Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


Why Gay Activists like Dan Savage Get Mad When You Point Out the Truth

posted by David Klinghoffer

The truth, that is, about the impact on women if Savage’s dreams of men marrying men come true. In the gay marriage debate, heterosexual women are a crucial swing vote. Every poll I’ve looked at shows this: men are more opposed to creating this radical new social institution than women are. Nationally, the margin of difference between the sexes on the issue is about 11 percent. Obviously, women’s support is crucial to the cause. Lose it, and you’ve lost.

I think that explains why after I wrote on the subject, Savage in his blog at The Stranger attacked me several times in increasingly obscene and personal terms. So did his readers in the comment box here, creating a task for me in unpublishing the really foul ones. Oh well, you get used to it. However there’s a serious point here that needs to be understood. This is not about Dan Savage, who edits an alternative paper here in Seattle, but he serves as a useful illustration.
One commenter on this blog, Monique, wrote to me about how Savage with his sex column in the Stranger had helped her when she was 14 years old, as a sort of “cool” gay uncle figure, full of sound advice on when to dump jerky guys. Uh huh, very nice. What she didn’t see is that the very same sexual culture that fed the animalism of the boys who hurt Monique is the culture that Savage seeks to advance. 
Some of that culture’s tenets include rejecting: 1) the normative value linking sex with reproduction, 2) insistence on faithfulness to a single spouse, and 3) any concept of modesty where private expressions of passion are kept private.
Homosexual male culture is the way it is because it centers upon encounters between men and men alone. Everything that’s most animalistic about men when they are not in the company of women has an excellent opportunity to emerge to the fore. The Biblical story of the two angels who visit Sodom, and of what Lot proposed to do to his daughters (give them over to the vicious crowd outside his house), has this as one of its lessons.
So wouldn’t you know it, I sat down at Tully’s yesterday and there in the newspaper bin across from me was the latest Stranger with an article by editor Savage highlighted on the front cover. This one was not quite as obscene as much of the rest of his writing, but still too much to link to from this blog. He talks about making peanut-butter cookies for his “husband,” here referred to as his “boyfriend,” and son. How domestic! But then he goes on to describe the rest of his lifestyle, which is not exactly domestic. I’ll spare you, but one detail caught my eye.

I had previously assumed that in his “marriage” he and his boyfriend are monogamous. Not so. Savage writes about how he would like to detail their adventures but his “boyfriend” vetoes the idea.
What was I saying about those tenets of sexual adventurism? Oh yes, that they may please Dan Savage and many other gay men. Sexual sterility goes inevitably with their lifestyle. Even in a “marriage” like Dan’s, monogamy isn’t expected. And there’s no necessary limit on lurid public expressions.
Monique, don’t you see? Girls and women were hurt by males with increasing  and heartbreaking frequency as the Sexual Adventurist Code of Values was progressively adopted since the 1960s as the norm among heterosexual males. No, we didn’t need homosexuals to teach us these things. It was old fashioned heterosexual adventurism. Many women are still paying the price.
But now gay activists want society’s seal of approval on their lifestyle, and it is, on average, far more extreme in its adventurism. And you think that will not encourage heterosexual men and boys to keep on hurting women as they do now, or worse? If homosexual males treat each other that way, with their activity officially endorsed by the government, why can we heterosexual males not relate to you, heterosexual women, in a similar fashion?
Imagine a man and a woman, of impeccably heterosexual tastes, with an open marriage on the Dan Savage model. Every woman with a brain in her head knows that in such a relationship, she’s likely to be the one who gets hurt. Not immediately, perhaps, but over the years. Today, we stand on the brink of stamping “Approved!” on the Savage model. And you think this will not have repercussions for heterosexual women?
Activists like Dan Savage try to keep such plain truths from us. When he writes in his own paper, he’s honest. When he writes an op-ed for the New York Times, he puts on his respectable hat and all the respectable readers say, “Oh, what a nice young man! Why can’t he marry his true love just like I did?” If we go along on this ride with him, what fools we are — but women, most of all.


Advertisement
Comments read comments(118)
post a comment
Jimmy

posted July 2, 2009 at 7:23 pm


“What she didn’t see is that the very same sexual culture that fed the animalism of the boys who hurt Monique is the culture that Savage seeks to advance.”
You have got to be kidding… Animalism!! You do realize that said animalism has been around a long long time. Especially in your bible where women are in large part property… right? Meanwhile, a foul mouth sex columnist hands down empowering advice to a young girl that possibly saves her from a lifetime of subjugation from bad men (or even ones who believe literally in the bible – imagine that threat!).
I suspect Savage (unlike you) recognizes human behavior hasn’t changed all that much (since biblical times) and isn’t likely to change anytime soon.



report abuse
 

POvidi

posted July 2, 2009 at 7:35 pm


This thread of articles just keeps getting more and more offensive. First of all, why are you letting one man represent all gays? Do you really think there are no monogamous gay couples? Because if so you are highly mistaken. Furthermore, you’re even more naive if you think there are no open straight couples. I know several of both types of couples mentioned above.
First of all, women are not the innocent little flowers you want them to be. They can take care of themselves, and (are you ready for this) they sometimes cheat too!!!!!! The difference between you and Savage is that he would rather see women live life not needing some man to come in and make everything perfect for them; whereas you would rather have them suffer under patriarchal oppression. I think women know what’s best for them.



report abuse
 

Lauren

posted July 2, 2009 at 7:56 pm


I’m glad you recognize that importance of women and their opinions affecting the tide on political and social issues —so did John Mccain, who if you recall, tried to win my gender over with the ill prepared Sarah Palin—. Your posts are riddled with ethnocentrism in regards to sexuality and gender issues and frankly I find them more then a bit insulting…and this is coming from a straight woman.



report abuse
 

My Name

posted July 2, 2009 at 8:38 pm


What galls Mr. Klinghoffer more than gay men getting all busy in ways he finds (enticingly) yucky is the fact that he can’t do a darn thing about it except whine.
Witness, oh world, the flailing of the impotent heterosexual throwback. Get a good look – his ilk won’t be around much longer.



report abuse
 

diji

posted July 2, 2009 at 8:49 pm


“Every woman with a brain in her head knows that in such a relationship, she’s likely to be the one who gets hurt.”
Apparently you find this statement prima facie true. However, if you want to have anything resembling a discourse about the subject of monogamy, homosexuality, and marriage, you’re going to have to stop living in your head and start communicating the reasoning behind your sweeping statements.
From my perspective, your statement is predicated on the Victorian model of a woman as fragile, prone to hysteria, needing to be ‘kept’ by her man. That’s a pretty ugly stereotype to be trafficking in.



report abuse
 

kim in portland

posted July 2, 2009 at 9:02 pm


You are hopelessly naive, if you don’t know that many heterosexual couples are swingers. Are you really unaware that there are swinger clubs, and even conventions here in the United States? Open or non monogamous relationships are common amongst humans, not just gays.
You seem the patriarchal type. And, being a person of the Jewish faith you are aware of the many non-monogamous marriages found in the the Old Testament. Abraham had more than one wife. Israel, had 12 sons from four different women. There would be no nation of Israel if all 12 sons were born of the same woman. I can’t remember the number of wives King David or King Solomon each had. Then you are aware of how women were treated. Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father. Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband. Women were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority. Women were not permitted to testify in court. Women could not appear in public venues. Women were not allowed to talk to strangers. Women had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes. Perhaps, you’d like to believe that we women are dependent upon you, and we still consider ourselves your property? Let me tell you, that isn’t the case for many of us.
It would appear that you may live a very closed life, and that is great if it works for you. Perhaps, your life doesn’t permit you to enjoy peanut butter cookies or pageants for individuals who enjoy dressing in leather, but please don’t delude yourself that the rest of us live in such a black and white world. Many of us can acknowledge the existence of these worlds, and not be threatened by there existence. Or that you can comprehend the devotion between two married individuals, that you have never met.
I’m going to respectful agree with, Lauren. “Your posts are riddled with ethnocentrism in regards to sexuality and gender issues and frankly I find them more then a bit insulting…and this is coming from a straight woman.” A married one at that.
Best wishes.



report abuse
 

Mika

posted July 2, 2009 at 9:38 pm


Kim, I was going to dig out the biblical references exposing the ludicrousness of the idea that LGBT acceptance would bring down the standards for treatment of women anywhere NEAR where they were in biblical times (or medieval times, or Renaissance times, or Enlightenment times, or Victorian times… ). But you beat me to it. Thanks!
Women have it better now than they have ever had it in the past, and it’s largely owing to the liberation of sexual mores that Klinghoffer so decries. Sure, there are pitfalls, but to have women no longer locked in a jail cell of reproductive capability, where popping out babies is their only human worth – well, I’d say that’s worth it. Women no longer are relegated to obedience and submission as their only option for a moral life. Women can be independent nowadays. They can live alone if they so choose. They can have a career. These are amazing phenomenons in the course of human history. And Klinghoffer’s trying to get us to blame gay men for the abuse that still exists? David, gay men helped us deconstruct the toxic rigidity of gender roles and of violent machismo that kept women trapped for so long! Gay liberation and women’s liberation go hand in hand. Read up on the history of the movements. That you could possibly think otherwise underlies your deep, and extremely disturbing, level of misogyny.
Dear lord, I can’t really believe that you think women have been hurt MORE often since the 1960s than before. Do you have any sense of women’s history at all? Do you have any idea of the days when domestic violence was a part of the Good Ol’ Boys Club and a woman could be unquestioningly blamed for her own rape? I really don’t think you realize how offensive you’re being. Maybe that’s scariest of all.
“Every woman with a brain in her head knows that in such a
relationship, she’s likely to be the one who gets hurt.”
It’s mindblowing to us actual women “with a brain in our heads” (thanks, casual misogyny!) that you can’t fathom that some women might want an open relationship for themselves. Because they have passions and desires. Of their OWN. I know it’s hard for you to believe, but women are not simply objects for your sexual pleasure or slaves to your sexual will. Women too can be actors on the sexual stage. The fact that you can’t imagine this shows that you not only have no concept of women’s history, but of women themselves.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted July 2, 2009 at 9:45 pm


Laura: “Your posts are riddled with ethnocentrism in regards to sexuality and gender issues and frankly I find them more then a bit insulting…and this is coming from a straight woman.”
Clearly, you’ve been brainwashed by Savage and his naughty words and Satanic cookie-baking skills. Fortunately Mr. Klinghoffer is here to protect you from him, and from your own common sense if necessary.



report abuse
 

Julia

posted July 2, 2009 at 10:38 pm


Being a hetereosexual female that hangs out with alot of homosexual men, I found this interesting. I actually have been treated badly by alot of hetereosexual men. And do sometimes long for the old fashioned days when a guy was actually polite, asked you out on a proper date, and tried to win you over in general. But, unfortunately, I think those days are long gone. Whether or not what Mr.Klinghoffer is talking about had anything to do with it, I’m not sure. Sexual liberation was bound to happen sooner or later if people felt oppressed. But, I do find it interesting, nonetheless.



report abuse
 

Skippy

posted July 2, 2009 at 10:41 pm


I wish that you would stop promoting lesbianism.



report abuse
 

Hannah

posted July 2, 2009 at 10:43 pm


My second girlfriend was in an open marriage. She and her husband were sexually active with several friends, but always honest with each other and those they were sleeping with.
Did I discount heterosexual marriage because of one couple’s story?
I can’t believe you’re still continuing this argument, seeing as how NONE of the commentors have agreed with you in the first two posts. You are wrong, sir, and incredibly offensive.



report abuse
 

Julia

posted July 2, 2009 at 10:55 pm


That’s funny, Skippy!!! Hahaha-Should I switch teams? =P



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 2, 2009 at 10:56 pm


There’s really nothing I can add here that hasn’t been said before, but I feel I must add my voice to the chorus. I am a heterosexual married woman, a practicing Christian, and a mother, and I am totally appalled by your posts on this issue, Mr. Klinghoffer. The level of ignorance you exhibit regarding the experiences of women of all sexual orientations and gay people of all genders is unfathomable. You seem to believe that a woman’s happiness is totally dependent upon marriage to a man, as if we were all living in the plot of a Victorian novel. (And please don’t get me started on all the funky sex the Victorians were having.) You also ignore completely the fact that for ages–and until very recently–women were regularly the victims of physical and sexual violence at the hands of their husbands, who were also free to pursue sexual encounters outside the marriage at will. (Just think about the sexual behavior of so many white slaveowning men in the 19th C. and you’ll catch a lovely glimpse of how women at both ends of the economic spectrum were abused by straight men.) And to believe that gay men are somehow *responsible* for the abuses women have suffered at the hands of straight men? Incredible. Unbelievable. And very, very harmful. Readers, find someone else to give you advice. Maybe Dan Savage?



report abuse
 

Erin

posted July 2, 2009 at 11:10 pm


Thank god I’m a lesbian! I don’t have to worry about men’s “animalistic” urges, their “heterosexual adventurism” or their tacky neologisms. Anyway, every woman with a brain in her head knows that women are superior emotional and sexual partners. I’m so glad religionists are finally beginning to see the benefits of lesbian separatism.



report abuse
 

Audra R

posted July 2, 2009 at 11:21 pm


As a heterosexual married woman, I find your arguments offensive, silly and really, really homophobic. Just admit it, you are terrified of the gay. It’s ok, lots of straight guys are. When you grow up and become more secure in your sexuality, you’ll get over it.



report abuse
 

Peter

posted July 2, 2009 at 11:24 pm


“Loose it, and you’ve lost”? Are you really a published author?



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted July 2, 2009 at 11:31 pm


Peter, thanks for the spelling check.



report abuse
 

Cassie C

posted July 2, 2009 at 11:42 pm


Is Klinghoffer worried that gay men are whispering their animalistic sex-getting secrets in the ears of gay men? Please! As if there was no such thing as infidelity or pregnancy out of wedlock before the 1960′s. In fact, teen pregnancy was more common in the 50′s than in the 90′s.
That being said, the ‘sexual revolution’ was not invented by gay people. THAT being said, lots of gay male couples are monogomous.
And that also being said… It seems that Dan Savage is in a consensually polyamorous relationship- not an adulterous one. Not the same moral issue. And anyways, most women wouldn’t be willing to participate in that and men know it.
Yet another straight man blaming the misdeeds of his kind on other people…



report abuse
 

Harry Lime

posted July 3, 2009 at 12:05 am


You’re for real, David Klinghoffer, right? You’re not some sort of walking fiction, like Sacha Baron Cohen’s Borat or Bruno, right? Much less this guy: http://www.lovegodsway.org/DonnieDavies
Anyhow, assuming that you are indeed whom you say you are, and not some stand-up comedian, can you tell us how you manage to contain your homosexual impulses, and how often you have to do so?



report abuse
 

Theo Magyar

posted July 3, 2009 at 12:07 am


Mr Klinghoffer, you are profoundly misogynistic and strangely preoccupied with Dan Savage. Please ask yourself why?



report abuse
 

Theo Magyar

posted July 3, 2009 at 12:09 am


And consider the post by Harry Lime when you question your preoccupation with Dan Savage.



report abuse
 

Seth Chalmer

posted July 3, 2009 at 12:44 am


Mr. Klinghoffer,
It is disingenuous to assert that gay marriage is equivalent to “open marriage” only because many such gay and open marriages exist. This is no more valid than it would be to assert that all marriage (straight marriage included) is equal to temporary marriage simply because 51% of marriages end in divorce. The reality of marriages which end in divorce does not provide any argument against the ideal of marriage as an eternal bond. Nor does the reality of gay open marriages provide an argument against the ideal of gay monogamous marriage.
People’s failure to live up to ideals is never an argument against the ideals themselves. (Other arguments may or may not be valid, but that is a separate question.) If this were not so, we would have to say that Judaism’s prohibition against lashon hara is wrong because virtually no one has ever lived up to it. Obviously we may trumpet an ideal even when people fail to live up to it. Perhaps especially so!
If you wish to say that gay marriage is a problem simply on halachic grounds, then say so. But do not advance arguments as spurious as this one.



report abuse
 

Shoshannah

posted July 3, 2009 at 12:45 am


As a heterosexual woman who was actually in a semi-open relationship, I think my comment is urgently needed. Urgently needed, because I tend to doubt that Klinghoffer knows any. Or, at least, that he know that he knows any, since if any of his female acquaintances are engaging in honest, discreet non-monogamy I’m sure they have too much good sense to expect him to react reasonably if they told him about it. The only examples he knows about aren’t non-monogamy, they’re failed monogamy. Somebody(s) cheated, somebody(s) lied, and somebody(s) found out about it and got hurt. That doesn’t really reflect on relationships that are honest from the beginning.
Actually, when I say my relationship was semi-open, that’s because I was the only one who went outside it. My boyfriend knew about and had veto power over my flings and was okay with them. He could have done the same, theoretically, but didn’t. Nobody got hurt. Also, gay relationships had no bearing on his decision to let me wander or my decision to do so. We knew some examples that encouraged us, but they were all straight.
Of course, my individual case doesn’t prove anything about the general reality, but it does bring David’s knowledge from zero datapoints to one. So, ladies, please chime in here, okay? I know you’re out there.



report abuse
 

Skye

posted July 3, 2009 at 12:53 am


You assume that men want to sleep around and women don’t, and that all gay men would have open relationships. There are plenty of gay couples that are monogamous. There also plenty of women who would rather not be monogamous, and men who want to be.
My boyfriend and I are both in our twenties, and value marriage. We plan to be abstinent until marriage, and in dating, we date to find a suitable match. So, naturally, we’ve discussed the possibility of marriage, children and sex(after marriage) in our future as a way of saying, “if we get married, would it work” “are we compatible?”
I’m pretty open minded, and after I’m married, I told my boyfriend that I’d be open an open relationship. I think that when I’m married, I liked to try everything sexually within reason to see what I like, and what works for us. I think a good sex life would help my future marriage. My boyfriend, however, is much more interested in monogamy. He wants to be monogamous. So if we get married, we probably won’t do an open relationship, because it wouldn’t work for him. I don’t think open is the same as adultery or non-committed, as long as everyone agrees and is happy with the situation. It isn’t cheating if both partners agree to the set up because then you aren’t breaking a promise to your partner.
That aside, the point I’m trying to make, though, is that there are men who want monogamy. Gay men, and straight men, who want nothing more than to settle down and be with only one person.
I think what’s important is that people do what’s right for them, and their relationship. I also don’t think anyone should judge anyone else, not marriage, their family, or anything.
Also, I disagree with your logic that allowing gay people to get married will somehow hurt commitment. You seem to think that what gay people do will influence how straight people act. Well to quote “how I met your mother “if gay guys start getting married, then suddenly the whole world’s gonna be doing it. That’s how it works: they start something, then six months later, everyone follows…Gay marriage is going to cause single life as we know it to die out. Think of how the American family will be strengthened!”



report abuse
 

Chris

posted July 3, 2009 at 1:02 am


So you don’t like Dan Savage, ergo all gay men don’t deserve to marry (because they are obviously all the same)? That’s some logic!



report abuse
 

Skye

posted July 3, 2009 at 1:03 am


Also, it hurts my feelings when people say sex must be linked with reproduction. I’m twenty years old, and found out earlier this year that I will probably be infertile, or have great difficulty conceiving. So I may not be able to reproduce. So what about me? When I talked to my boyfriend about having kids he said he really wanted his own children, but he’d be all right with adopting if I can’t. I honestly think adopting is better because there are so many kids in need of a good home. Still, part of me wishes and hopes I will be able to have children. However, I’ve faced the fact that I might not. There are lots of people who can’t reproduce. If the reproduction is the only point sex, should we just not bother with relationships. After all, if I don’t marry my boyfriend someday, he could go and reproduce with someone who is fertile.



report abuse
 

Steve

posted July 3, 2009 at 1:09 am


I’d like to hear some responses to these comments, David.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted July 3, 2009 at 1:21 am


Steve: certainly, and now that I’ve finished dinner I will try to do so.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted July 3, 2009 at 1:27 am


Chris, I don’t dislike Dan Savage, though I could do without the gross references to me in his blog. I’ve only reflected on material about him that he chooses to write about. I do not and would not speculate about things he chooses to keep quiet about — which would be very little in his case. I do think that men, on the whole, are grosser beings than women and that men without women is a combination fraught with the danger of animalism. Dan is a somewhat well known gay activist — or I could be wrong about that, maybe he’s not well known at all. In any event, he sets himself up as a spokesman and he’s taken as such at least by people who read his blog and his newspaper. So I’m entitled to generalize a bit.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted July 3, 2009 at 1:35 am


Hello Skye, if you’re being sincere when you say that what I wrote hurt your feelings, then I apologize. I was careful, however, to write about the “normative value linking sex with reproduction.” Normative means it’s the norm. It doesn’t mean that if your life happens not to work out that way, it’s your fault. This is about what our culture deems to be the usual, expected course: that sex is associated with the possibility of giving life. Many an “infertile” heterosexual couple has been surprised by pregnancy and the birth of a child. This happens not infrequently *after* a first child has been adopted. Strange, isn’t it? But the homosexual model is not merely infertile — it’s sterile by definition. That tells you something, I think.



report abuse
 

Cassie C

posted July 3, 2009 at 1:39 am


Dan is hardly the only ‘spokesman’ of gay activism. I can also think of Joe Solmonese (controversial head of HRC), Andrew Sullivan (conservative Catholic journalist), Mel White (evangelical minister and founder of SoulForce), Barney Frank– and that’s just the old white gay men! It is close-minded and immature to assert that you can generalize about a people that includes so many different public figures.
Some of the kindest and wisest men I have ever known have been gay. To say that their sexual behavior is harming me as a woman strikes me as utterly absurd. I do not need to be protected by straight men who think they know what’s best for me.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted July 3, 2009 at 1:44 am


Shoshannah, I don’t know how old you are but I would guess that you are quite young. I can’t speak for your boyfriend though I find his peacefulness at the thought of your being with other men quite strange. Not to be judgmental or anything, but that’s unusual in a man, to put mildly. In any event, when you get a little older and think about having kids, you will want to have a man sticking by you as you do and beyond. Countless women have been terribly hurt when, after starting a family, their husband decided he could find a younger version and exited the marriage. I don’t know women in open marriages but I do know women who were wounded this way, along with their children, when the man they were married to decided he deserved a fresh face. When you get to be old enough to know better, you’ll know what I mean.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted July 3, 2009 at 1:47 am


Cassie, do you seriously think that monogamy is the expected norm and ideal among gay men in the same way it is among heterosexuals of either gender? Neither of us needs Dan to inform us, as he does, that that’s not true.



report abuse
 

Kathleen

posted July 3, 2009 at 2:32 am


I had previously assumed that the Gov of South Carolina was monogamous. I still know that it’s none of my business what goes on in someone else’s marriage.
As for your article, I am the mother of a son who is gay. He very much wants the right to civil marriage. He also plans on being monogamous. I sincerely hope that he will do better than the average straight couple has done on both accounts.
David, in the golden age of the treatment of women that you think any woman with a brain in her head should long for, physical and sexual abuse of ones wife were legal. Have you not heard of equal pay? Does paid maternity leave ring a bell?
So, please, spare me the gay panic and the insult of saying that I am more foolish than you are about this issue because I am a woman. I understand how threatened you feel about this but that is no excuse to insult women.



report abuse
 

Mika

posted July 3, 2009 at 2:42 am


Dear David,
It seems like you intend to ignore me until eternity, but I’ll point out some things anyway.
“things he [Dan Savage] chooses to keep quiet about — which would be very little in his case.”
Wrong. Dan never talks about his kid’s personal life, and consistently goes to great efforts to keep DJ out of the public eye. Dan never talks about the details of his married life with Terry, only the scores of years they’ve been together and the fact that they are (consensually, rarely, and within strict boundaries) non-monogamous. Despite two separate offers to cash in with a reality TV show, Dan has insisted on his family’s privacy.
“But the homosexual model is not merely infertile — it’s sterile by definition.”
Believe it or not, lesbian women can have children – and often do, whether it’s through in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, or an isolated act of procreative sex. Gay men also often become fathers through surrogate mothers. LGBT individuals of all varieties can adopt and make excellent parents. Unless you’re saying that needing help getting pregnant makes someone a lesser human being, or that adoptive parents are inferior to biological parents, you have no call to criticize homosexual couples on that account.
“Not to be judgmental or anything, but that [acceptance of an open relationship] is unusual in a man, to put mildly.”
Why even add the “not to be judgmental” if you’re going to follow it with a wildly close-minded and ignorant stereotype? Dear lord, David, please get out into the world and educate yourself about the most basic variations of human sexuality before you make such an idiotic statement. Cuckolding fetishes. Swingers’ parties. Open relationships. Polyamory. These things are NOT rare, they’re hardly limited to young people, and they have existed for a very long time. Read some literature about the philosophy of consensual polyamory before you make sweeping generalizations about something totally outside your sphere of existence.
“When you get to be old enough to know better, you’ll know what I mean.”
Could you be ANY more condescending and absolutely dismissive of a woman’s point of view on her OWN sexuality? It is HER sex life. Not yours. You have no right to tell her she’s wrong. You don’t get to dictate her body and her desires! Aaaauuugh! Do you REALLY not see what a chauvinistic, cave-dwelling, misogynist, anti-feminist jerk you are? I think you are more sexist than you are homophobic, and that is saying a LOT.
If you reply to this, I would still like to see your defense to the charges of misogyny and re-writing history that I brought up above. And the theological issues I brought up on the post “On Testing and Temptations.” And the logical issues I brought up on the post “How Women Will Be Hurt by Gay Marriage: A Postscript.” But I’m guessing you won’t.



report abuse
 

Kathleen

posted July 3, 2009 at 2:51 am


Regarding your answer to Sonya, I see that infertility is yet another topic you know very little about yet that does not stop you from repeating decades old sterotypes as if they were facts.
“Pregnancy rates for infertile couples who adopt children are the same as for infertile couples who do not adopt children. A certain number of spontaneous pregnancies do occur in couples presumed sterile, but their association … with any other relaxing change in the environment is likely to be coincidental.” -Stone, Ethel, Biology of Women [Delmar Publishing, 2001]



report abuse
 

a woman who much prefers non-heterosexual men

posted July 3, 2009 at 3:19 am


“Girls and women were hurt by males with increasing and heartbreaking frequency as the Sexual Adventurist Code of Values was progressively adopted since the 1960s as the norm among heterosexual males.”
Yes – because before 1906, men NEVER hurt women.



report abuse
 

a woman who much prefers non-heterosexual men

posted July 3, 2009 at 3:20 am


I mean 1960.
damn typos.



report abuse
 

Not Impressed

posted July 3, 2009 at 4:03 am


‘Imagine a man and a woman, of impeccably heterosexual tastes, with an open marriage on the Dan Savage model. Every woman with a brain in her head knows that in such a relationship, she’s likely to be the one who gets hurt’
and while I am swallowing that argument, shall I go back to the kitchen, take of my shoes, and buy myself a hat because it will cheer me up?
Please give women the benefit of assuming that they are on an equal footing with men, and do men the same favour: women are capable of making their own decisions – if a women decides to open up her relationship, whose business of anyones is that except hers and her partners (male or female)? And how is it that we are apparently so small and defenseless that we are bound, destined in fact, to be hurt more by this arrangement then men? (which of course presumes that anyone is going to get hurt in this situation, when there are plenty of happy non-monogamous couples out there, just as there are many monogamous miserable ones). Don’t you think we ‘poor, helpless, defenseless women’ can make our own decisions, can calculate the risks, can decide for ourselves what is best for us???
Men can be just as hurt by any relationship constellation as women, and vice versa. Please stop defending us until you can see us as people, with the same ability to love or hurt someone as everyone else.



report abuse
 

Annie

posted July 3, 2009 at 4:26 am


Dear David,
Do me and every other woman in the world a favour, and stop couching u’r arguments behind the idea that you are protecting us women. thousands of years of being protected by men didn’t do us much good and we aren’t particularly eager to give back the reins to our own souls particularly now that we’ve just begun to control of our own hearts, minds and souls… and bodies.
as much as i would like to adhere to the classic model of romance and marriage being, monogamous, until death do us part. love each other and no one else. lets face the fact that as a whole, we aren’t particularly good at it and i am DAMN certain that i’d rather be in an honest, loving, polyamorous relationship then end up the bitter angry spouse of someone who’s cheating and lying to me. i suppose that’s just me, and perhaps i’m a minority but it still serves to point out to you that you might want to think twice before lumping us women together and assuming we are all tender kittens in need of care.



report abuse
 

matt

posted July 3, 2009 at 4:28 am


Have you even bothered to examine the Countries/states where gay marriage has been legal for many years now? Are the men all doing each other in Canada, Massachusetts, and Sweden? Oh wait, actually they have lower divorce rates than anywhere in the South. When will these holy rollers learn that strong families results from financial security, not gov’t mandated morality…



report abuse
 

Gemma

posted July 3, 2009 at 5:11 am


Allow me to chime in with Shoshannah inasmuch as I would, at least, prefer an open relationship at this point in time. Mr Klinghoffer, your entreaties to heterosexual women may be well-meaning, but speaking as a (pretty much) Kinsey zero, you seem completely misguided to me.
Also, note that, contrary to your reply to Shoshannah (“In any event, when you get a little older and think about having kids, you will want to have a man sticking by you as you do and beyond”), an open relationship can (and should) involve “sticking by” your partner.
This comment is interesting: “I can’t speak for your boyfriend though I find his peacefulness at the thought of your being with other men quite strange.” I think it highlights one of the differences between an ‘open’ relationship and cheating on or abandoning your spouse. A man who wants an open relationship will almost inevitably have to offer the same privilege to his partner. I think you’re right that there will always be men, as well as women, who don’t want this, and who will choose monogamy instead. Perhaps the slide into universal open relationships won’t happen as quickly as you think.
In negotiating relationships, however, people really do need to be able to talk: about a desire for monogamy or for an open relationship, about the sort of sex they want, things they are afraid might happen, things that hurt, things that feel good — everything. That’s why I disagree with your fear that we will lose “3) any concept of modesty where private expressions of passion are kept private”. It’s true that, theoretically, a couple can learn to talk about these things to each other even if they would never speak about them to others. In practice, however, it so often doesn’t work that way. Communication is crucial in all relationships, but it is particularly crucial to sexual relationships. If sex is a completely taboo subject of conversation in public, then for many people it will also become taboo in private. This is a tragedy. It’s far better to talk about these things openly in general.



report abuse
 

blondegirl

posted July 3, 2009 at 6:11 am


Just FYI, I’ve been in a successful non-monogamous marriage for…oh, about SIXTEEN YEARS. I suppose now you’re going to tell me that my happiness and sexual contentment are a figment of my imagination? Go on now, tell us all about how your life experience with non-monogamy has made you such an expert on it- I can’t WAIT! This is gonna be GOOD.



report abuse
 

Pripaus

posted July 3, 2009 at 6:27 am


Just out of curiousity, how much increased traffic have you had since Dan Savage originally posted a link to your blog?
And would that have anything to do with this need you have to continue to cultivate a feud with him?
If so, I will respect the business sense of such a move, although ethically I would find it questionable. But at least do someone who is helping promote your blog the honour of posting reciprical links. It is simple courtesy. (Not that I really expect such courtesy from you).



report abuse
 

praesta

posted July 3, 2009 at 6:36 am


I’m getting tired of those in the posts who try to insinuate that David, or anybody, is gay. Just because someone makes a series of arguments supporting traditional marriage and gender roles does not necessarily mean they are homosexual. That “argument” is childish at best.
I am homosexual (not ‘gay’, I don’t identify with activism), and I agree with some of David’s remarks. I have met monogamous gay couples and men who are in open relationships. Ditto heterosexual couples. But monogamy is not the real question. “Sterility” is, as David has pointed out.
The ability of a man and a woman to unite and create life is one of the fundamental “awesome things” of orthodox Christianity and Judaism. In a “sterile” relationship no amount of sex will elevate the couple to participators in Creation. That cannot happen within the context of a gay relationship. I’m rather envious of those who procreate, even if having children is difficult and burdensome for many and many children are born into difficult situations. Life is created nevertheless, and that is powerful in itself.



report abuse
 

Alex Cheney

posted July 3, 2009 at 9:02 am


You still don’t get it. You yourself are treating women like they are not smart enough to decide what they want. If a woman wants to be in a monogamous relationship, then she will be. Yes, some men cheat on women, but many women do the cheating also. Many women are also perfectly happy with open relationships. Women do not need men to govern and protect them like you suggest. Are you really saying that straight men won’t be able to resist cheating on their wives, if gay men have open relationships. Isn’t that really something you (straight guys) should work on. Hey, if I see someone robbing a store and I rob a store later on, does that get me off with out being charged? Hey I saw that guy rob that store, so I want to? I don’t think so. By the way you “appear” to have resisted the homosexual temptations, do you really think all the other straight people are so bellow you, that they won’t be able to. That is the problem I am finding with many Christians and why your losing this battle. You don’t face the truth. People are flawed, and to always demand perfection and go against what comes normal, is truly what is unnatural. I agree we should try to prevent teens from having sex, but they are going to. That is the point of sex-ed class. It doesn’t promote sex at a young age, it promotes knowing what to do for the good percent of teens who will. Monogamous relationships are great, if thats what you and your partner want. But if one partner doesn’t want it, they shouldn’t be together unless one is willing to be unhappy. So many straight people I know are unhappy in their relationships because they cannot talk. If they truly told each other what they desired or wanted, they fear their partner would leave them. Thats why same-sex relationships are so open. Not because we are sex crazy freaks, but because once you tell the world you like a member of the same sex, your not scared to be yourself and to drop the shackles that right wing society tries to place on you. As you guys always try to say, we the homosexuals, are only a small part of the population, so who is really responsible for open relationships? You guys, the heterosexual population. Clean out your own backyard before you come after mind.



report abuse
 

Alex Cheney

posted July 3, 2009 at 9:11 am


Ok, I was just thinking about something else? Let me see if I have this correct. You claim homosexuality is a choice? But for some reason, it is our fault if straight men cheat on their wives? Isn’t cheating obviously a choice? Huh?



report abuse
 

canary

posted July 3, 2009 at 10:46 am


To add to the record started by blondegirl (who I was very happy to see as the first post): I am a female in a monogamous relationship, and I am the partner who wants to open the relationship. We haven’t because we both know that my boy couldn’t handle it; HE would get hurt. I, on the other hand, dealt with my jealousy and trust issues in past relationships, and understand that sex with other people in no way lessens the true intimacy of a loving relationship – an intimacy that needn’t focus on the physical.



report abuse
 

canary

posted July 3, 2009 at 10:49 am


Shoot! I forgot to also add that I truly believe that when you blame heterosexual men’s mistreatment of women on gay men, all you are doing is giving the heterosexuals a scapegoat. They make their own choices.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 3, 2009 at 10:50 am


Reb Klinghoffer, I would not say that anger is the overriding emotion to those responding to your columns. Rather, the immediate, visceral response is disbelief at the misinformed conclusions you are espousing here.
I am sure that some queer folks are quite surprised to see themselves cited as pioneers in sexual adventurism. As you have shown yourself to be a fan of Classical literature, you are no doubt familiar with Ovid’s “Ars Amatoria”, an instruction manual for young people on things erotic. Though its sections aimed at women are in fact quite prescriptive of marriage, its advice for young men is, shall we say, not nearly so evocative of monogamy.
Admitted, the inherent biological sterility of homosexual relationships has preempted one of the basic inducements to monogamy among queer folks. So too, however, has the utter absence of any formal recognition of queer committed relationships. Surely you recall our shared history of exclusion from “mainstream” society, being forced to live in ghettos, being liable to expulsion at the fiat of the ruling body, and, most relevant, having our honor disrespected to the extent that we were considered inherently untrustworthy and incapable of entering into binding contracts? Has not the full emancipation of Jews in the West strengthened our society, sir?
Is it not reasonable, then, to presume that legalized queer marriage will STRENGTHEN the call to committment that you espouse in your column? Is it not reasonable to presume that married gay male couples, committed by legal definition to building a commonly-held estate, would make fine adoptive parents, and therefore fine alternatives to abortion which you so vociferously abhor? Is it not reasonable to presume that full inclusion of queer people in the American covenant will strenghten that covenant, rather than weaken it by leaving unstitched seams at its margins?
A little learning, Reb Klinghoffer, is a dangerous thing. Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring. There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.



report abuse
 

Stuthehistoryguy

posted July 3, 2009 at 10:55 am


And I do regret not signing above. My scapegoat is my browser’s refresh function; queer folks had nothing to do with it.



report abuse
 

Diana

posted July 3, 2009 at 11:28 am


Mr. Klinghoffer, you’re a man who has nothing to do with the truth of Jesus Christ, as far as I can see; you seem to be about bigotry and condemantion. Your notions are so full of holes that I wonder where you get them. Some have suggested your anti-gay stance could be an attempt to cover up what you fear in yourself. I hope not, but that cause does tend to foster the worst homophobia. Women will obviously NOT be hurt by gay marriage. Homosexual orientation is not a choice; whatever its cause may be, heredity or environment, I doubt anyone would choose it. I have seen several of my friends’ marriages come apart when their husbands left them for other men. (And one of them had indeed thrown up a convincing smokescreen of anti-gay rhetoric for years!) Wouldn’t it have been better if those men had never felt pressured by society to marry women in the first place? Straight men don’t “turn gay.” People like you are always shouting about the “natural order,” but it seems to me that God must like a LOT of variety. We’re all so different from each other, more so than any animal species. Although, a friend of mine suggests that all religious differences boil down to “my imaginary friend is real and yours is not.” He may be right. When I see the wrong done in Christ’s name, I really and truly wonder.



report abuse
 

Cassie C

posted July 3, 2009 at 12:28 pm


Klinghoffer-
I am speaking from my own experience being involved in queer-straight groups and counting numerous gay men among my close friends and family. Whatever their commonplace sexual behavior, most if not all gay men I have known wish for a monogamous relationship. You, sir, are using the example of ONE gay man, and whatever statistics you think support your idea. Tell me, David- how many gay men do you know? How many of them have you befriended, loved, and actually asked what their relationship goals are?



report abuse
 

Number One

posted July 3, 2009 at 12:40 pm


BTW, I am a woman in an open relationship with my male partner of 5 years. We have also both been sexually celibate for the last two years, even with each other. We get off in other ways than having sex- toys, massages, etc. We both have many Gay, Boi, Fag, Twink, Bear, Femme, Dyke, Lez, Bi, Androgynous, Trans, Gender-Bending, and Queer friends, who are some of the nicest and most righteous people I know.



report abuse
 

David Klinghofer

posted July 3, 2009 at 12:43 pm


A reminder to readers: I very much appreciate your comments including those that strongly disagree with me. However, I will unpublish anything that contains vulgar, obscene, or abusive language.



report abuse
 

Number One

posted July 3, 2009 at 12:45 pm


Wow, did you really delete my comment? You should leave it up as it speaks the truth. Please don’t censer my ideas simply because you disagree with them.
“the very same sexual culture that fed the animalism of the boys who hurt Monique is the culture that Savage seeks to advance”
Are you kidding me? So 14 and 15 yr old adolescent straight boys who think with their pricks are the group that Savage wishes to advance? Let us go under the assumption these teen boys grew up in homes with a het mom and dad. They grew up likely in the 90′s, full on MTV generation. No gay shows, no LOGO channel, no strong gay role models for these boys ANYWHERE on tv in the 90′s (with the exception of Will and Grace, and the men on that show treated the women characters like Goddesses!) Teen boys (and many men) have been breaking hearts for not just years or decades, but for centuries, so what in the heck do you mean when you say that Dan is seeking to advance ‘the very same sexual culture’? What ‘animalism’ do you speak of? Do you mean that ‘passion of the loins’ which God supposedly gave to men to drive them to procreate (leading to the ownership and rape of women), or that “Roman” animalism in which you say that given a choice a man would chose to be with another man instead of a woman (which, as you have said, “historical precedent…” (of ROME!? lol) “…suggests that tomorrow’s women will have a harder time finding and holding on to suitable men”. Is that it? Your arguments get more and more outlandish, its almost as if you need that fear of a slippery slope- it plays well on the traditional xenophobia of many evangelicals.



report abuse
 

Number One

posted July 3, 2009 at 12:51 pm


Please don’t delete my comment for the third time, as it is only my opinion. Censoring people’s ideas is something that is silly.
“the very same sexual culture that fed the animalism of the boys who hurt Monique is the culture that Savage seeks to advance”
Are you kidding me? So 14 and 15 yr old adolescent straight boys who think with their (censored) are the group that Savage wishes to advance?
Let us go under the assumption these teen boys grew up in homes with a het mom and dad. They grew up likely in the 90′s, full on MTV generation. No gay shows, no LOGO channel, no strong gay role models for these boys ANYWHERE on tv in the 90′s (with the exception of Will and Grace, and the men on that show treated the women characters like Goddesses!)
Teen boys (and many men) have been breaking hearts for not just years or decades, but for centuries, so what in the world do you mean when you say that Dan is seeking to advance ‘the very same sexual culture’? What ‘animalism’ do you speak of?
Do you mean that ‘passion of the loins’ which God supposedly gave to men to drive them to procreate, leading to the ownership and rape of women, or do you mean that “Roman” animalism, in which you say that given a choice, a man would chose to be with another man instead of a woman (which, as you have said, “historical precedent (?) suggests that tomorrow’s women will have a harder time finding and holding on to suitable men”. Is that it?
Your arguments get more and more outlandish, its almost as if you need that fear of a slippery slope- it plays well on the traditional xenophobia of many evangelicals.
BTW, I am a woman in an open relationship with my male partner of 5 years. We have also both been sexually celibate for the last two years, even with each other. We get off in other ways than having sex- toys, massages, etc. We both have many Gay, Boi, Fag, Twink, Bear, Femme, Dyke, Lez, Bi, Androgynous, Trans, Gender-Bending, and Queer friends, who are some of the nicest and most righteous people I know.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted July 3, 2009 at 12:57 pm


Number One, any opinion here is fine. I don’t “censor” anyone’s opinion. I only try to keep the threads clear of vulgar etc. language so that anyone visiting can feel comfortable reading.



report abuse
 

Mr. E

posted July 3, 2009 at 1:24 pm


So, what exactly is the ‘Dan Savage Model?’ So what if they have sex outside of the relationship on occasion? They’re being honest with each other about it, and realistic. How many hetero couples have gone down in flames because of the dishonesty about sex? And are you really suggesting that straight men somehow look up to gay men and want to model their relationships after theirs? Seriously?
And since when did women allow you to speak on their behalf? It’s straight me who hurt straight women. Not gay men.



report abuse
 

Emily

posted July 3, 2009 at 4:28 pm


How about the impact on women from Christian culture? From American culture? Women are, and will always be, susceptible to pain in relationships. People cheat, gay or straight, man or woman. What is important is that we learn how to take care of ourselves and stand up for what we want from a relationship. That is what Dan Savage taught ‘Monique’ to do.



report abuse
 

Henrietta22

posted July 3, 2009 at 4:58 pm


I only know of two gay marriages and they are completely monogamous. They have been together for twenty and eighteen yrs. They were married before the Prop 8 mess in CA. I know of many more heterosexual marriages over my husbands and my 56 yrs. of marriage that used their marriages in the way you are accusing the Gay men of doing. It’s a good try but it doesn’t hold up.



report abuse
 

paulied

posted July 3, 2009 at 5:00 pm


By your argument, then, lesbian marriage must be the most sucessful, far removed from the animalistic tendencies of men. So, can they be legal?



report abuse
 

DavidF

posted July 3, 2009 at 6:11 pm


This is truly a fascinating bit of reading. On a Beliefnet blog, religious Jew David Klinghoffer is besieged by a bevy of gay activists and like-minded secularists secure in their faith that it is Klinghoffer who is queer and bigoted. The wisdom of only a few short decades ago has been trashed in favor of a new ethic that elevates the gay activist to a new standing as High Priest and trashes the tried and true, the moral and the eloquent–as hopelessly dysfunctional. A few short decades ago, homosexuality was widely considered to be a mental condition while today it is celebrated as the most honest and balanced way to achieve the most wholesome kind of committed marital bliss. We have quickly gone from “Father Knows Best” to Gay Harold and his Lover must be married in order to save the marital unit from collapse.
Concerning much of what David K has suggested– I am pleased to give gneral agreement with some amendments. I would not be quick to blame gay activism on the collapse of marital standards but it is clear that gay activism has played a role in harming the standing of women in our culture. I am pleased to mix it up a bit with some of David K’s female detractors who have taken offense at the suggestion that femininity can be harmed by changed morality. Of course women have been harmed and it is always shocking to listen to women who claim such pleasure in the supposed joys of sexual adventurism. In this respect, I am quick to join David K in suggesting that these women are not merely abandoning their best interests as women and taking up the worst behavior of men–they are explicitly following the ranks of homosexual men.
Heterosexuals sympathetic to gay activism have encouraged this trend. Howard Stern and Patti Kaplan love to highlight the supposed pleasures of sexual fun and games. On his TV show, Howard Stern exploits women non-stop. They all admit to engaging in both anal intercourse and lesbianism. Any young sexualized woman who is not prone to these two predilections is literally booed off the stage on the Howard Stern show. Men are gleeful and women take note.
Our whole culture has been changed and yet there is a clear price to be paid for the sexual freedom. Women have downgraded their standing in this society to a significant extent so that instead of featuring and admiring active, educated whole women–our culture celebrates the whorish, single woman who–like Shoshannah can easily satisfy her sexual needs in the style of a gay man. It is no manner of paternalism to see this kind of activity as problematic.



report abuse
 

Damien

posted July 3, 2009 at 6:18 pm


You are not helping your case against gay marriage by linking it to nonmonogamy, which has pervaded heterosexual culture (including many positive Biblical examples) since its origin. Despite a few states’ remaining consitutionally iffy adultery laws (see Lawrence v. Texas), our government does not mandate that marriages be monogamous, “domestic”, or forbid “adventurism”. As for Dan: are you saying that simply by BEING a gay public figure who claims to be nonmonogamous he is somehow encouraging 14-year old heterosexual boys to be “jerks” to their girlfriends? And how would this impact compare to the impact of parents, real-life situations, or even anything else a teenager might find on the internet? Both you and Dan seem to have a strong interest in women not getting hurt by men. His approach seems to be encouraging women to take charge of their relationships, decide what they want & go after it while refusing situations that aren’t working for them. Based on this article, it appears that your approach is to try to change the world around them based on your personal experience with what does and does not make women happy, so that women don’t need to make these kinds of choices. I understand that the gut-level scare tactics here don’t really have to make logical sense- if your audience is already one who finds homosexuality illegitimate, it’s probably a safe bet you’ll find plenty who agree that nonmonogamy is also similarly “dangerous”- but it doesn’t mean that there is actual evidence to back up these armchair speculations.



report abuse
 

Scott R.

posted July 3, 2009 at 6:51 pm


Mr. Klinghoffer, you’re a man who has nothing to do with the truth of Jesus Christ, as far as I can see…When I see the wrong done in Christ’s name, I really and truly wonder.
As a Jew, I would have to say that I would hope David Klinghoffer – another Jew – has absolutely nothing to do with the “truth” of JC. I disagree with everything he has posted on this topic, but I’m thankful he isn’t doing anything “in Christ’s name”.



report abuse
 

sfdj

posted July 3, 2009 at 8:11 pm


Yawn. You’ve lost, can’t you see?



report abuse
 

Kathleen

posted July 3, 2009 at 9:11 pm


I came here as a reader to share with you how your words were insulting to women, insulting to me as a mother of a gay son.
I am speaking to you parent to parent. I am speaking to you as one of the woman you so comfortably dismiss as “foolish.”
You are speaking of keeping the language free from things vulgar and obscene.
How can you not understand how vulgar and obscene I find your language about my son?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 4, 2009 at 2:52 am


The country and most of western society has moved on in respects to the gay issue and left David in their dust. He is on the wrong side of histroy on this issue. It is no wonder that the republican party is going the way of the whigs. When you insult a gay person you are not just insulting him. You are insulting his family and friends also. With every day/month/year that passes, homosexuality is becoming more and more a fact of life and less an abomination. Moreover,when neocons talk about monogamy, they do so as an ideal. The public has been disappointed to often at the hypocracy of those who preach monogamy and then get caught with their pants down. There is no reason to believe that David is any differant. It is only a matter of time until he has his own bimbo eruption. Unfortunatly it will never make headlines because no one knows who Klinghoffer is. I think that he is picking this fight so he can ride Dan’s coat tails to notoriety.



report abuse
 

Vulgarian

posted July 4, 2009 at 3:40 am


If one looks at the picture of the Kling on this site you could get the false impression that he is kind of hot and rather waspy looking. Well…not so much. He looks much more jewey in reality. I’d sure hate to be the woman who has to have those fish lips all over her body. Here is a more accurate picture. not for the faint of heart:
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/authphoto_330/15943_klinghoffer_david.jpg



report abuse
 

Darrell Perry

posted July 4, 2009 at 10:33 am


I tried to follow the logic of this piece and yet it has, alas, escaped me. Denying equal rights to another group because many of its members openly espouse open conversations about the complexity of human relationships is simply not fair. The Clintons, the Sanfords, the Spitzers are not anomalies. They are human. Sexual fidelity and monogamy are ideals, fine ideals that take work, communication, faith and commitment. But they are not human norms and certainly not an excuse for unequal treatment before the law.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 4, 2009 at 11:03 am


Hello! Do we yet hold antediluvian precepts? Does someone take Job’s offering of his daughters to the men of Sodom that those men might not violate guests in his house ? Does a woman (or man) troubled by a consensually open relationship not confide in her friends? At least one might do the sensible thing and recommend a competent therapist.
Those that have experienced personal anguish inflicted by some of mankind may be forgiven a personal insult – in response to a sufficient stimulus. One may instead grow weary of those that insist on remaining still while the world turns and Creation expands!
Please note that if we wish all to progress then we must progress, ourselves. Please at least try not to resort to ancient delusions when responding to another’s error (this addresses the nomenclature “Jewie (?)” as well as “liver lips”. We may as well read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and not know that it’s merely anti-Semitic propaganda. A lighter note: If one seeks propaganda, listen to a successful politician – then, if one lives in a republic and votes, go to the nearest mirror.



report abuse
 

Gavriella

posted July 4, 2009 at 12:30 pm


All this nonsense from a man who relegates his own wife to the back of the room when he prays, so she won’t cause him sexual distraction. And the Orthodox men were mystified that I walked out of an atmosphere where I was hidden away behind a curtain, forbidden to say certain prayers, and valued only for womb service. I can’t believe we were born on the same planet.
My first husband drank to excess, cheated repeatedly with any woman with a pulse, and lost no opportunity to remind me of my wifely duty. I asked him to give me a get, which he refused. I left after 3 years, get or no get.
My current husband is the opposite. We have a true partnership in our marriage, two children, and a beautiful grandson. He has always pitched in right along with me, whether it was washing dishes, making beds, or policing the litter box. After 39 years of marriage, we are still on our honeymoon. Of course, since I never was given a get by my first husband, I am living in sin, according to your self-righteous precepts.
And so is my friend, a gay woman with whom I’ve been friends since high school. Her first monogamous relationship lasted 20 years, until her partner died of cancer. After 20 years of love, she was not allowed in the hospital room, and was barred from the funeral. She has now been in another monogamous relationship for nearly 16 years. They hope to get married on July 29th, their 16th anniversary. But of course, according to your precepts, they too are living in sin and causing harm to someone – I don’t know to whom. Would each of them be happier married to a man? I doubt it – they both were. My friend has a son nearing 50 and several adoring grandchildren who call her partner “grammy”.
It’s time to start living in the real world, not the world as you want it to be. We are what we are, and with your stuffy old orthodox ideas, I think Hashem is laughing up His sleeve.
Gavriella



report abuse
 

Crystie

posted July 4, 2009 at 12:33 pm


This internal nature of men and women, if we are created by a divine Creator, goes back farther than Adam and Eve. It must begin before we are born, as there is an eternal significance to everything on earth. If those who seek to normalize homosexual and lesbian activities as well as so-called same-sex marriage and who claim they were “born that way” would please explain to me when they actually recall being created to have such tendencies, I would be glad to study what they say they remember. However, they would run counter to what I remember from the time before we were born, which, limited as it is, cements my position firmly in the camp of chastity, fidelity, and monogamy, no matter how much sympathy I may have for those who feel frustrated at not having a successful heterosexual marriage and who have wandered off in search of what they term to be “happiness.” It has nothing to do with “rights,” but rather, what is the essential order and nature of men and women, both apart from and as part of this physical world. A thousand articles by well-educated writers still cannot refute nor eradicate the internal, essential nature of the spirits of men and women.



report abuse
 

Gary Schrag

posted July 4, 2009 at 12:47 pm


Since you brought up Sodom, let me remind you of what the Prophet Ezekiel said was what went wrong at Sodom. “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.
- Ezekiel 16:49
My suggestion is that you turn your obcession to these concerns and be truly faithful to your tradition and mine.
Gary



report abuse
 

Liberty

posted July 4, 2009 at 1:20 pm


I remain undecided about your theory on how Gay marriage harms women. However, should homosexual activity, lifestyle and marriage be an affair of state? I beleive in consitutional freedom. While I support for decreasing government control of our lives, including policing against Gay marriage, I do not wish to see it in my religious insitution. I am undecided how I would respond to a personal invitation to such a life cycle event. Howver, I do not need government arresting participants and officiating government officials.
While I disagree with our body politic’s declination to legalize such marriages. It has to be done through elected officials as opposed to activists judges to maintain the system. Same sex marriage is constitutional, and yet, its consitutional not to enact favorable legistlation in that regard. But its not consitutional for judges to render decisions against due processed legistlation. and thus, those of us who support Gay marriage in a consitutionally kosher government should have to forfeit for a while until society is ready for it.
The other cause for concern is the over protection of today’s liberated, left wing and perversly militant female population. As radical feminism obliterates the qualaity of life of heterosexual males, we chivalry only increases as oppposed to decreasing. A man protecting women is quite a strange obsession for what has become an over privlidged group.
As for protecting women, we have to examine that in the face of the Muslim religious extremist threat, why are the bulk of Western women still under your miguided protection still left wing? The body politic of homosexuals is less obvious than the neo-nation of “women,” we can track gender trends, but not private sexual proclivities; annd gay activists may not be a proper sampling of the the actual homosexual community. I have to beleive that there are Gay peole with other concerns religious, professional, family etc that obsessing on their sexuality and therefore we do not know who these people are or how many. But the bulk of the organized Gay community is also, oddly enough left wing. After all, when the Muslims take over due to our lack of defense and viglience , there will be no feminism, no women’s right to choose and no Gay marriage.
Its a sexual proclivity that had to develop to replace the influence of the obliterated Western patriarchal influence in society. the dominance they crave might be a bit more than they are barganing for.
in the interim, I say win lose or draw, lets allow societal culture to make determinations on morality as opposed to governmental dictation. Power to the people!



report abuse
 

windbender

posted July 4, 2009 at 1:34 pm


The less sophistocated a culture is, the more likely it is to view its women a cattle and homosexuality as aborrent. It is that under-developed mentality that leads to both the disrespect of women and the fear of gays because it lacks the ability to see intimacy in any context outside the single focus of reproduction.



report abuse
 

windbender

posted July 4, 2009 at 1:36 pm


“…to view it women as cattle and homosexuality as abhorrent…”
sorry.



report abuse
 

Heretic_for_Christ

posted July 4, 2009 at 3:41 pm


I’ve read Dan Savage’s commentaries from time to time. I don’t always agree with him, but then, I don’t always agree with anyone. But I think it is misleading to characterize him as rejecting conventional values such as monogamy; my reading of his commentaries is that he thinks monogamy is fine for those who choose to live that way, but he doesn’t want other ways of living in relationships to be demonized and criminalized. Also, as a heterosexual male, I reject Mr. Klinghofer’s assertion that male sexuality is “animalistic” in a homosexual relationship. Some people can be in committed and loving relationships and others cannot; it depends on the person, not the person’s gender or the sexual orientation.



report abuse
 

glorin18

posted July 4, 2009 at 5:05 pm


Plase do not MIX religion on to this debate and never mind Kosher read leviticus 18-22.



report abuse
 

Al Eastman

posted July 4, 2009 at 9:32 pm


SO MANY people leaping to defend the “gay” lifestyle, you’d think homosexuality is some sort of national treasure. I’m sure all my late co-workers who died rather unpleasant deaths due to the complications of AIDS didn’t think so as their ends drew near.



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted July 4, 2009 at 10:54 pm


David,
You really need to learn to distinguish reality from fantasy and stop telling people that you have the truth just because you want something to be that way.
The comments in your posts demolished your claims, yet you failed to respond to them and you failed to adjust your claims to show that you were corrected.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted July 5, 2009 at 2:31 am


Al Eastman: “SO MANY people leaping to defend the ‘gay’ lifestyle, you’d think homosexuality is some sort of national treasure. I’m sure all my late co-workers who died rather unpleasant deaths due to the complications of AIDS didn’t think so as their ends drew near.”
Because of course, no one ever got AIDS from blood transfusions, being raped, or being born to an infected mother. And not a single one of them was straight. Tell me: what’s it like living in 1989 for 20 years?



report abuse
 

Al Eastman

posted July 5, 2009 at 12:45 pm


Mordred08, of course people other than homosexuals contracted the HIV virus. Did I imply they didn’t? I’d hazard a guess that infection with HIV is a tad more prevalent among homosexuals than among straights. I cannot recall one straight co-worker contracting HIV, while I can think of at least a half-dozen homosexuals who did. Your meager attempt at pooh-poohing my comment is pathetic and juvenile.
Why not try to refute my opening sentence, “SO MANY people leaping to defend the ‘gay’ lifestyle, you’d think homosexuality is some sort of national treasure.” 9kan5



report abuse
 

Stephen Redman

posted July 5, 2009 at 1:30 pm


>
Many of us have gay friends and family. As Jacques Cousteau said, “People protect what they love.”



report abuse
 

Stephen Redman

posted July 5, 2009 at 1:39 pm


Hi David.
I don’t think Dan Savage is mad that you’re pointing out the truth.. In fact, he’s totally real.
Fifty percent of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. One of the leading cited causes is infidelity. His position on a degree of open-ness in his relationship is prudent, assuming that his relationship is like that of most heterosexual people.
Besides, there are plenty of open straight couples, as has been mentioned ad infinitum.
*Also, I think you sort of make Savage’s point for him. He’s a gay man! (The horror!) And yet, he’s really no different than most of us. Pointing out the extra bit (the open part) doesn’t really change the form of his argument… Since he’s still like many of us!
-Plus it ignores the fact that there are many gay people who are not in open relationships.. What of them? And what about lesbians? Oy…



report abuse
 

Thomas Shea

posted July 5, 2009 at 2:51 pm


The reason the logic here is so murky is because it doesn’t change the main question: is gay marriage right or wrong? And the answer, if god is love, is that is is right. Love is always right. Anybody arguing against gay marriage is exhibiting homophobia and bigotry, and when you try to degend bigotry, the logic starts getting arcane. I have asked the question over and over: how do two men or two women getting married negatively affect ANYONE else’s marriage? And since the answer is always a variation on: “I am a bigot, but let me see if scripture can help me explain my bias,” I have come to realize that all, or almost all homophobia is born of religious bigotry.



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted July 5, 2009 at 2:59 pm


SO MANY people leaping to defend the “gay” lifestyle, you’d think homosexuality is some sort of national treasure.
There is no single lifestyle that can be called gay, but that is inconvenient for your argument, so you have chosen to invent a strawman with that name.
I’m sure all my late co-workers who died rather unpleasant deaths due to the complications of AIDS didn’t think so as their ends drew near.
I blame the self-righteous heterosexuals who insisted that gays stay in the closet or get murdered by coming out. I blame the religious zealots who claim that AIDS is punishment from God. I blame religious leaders who insist on their interpretation of the Bible, an interpretation that says that God made gays to hate them. Life has changed since AIDS and most people appear to have realized that their own unexamined willingness to discriminate against gays was a major part of the problem.
Allowing same sex marriage is something that undercuts your strawman of the gay lifestyle, though, so I guess there will still be religious zealots out there who don’t care what happens, as long as they get to play church lady.



report abuse
 

judah

posted July 5, 2009 at 4:00 pm


you sure paint with a broad brush stroke – -
I would read the whole post and exchange, but anyone who characterizes and classifies people in such stereotypes, and obviously ignorant of the rainbow of different types of relationships in the gay or straight culture, holds no interest for me



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted July 5, 2009 at 4:12 pm


Al Eastman: “Mordred08, of course people other than homosexuals contracted the HIV virus. Did I imply they didn’t?”
The moment someone mentioned homosexuality, you started in about AIDS. So yeah, you did. For far too many ignorant people, “gay” is just an acronym for “got AIDS yet?”. And it takes a lot of effort to maintain such ignorance about the disease here in the 21st century. Good job.
“Why not try to refute my opening sentence, ‘SO MANY people leaping to defend the ‘gay’ lifestyle, you’d think homosexuality is some sort of national treasure.’”
What’s to refute? Homosexuality has a lot of defenders, from various races, religions, cultures, etc. around the world. And seeing as America’s greatest resource is its citizens, who believe in freedom, and are willing to fight for it, gays ARE a national treasure, no less so than straights. They work in our businesses, they protect our streets, they treat our diseases, and they fight (and die) for your freedom to demonize them in places you’ll hopefully never have to go. They stand up for me, so I’m going to stand up for them.



report abuse
 

your name

posted July 5, 2009 at 7:42 pm


Gays are a national treasure unlike Jews. This is because Jews are not of this nation. Their alligence is not to the the U.S., it is with Israel. They see Americans as usefull idiots joined in the cause of defending Israel. Beyond that, they have no use for this country.



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted July 5, 2009 at 8:05 pm


your name at July 5, 2009 7:42 PM managed to prove that he is ignorant and uninterested in any discussion. No doubt he is proud that no facts have managed to break through into his well-defended brain.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted July 5, 2009 at 9:28 pm


your name (July 5, 2009 7:42 PM), that comment may be more ridiculous than the gay=AIDS crap. The Jewish community in America has been one of our more important allies in the LGBT community’s struggle for equality. Not all Jewish people use the Torah as a blunt object to hit gays over the head with, just like not all Christians use the Old Testament for the same purpose.



report abuse
 

your name

posted July 5, 2009 at 11:00 pm


Mordred08, you just prove that Jewish activists like The Kling and yourself Get Mad When You Point Out the Truth.



report abuse
 

Al Eastman

posted July 6, 2009 at 2:10 pm


Quote from Mordred08 “For far too many ignorant people, “gay” is just an acronym for “got AIDS yet?”. And it takes a lot of effort to maintain such ignorance about the disease here in the 21st century. Good job.”
Thanks for cluing me in that “Gay” is an acronym. To those of us who have been “…living in 1989 for 20 years…” that is a new one. As for my ignorance of the disease, I mentioned I had several co-workers who succumbed to it. Your abject prejudice and lack of reading comprehension is appalling. Stick to comic books, they may be more suited to your limited intellectual capabilities. Adios… oops, I meant good bye. (I don’t want to confuse you any more than you already are.)



report abuse
 

Playful Minx

posted July 6, 2009 at 8:33 pm


So women aren’t interested in variety? Wow, I’d better tell that to my ex-boyfriend who couldn’t handle his girl enjoying more than just him every now and then. So annoying when you agree with someone on the whens, wheres, and whys for sleeping with someone else, and he gets all kinds of pissy when you do.



report abuse
 

intepid

posted July 6, 2009 at 11:00 pm


I’ve read the story of Lot; it’s one of the most twisted things in the Bible. He offered up his daughters to be raped. He later got drunk and slept with both of them after God killed his wife… oh and the incest was the daughter’s idea. How does this help make your point that men without women are bad?
“Imagine a man and a woman, of impeccably heterosexual tastes, with an open marriage on the Dan Savage model.” Sure, what of it? It seems better than the rather common model of secret infidelity leading to pain and heartbreak.



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted July 7, 2009 at 12:10 am


” Homosexual male culture is the way it is because it centers upon encounters between men and men alone. Everything that’s most animalistic about men when they are not in the company of women has an excellent opportunity to emerge to the fore.”
Wow, do you have a small view of gay relationships. Granted, I’ve run into a few people like this but the vast majority that I’ve met are nothing like this. I’ve met more gay men or are more civil to women and treat them more like a human being rather than some breading-play thing created by some god, for me.
I’d have to say your understanding of god is why such a thought process exists as one reads the Tanach and the New Testament; women are seen as essentially being chattel.
In dealing with human beings, you will find all sorts of people, ranging with all sorts of behavior. I take exception to your comment. You’re using an extremely broad brush.



report abuse
 

Derek

posted July 7, 2009 at 8:03 am


Rather than assert that gay marriage harms women, show me some stats. We legalized gay marriage here in Holland, and the only difference five years after the first legal gay marriage on the planet is that there’s a commerorative plaque up on the wall at city hall.
Marriage numbers are going down, but that’s a continuation of a trend (in fact, the rate is slowing down less quickly than it did in the 80s) – registered domestic partnerships are taking their place in a lot of cases.
You’re really a small-minded man, David.



report abuse
 

heidimarie

posted July 7, 2009 at 9:12 am


my insistence on an open relationship made my long-term sweetheart a little crazy, until he saw what it did for us. Making your heart big enough to contain joy for your partner’s pleasure, even when you are not the one in bed with him, is nothing short of transcendent – and i thank god (and i mean the same christian god, made manifest on earth in christ, that you do) for the gift of experiencing that much joy.
as for dan savage – he may not be infallible, but he has done more for heterosexual women’s pleasure, safety, and self esteem than all the priests, pastors and rabbis on the planet. had he been publishing when i came of age i would have been far less likely to put up with selfish dates who saw my shy nature as an easy sexual target.
if i believed in the notion of saints, i would canonize dan.



report abuse
 

heidimarie

posted July 7, 2009 at 9:34 am


oops, sorry, i didn’t realize that in reclaiming your judaism you had rejected christ (if that is what you have done – i can’t really tell and have no more time or inclination to look around your site) i assumed christian because your post was typical of christian points of view.



report abuse
 

Kess

posted July 7, 2009 at 10:34 am


I am a married woman and you don’t speak for me. My husband of several years and I love talking dirty about me getting with other guys, and I’ve done so twice. It was lots of fun, though these days we prefer theory to the practice. Contrary to your opinions he’s not interested in actually getting with other women, and the erotic interest in variety has been mine. Being able to share our fantasies instead of being shamed into silence is healthy and one of the cornerstones of our relationship – we took the Song of Songs to heart and rejoice in the physical part of our love. When we can talk comfortably about these ‘taboo’ fantasies I’m not too worried that he’s keeping other secrets.
Some men will take advantage of an opportunity to ‘legitimately stray’ and will bully their wives into letting them be with other women, but touting nothing but monogamy without any alternatives encourages irresponsibility and dishonesty in couples who might otherwise enjoy themselves and stay together, and relegates women who might otherwise be happy to positions like Governor Sanford’s wife.



report abuse
 

Joan

posted July 7, 2009 at 8:21 pm


Oh how cute- you’re trying to be all manly and stick up for the poor defenseless women against their sexual beasts of a husband/boyfriend.
We don’t need you to defend us. We can stick up for ourselves. Come back when you have a cogent argument supported by actual facts.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 7, 2009 at 10:30 pm


“if Savage’s dreams of men marrying men come true”
Sadly, like so many on the delusional ‘religious’ ‘right’, you continue to type in the wrong tense. Men are already marrying men, and have been able to legally marry men since January 14th, 2001.
Men can marry men (and women can marry women) in several countries including the Good Ole U S of A (TM).
No wonder you are not believed. You cannot acknowledge let alone report facts, nevermind do so without offending both sexes.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 7, 2009 at 10:34 pm


” He talks about making peanut-butter cookies for his “husband,” here referred to as his “boyfriend,” and son.”
What? No smarm quotes for the “son”, Davey? You’re slipping. (Perhaps in your own vitriol.) The man Savage’s husband. You simply refuse to accept facts.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 7, 2009 at 11:17 pm


Crystie,
“If those who seek to normalize homosexual and lesbian activities as well as so-called same-sex marriage and who claim they were “born that way” would please explain to me when they actually recall being created to have such tendencies, I would be glad to study what they say they remember.”
1. Homosexual and lesbian activities are normal – for homosexuals and lesbians.
2. I have been legally married for more than 5 years now. Joe & Kevin and Anne & Elaine (the world’s first legally recognized same-sex married couples for more than8 years. More than 18,000 couples in California are legally married, nevermind Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine and Connecticut. Sorry, but same-sex marriage is likewise normal – for same-sex couples.
3. When do I recall being created withsuch tendencies? I’ve known (and acted on) my same sex attraction since I was 5 years old. I cannot fathom how you believe you can “study” what I know (not merely “say”) I remember. I could give you names but, despite what David ‘believes’, some gay people can actually be discreet.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 8, 2009 at 12:32 pm


First of all, where do you get your assumptions about gender and sexuality? (I think I know, but would genuinely like a response.)Second, do you know what year we’re living in? Feminism has blasted away the myths of the angel in the house and of the passive, asexual female. Based on what I’ve read on your blog, I must assume you think the worst of feminism and most likely locate “sin” in strong women who insist on partaking of their full embodied sexual humanity. I also think you actually hate and loathe gay men which leads me to wonder why you focus obsessively on our “animalistic” practices (and of course there’s nothing animalistic about heterosexual intercourse)….I’m not a big fan of Dan Savage, but I agree that everyone of every sexuality–and believe me, there are more than two, deserves the right to healthy and happy pursuit of sexual pleasure.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 9, 2009 at 4:46 pm


Heterosexual couples created this situation.They allowed the men to have multiple sex partners at the expense of the first wives who are taught very early at home that they have to accept it or else they will remain childless spinsters which mommy and daddy will not stand for, they force their children into loveless marriages in the name of having preferably male offspring. The children they produced in these ridiculous unions have been taking notes and now they are living the consequences, ‘the chickens have come home to ruse’and now they want to ruse in the front yard.
I believe homosexuality and all the others is a derivitive of this listening to the voice of the serpent passed down from generation to generation, “surely God DID NOT say you should … We have been taught to overrule our Creator from generation to generation. We do what pleases us. Homosexuality is just one of many ways we do this. We exciled the Creator from our lives since the Garden of Eden so suck it up and put on your fig leaves or repent.



report abuse
 

Vulgarian

posted July 9, 2009 at 11:42 pm


Your Name
July 9, 2009 4:46 PM
The 21st century is calling. You might want to answer.



report abuse
 

K

posted July 10, 2009 at 5:55 pm


“I think that explains why after I wrote on the subject, Savage in his blog at The Stranger attacked me several times in increasingly obscene and personal terms.”
Yeah, nothing’s worse than when someone thinks they need to make it “personal” after being told they aren’t allowed to marry the person they love.
I’m also quite baffled by how you think allowing people to get married will make people more promiscuous.



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted July 10, 2009 at 6:57 pm


K-
Zealots always have a hard time keeping their nose out of other people’s business.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 18, 2009 at 10:26 am


from the Washington POST:
“I sat next to a Republican senator once at dinner and he had his hand on my inner thigh the whole time. I was like, ‘Ewww, get me out of here.’ ”
– New York Times columnist David Brooks on Washington’s “loss of dignity” Friday on MSNBC.
Your Name CORRECTION: Brooks misspoke. It was not a “Republican senator” who was responsible for his ‘thigh anxiety’- it was none other than the one and only David (“I like dancing with guys”) Klinghoffer!



report abuse
 

Shannon

posted August 7, 2009 at 11:08 pm


Right, because straight people NEVER have threeways, they NEVER cheat on their spouses, and NONE of them engage in sexual conquests or have weird kinks…. Right, of course.
(Sarcasm, by the way, in case you didn’t notice.)
Also, it’s important to note that Dan Savage has said that he and his boyfriend have only rarely had a threeway: “We emphasized that we regarded three-ways the same way Bill Clinton regarded abortion: They’re best when they’re safe, legal and rare. Really rare. Two in 10 years? We get to vote for president more often than we have three-ways.” (See the article: ‘What Does Marriage Mean?’ by Dan Savage)
And, if men are such animals and hurt women so much, then by that logic, shouldn’t women be marrying… other women?



report abuse
 

Der Radikaler

posted September 16, 2010 at 3:01 pm


“Homosexual male culture is the way it is because it centers upon encounters between men and men alone.”
How do you know this to be true? Are you in fact a gay man or have you gone around the entire world asking every gay man if they engage frequent sexual conquests of other men?



report abuse
 

Name Here

posted December 30, 2010 at 3:12 am


Perpetuate more stereotypes, please.
And one gay person is not every gay person. Dan Savage and his lifestyle does not represent the entire gay community.
I suppose you have the right to judge other people’s orientation and choices as immoral, but how do you figure that you get to dictate how other people live their lives? If someone wants to have a massive gay orgy, why should you or I care?
Maybe you should be devoting your energy toward doing something productive and positive. Imagine if all the time and money that has been put into combating gay marriage was used to help people in third-world countries, for example. Is that not more important than who people sleep with?



report abuse
 

Chelsea

posted February 6, 2011 at 11:18 pm


I am a heterosexual woman in a marriage much like Dan Savage’s. My husband Dean and I are emotionally monogamous, but each of us has the occasional extramarital “adventure.” We’ve been married for ten years now and we dated for three years before marrying. In the thirteen years of our relationship, neither of us has been hurt by non-monogamy. In fact, our relationship is more loving, healthy, and strong than most I have witnessed or read about.
“Every woman with a brain in her head knows that in such a relationship, she’s likely to be the one who gets hurt. Not immediately, perhaps, but over the years.”
My master’s degree speaks to the fact I have a brain in my head, and my thirteen year relationship proves that I have yet to be hurt by non-monogamy “over the years.” Perhaps you should speak for yourself, instead of the heterosexual women you obviously know nothing about.



report abuse
 

Sarah

posted April 15, 2011 at 5:04 pm


So you got the guy mad. Isn’t it a little irrelevant to your conclusion?



report abuse
 

Steve

posted April 28, 2012 at 1:44 am


All you wackos, please, stay gay, and don’t try to procreate on the side. We don’t need that poison in the gene pool. Homo sapiens would like to survive, so if you could just make sure you keep swallowing or spitting, rather than mixing your genetic disaster with actual human beings, that would be good. Thanks so much.



report abuse
 

Vonda

posted February 13, 2013 at 10:02 am


It’s amazing to me that anyone would take relationship advice (SOME of which borders on psychological advice) from someone (Dan Savage) who has a degree in theater.



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.