. The reason that the ban against inter-racial marriage in the United States was so egregious was because it put arbitrary limitations in a particular geographical region on something that did not have those limitations at its inception, or across the board.

#3: Polygamy? Rape? Wives as property? Racism? What dark hole in your mind spit all that out"

#4: I did not say that I believed homosexuality was a psychological illness. You need to read people more closely. What I said is that you might consider cutting the culture as a whole some slack about the reticence regarding same-sex marriage, considering that even our medical institutions officially considered it a sickness until only recently. I believe the gay left, and even the gay right, is pushing this issue way too hard, and with too much venom, and that this is causing a backlash. There's a lot of progress being made, and that has already been made, in our society regarding the acceptance of same-sex relationships. The very fact that we, as a culture, are even presently having a public debate about same-sex marriage is such a huge step forward. I honestly believe that same-sex marriage will happen eventually, but I also honestly believe that calling people bigots should they choose to oppose such a change in the tradition of marriage is misguided and, actually, a grave mistake.

#5: Anal Philosopher has more than just one thing to say about same-sex marriage, and tossing out supposed quotes that are not actually his words, or even his meaning, is not acceptable. That said, Anal Philosopher's argument that gay marriage would be akin to a resolution allowing for dogs to vote is apt. He most emphatically does not claim that gays are like dogs (which, for god knows what reason, you accuse him of doing in your post here). Anal Philosopher is attempting to hold a reasoned debate on likes and unlikes, the categories of similars and dissimilars in regards to law. You have every right to disagree with him, but the shape in which your disagreements manifest is disturbing, to say the least.

Let's put it this way. Gays will have the right to marriage in this country one day. And none of the credit will go to you.

So I sure hope you don't make yourself a hypocrite one day by undertaking that right (and it is a right).

I, for one, do not plan on waiting until I'm 80 to exercise that right. Life is way too short.

Fuck the bigots.

To address your points one by one.

I'm not certain what exactly your personal issues are.
I have zero personal issues. I just have zero tolerance for infantile arguments such as yours.

#2What you're asking for is one of the traditional limitations of marriage to be removed. This is an issue for the culture as a whole to discuss, as it affects everyone.
Since when does the "culture" get to decide rights? Did the "culture" get to decide that blacks have a right to marry white people?

#3The reason that the ban against inter-racial marriage in the United States was so egregious was because it put arbitrary limitations in a particular geographical region on something that did not have those limitations at its inception, or across the board.
What world are you living in? Even the Bible itself forbids inter-racial marriage. There's a reason that the races, even different ethnic groups look so different. Because they didn't inter-mingle much. On what Constitutional grounds would have have supported the Loving V. Virginia decision? It was an amazingly "activist" decision that overturned the laws of many states, and was extremely unpopular with the majority of the population, most of whom opposed inter-racial marriage. I am 100% confident that you would have opposed the decision at the time. You can claim otherwise all you want, but you don't have a progressive bone in your body.

#3 - Polygamy? Rape? Wives as property? Racism? What dark hole in your mind spit all that out"
Maybe you should check out how marriage existed "for thousands of years". Polygamy was legal. Husbands could rape their wives (until as recently as the 1980's in this country). Divorce was not allowed. Wives were the property of their husbands. Please tell me why these traditional parts of marriage were allowed to be changed, but allowing gays to marry cannot?

#4 considering that even our medical institutions officially considered it a sickness until only recently. I believe the gay left, and even the gay right, is pushing this issue way too hard, and with too much venom, and that this is causing a backlash. There's a lot of progress being made, and that has already been made, in our society regarding the acceptance of same-sex relationships. The very fact that we, as a culture, are even presently having a public debate about same-sex marriage is such a huge step forward. I honestly believe that same-sex marriage will happen eventually, but I also honestly believe that calling people bigots should they choose to oppose such a change in the tradition of marriage is misguided and, actually, a grave mistake.

Let's see. Psychology wasn't even formed until the late 1800's by Freud, and even Freud came to the view that there was nothing wrong with homosexuals in the 1930's. So essentially, the medical establishment thought that being gay was an illness for all of about 35 years. But even though being gay has been established as being normal for almost 40 years, you expect us to keep waiting.

Wait until when? Like the bigots (and they are bigots) will EVER accept us? You are mistaken. The religious right hates gay people and they want them either exterminated or driven back into the closet. Sorry - but I have zero intention on waiting. And what backlash are you talking about? The backlash that just legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts, in Canada, and Spain. The backlash that allowed civil unions in Connecticut?

I will call a bigot when I see them. Just as I would call the vast majority of Americans bigots for opposing inter-racial marriage in the 1950's, I will call the vast majority of Americans bigots in 2005 for opposing gay marriage. Harsh? Maybe. But it's true.

#5 - I pray to God that Anal Philosopher is stuck in some ditch in the London Underground today. You can ignore his insulting comments all you want - you are a fool. Had he put "Blacks marrying" in place of "gays marrying" - I dare you to tell me that is not racist.

Educate me. What is "undo influence"?

I agree there's too much hysteria on the left about gay oppression -- in fact, as you say, the fact that we're even discussing same-sex marriage is a sign of how far we've come. There is a lack of perspective there.

But since you seem to think that the social changes regarding homosexuality in the last forty years are a good thing, you must admit that much credit for that change goes to the agitators you seem to be denouncing. There have always been voices saying, we can't push too far, too fast, there'll be a backlash, but in fact the progress has been much more significant than the backlash. Even ten years ago I couldn't have imagined we would be speaking seriously about gay marriage, much less that there would be four nations which had legalized it.

So I enjoy your satire on the left hysteria, and also don't see a reason to end an argument by shouting "bigot".. on the other hand, it's people who have refused to accept being "second-class citizens" who have made life easier for the rest of us.

Used to be a moderate Dem. Will NEVER vote REpublican again due to George Bush and his treasonous "adviser" Mr Rove used gays to scapegoat in thelast election. Think Homocons are nuts. The Republican party hates you> Wake up, you dizzy queens!
_________________
Homocon sez:
That's the best you can do? *yawn* Go visit Democratic Underground -- your sexual paranoia and Rovian conspiracy theories will fit right in.

Next!