Dear Abby Supports Gay Marriage

7 Replies to “Dear Abby Supports Gay Marriage”

1. So — who are the people who most vocally and actively oppose gay marriage? I’ll tell you who: self-hating closeted homosexual men.

   Isn’t that a bit like saying a homosexual activist is really a closet heterosexual ?

2. Isn’t that a bit like saying a homosexual activist is really a closet heterosexual ?

   Why is that an bit like that? There are several cases now where someone actively politicking on “family values” ends up being gay. I haven’t heard any of the gay rights champions suddenly being “outed.” Either they are simply gay or, like me, are just pro-equality. I certainly have not heard of a homosexual activist who is anti-hetero marriage, which is necessary to complete this comparison. Gay people are often open minded and tolerant, whereas the people who are anti-gay are very often narrow minded people guided by some extra-conscious force like their parents, or the Church, or some other brainwashing figure.

   I think my past political stances show that I am an equalist who is anti-discrimination.

3. Quite a bit of noise was generated when the beneficiary of the monniker “Dear Abby” announced she supported gay marriage. But for the life of me, I just can’t see why this is an issue for people. What is the big deal?? Who are the people who feel so threated by this prospect that this is an important issue to them?

   Instead of creating a valid argument, you feel compelled to label anyone who disagrees with your position as “feeling threatened.” Tolerance is not about adopting “modern” values; tolerance is about being about to reason and discuss things rationally and respecting each others’ opinions.

   The divorce rate in the United States is somewhere between 40% and 60%, Wikipedia has a thorough statistic review. Marriage, as a general institution, may in trouble. The family unit may be in trouble. But it’s not because of gay marriage. No, Americans have f’ed this one up all by themselves without the help of the gays.

   Does this have something to do with the argument? I never put much stock in statistics, either for or against my positions. People can make statistics appear to support whatever position they like–like calling something “gay” instead of “homosexual” makes it sound positive instead of neutral–merely by presenting certain subsets of the facts or figures, or using incomplete studies, etc.

   The people to pay attention to are those with strong minds who can reason according to their principles. Such people see both sides of the argument well enough to adopt either one, but then those people will select one side because it presents the best arguments, the ones that are firmly grounded in reality. This is true of any subject…but I digress.

   So why would anyone care at all if two gay people want to commit to each other and enjoy the same tax and governmental benefits?

   Marriage is the union of the sexes, producing children. In the most general sense, the institution was created as a moral framework in which to provide some amount of protection to young minds.

   Applying the word “marriage” to a homosexual couple is just pointless because they have adopted a philosophy which rejects the reality of healthy, integrated human sexuality and replaces it with absurd, broken fantasies. Using the term “homosexual marriage” is also irrational because homosexuals are by definition people who are unable to deal with normal human sexuality whereas marriage is supposed to be (in part) about healthy and productive sexuality.

   Do you believe that homosexuals have no control over their sexuality? Rubbish, and it can be disproven in a few short sentences…IF you want to hear about it. Given the tone of your post, I doubt you care about opposing viewpoints.

   How is this anything but defying the Judeo-Christian “Live and let live” doctrine; how is this anything but boldly defying the “love your neighbor” adage? The world needs more peace, but obviously, those who oppose this on religious grounds feel they are worthy of passing judgement.

   If you declare yourself correct and then use euphemisms and dysphemisms–not to mention your completely rude behavior–in place of valid arguments, you are just rubbing those same values in the mud. But to answer your question, homosexuality is a mental disorder that ought to be treated so that such individuals can live normal lives. Patronizing homosexuals by equating homosexuality with normal human sexuality does not help those people; moreover, teaching children that such problems are OK does them a disservice.

   Then there are those who oppose it on political grounds. They favor a ban on gay marriage via an amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and thereby excludes gay couples from such a practice. What is the motivation for this? Do we not have enough problems in this once great nation? I just can’t see how you can favor a constitutional ban on gay marriage and claim to be a patriotic American at the same time. Nothing could be more anti-American than intentional discrimination. Remember, that is exactly that from which our forefathers were fleeing! But then, as a nation, we have little respect for the vision the forefathers actually had. In fact, too often it is argued that they meant something other than what they eloquently and laboriously detailed.

   Again, you label something discrimination, automatically making your position patriotic and fair and whatever other good term you would like to associate with your position in the future.

   Gay marriage will, in my lifetime, be permitted and seen as normal. It’s inevitable.

   Public opinion does not make something normal, ethical (or otherwise relevant to your argument). FWIW, our founders would have been appalled at the prospect of social conditioning through legal activism, which is what you appear to be advocating.

   It’s foolish of us to think that if we build a discriminitory amendment into the constitution, future generations won’t look back and us and laugh. It’s amazing that there are actually old curmudgeons who care enough, who suggest they feel threatened by gays getting married. I can’t find anything more ridiculous, particularly when Larry Craig and Mark Foley and a host of other elected officials campaign strongly against homosexual rights, only to go home to their gay hooker boyfriend for a good bathroom-stall shagging. I think it’s amazing that there exist bigots like this (read the comments) in this country and that they dare call themselves Christian. If there is indeed an afterlife, they will face their long overdue judgment.

   Again, calling something “discriminatory” is your idea of a valid argument…

   Are you going to dance and spit all over their graves, too? Honestly, your expressions of hatred are ridiculous.

   Thank God “Dear Abby” is enlightened. Hopefully, she can change even just one narrow, dogma-fed mind. Too bad there are others who sit in judgment who believe they are qualified to judge their fellow man. So — who are the people who most vocally and actively oppose gay marriage? I’ll tell you who: self-hating closeted homosexual men.

   Most of the people who disagree with your position are “self-hating closeted homosexual men”?

   :rolleyes;

   Why do you post such senseless vitriol? If you had actually wanted an answer to your questions, you would have simply done some searching for opposing positions that do not fit your silly stereotypes, and you would have instead posted an introspective post that looks at both sides.

   :thumbsdown; thumbsdown;

4. But to answer your question, homosexuality is a mental disorder that ought to be treated so that such individuals can live normal lives.

   This alone tells me everything I need to know.

   Marriage is the union of the sexes, producing children.

   So childless couples aren’t married?

   —

   Anyone who has a baseline belief that they should have control over another person’s actions that have no bearing whatsoever on their life is a problem, in my book. What do you care – whether a mental disorder or not – if two women want to get married? Honestly, I cannot fathom a response that makes any sense or holds any water at all. Live at let live.

   Let me offer a hypthetical postulate for you: ALL religious people suffer from a mental disorder. There is no empirical evidence of a superior being, and even if there was arguable evidence, there is none at all for Heaven and Hell, a belief to which many subscribe. Now… prove me wrong.

   I’m all ears if you have something realistic to say about gay marriage, other than outlandish, outdated, outrageous claims such as the “mental disorder” thing.

5. Anyone who has a baseline belief that they should have control over another person’s actions that have no bearing whatsoever on their life is a problem, in my book.

   Then your “book” is not worth “reading” because it opens the doors wide for incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, and marriages joining humans and animals. Why remove one set of abitrary (from your point of view) prejudices regarding marriage, or human sexuality for that matter, and leave other arbitrary prejudices? Do you have a predisposition to two-human marriages? Why would it be OK for *you* to demand that *everyone* accept two-human marriages as the only legitimate kind? Or do you really support all these untenable positions? What *exactly* do you intend to say here?

   Look, I agree with the sentiment of what you wrote–I like freedom–but let’s face it, the sentiment does not exactly constitute a practical argument. When you can relate it to specific instances and explain *why* you believe *what* you believe, then it will be both interesting and useful.

   However, the “[homosexuality has] no bearing whatsoever on [my] life” part is a myth. Obviously, our society now has people like you posting vitriol and personal attacks against basically anyone who does not share your apparently baseless beliefs about homosexuality. And that’s just for starters. If you cannot see the social conditioning that homosexual advocacy groups are trying to achieve by pushing pro-homosexual textbooks through the school systems, boycotting companies that do not actively promote homosexual agenda items through donations, appearing on major sitcoms, etc. then your mind is just playing tricks on you. We are through with the days of homosexuality being just “two consenting adults in the privacy of their homes.” You have demonstrated that they will not be content until they have enforced acceptance of their beliefs even amongst normal people.

   What do you care – whether a mental disorder or not – if two women want to get married?

   I have no objection to two women getting married. Lots of women get married every day. But that is certainly not what you meant…

   The problem with your question is that it has a faulty (and thoroughly reprehensible) premise. We have legitimate systems in place for changing the meaning of our laws and even for revoking whole laws; the law itself does not suddenly change just because *you* happen to think marriage means something different today than yesterday. Having been taught to respect our democratic republic, I understand that our laws have legal authority because they were passed by representatives elected by the people according to previous laws. Those laws mean what they meant when they were instituted; if you want them “updated” to fit your “modern” beliefs, then do it honestly–by changing the laws. My apologies if you were never taught how this works.

   Now, having exposed the faulty premise, you probably want to know why I do not support modifying our laws to support what you call homosexual marriage. I “care” about marriage, and the farce of “homosexual marriage” devalues the concept of marriage. A woman pretending to be a man in some sick fashion by wearing male clothes and “doing” some other woman with a strap-on should not have equal standing as a real couple, even if the two homosexuals claim to be in love with each other. Homosexual “couples” already have an inferior institution (“civil unions”) to match the inferior fantasy (homosexuality) with which they have replaced the universally obtainable reality (heterosexual relationships). Why not lobby for equating civil unions with marriage both in certain legal and all tax matters? Why tell everyone else to change their definition of the word marriage to fit philosophies about unnecessary and pointless sexual perversions?

   I suspect you will never deal with the crux of the issue, which is that your entire position regarding homosexuality rests on a faulty premise: namely, that people are either “born” heterosexual or homosexual (or anyone of the other commonly supported or denied sexual perversions i.e. LGBT etc.) and can never be different. The reality of human sexuality is that humans can develop and be cured of all sorts of sexual perversions that change the people and/or things that turn them on/off. People determine their own sexuality. Finding examples of people recovering from homosexuality and leading normal lives–or even just changing sexuality to bi- over time–is not too difficult. Even one case would expose the popular myth about people being “born gay.”

   So childless couples aren’t married?

   No, if you re-read the full paragraph that you are quoting, you would see that I was saying that marriage is the union of the sexes, which results in the production of children and provides a proper framework for raising them. I thought the meaning of the word producing was obvious, but apparently when you got to the comma you just decided to fill in whatever “interpretation” made me look stupid.

   Let me offer a hypthetical postulate for you: ALL religious people suffer from a mental disorder. There is no empirical evidence of a superior being, and even if there was arguable evidence, there is none at all for Heaven and Hell, a belief to which many subscribe. Now… prove me wrong.

   Your hypothetical has nothing to do with the subject matter because it neither proves nor disproves the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder. FWIW, I have no interest in religion, apart from correcting the occasional person who feels the need to act like a jerk.

   Sexual turn-ons and turn-offs are almost entirely psychological in nature. Imagine yourself lying naked on your stomach on a padded table waiting for an erotic massage. The lights are low, soft music is playing, the temperature is relaxing. In walks your “therapist”–but, since it’s been a long day, you decide to keep your eyes shut and let the person get to work. The therapists’ hands touch you, gradually becoming more relaxing and more sensual. When the time comes to flip over, you look at your therapist and are suprised to find that the person is of a different gender than you expected. Were the hands the rough hands of a tall heterosexual female or the soft hands of a short homosexual male? It doesn’t matter: either would have been arousing because in your mind, you just picked the gender that you wanted, and it seemed real to you.

   Homosexuals adopt gender-related beliefs that prevent them from fully enjoying and building fulfilling, long-term relationships around natural human activities like sexual intercourse and reproduction. In other words, homosexuals’ minds are at odds with their own bodies. They should learn to accept gender, appreciate the opposite sex romantically and sexually, and thereby learn to lead normal lives.

   As an example: If you adopted beliefs that prevented you from enjoying sound waves affecting your mind and therefore decided to have your ear drums removed, I would say that you had a mental disorder. Learn to hear normally, and if you have a wierd fear or problem with hearing sounds, you should learn to deal with it instead of just destroying that part of your life. Embracing problems and their symptoms is never as good as overcoming problems. But the more you feed the fears by embracing your problems, the more difficult the road back becomes.

   I’m all ears if you have something realistic to say about gay marriage, other than outlandish, outdated, outrageous claims such as the “mental disorder” thing.

   Saying that you are “all ears” means little if you ignore anything not conforming to your underlying premise. I have already exposed your posting style as a dishonest, rambling mess of fallacies and personal attacks; you have improved somewhat, but then you end up using words like “outlandish, outdated, and outrageous” instead of actually developing arguments or simply asking questions about my position. I already told you that not fitting your worldview or not being “modern” has nothing to do with being correct or ethical. You are just being childish–and IMO sad, really. You are missing an opportunity to better yourself, even if only by strengthening your own position by learning about opposing positions.

6. For all your rambling, Michael, what is especially clear – besides your arrogance – is your outdated belief system.

   In the last several decades, scientific knowledge has exponentially grown, and we hold many beliefs now that our ancestors didn’t. We know that many of the most “solid” of facts once held were eventually challenged by more progressive, more enlightened, more modern people who adjusted the consciousness of the world. You are not one of those people.

   You claim gay marriage “devalues the concept of marriage.” Marriage, as a concept, has been devalued by heterosexuals just fine. Homosexuals are more likely, in fact, to remain together than heterosexuals these days – and I will get back to this thread with stats supporting that. But since your entire argument is based on this idea that permitting such a practice is destroying the value of marriage, and I – oh, and almost all reliable statistics – disagree, I have to plainly dismiss you wholesale.

   You parade under a banner of open discussion, but you reveal yourself to be a narrow minded person who blames his societal ills on a scapegoat. You are an old curmudgeon, a complainer, I’d suspect one of those types who thinks all the problems of the world are caused by gays, Jews, blacks, and immigrants.

   Good luck with your quest. Take your hateful poison somewhere else.

7. It simply does not follow that a heterosexual must be homosexual if he disagrees with homosexual activism, you are engaging in ad hominem wishful thinking.