Wherever Four or More Bigots Gather In His Name…

James Dobson hosted three fellow bigots on his radio show — Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher, and Jim Garlow — and I found it almost comical to see where they’re at in the five stages of grieving over the inevitable loss on same-sex marriage. Anger, bargaining, even a hint of acceptance, along with absurd hope.

“We, in this country, are learning to gear up for resistance and we are not giving up under any condition,” Garlow said. “The devastation from this could come so severely that, years from now, if the nation is not completely destroyed, that we could see a recycling and a re-visiting of God’s purpose for marriage.”

Dobson was less enthusiastic, wondering just how much “damage will be done to how many people” in the interim.

“Horrific,” Garlow said. “Horrific. But wars do that, unfortunately.”

Garlow then went on to marvel that we are even having debates over issues like abortion and marriage, declaring that it is “shocking how far we’ve gone towards Nazi Germany and other kinds of dictatorships of this magnitude,” which prompted Gallagher to weigh in and declare that Christians will win this battle in the end.

“I think it’s going to get very bad out there,” she said. “And I think, just as it did in the early days of the Roman Empire, that there is going to be a sense that, if we do our jobs, that Christianity offers the only real alternative to an increasingly debauched public square.”

It’s all going to collapse because some gay people get married! We’ll have to go underground, but we can rebuild civilization someday! Oh, and….NAZIS! Because of course Nazis.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • dingojack

    Yep, those brave Christians of the early Roman Empire following their saviour Christ —

    20 years before he was even born…

    They musta been using Obama’s Time Machine & Mind Control Device again!

    @@ Dingo

  • Al Dente

    “The devastation from this could come so severely that, years from now, if the nation is not completely destroyed, that we could see a recycling and a re-visiting of God’s purpose for marriage.”

    Here’s a hint, the country will not be destroyed if the Supremes decide loving couples can get married.

  • colnago80

    Re dingojack @ #1

    Hey, it’s George Soros’ time machine, which Obama used to plant his birth notices in the Hawaiian newspapers. End snark.

  • dingojack

    Al Dente — “… the country will not be destroyed if the Supremes decide loving couples can get married.”

    Well unless they do that whole ‘stop in the name of love’ routine…

    😉 Dingo

  • tsig

    If Americans do the wrong thing with their tiddly bits god will indiscriminately kill and main millions?

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    “And I think, just as it did in the early days of the Roman Empire, that there is going to be a sense that, if we do our jobs, that Christianity offers the only real alternative to an increasingly debauched public square.”

    Now, I’m not going to argue that christianity caused the collapse of the Roman Empire, though that argument has been made. I am just going to point that the Roman Empire existed for hundreds of years before christianity became the state religion, and only collapsed after it had become christian. So I’m hard pressed to see what real alternative christianity offered.

    From my history classes, I don’t remember it becoming Nazi Germany on collapse either. And Nazi Germany remained largely christian during its prime. If I remember correctly, it took Soviet communism to put an end to it, not christianity. So I’m just not seeing this whole ‘abandon christianity (i.e. allow the gays to marry) and society will collapse’ argument working here.

    One thing I will note however — when a country allows gay marriage, Jim Garlow abandons it — which is a good thing.

  • Jared James

    tsig @5: yes, but he’ll have a little bit of a hand up from all of his devoted servants here on Earth, who know for sure that throwing a violent tantrum over who other people choose to love is definitely the sort of thing the creator of the universe needs help with.

  • John Pieret

    I think it’s going to get very bad out there

    Yeah, yeah … pastors will be arrested and jailed, pink boxcars filled with Christians will roll into FEMA camps manned by Muslim guards, who will force everyone to pray to Allah five times a day and to bake wedding cakes for same-sex marriages as everyone in America turns gay. It’s been happening in Massachusetts for over a decade now.

    Christianity offers the only real alternative to an increasingly debauched public square

    Of course, that doesn’t include those so-called “Christians” who have accepted so-called “marriages” by gay people. Fortunately, that means our so-called “debauched public square” can go on trying to achieve freedom and equality for all.

  • Akira MacKenzie

    If I remember correctly, it took Soviet communism to put an end to it, not christianity.

    WHAT!!!

    Blasphemy! Heresy! Marxist Historical Revisionism! Everyone knows it was blessed, sainted, AMERICA that defeated Germany! Jesus himself And John Wayne armed with George Washington’s holy musket broke into Hitler’s underground gay sex pit in Antarctica and kicked his sodomite ass before he could unleash the Muslim Pedophile Robots before they could destroy the world with same sex marriage and evolution!

  • jonathangray
  • http://onhandcomments.blogspot.com/ left0ver1under

    Wherever Four or More Bigots Gather In His Name…

    …They shall do the parrot sketch, i.e. parroting religious talking points and not saying anything new.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asUyK6JWt9U

    Pardon me if paraphrasing comic geniuses was inappropriate here.

  • jonathangray

    Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. That same year, young MSM accounted for 69% of new HIV infections among persons aged 13–29 and 44% of infections among all MSM. At the end of 2009, an estimated 441,669 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the US were MSM or MSM-IDU.

    – Center for Disease Control

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/library_factsheet_hiv_among_gaybisexualmen.pdf

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    jonathangray’s right. Gay marrying will spread AIDS. It will also lead to an explosion in dog purchasing, possibly even apple picking. And don’t get me started on apple picking and mortgage getting!

  • dingojack

    Aww Jon-Jon — maybe you should get an adult to explain how three different things aren’t one group of the same thing…

    @@ Dingo

  • Al Dente

    In Africa HIV is most commonly spread among heterosexual men. jonathangray’s church does everything in its power to support this spread because the Pope thinks Baby Jesus cries whenever someone uses a condom.

    Isn’t tu quoque fun, jonathan?

  • Chiroptera

    jonathangray, #12:

    So the point is that to combat the spread of HIV among gay men, we should support efforts to promote monogamy…like encourage same sex marriage?

  • raven

    “And I think, just as it did in the early days of the Roman Empire, that there is going to be a sense that, if we do our jobs, that Christianity offers the only real alternative to an increasingly debauched public square.”

    They know their history as well as their bible. Not at all.

    Xianity didn’t prevent the Roman empire from collapsing. It was in fact, pushed over by Germanic…xians.

    What it did was hinder its recovery as something else. The Dark Ages were truly Dark.

    Europe didn’t get going again for a 1,000 years. Until the rediscovery and study of the old Pagan literature. Which contained such useful ideas as democracy, science, empiricism, and proto-industrialization.

  • dingojack

    Raven — not as long as 1000 years. Possibly 500 or so, although that’s debatable…

    Dingo

  • raven

    Raven — not as long as 1000 years. Possibly 500 or so, although that’s debatable…

    True.

    Historians don’t agree on anything. And there is a lot of revisionist history, mostly by Germanophiles who resent being blamed for pushing over the Roman empire.

    Ward-Perkin’s (Oxford) published work has focused primarily on the urban and economic history of the Mediterranean and western Europe during Late Antiquity. His 2005 book, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, included statements addressing what he saw as an over-correction in the approaches of modern historiography to late Roman history.

    Using primarily archaeological evidence, Ward-Perkins takes issue with what he says is the “fashionable” idea that the western Roman Empire did not actually fall but instead experienced a mostly-benign transformation into the Christian kingdoms of medieval Europe. In his contrasting view, “the coming of the Germanic peoples was very unpleasant for the Roman population, and the long-term effects of the dissolution of the empire were dramatic.”[3]

    Ward-Perkins is both a historian and archaeologist. The archaeology shows a dramatic fall in Roman living standards that lasted for many centuries. Archaeology at least, doesn’t deal in opinions, it deals with data. The drop in population of Italy isn’t too established, it could have been far more than half.

    I would date the recovery of Europe to the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

  • raven

    We, in this country, are learning to gear up for resistance and we are not giving up under any condition,” Garlow said.

    Bunch of gibberish.

    Jim Garlow isn’t even an American. He is a conman who lives in Ontario, Canada.

  • dan4

    @20: You’re confusing Jim Garlow (American. Lives in San Diego) with JIm Garrow (Canadian).

  • jonathangray
  • dingojack

    Europe didn’t get going again for a 1,000 years. Until the rediscovery and study of the old Pagan literature. Which contained such useful ideas as democracy, science, empiricism, and proto-industrialization.” [emphasis mine].

    Europe =/= the area covered by the Roman Empire. What of the Thing (an assembly of warriors with Scando-Germanic origins) [see particularly Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker]? Or the Principality of Novgorod?

    And also ‘get going’ in what sense, exactly? What of the Byzantine Empire? The Bulgarian Kingdom? Etc, etc. …

    As I said – arguably…

    😉 Dingo

  • jonathangray
  • dan4

    @22: How is that an argument AGAINST gay marriage? That number would almost certainly go down with its legalization. I’m sure that promiscuity among heterosexuals would be much higher without the option of marriage for THEM.

  • tfkreference

    Chiroptera @16: Exactly.

    jonathangray @22: See Chiroptera @16.

  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray

    we should support efforts to promote monogamy

    I’m sure that promiscuity among heterosexuals would be much higher without the option of marriage for THEM.

    So monogamy = good, promiscuity = bad?

    I’m shocked to see liberals advocate such a fusty old repressive conservative viewpoint.

  • dan4

    @28: Wow, such a devastating rebuttal to your (inferred) “gay promiscuity”=”gay marriage should not be legalized” equation.

  • dan4

    @28: Should be “…striking defense of…”, not “devastating rebuttal to…”

  • Anri

    I assume that jonathangray has made quite clear in what way a marriage certificate spreads AIDS, while a lack of one has a preventative effect. I would appreciate if someone (ideally jonathangray himself, but I’ll settle for anyone) could summarize that argument.

    Unless, of course, jonathangray is unable to differentiate between “legal recognition of two adults getting married” and “ugh, I don’t like homosex”, In which case, he’s an even bigger idiot than he at first appeared.

    I await the summary with bated breath.

    Really.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Christianity offers the only real alternative to an increasingly debauched public square

    As distinct from complex alternatives, but not from imaginary alternatives.

    But, curiously enough, leaving out radical Islam, which has pretty much the same approach. I’m guessing that they don’t want to give free advertising to a competitor.

  • http://onhandcomments.blogspot.com/ left0ver1under

    How many unwelcome posts does it take to get a troll banned?

    The people most at risk of herpes and the effects of syphilis are women. By the troll’s “argument”, straight sex should be banned too, especially when herpes is so much more common than HIV and syphilis is a threat to foetuses.

    http://www.webmd.com/genital-herpes/tc/genital-herpes-what-increases-your-risk

    http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/syphilis?page=2

  • Chiroptera

    jonathangray, #28: So monogamy = good, promiscuity = bad?

    Actually, I don’t care one way or another how a person chooses to live their own personal life. I was just pointing out an apparent contradiction in claiming to be concerned about the rate of new HIV infections among gay men and opposing same sex marriage.

  • cptdoom

    If we’re using statistics on negative outcomes of the actions of a subgroups in our population in order to determine the civil rights that subgroup should have (as Mr. Gray seems to be arguing), how exactly do straight men measure up? What percentage of the rapes, the murders, the armed robberies, the assaults, all violent crime committed by straight men? And what civil rights should you forfeit Mr. Gray because of all that bad behavior?

  • jonathangray

    Chiroptera:

    So monogamy = good, promiscuity = bad?

    Actually, I don’t care one way or another how a person chooses to live their own personal life. I was just pointing out an apparent contradiction in claiming to be concerned about the rate of new HIV infections among gay men and opposing same sex marriage.

    Nevertheless, you seem to be conceding that monogamy helps curb the spread of sexually transmitted disease. Therefore for you to then say “I don’t care one way or another how a person chooses to live their own personal life” suggests you don’t care about the spread of sexually transmitted disease, does it not?

    dan4:

    Wow, such a [striking defense of] your (inferred) “gay promiscuity”=”gay marriage should not be legalized”

    It was more “gay promiscuity”=”cultural normalization of homosexuality should not be encouraged”. (Among other reasons.)

  • theguy

    “So monogamy = good, promiscuity = bad?”

    No. Monogamy helps prevent STD’s. I don’t condemn somebody for their number of sexual partners, assuming everybody’s a consenting adult.

    “I’m shocked smug to see liberals advocate I get to lie about what others believe such a fusty old repressive conservative viewpoint.” Because wingers are the only people who believe in making a personal commitment?

    Repressive? This time, it’s not wingers using the idea to condemn others or keep them apart.

  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray
  • dingojack

    Condoms, clean needles & accurate information seem to be far more effective option…

    [See: Rampant: How a City Stopped a Plague for the Australian response to HIV/AIDS].

    Dingo

  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray
  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Look, if we normalize gay promiscuity, they’ll be promiscuous. Unlike now.

    Plus marriage fits in there somehow. I assume they’ll get promiscuity mixed in with marriage. And then we’ll have to come up with a word meaning “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse”. And I’m not adding words to the dictionary just for some homos!

  • jonathangray
  • Anri

    So, that’s a “no”, then, jonathangray?

  • theguy

    @41

    So now you’re accusing gay people of being child molesters? (All gay people, generalizing from a specific case). I almost needed a reminder why I hate people like you.

  • John Pieret

    I guess “normalization” of sex is what jonathangray is complaining about. Talk about clueless!

  • jonathangray

    So now you’re accusing gay people of being child molesters? (All gay people, generalizing from a specific case).

    Hmmm…

  • Al Dente

    jonathangray @48

    But your church doesn’t allow homosexuals to become priests, so all the childraping clergy (and of course their supporters among the hierarchy) must be straight. Or are you forgetting the well-known equation Priest=Pedophile.

  • jonathangray

    Al Dente:

    But your church doesn’t allow homosexuals to become priests

    What power has a law if its appointed guardians choose to flout it?

    so all the childraping clergy (and of course their supporters among the hierarchy) must be straight.

    And yet the overwhelming majority of clerical sex abuse victims were adolescent boys.

  • cptdoom

    @Al Dents, #49 – and let us remember it was the ostensibly straight leadership of the Church, from the Bishop of Rome on down, who obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses and victims, paid hush money, aided and abetted known rapists by relocating them and defrauded insurance companies and parish members in what has to be the largest and longest criminal conspiracy known to man.

  • jaybee

    Christianity offers the only real alternative

    Wait, wait — I thought conservatives always had to prefix “Christian” with “Judeo”. I guess when they are careless they really expose their hand, as above. Christianity really is the important thing, and Judeo is just along for the ride for its gravitas factor.

  • John Pieret

    You keep posting these ambiguous links (when they work at all). What’s the matter, you can’t state what you mean in your own words? Without sounding like an asshole, that is? Spit it out jonathangray! Should we stone gays (males only, as Leviticus says) here in a constitutional democracy or should we only discriminate against them by making their lives as miserable as possible by denying them the rights, benefits and responsibilities everyone else is allowed?

    Say it jonathangray, in your own words, or may we just put you down as a coward and a sneak?

  • Anri

    People who think rape is primarily about sex are about as ignorant as those who think marriage is primarily about fucking.

    Just sayin’.

    (You know what, Imma got some folks some slack. Maybe their marriages are primarily about fucking, and they don’t really get anything else out of it. So maybe they just don’t know any better.)

  • Anri

    CUT some folks some slack, obviously.

  • Michael Heath

    left0ver1writes:

    How many unwelcome posts does it take to get a troll banned?

    I recommend not responding to the comment posts of trolls. Eventually they’ll go away.

    Even better, I recommend not reading the posts of trolls, you’ll have a much better day than if you had.

  • John Pieret

    What power has a law if its choose to flout it?

    What law would that be and which “appointed guardians” choose to flout it? If the Catholic hierarchy had told the secular authorities what they knew about predator priests, do you think those secular authorities wouldn’t have prosecuted? Or are you trying to imply that all gays should be thrown in jail because they are all pedophiles? If the latter, I’m sure you can provide evidence for it, right?

    And yet the overwhelming majority of clerical sex abuse victims were adolescent boys.

    Beyond wondering whether you have any, you know, evidence for that, especially given the systematic coverup by the Catholic Church of the whole thing, there is the little matter of the church’s not allowing “altar girls” for so long, cutting down on the predator priest’s opportunities. Again, are you claiming all gay males are pedophiles? Spit it out then, where we can all examine it!

  • John Pieret

    Michael Heath:

    I recommend not responding to the comment posts of trolls.

    You’re right of course and with jonathangray, that is my usual policy. But sometimes “that’s all I can stand, I can’t takes no more!” before popping open my can of spinach.

  • jonathangray

    John Pieret:

    You keep posting these ambiguous links (when they work at all).

    I think the links speak for themselves (and they all appear to work).

    What’s the matter, you can’t state what you mean in your own words? Without sounding like an asshole, that is? Spit it out jonathangray! Should we stone gays (males only, as Leviticus says) here in a constitutional democracy or should we only discriminate against them by making their lives as miserable as possible by denying them the rights, benefits and responsibilities everyone else is allowed?

    We should not allow something abnormal to be portrayed as something normal; or something psychologically disordered and physically unhealthy to be portrayed as innocuous. To do so damages individuals and society. Contrary to what your emotive language implies, this has nothing to do with taking a sadistic pleasure in “making lives as miserable as possible”.

    What law would that be

    Church law. Eg.:

    Advantage to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers. — Instruction on the Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders

    Sacred Congregation For Religious (1961)

    the Church … cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”. — Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders (2005)

    and which “appointed guardians” choose to flout it?

    Obviously those members of the clergy who permitted the homosexual infiltration of the seminaries described in one of the links I provided above.

    there is the little matter of the church’s not allowing “altar girls” for so long, cutting down on the predator priest’s opportunities.

    That might very well be a reason why the majority of clerical abuse was homosexual in nature.

    Again, are you claiming all gay males are pedophiles?

    No, I’m claiming that pederasts (≠ paedophiles) are a type of homosexual.

  • Anri

    Well, I’ve got two entirely unanswered posts here so far, so I don’t have high hopes for the third, but here goes…

    jonathangray @ 59:

    No, I’m claiming that pederasts (≠ paedophiles) are a type of homosexual

    It is my understanding that in the vast majority of cases, sexual abuse of prepubescent minors is about power (like most rape) rather than sex per se. (I admit I can’t produce sources for this, as I’d just as soon not have certain sets of terms in my search history.) So, I don’t really accept your premise to begin with.

    But let’s say that I do.

    What, exactly, does a set of celibate priests raping children have to do with two adults marrying each other?

    That is our topic here, right?

  • Chiroptera

    jonathangray, #36: Therefore for you to then say “I don’t care one way or another how a person chooses to live their own personal life” suggests you don’t care about the spread of sexually transmitted disease, does it not?

    To clarify, I think it is up to each individual to decide for themselves what is more likely to lead to a rich and fulfilling life just as long as they have accurate information as to the benefits and risks of the decisions that they make and have access to services and resources to help them minimize that risk.

  • jonathangray

    Anri:

    It is my understanding that in the vast majority of cases, sexual abuse of prepubescent minors is about power (like most rape) rather than sex per se. (I admit I can’t produce sources for this, as I’d just as soon not have certain sets of terms in my search history.) So, I don’t really accept your premise to begin with.

    It’s my understanding that the majority of clergy abuse victims were adolescents rather than prepubescents, ie their male abusers were pederasts rather than paedophiles. In general, the idea that “rape is about power rather than sex” strikes me as simplistic. A man has to be sexually aroused physically to rape someone and a sadistic pervert is going to be sexually aroused by thoughts of domination and humiliation. Sex and the exercise of power merge.

    What, exactly, does a set of celibate priests raping children have to do with two adults marrying each other?

    I would suggest that the clerical abuse scandals are part of a wider continuum of evidence that pederasty or ephebophilia occupies a not insignificant niche in the homosexual subculture. If this is so, it would be one more reason to resist the normalisation of homosexuality of which ‘gay marriage’ is a part.

  • jonathangray

    Chiroptera:

    I think it is up to each individual to decide for themselves what is more likely to lead to a rich and fulfilling life just as long as they have accurate information as to the benefits and risks of the decisions that they make and have access to services and resources to help them minimize that risk.

    Tell that to the bugchasers. : ß

  • Michael Heath

    Me earlier:

    I recommend not responding to the comment posts of trolls.

    John Pieret responds:

    You’re right of course and with jonathangray, that is my usual policy. But sometimes “that’s all I can stand, I can’t takes no more!” . . .

    See my second bit of advice, humbly presented of course:

    Even better, I recommend not reading the posts of trolls, you’ll have a much better day than if you had.

  • http://www.facebook.com/andrewasante andrewbrown not the one from the grauniad

    pederasty or ephebophilia occupies a not insignificant niche in the homosexual subculture.

    It also occupies a significant niche in the heterosexual subculture if you look at the top shelf of any newsagents or enter “teenage girls + sex” into google. It’s just that you don’t like the thought of two men making love. That is not in and of itself an argument for making something illegal, no matter how much it squicks you out. If you don’t like the thought of marrying or fucking a man then don’t.

    You would claim a right for yourself (marriage) that you would deny to others. This makes you and the organisation you are arguing on behalf of bigoted. Your entire argument is an argument from Illegitimate authority (the pope, or indeed any other catholic priest is not a legitamate authority on human rights or human sexuality). We (and indeed most civilised countries, with Ireland hopefully soon to follow) do not accept the spoutings from the Vatican as usually anything other than the hysterical clamourings of a vicious bunch of misguided old men. We give weight to the words they say, not who says them. If they say something sensible it will be treated as such. When they spew venom and bigotry it will be treated likewise.

  • Chiroptera

    jonathangray, #63:

    What else do you want me to tell them? That some guy on the internet is using their behaviour as an excuse to pass judgement on all homosexuals? That some guy on the internet can’t tell the difference between “bug chasers” and people who just want to spend the rest of their lives with the partner they love?

  • Goblinman

    It’s tremendously satisfying watching the anti-gay movement melt down as they spiral ever closer to the drain. After all the crap they’ve put people like me through, I have no sympathy for them. And after all this time they still can’t form a coherent argument.

    Oh, and @jonathangray:

    It’s over. Go home.

  • colnago80

    Re Phalangist @ #48

    That’s because the number of choirboys greatly outnumbers the number of choirgirls.

    Re Phalangist @ #36

    Gee, if the Phalangist is so concerned about AIDS, then he should be AOK with lesbians as the AIDS rate among them is lower then the AIDS rate amongst heterosexuals.

  • Anri

    jonathangray:

    To start with:

    In general, the idea that “rape is about power rather than sex” strikes me as simplistic.

    It is my understanding that the majority of modern psychology disagrees with you on this point. But, eh, why listen to them if it doesn’t fit your narrative?

    Moving on:

    I would suggest that the clerical abuse scandals are part of a wider continuum of evidence that pederasty or ephebophilia occupies a not insignificant niche in the homosexual subculture. If this is so, it would be one more reason to resist the normalisation of homosexuality of which ‘gay marriage’ is a part.

    Would you also assume it is a not insignificant niche of patriarchal sex-shaming culture and would therefore exclude Christianity from cultural normalization?

    Why the one but not the other?

    I also presume you have asked around to see if the majority, or even a substantial minority of homosexuals are accepting of that behavior – and gotten a positive response – otherwise, you’d just be penalizing the innocent for the acts of the guilty. (Note: this is sarcasm. I don’t think you’re dishonest enough enough to make such a claim. On the other hand…)

    If I were to maintain that gang actions were a “not insignificant niche” in black subculture, what sanctions would you agree to against blacks in general? What rights should they lose? Barred from law enforcement? Unable to hold public office?

    If I were to maintain that white supremacy movements were a “not insignificant niche” in white subculture, what sanctions would you agree to against whites in general? What rights should they lose? Barred from military service? Unable to own or manufacture weapons?

    If I were to maintain that ephebophilia was a “not insignificant niche” in male subculture, what sanctions would you agree to against males in general? What rights should they lose? Barred from having children? Barred from interacting with children?

    You still haven’t told me why two adults who care for one another can’t be married because other people are doing bad things. I suspect that’s because you can’t.

  • http://www.facebook.com/andrewasante andrewbrown not the one from the grauniad

    Anri @69

    Wow, you said everthing I wanted to say only with so much more clarity, accuracy and ferocity! Chapeau to you!!!

  • dan4

    I still don’t get how the high promiscuity rates among homosexuals serves as a logical reason to not legally recognize same-gendered marriage; if anything, it’s an argument FOR legalizing the aforementioned legal arrangement.

  • John Pieret

    Jonathangray @ 59:

    We should not allow something abnormal to be portrayed as something normal

    And who gives you the right to determine what’s “normal”? Homosexuality has been around as long as recorded human history and lesbianism was specifically allowed in Leviticus. Indeed, it is doubtless far older than that, unless you imagine writing made some of us gay. So if the majority decides that theism is “abnormal,” we can persecute you and deny you the rights that everyone else has? Not in my country, if I can help it! Go on being a bigot, and I’ll defend your right to believe whatever lunatic thing you want to. But that doesn’t mean that I will defend your “right” to deprive others of their rights!

    ,,, or something psychologically disordered …

    What I find “ psychologically disordered” is anyone’s obsession with what anyone else is doing with consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedrooms. “Peeping Tom” springs to mind. That’s especially the case when you show so little interest in rooting out the people who sexually abused children who couldn’t consent and the abettors of their crimes!

    … and physically unhealthy to be portrayed as innocuous …

    Outlaw obesity! And driving cars! Those kill far more people each year in the US than male gay sex and, as Ed has pointed out, lesbian sex causes far less disease than heterosexual sex. Get used to it, if you had any intellectual integrity, which you don’t, you’d be railing against fatty food and the internal combustion engine more vigorously than your stupid defense of bigotry against gay males. That’s not even to mention that gay males in stable married relationships would be far less vulnerable to sexually transmitted disease … a good goal for public policy.

    this has nothing to do with taking a sadistic pleasure in “making lives as miserable as possible”

    Then prove it. Start peppering us with links about the evils of driving cars!

    No, I’m claiming that pederasts (≠ paedophiles) are a type of homosexual.

    Really? And you’re evidence for this is?

  • John Pieret

    Michael Heath @ 64:

    Even better, I recommend not reading the posts of trolls, you’ll have a much better day than if you had.

    Yeah, that’s true too. Still, it’s supposedly good to get your heart rate up sometimes. 😉

  • dingojack

    Note that Lil’ Jon-Jon doesn’t want to talk about Harm Minimisation

    gee, I wonder why that might be?

    @@ Dingo

  • http://helives.blogspot.com heddle

    left0ver1under,

    How many unwelcome posts does it take to get a troll banned?

    This blog has a laudable tradition of a reluctance to use the banhammer. In my opinion, the thread here is playing out exactly as it should. I’m glad there are not many like you hinting that the a ban is the right solution. The right solution is what either Heath recommend or Pieret (and others) are practicing: Ignore or engage, your call.

  • scienceavenger

    Jonathan Gray – did it ever occur to you that the reason homosexual men have so many partners is not because they are gay, but because the objects of their affection were other men, who share the same less-demanding nature regarding meaningless hookups as heterosexual men?

  • http://onhandcomments.blogspot.com/ left0ver1under

    heddle (#75) –

    You clearly didn’t catch the tone and form of the question, projecting on it instead.

    It was a paraphrasing of the old joke:

    “How many __________ does it take to change a light bulb?”

  • http://helives.blogspot.com heddle

    left0ver1under (#77)

    Oh, OK, my bad.

  • eric

    We should not allow something abnormal to be portrayed as something normal; or something psychologically disordered and physically unhealthy to be portrayed as innocuous. To do so damages individuals and society

    What harm does it do to me, as an individual and member of that society? It seems to that in the many legal cases, nobody on the anti-SSM side has ever had a cogent or legally relevant answer to this. How does someone else’s marriage harm me?

  • mojave66

    >We should not allow something abnormal to be portrayed as something normal; or something psychologically disordered and physically unhealthy to be portrayed as innocuous. To do so damages individuals and society

    All pretty much shown to be false in 1958 by Evelyn Hooker, who compared the psychological profiles of gay men to straight men in a double-blinded study. No one could pick out anyone’s sexual orientation. Also untrue just based on the variation in sexuality not only among humans and primates (lots of studies there) but among non-primate animals as well (excellent books by Bagemihl and Roughgarten for overviews) .

    You can quote studies and attitudes until you’re blue in the fingers, but for people like Gray it’s drastically important to dehumanize GLBT people in order to find some semblance of correctness in his dogma. Same-sex couples and transgender people only have sex or mutilate their bodies. They do not have relationships, they do not fall in love. Instututions built by and for GLBT people are ignored, or characterized as merely “forcing an agenda” down the heterosexual throat. That we have always had partners and care deeply for them, take care of them even as their families may abandon them to the point of building alternative family structures for support, that no amount of suppression has ever changed anyone’s sexual orientation, and that cultures that have supported (as opposed to merely tolerated or actively persecuted) same-sex relationships are by far healthier for all involved get ignored. Research supporting the above gets ignored or, more often, goes unfunded. I worked in AIDS and STD research for 25 years. You can’t study sexuality in America without some right-wing douchebag cutting off funding. It used to be that must research has to be piggybacked on medical research, or small samples from non-representative populations must be used. Fortunately, that’s changing.

    But all the research in the world doesn’t even begin to approach what a buddy of mine called the “Barbeque factor.” You meet people– same-sex couples, transgender folk, folks from different cultures, religions and races, you get to know them (eg, you invite them to your BBQ). It usually turns out that they’re humans, typical couples, good folk, helpful. That really is what’s changing minds. It’s also what’s driving the right-wing mad right now– trying to re-pervert queers isn’t working, and no amount of bullshit seems to be helping.

  • jonathangray

    Chiroptera, colnago80, Anri, andrewbrown not the one from the grauniad, dan4, John Pieret, scienceavenger — thanks for the thought-provoking comments — will respond when I’ve had time to collect my thoughts.

  • jonathangray

    (Ditto eric & mojave66)

  • Goblinman

    @jonathangray

    “We should not allow something abnormal to be portrayed as something normal; or something psychologically disordered and physically unhealthy to be portrayed as innocuous. To do so damages individuals and society. Contrary to what your emotive language implies, this has nothing to do with taking a sadistic pleasure in ‘making lives as miserable as possible’.”

    You have indirectly accused me, throughout this thread, of being insane, diseased, slutty, and a pedophile. Now, I’m not offended or angry, because I’m none of those things. And I’m sure that you, being a gentleman, would never say such things to my face. And you certainly wouldn’t use those exact words, even though they’re what you mean.

    I have been in a monogamous same-sex relationship for going on eight years. I recently proposed, and we will be getting married at some point in the future. My family approves and is looking forward to the party–there are a lot of us and we love having massive reunions. Honestly, I feel like the wedding is going to be more for them than for me and my fiancé. The two of us were already planning on spending our lives together regardless of any ceremony. I guess I’m just a little old-fashioned in wanting to have their blessing.

    My point, if you haven’t figured it out, is that this is why your side is losing. You can say we’re not normal all you like, and we’re going to go on being normal anyway with or without your permission. Honestly, when are you going to figure out that you can’t actually stop us from being gay?

  • Anri

    jonathangray @ 80:

    Chiroptera, colnago80, Anri, andrewbrown not the one from the grauniad, dan4, John Pieret, scienceavenger — thanks for the thought-provoking comments — will respond when I’ve had time to collect my thoughts.

    These thoughts must be unusually widely spaced, given that it’s been several days.

    Still, I believe we can wait thru the weekend.

  • dingojack

    Never mind Goblinman – no doubt Lil’ Jon-Jon will back sometime to say he didn’t really mean it, that he was ‘just trollin’ ya’, and that all that hurtful, untrue crap was just stuff that he ‘accidentally’ posted, without any intention of offense or anything, honest.

    Be assured that he’ll continue to called out on his lies and hate – as long as we can continue to type.

    It shall not pass.

    Dingo