Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


How Women Will Be Hurt by Gay Marriage: A Postscript

posted by David Klinghoffer

Oh, now I know where all the incredibly nasty and vulgar commenters came from who joined our discussion when I posted Joshua Berman’s reflection on the threat gay marriage would pose to women. It was linked by editor Dan Savage at The Stranger, one of our two local alternative papers here in the Seattle, on his blog. 

The Stranger can be amusing but Savage himself is a shockingly vulgar writer, so much so that I won’t link you back to his link from this blog which, after all, should be readable by your whole family. 
Speaking of families, I’ve heard Savage on the radio talking about his “marriage” to another man with whom he has adopted a son. Who knows what Savage is like as a father. Maybe he’s a model dad — as well as being a wonderful, faithful “husband.” Let’s stipulate that he is both. I do know, however, that I would never publish anything that I wasn’t comfortable with my kids reading. The idea of any father engaging in such public displays of vulgarity — well, it could hardly be a worse advertisement for the societal stamp of approval on homosexual activity that Savage himself ardently seeks. If he really thinks he is advancing his own cause, what a delusional trip the gentleman is on.
Incidentally, on further reflection, the instructive point I took away from Professor Berman’s citations from Roman literature is that a society that formally approves male-male sexual intimacy is approving something else that goes along with it. What’s that?

Men are unruly in their passions, far more so than women with their natural affinity for monogamy. This is not a stereotype. It’s reality. I suspect that women in the lesbian community would confirm that it is so. Normally, men’s unruliness is somewhat limited by women. In gay culture, that’s not the case at all. An important break on male sexuality has been removed.
Savage himself has written, “Monogamy is nice, but it sho’ is over-rated.” He notes, “men are bad at monogamy, and gay men are especially bad at it.”
The creation of gay marriage by a society means the approval, too, of gay culture with its unique mores. To the extent that the culture, not necessarily the practice, of homosexuality permeates the society, then brutalization and vulgarization will likely follow — of a kind that, yes, can’t help but hurt women even more than it does men.
UPDATE: As with the previous post on this theme and its accompanying thread, I will unpublish any comments that cross the line into obscenity or pointless, grotesque insults, name-calling, etc.


Advertisement
Comments read comments(65)
post a comment
Joel

posted June 29, 2009 at 4:04 pm


This is nothing short of neo-nazi Evangelical propaganda meant to promote Matthew Shepherd type beatings. I find it hilarious that a man is lecturing women about how “Teh Gays” are going to come after them and destroy their lives. I guess this is atypical of a movement that prides itself on heterosexual Christian nationalism and the beliefs that women must stay at home and be chained to the bedpost.



report abuse
 

elchubasco

posted June 29, 2009 at 4:14 pm


Dan Savage is married and has written about being monogamous with his husband.
For you to discount him, his writings or his marriage because he uses vulgarity is to also discount a good chunk of literature, art and film of the last century. Some art and ideas are not suited for children. He provides a great, free, informed and compassionate service with his column about sexuality to people who often have no other source for this information and he’s funny too.
It’s amazing how some religious people undermine that most basic truth: to treat others as yourself.
Denying people equal rights flies in the face of this.
If you want to see what happens to women in countries where gay marriage is legal, go talk to them. English and Spanish women don’t seem particularly upset because their husbands would rather have gay sex. Most men don’t want to have sex with other men, whether it’s legal or not. You make it seem like it’s some kind of great treat, like a bag of Doritos.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted June 29, 2009 at 4:39 pm


it could hardly be a worse advertisement for the societal stamp of approval on homosexual activity
the instructive point I took away from Professor Berman’s citations from Roman literature is that a society that formally approves male-male sexual intimacy is approving something else that goes along with it.
The creation of gay marriage by a society means the approval, too, of gay culture with its unique mores. To the extent that the culture, not necessarily the practice, of homosexuality permeates the society, then brutalization and vulgarization will likely follow — of a kind that, yes, can’t help but hurt women even more than it does men.
So it is the existence of gay sex at all that you have the problem with, not gay marriage as you misleadingly said in the title of your post-especially considering that ancient Greece and Rome did not have gay marriage.
About time you came clean on that, though you don’t have the decency to say so explicitly.



report abuse
 

Stuthehistoryguy

posted June 29, 2009 at 5:25 pm


“Men are unruly in their passions, far more so than women with their natural affinity for monogamy. This is not a stereotype. It’s reality. I suspect that women in the lesbian community would confirm that it is so.”
Over the weekend, I spent a good amount of time commiserating with a friend of mine who was feeling unattractive because, unlike most gatherings she attends, the Pride event she had just attended did not include scores of women who wanted to “get up on her”.
She’s far from the only gay woman I know who has utterly embraced non-monogamy.
Reb Klinghoffer, I am afraid, has no idea whatsover what the mores of contemporary queer life are like.



report abuse
 

POvidi

posted June 29, 2009 at 5:53 pm


“Men are unruly in their passions, far more so than women with their natural affinity for monogamy. This is not a stereotype.”
Oh really? Why don’t you tell that to the millions of husbands and boyfriends who have had their hearts broken by unfaithful women? You prove your ignorance every time you write something it seems. When will you realize that you can’t just type cast people but that everyone is an individual?
“Maybe he’s a model dad — as well as being a wonderful, faithful ‘husband.’”
Putting the word husband in quotes doesn’t help you out either. It just shows your lack of respect for other people.



report abuse
 

TBL

posted June 29, 2009 at 6:46 pm


I don’t understand the argument. It seems to go something like this:
Men are sexually unruly;
Women, when married to men, place healthy limits on men’s sexuality;
This is (somehow) a healthy situation for women;
On the other hand, when men partner with other men, women are (somehow) injured?
By the way, Dan Savage–a sex advice columnist–is not representative of all gay men.



report abuse
 

Hank

posted June 29, 2009 at 6:51 pm


Let me see if I understand the point: Same-sex marriage will lead to more sex between gay males and women will be left in the dust? Is anything like this happening in Canada, the Netherlands, Iowa, Massachusetts and so on? I need concrete evidence, not just concerned speculation. Otherwise it merely sounds like you don’t care for man-to-man sex. I don’t see how that opinion is relevant to a public issue like marriage equality.



report abuse
 

David, David, David...

posted June 29, 2009 at 7:38 pm


We are blessed to live in a country where we have freedom of personal beliefs. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. How do you think that you are fit to say that the government has a right to say, “So sorry. No freedom of sex.” David, if you are married or ever intent to be, will you have relations with your wife in the misionary position only? Because in many states in the USA having sex in certain positions is illegal – regardless of your sex or marital status.
That aside, I’m quite curious, as a hetero-sexual woman, how in Heaven’s name men choosing to have intimate relations with other men is going to hurt me? If I choose to be a wife and a mother and a year from now, the government chooses to allow marriage between same-sex couples, the whole idea is that my husband won’t be able to control himself and go out hunting for another man is ludicrous.
Exercising my freedom of speach; I think that you have some serious personal issues to work out and need to remember that G-d is the only one with the right to condemn and judge. So I would be careful not to go about spewing hate and demoralizing filth to make yourself feel better, because you don’t have to answer to us. You are ultimately judged by your actions, not to G-d, but to other men and women of this human race. If you don’t like homosexual intercourse, then DONT WATCH IT or pay attention to it. Do you think just because ‘Murder She Wrote’ is on I make a choice to watch a horrible TV show? NO! I ignore it, just like the rest of the world under the age of 92. Focus on yourself, David, and your relatioship with G-d. Let the other people worry about their actions and their relationships with G-d.



report abuse
 

kurisu

posted June 29, 2009 at 8:01 pm


David, it seems to me that you’re a bit disingenuous going after Dan for vulgarity but linking to his posts and addressing the same topics. Are your children incapable of following a hyperlink? Would you post links to pornography or violent material that you condemned? Is a discussion about adult sexuality perfectly appropriate as long as it omits four-letter words, or is avoiding the topic entirely the only way to shield your child?



report abuse
 

dangerkitty5000

posted June 29, 2009 at 8:29 pm


Your argument seems to suggest that same-sex marriage between two women should be legalized and encouraged while two men should never be allowed to enter a publicly-sanctioned, committed relationship. As a gay man, I’d happily “take one for team” to see you become an advocate for marriage equality– even if its only for women.



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted June 29, 2009 at 8:39 pm


I do know, however, that I would never publish anything that I wasn’t comfortable with my kids reading.
So, you’ve finally parted ways with the Discovery Institute. Good. We don’t need more people supporting their false witness. You might want to tell them, though, they seem to think that you are still a senior fellow there.



report abuse
 

dangerkitty5000

posted June 29, 2009 at 8:44 pm


Also, Dan can call his spouse a “husband” because the sovereign nation of “Canada” “officially recognizes” his “marriage.” But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and still assume that you’re a “wonderful” “human” being.



report abuse
 

David Lauri

posted June 29, 2009 at 9:17 pm


Why do women need special protection? It’s really grasping at straws to say we can’t have equal marriage rights because to do so would harm women. You’re a rather sexist piece of work, Mr. Kinghoffer, and I can’t believe you’d want your kids reading this stuff.



report abuse
 

M.S.

posted June 29, 2009 at 9:49 pm


Isn’t it your own faith which teaches that the way in which you treat your fellow human beings in this life has a lot to do with how you will be judged in the next?
If so, I think you have a lot more to be worried about than Dan Savage.
As to your use quotes around “marriage” and “husband,” and your criticism of Savage as a father, all that I will say is that I would leave my own son’s in Dan Savage’s care in a heartbeat. Yours . . . never.
Judge not, lest ye be judged, “Christian”.



report abuse
 

my oh my

posted June 29, 2009 at 10:03 pm


These comments have been censored to a rediculas degree. seems Cpl Klinger prefers an echo chamber. But the question is just. To all you christians out there, answer me this. Will “the Kling” spend an eternity in hell if he does not accept Christ?



report abuse
 

Theo Magyar

posted June 30, 2009 at 12:09 am


Do you have any proof for your allegation that women have a natural affinity for monogamy? I doubt it: I’d like to see your links to your source for sociological research done in North America – preferably in this century or the late 20th century. And , in reference to your earlier post, no straight person is going to be attracted sexually, physically, emotionally, or romantically to another of the same sex. WHY on earth do you think that gay sex is so appealing to men? Does questioning the basis for your statements make me one of those “incredibly nasty and vulgar commenters?” I’ll keep an eye on your posts looking for that link…..



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted June 30, 2009 at 12:26 am


“Men are unruly in their passions, far more so than women with their natural affinity for monogamy. This is not a stereotype. It’s reality.”
Okay, I’m gonna need to see some evidence that you really are, in fact, a man named David, and not just a radical feminist writing under an assumed name, with a picture you found on the Internet.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted June 30, 2009 at 12:30 am


elchubasco : For you to discount him, his writings or his marriage because he uses vulgarity is to also discount a good chunk of literature, art and film of the last century.
Without getting into any other issues here, I’d say that I don’t discount the marriage, family life, or personal life in general of anyone whom I don’t know, based on their writings, art, or anything else. No outsider knows what goes on in the life of a couple, gay or straight, and has no grounds to make judgments (short of extreme issues such as spousal or child abuse, which have legal ramifications).
On the other hand, the writings, art, etc. of a person involve different criteria. In fact I do discount a “good chunk of literature, art, and film of the last century” on the grounds of its extreme crudity and vulgarity. I would never say that things that might be perceived as shocking, crude, or vulgar never have a place in serious art or literature; or that a vulgar or crude piece of art could never have redeeming virtues. In general, though, I think that if one has something serious to say, he should be able to say it without a potty mouth or a potty mind. To do otherwise indicates, to me, a lack of intelligence, maturity, seriousness, or some combination of the above.



report abuse
 

big 'ol homo

posted June 30, 2009 at 1:25 am


Vulgarity used by Dan Savage is effective and used in tongue in cheek manor. It has made The Stranger the most read publication in Seattle. There is a big differance it this and meer vulgarity for vulgarity’s sake. There is something very honest in taking locker room language out of the locker room where it is oft spoken by pious christians and put in front of ones face. In other words, I prefer to hear the Nixon tapes as opposed to Nixon’s public statements. In a word, I like honesty.



report abuse
 

Original Monique

posted June 30, 2009 at 1:28 am


There are certain places for children and certain places for adults. Those places don’t always need to be the same. Or at least the shouldn’t. I would hope that you and your wife(?) would enjoy adult conversations, adult books, or other adult things.
Having an adult world and a kid world are great. I don’t want to watch movies about talking toy trains, and 5 years aren’t googling for sex advice/relationship advice. And the adults that want a watered down answer to their problems have many other places to look.
Dan Savage doesn’t write his column or blog for children to read. He writes it for teenages and adults, all of whom can use his advice. You may not understand what he writes about, with your limited knowledge of adult world, but he has done an amazing service to millions of people by providing them a straight answer to hard questions. You may not agree with his advice, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t valid.
When/if you and your (wife?) need/want to spice things up or look for advice about adult land, go ahead and look through Dan’s column, it really won’t bite.



report abuse
 

Mika

posted June 30, 2009 at 1:34 am


Do you really not see that when you put “husband” and “marriage” into scare quotes, you ARE utterly discounting the marriage and family live of Dan Savage and his partner, Terry? Do you not understand how offensive and contemptuous that makes you sound – not just to Dan, but to anyone, queer or straight, who supports LGBT rights? You claim that as an outsider, you have “no grounds to make judgments,” and yet you do just that in your post. What about Lashon HaRah?
Kurt Vonnegut, Mark Twain, James Joyce, D.H. Lawrence, Maya Angelou, Aldous Huxley, William Faulkner, Anthony Burgess, Zora Neale Hurston, Steinbeck, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, etc., etc., etc. I suppose you summarily dismiss all of them as well. All have had their books repeatedly banned for vulgarity.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 30, 2009 at 1:36 am


Hello, Monique. I agree that adult and children’s places are not the same thing. I don’t expect that our kids will understand what I write. Of course not. They don’t have the background, experience, or vocabulary. (Our oldest is 7.) But to whatever extent they can understand, I wouldn’t want to be embarrassed. Dan Savage should be embarrassed by what he writes if his son ever reads it, which I hope he doesn’t.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 30, 2009 at 1:39 am


Oh please, Mika, none of those writers even begins to come close to Dan Savage’s level of vulgarity. The Bible too has its share of saltiness. But there are importance distinctions of degree. You’re surely smart enough to see that.



report abuse
 

Mika

posted June 30, 2009 at 1:42 am


Dear David,
Have you ever read D. H. Lawrence? Or Vonnegut? Really? REALLY? Those men defined the censorship laws with their four-letter words.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 30, 2009 at 1:44 am


Frankly, Mika, artistic merit is also a valid defense. I don’t see any of that in Dan Savage, do you? Really? REALLY? :)



report abuse
 

Mika

posted June 30, 2009 at 1:47 am


I think you would need to read some of his actual literature – like _The Commitment_ or _The Kid_ – before you would be qualified to make that statement, David.
You’ve also neatly dodged the moral judgment issues that I brought up.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 30, 2009 at 2:02 am


Mika, if you’d like, please go back and read my brief interchange with Jerry Becker, a/k/a Unpleasant Person, on the “moral judgment” issue. Marriage is a spiritual relationship, not merely a legal one, or it’s nothing at all. Canada’s putting its seal of approval on Dan Savage’s “marriage,” in itself, means absolutely, absolutely nothing.



report abuse
 

Mika

posted June 30, 2009 at 2:33 am


I’ve already read your exchange with Jerry Becker; I’ve actually discussed it with him on Dan’s blog :)
What makes a marriage between two people of the same genitalia one iota less spiritual than a marriage between two people with opposite genitals? If you really believe that marriage can only occur between an XX and an XY, what do you make of children born with genetic abnormalities that put them “between” genders, or displaying hermaphroditic characteristics? The ancient rabbis discussed such hermaphrodites; in a move I find very important, they encourage such individuals to live as men (patriarchal society and all that), to marry, and to live characteristically responsible lives among the Jewish community. The Talmudic rabbis don’t see them as any less human for being different. The rabbis were able to envision a scenario in which people outside the hetero-normative mold could achieve a happy, successful family life. I find it sad that you can’t do the same.
Incidentally, in your dialogue with Becker, you left unclarified how you could support the argument that although gay identity may not be a choice, expressing gay sexuality is. That dooms LGBT individuals to a choice between living with morals and living with love. How can you condemn gays and lesbians – who didn’t choose to be that way, who were created that way, who were created in G-d’s image – to a loveless life, when you have admitted that you can never walk in their shoes? The ancient rabbis never advocated celibacy and solitude for human beings. Ours is not an aesthetic tradition. And yet that is what you offer to LGBT individuals as their ONLY possibility of an ethical life.
Out of curiosity, have you ever seen “Trembling Before G-d”?



report abuse
 

stone

posted June 30, 2009 at 2:34 am


One thing I find interesting in the rather odd arugment that gay marriage would be detrimental to women is the perpetuation of how women were viewed in ancient times and today; which is not at all. Honestly, it is hard for me to trust some of the rather ancient scholarly discussion on women, what were thinking, what they should be doing, etc., because women were not allowed to be part of the conversation. They weren’t allowed to be part of the conversation because they weren’t considered period. And certainly they still aren’t with such broad generalizations around unruly male passion and women’s monogamy. I also find it strange that if men’s passions are so unruly, that somehow marriage, gay or otherwise, would impact it so. If men were so unruly in their passions, why would they marry another man? Why even go through all that when they could simply have that other man? I don’t expect everyone to agree on gay marriage, but I do expect more complex arguments at this stage because it sounds like your saying that gay marriage would in effect make a bunch of men gay, who aren’t already and that they will go out and marry some other men and leave all these women standing around (and historically, from ancient times, there are examples of women being with other women and seemingly being fine with that. Not to break your rules, but I’ve been to ruins from spain to greece to italy with all manner of items that disprove this.) That seems not very unruly. At any rate, I challenge you to not reconsider your position, but your argument, ’cause its quite a jumble. And please be kind to remember that no one talked to women. at all, really. It’s quite important to recall when discussing ancient texts (religious or otherwise)
As for your comments about Dan Savage, since you live here your reader should be aware, Mr. Savage is about the most average looking mid 40s, midwestern avg build seemingly irish previously catholic guy around. He looks like a guy out of the J. Crew or Ralph Lauren catalog. His son has nothing to be embarassed about because even if his dad was only a sex advice columnist, which he is not, he is providing advice to people with quesions and even in doing so, has lines he won’t cross and is clear about. He is honest about what he does, and his son will always love him for that, which is more than I can say about Mark Sanford, who has taught his sons that for all his moral indignation about gay marriage, his emphasis on morals and ethics, that power and position are more important than marriage or public service, and that when you make a big mistake that somehow forgiveness and no consequences for actions mean the same thing. I would rather my dad wrote a sex column about things I would never imagine doing than be a hypocrite, publicly humiliate my mother, and provide more negative fodder for my school life than a sex column ever could. now, go revise your article. Thanks!



report abuse
 

Jerry Becker

posted June 30, 2009 at 3:17 am


I hate to see this devolve into a yelling match. I, of course, agree with Mika and Dan Savage. And as Mika points out, the chasm between gay identity and acting on gay sexuality should not exist. Why is it OK for me to be gay … but not to act on that and have sex with people of the same gender?



report abuse
 

Allie

posted June 30, 2009 at 5:50 am


Mr Klinghoffer,
I’d like to say, I read through the comments on the other post, and I don’t find most of them inappropriate. Some may not be appropriate for children, but we are debating human sexuality.
I don’t think anyone displayed the same logic as 6th graders calling each other fags. (As you replied to one post.) Quite the opposite! Posters were saying that there is nothing wrong with being gay! The confusion is over how someone who is attracted to women could be of the opinion that if it were accepted then all men would go for men. Most straight men would never want to be with a man, and public opinion would not change that. Regardless, it’s not anyone’s place to speculate about your preferences. You have a right to privacy.
I’m sorry you find the conversation vulgar. I really do think most of the posters were expressing opinions that are very different than yours, but are well thought out. Some might have been rude, but others genuinely wanted to engage in a civilized dialog. It would be good for both sides if you took them up on it.



report abuse
 

Kess

posted June 30, 2009 at 9:55 am


I participate in a number of activities that I exclude my 3-year-old son from, among them reading our daily newspaper, the Baltimore Sun, which contains accounts of local murders, unrest in Iran, and terrorist bombings around the world. I would never read the Sun aloud to him, yet the Sun is nothing more than a generic, slightly right of center daily. I find your suggestion that you would “never publish anything that I wasn’t comfortable with my kids reading” laughable and untenable. The entirety of the world cannot and should not be child-friendly. Adults are capable of doing more things than children, among them driving cars, entering into legal contracts, and reading articles written for more mature audiences. If you’re going to criticize Mr Savage I suggest using a different tactic other than “think of his child being exposed to the filth he writes”, as I’m sure Mr Savage works very hard to make sure that his son doesn’t stumble across his writings, just as you make sure your children don’t walk in on you having sex with your wife.



report abuse
 

Matthias

posted June 30, 2009 at 10:13 am


Don’t you think that the notion that men are bestial and incapable of monamory might be more harmful to fidelity than the notion that a man ought be able to love another man in peace?
In any event, I don’t think cultures the world over would have gone to such barbaric lengths to proscribe and restrict female sexuality if it itself weren’t at least as fiery a force as its counterpart.



report abuse
 

nanorich

posted June 30, 2009 at 10:16 am


David….
the subtext of your message is painfully, yet hilariously clear: torn between duty to patronize women and tell the world how you long to be able to act out your gay impulses, you manage to insult women, gays and heterosexual men.
In stating that you oppose gay marriage, because the only thing thwarting your gay curious impulses is that is socially unacceptable to be gay..
You decry vulgarity, while mincing prissily you obsess on teh gay. Your problem might best be dealt with in private introspection rather than exposing your secret shame to the inner tubes!
Listen pal, you have more in common with Mark Sanford than you realized.



report abuse
 

My Rabbi is gay

posted June 30, 2009 at 10:35 am


OK so its not just me. This guy doesn’t exactly look gay to me but more like another alternative method of expressing one’s sexuality. I don’t think its grown men we have to worry about with this idiot. Look at his picture, then come back and disagree with me if you must.



report abuse
 

Holly

posted June 30, 2009 at 10:52 am


David,
You might want to look at a few things:
The large percentage of GLBT Jews among Jews as a whole
The many GLBT Jews who are raising children as couples, whether legally married or not.
The sexism involved in seeing gay marriage as primarily a gay male issue.
The large number of heterosexual women who have been hurt because they married gay men who were trying to be straight. This is a problem in the Jewish community, especially among those who are frum.



report abuse
 

good parent

posted June 30, 2009 at 11:02 am


Anyone who produces or acts in an R-rated movie is a bad parent.
Anyone who writes sex advice for Christian couples, like James Dobson, is a bad parent.
Hmm. I’m unconvinced.
Well, I sincerely believe that anyone who teaches their children to hate gay people, like Klinghoffer does, is a bad parent.



report abuse
 

Harbor Seal

posted June 30, 2009 at 11:27 am


I am very worried that if heterosexuality is accepted and affirmed, the sexual of mores of Hugh Hefner, Tom Leykis or Josef Fritzl will become commonplace. I’ve watched enough Sex and the City to know all about the volatility of straight sexual behavior and it doesn’t seem healthy.
Whatever one thinks of Dan Savage, no intelligent person believes the rantings of an attention-seeking sex advice columnist represent the “mores” of an entire class of people. However, given society’s refusal to provide any support for stable gay couples, it wouldn’t be surprising to find they struggle with monogamy more than those who have access to stabilizing instituations–such as marriage. So maybe we should stop relationship discrimination against gays and find out.
Ultimately, people are faithful to their partners because they choose to be. That’s the same for straight couples and gay couples.
Let’s ask Governor Sanford or Senator Vitter whether their wives provided a check on their male urge for promiscuity.



report abuse
 

My Name

posted June 30, 2009 at 11:44 am


“Marriage is a spiritual relationship, not merely a legal one, or it’s nothing at all”
Really! So a marriage between Atheists is not valid? The one issue that the Kling will never comment on, because there can be no valid comment, is why he feels comfortable cozying up to christian fundys that firmly believe he will spend an eternity in Hell. An eternity having his mini nuts and sausage roasting on a rotating spit. This is his future in their eyes, period, end of story.
The rules are conplicated in the use of vulgarity. Now, lets see, anything and everything goes if it is art. But not so if it is commentary in an ALTERNATIVE publication. Well I think Savage’s commentary is art, so I guess he is in the clear.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 30, 2009 at 1:38 pm


Hey, humankind:
My question is, heretosexual couples do not grope, kiss and act inappropriate in public. There are some things that should be left to the bedroom or private quarters. Why in the world do Gay, Lesbian and Transexual persons allow their sex passions to be displayed to define their personna. If you are Gay, allow yourself to be Gay, but with moral standards for public appearances; likewise, if you are a Lesbian, be Lesbian, but why in the world do you wear men’s clothes and act so masculine in public? Transexuals – well, dress like whatever you are re-assigning to become – do not mix clothes, etc….
I recently attended a workshop and there was a person getting a gender re-assignment, and had a combination of clothing and cosmetics. I did not know what to call him – “Miss” or “Mr.” Finally, when he told me that his hormones were causing him to make many trips to the bathroom, as he was getting a sex reassignment, I blatantly asked him – what are you – a man going to be a woman, or a woman going to be a man? When he told me that he was going to become a woman, I just called him by his first name, as I was confused where he was in the process. (Smile).
I have one last comment for all of you who arrived in your present bodies whose sexual assignments were opposite to the identity of your souls – you all must have known that Universal Principles are immutable before you came. Now that you are here, you want to fit in with society by pushing others to change laws, etc… to suit your present whims. Truth never changes and is eternal. You will not have learned your lessons if we try to change things around to make you feel more acceptable. I say fix it here, and you won’t have to live through those choices that are not in alignment with Universal Principles on your next journey.
Namaskar



report abuse
 

Gracchus

posted June 30, 2009 at 2:03 pm


“Incidentally, on further reflection, the instructive point I took away from Professor Berman’s citations from Roman literature is that a society that formally approves male-male sexual intimacy is approving something else that goes along with it. What’s that?”
You didn’t have to go back to an out-of-context (see my comment in the earlier thread) citation of Roman literature to find bogus support for what is indeed a stereotype — your own assertion that “it’s reality” is about as convincing (that is to say, not at all).
Meanwhile, here’s an article for you to chew on about 2006 survey by the CDC of 12k+ men and women ages 14-44:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-05-31-men-study_x.htm
Key graf: “to the statement “It is better to get married than go through life single,” 66% of men agreed, compared with 51% of women.”
That’s a significant spread, and as reality-based as the proposition that, say, a self-professed heterosexual man who’s unaware of clitoral orgasms and how they’re achieved probably has very little actual sexual experience with women.
Perhaps you’re living in another reality, though — the one where a psychopathic Invisible Bearded Sky Man exists, and forces 21st century Westerners to live by Bronze Age rules.



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted June 30, 2009 at 2:22 pm


David,
Let’s get back to your untenable claim that “I do know, however, that I would never publish anything that I wasn’t comfortable with my kids reading.”
Why are you comfortable allowing them to read falsehoods that you write when it comes to science? Why do you work for an anti-science organization that is overwhelmingly funded by Christian conservatives, many of whom like Israel only because they want Armageddon to arrive?
Why is vulgar language worse than lying? When did it become okay in your religion to bear false witness? Do you really want to teach your children to be liars? How will you tell them not to when they realize that their own dad not only lies but is paid to lie?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 30, 2009 at 2:34 pm


A few points.
• Marriage is not just a spiritual institution: a marriage must be registered civilly in order to be valid and legal.
• One can get married at a registrar’s office without any religious blessing and that marriage is as legal as one solemnized in a church.
• Gay marriages have been legal in Canada since 2003: Canada is still without a flood of straight men converting to gayness, abandoning women, and indulging in gay sex.
• I’m still awaiting some proof that women are more monogamous than men. Assertions do not qualify as proof, you know.
In my opinion, you have fallen prey to essentialism and to wishful thinking. I await your response.



report abuse
 

Eli

posted June 30, 2009 at 2:35 pm


Women are hurt when gays are NOT allowed to marry because they marry closeted gay men.
And you are now spewing outright prejudiced filth. If anyone wrote a blog about how many Jewish males are deviant or that Jewish culture is bad for Christians, they would be banned. If Jewish Nazis like you are allowed to bash gays, then I say bring on the Holocaust-deniers and antisemites. In fact, if this site does not publish some good old fashioned antisemitism from the famous Christian or Muslim bloggers here in the next few weeks, I’m going to be forced to believe what I always here: that the media is controlled and manipulated by Jews.
I mean, how else can we explain the imbalance?



report abuse
 

Eli

posted June 30, 2009 at 2:37 pm


I meant “I’m going to be forced to believe what I always hear:”



report abuse
 

Harrietb98

posted June 30, 2009 at 2:44 pm


Sorry, but I don’t buy it. I wouldn’t want to be married to a man who would rather be with a man.
G-d created gay people the same way He created straight people.
Gay marriage does NOT hurt women.



report abuse
 

Theo Magyar

posted June 30, 2009 at 2:52 pm


Whoops! Didn’t add my name to the post about proof …



report abuse
 

Julie Baker

posted June 30, 2009 at 3:21 pm


As a straight woman living in Canada – a country where same sex marriage has been legalized since July 2005 (Almost 4 years! Yay!) – I cannot help but to laugh at the concept that legalizing same sex marriage will hurt straight women. The over-all birth rate in Canada has only been increasing since 2005, and women across the country have not suddenly been abandoned by husbands and partners for the company of other men.
Besides, what about same sex marriage hurting straight men? Surely women throughout the nation will now begin to flock to each other to escape the voracious sexual appetites of men! I don’t know about you, but the fact that I’m attracted to people of the opposite gender isn’t suddenly going to change now that I can marry someone of the same gender as me, and I’m pretty sure that the same holds true for Canadian men as well.
Nice try, though.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 30, 2009 at 4:27 pm


I also disagree wit your conclusions, sir. My bet friends are two gay men who havae been married for several years. It seems to me that by allowing gay marriage, we would encourage a cultural norm of monogamy and care-fulness in the gay community. By denying gays the right to marry, we encourage a promiscuous lifestyle – we tell young gay people that they are not deserving of a long-term committed relationship, so they grow up thinking that is true. My friends are faithful to each other, stable, and hard-working on their relationship and their lives. How can gay marriage be harder on women than the travesty of heterosexual marriage exhibited by people like the governor of South Carolina? But there are no calls to keep hypersexualized politicians from marriage. THAT might be a start to protect women.



report abuse
 

Eli

posted June 30, 2009 at 5:02 pm


Quote from David Klinghoffer: “Marriage is a spiritual relationship, not merely a legal one, or it’s nothing at all.”
Most of the people in this country who agree with you on gay marriage would say, “Marriage is a CHRISTIAN relationship, not merely a legal one. . .”
You should keep that in mind. :)



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted June 30, 2009 at 5:22 pm


Eli,
David seems to be happy to be part of the Wedge Strategy, a Christianist attempt to undermine science and our civil liberties. For them, “Christian” and “spiritual” are the same thing. Maybe David has just been spending too much time with these people.



report abuse
 

Luchog Llewynyth

posted June 30, 2009 at 6:17 pm


While I share your view of Dan Savage and many of his fans to some extent, reference to him in this issue is a clear evasion of the valid arguments which were brought up the comments to your previous article on this subject. You’re also ignoring the fact that Savage has long been known for his blatant misogyny, and frequently castigated for such by the GLBT community. A misogyny which is disturbingly reminiscient of the more covert but equally intense attitude in fundamentalist religious communities.
You have completely failed to address the gross historical errors in your article. Particularly the fact that the Hellenic Greek and Imperial Roman attitudes and policies toward women bear a striking resemblence to those of modern far-right Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) fundamentalists; and almost none to modern liberal Euro-American culture. Doesn’t it bother you that your statements in the matter are so similar to the pagans you castigate? That this is so shouldn’t be too much of a surprise, since much of the culture that pervades the religious right is derived directly from Roman culture, due to the Romanic politicization of the church during the 4th and 5th centuries.
Modern liberal western culture actually holds far more in common with the Celtic and Nordic peoples of northern Europe. In those cultures, women were considered full, equal citizens and allowed to own property and live independent lives to a great degree. A status that women of Greco-Roman culture definitely did not have. Homosexuality was also tolerated, although not to the extent it was farther south, and it still suffered the same status-consciousness as it’s Greco-Roman counterpart. In fact, the only cultures which had an attitude toward homosexuality similar to modern western culture would be found in the Pacific Islands, and some First Nations peoples.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted June 30, 2009 at 6:59 pm


Your Name (June 30, 2009 1:38 PM)
“My question is, heretosexual couples do not grope, kiss and act inappropriate in public.”
1. I went to high school in the Deep South, so my grasp of the English language probably ain’t too good, ya’ll. But if my memory serves me correctly, that’s not a question so much as it is a statement. You’re not asking if straights act inappropriately in public. You’re telling us that as a matter of fact, they don’t. Speaking of which…
2. Uh…what country do you live in? I’ve spent 20+ years of my life in the Bible Belt (morality capital of the free world), and I saw heteros making out in public more times than I care to be remember. Yes, there was some jealousy. If I had done those kinds of things with my girlfriend back in college, I probably wouldn’t be here today. So don’t talk to me about some perceived moral purity within the straight lifestyle. (Because if homosexuality is a “lifestyle”, so is heterosexuality.)



report abuse
 

Luchog Llewynyth

posted June 30, 2009 at 7:10 pm


A response to one of the Your Name posts above, where it is stated that “heretosexual couples do not grope, kiss and act inappropriate in public.” This is so patently untrue as to make me wonder what world you live in. Here in the real world, heterosexual public displays of affection, including “inappropriate” displays of such shading, are commonplace. Far, far more commonplace than any similar activity by GLBTs. I live in one of the most GLBT-friendly cities in the US, in the most GLBT-friendly neighborhood; and I see more heterosexual groping, grinding, and other inappropriate public displays of sexuality in a single weekend, than I normally see from GLBTs in an entire year.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 30, 2009 at 7:39 pm


Untruthfulness is what will hurt women not gay marriage. I do not know how many countless women who have gone though “let’s pretend we’re married” because of social pressures on either herself or both parties involved. The big challenge is to redefine what kind of man you want and need and realize that the world is available to you not merely your small town. It is beautiful that consenting adults are finally being allowed to be themselves as they make a daily conciuos decision to be monogomously married and reap the benefits spiritual as well as otherwise. Stop concerning yourselves with the marital state of another and focus on your own marriage before you end up in the divorce pile yourselves. Some people can handle it some can not.but I for one look forward to the opportunity to at least have same sex marriage as an option to enter. It is all about “Human Rights” . Not telling the truth that is what has,is,and will always hurt women.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 1, 2009 at 2:24 pm


“The creation of gay marriage by a society means the approval, too, of gay culture with its unique mores. To the extent that the culture, not necessarily the practice, of homosexuality permeates the society, then brutalization and vulgarization will likely follow — of a kind that, yes, can’t help but hurt women even more than it does men.”
What I find difficult in this post is that there seems to be no understanding that what is termed the gay culture is based on a history of repression. A change in not only legality but in alternatives which become socially acceptable over time will undoubtedly change the ‘gay culture.’ Are some gays vulgar because they react to society rejecting the idea that they exist at all? Perhaps this segment of the gay population is vulgar because some people are vulgar. If it is a trait found in a percentage of humans, then it would be found in a percentage of gay humans.
What about the gay people who are not vulgar? Assuming you would agree that not every gay person is vulgar and brutal, then these cannot be seen as traits of being gay or living a ‘gay lifestyle.’ Perhaps what you are terming the gay lifestyle is a collection of traits and practices you do not like, practiced by some gay people, and labeled as gay culture regardless of the number of gay people who do NOT practice these unfortunate traits.
Just one man’s thoughts…



report abuse
 

Michael Wall

posted July 1, 2009 at 2:25 pm


That last Your Name was me…sorry.



report abuse
 

Original Monique

posted July 1, 2009 at 9:11 pm


@David K: Thanks for the response. Sure, Dan’s kid might not want to read all the things his dad writes, but that doesn’t make it invalid. And framing your worldview so that you never embarrass your kids is rather silly.
In fact, your blog entries here may totally embarrass your children once they are old enough to understand. Your ideas and thoughts are extremely outdated, and your kids will most likely roll their eyes at you (not to offend you, it’s just what kids do).
So if I were to have my pick, and had the choice for my dad to talk about his sex life, be gay, and answer sex question or someone like you who is very religious and conservative —we’ll I’d have to go with the gay sex columnist. He’d help steer me in the right way, since he would actually SEE the dangers ahead. He’d help me through break-ups instead of force me to not date. That sort of thing. But again, just because the topics embarass you, doesn’t make them wrong or invalid. It makes them different and something you are not used to.
And for the record, I have been reading Dan’s column since I was 14. He was like the gay uncle I never had, telling me how things were and reinforcing the “dump the MF’er already” knowledge to end bad relationships before they get worse. And his column enforces the “don’t do what you aren’t comfortable with” and gives good advice about boundaries, something ALL girls really need to hear.
So while his kid at 14 probably won’t want to read his dad’s column, I feel very lucky and privileged to have be exposed to it, since at that time both my parents were Mormon and we really couldn’t talk openly about sex.
I would highly suggest you give Dan’s column to your teenager. While you may be offended by the vulgar language, it will help your kid steer through all the problems of high school, which is nothing like the high school you went to. Trust me, Dan can help.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted July 1, 2009 at 9:48 pm


Hi Monique, I hear what you’re saying about having a “cool” uncle and yet I would guess that the same worldview that results in Dan Savage’s obscene writing has also resulted in far more heartbreak for young people, and worse, than anything your uncool Mormon parents will have to answer for. If he gives sensible advice sometimes, it’s the bigger picture that counts, and he’s part of it.



report abuse
 

advertisinglies

posted July 2, 2009 at 2:11 am


@Monique I totally agree with you. I read the Savage Love column when I was a younger teenager as well and found it completely refreshing to have a resource available to me that told me I deserved to be happy more than I needed a boyfriend.
@author There were a few of his columns that were a bit much for me but you know what I did? I didn’t read them. I, like every other young girl my age, was not some delicate flower prone to perversion. If you don’t like Savage, don’t read him. You don’t receive his method of communication the way it’s intended which is fine. However, when you start writing whiny posts where you attack him as a person on some convoluted and frankly transparent platform of moral or ethical superiority, you sir, are a douche.



report abuse
 

Gidget

posted July 3, 2009 at 7:56 am


Really? You refuse to link him because of the potential delicate sensibilities of the children that are probably not reading your articles, yet you insist on making assumptions as to his nature, and character as a father and a gay man?
I’m going to have to assume integrity is not on your list of things to learn from scripture.
Gay activists like Dan Savage get mad at you because you’re misrepresenting them, their culture, and their lives to further suit your personal ideology. (There’s also the additional bit where you’ve got a fair share of women mad at you for not knowing the first thing about human biology, but that’s a story for a different day I suspect.)
Make up however many reasons you like, darlin’, ain’t ever gonna make them true.
For the record, I’m a woman who knows herself, supports and fights for gay rights, is a faithful Quaker, and has a loving relationship with another woman.



report abuse
 

Sione

posted July 3, 2009 at 10:11 am


Hmm… You don’t seem to know much about homosexuality, women’s sexuality and people in general do you? Only in America do you see a sort of separation between gays and straights, and that’s because the US is one of the most homophobic industrialized countries.
Basically, most men are straight, or mostly straight. While certainly functional as homosexuals (in prisons, etc), most men would almost certainly prefer a woman’s company to another man’s. “Gay” is not something catching, like some sort of mental disease. A few, and I do mean a few, men prefer the “company” of other men, but these are the minority.
Now, instead of just leaving them alone like in most countries, and watching the show, because gays certainly are entertaining, it seems people want to blame them for this and that, exclude them from here and there. What’s the deal?
And furthermore, most lesbians I know would be deeply offended with your presumption that “sex” somehow requires a penis’ involvement…



report abuse
 

Timothy (TRiG)

posted July 4, 2009 at 11:32 am


“Marriage is a spiritual relationship, not merely a legal one, or it’s nothing at all. Canada’s putting its seal of approval on Dan Savage’s “marriage,” in itself, means absolutely, absolutely nothing.”
If civil marriage means so little to you (nothing at all, you say), why do you expend so much energy fighting against it?
You don’t make sense. Your world-view is not even internally consistent, never mind whether it matches up with reality (it doesn’t).
TRiG.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 27, 2009 at 6:49 pm


During the 1980′s the CDC found that the AVERAGE gay male had over 350 sexual encounters per year; many with multiple partners in a single night. In order to get mainstream America to approve of Gay people they had to be portrayed as wanting marriage/monogamy but being denied long term committments. By allowing marriage for gays, we shift the focus away from gay culture to what we know–family life. We do not find family life scary, hence gays are no longer objectionable, and their underlying culture ignored.



report abuse
 

Shlomo

posted January 18, 2010 at 10:46 pm


You have not more right to lobby for a law that would outlaw a same-sex marriage in a Reform Shul anymore than Reform Jews have a right to lobby for a law that would force Orthodox Shuls to accomodate same-sex marriages if they do marriages at all!



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.