Gay Marriage Panel Hears From Supporters

December 20, 2007

By DANIEL BARLOW Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER — A packed room of eager gay marriage supporters came out to testify Tuesday night as a Vermont Legislature-backed commission considering expanding marriage rights held its first public hearing in the state capital.

Members of the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection heard only statements of support for moving past civil unions to same-sex marriage during the two-hour hearing at Montpelier's Statehouse.

It was a startling switch from the legislative hearings on civil unions in the same building seven years ago that attracted hundreds of divided Vermonters who passionately argued both for and against a legal recognition of same-sex couples.

"Civil unions were a valuable first step," said Elaine Parker of Plainfield. "But separate but equal did not work as a compromise in the civil rights movement and it doesn't work here."

Tuesday's session — the sixth hearing the 11-member panel has held across the state this year on marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples — followed in the steps of previous meetings, at which few or no opponents of gay marriage spoke out.

This was also the first meeting in Montpelier since the commission's organizational session in August — at which the leading groups in Vermont that oppose same-sex marriage vowed not to participate in the hearings.

Michael Vinton, a member of the gay marriage commission, said that opponents often say that same-sex marriage would undercut traditional heterosexual marriages.

But of the 8,516 civil unions performed here since they became legal in 2001, only 161 have had their unions dissolved, he said, a rate likely far lower than the percentage of divorces during the same period.

"A lot of people tend to think gays and lesbians are not normal," Vinton joked. "Well, as far as marriage goes maybe they are right."

Beth Diamond, a justice of the peace from Middlebury, said she was excited recently to perform her first civil union — and then she had to chide herself for being naïve enough to think it would be any different than performing a traditional marriage ceremony.

"It wasn't any different," she said. "I had two people before me who loved each other very much … and I was lucky enough to have the honor to be officiating at their ceremony."

Being the first public hearing on gay marriage in Montpelier, Tuesday's session attracted some well-known names.

Rev. Thomas Ely, the bishop of Episcopal Diocese in Burlington, talked about the disagreement within his church over same-sex rights, adding that "although we are not of one mind on this," he personally supports same-sex marriage.

Robert Appel, the executive director of the Vermont Human Rights Commission, said that reports of harassment or bias against gay and lesbians in Vermont amounts to less than 5 percent of the complaints he receives. He sees this as evidence that Vermont is ready for gay marriage.

"Civil unions have not weakened our communities," he said. "If anything, they have enhanced them."

Allen Gilbert, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, said there is some hesitation to move forward on gay marriage due to conflicting laws with the federal government and other states. The state should ignore that argument, he said.

"I have little doubt that if Vermont were an independent nation … that we would grant gay people equal rights," Gilbert said.

Nancy Schulz of Montpelier raised the possibility that gay and lesbian couples with civil unions are not being treated the same as their straight counterparts by the state of Vermont.

She and her partner recently wrongfully were taxed by the state of Vermont on their health insurance payments after she was added to her partner's policy, she said. This was apparently due to a software error that did not note they were joined in a civil union, she said, and it may have happened to other same-sex couples too.

She said Vermont officials have since fixed the problem.

"It is disappointing that the very institution that passed the civil unions law does not abide by it," Schulz said.

A representative of the Vermont Legislative Council said she was unaware of that potential problem and would look into it.

Meg Davis of Plainfield told the commission she was appreciative of the support given to the same-sex rights effort by heterosexual Vermonters — many of whom have gay friends or family members and have come to the public hearings to support gay rights.

"I want to thank all the straight people for coming out and supporting us," she said. "We really appreciate it."

The commission is charged with issuing a report to the Vermont Legislature in April 2008. Future public hearings include Jan. 12 in Bennington, Feb. 2 in Rutland and Feb. 11 in Williston. For more information, visit www.leg.state.vt.us/ WorkGroups/FamilyCommission/.

Contact Daniel Barlow at daniel.barlow@rutlandherald.com.

The Anti-Miscegenation Amendment

"I discovered an interesting fact in reading yesterday's Washington Post (reg. req.) letters to the editor section (Letters to the Editor: Expanding the Definition of Marriage). In December of 1912, an amendment to the Constitution was introduced to abolish racial intermarriage:"

"Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians . . . within the United States . . . is forever prohibited."

This is well worth the read.

Gay Kids Being Brave in High School

REPORT FROM THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PSYCHIATRISTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

My friend, Bishop Leland Somers just sent out this email containing a report that deserves to be read by every thinking person, by every Gay person, and by everyone who claims to be a Christian.
December 12, 2007

Dear Friends,

From time to time a report comes across my desk that is so important that I want to share it with my readers. That is the case with this report from the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the United Kingdom. It is not that their thought is new, it is that they have undertaken to report it systematically and with the full scholarship and authority of their offices. They have also included a bibliography, which is attached.

When a prejudice is being debated there is a necessity for both sides of the debate to possess facts not just opinions. That is what is so often missing when religious people debate homosexuality. This report was issued because of the raging argument and dislocation going on in my church and in many others about homosexuality. The time has come for people to realize that pious homophobia is not a substitute for
truth. The time has also come for Church leaders at every level to be confronted by competent scholarship, and for weak and fearful bishops, who believe that unity in ignorance is a legitimate goal for the Christian Church, to be told that it is not.

I commend this report to your study and hope that you will help to distribute it widely. For any part of the Christian Church to break apart over the use of outdated and thoroughly discredited ideas about homosexuality is a tragedy. For any part of the Christian Church to be as woefully uninformed on this subject as so many ecclesiastical leaders seem to be is a sign of incompetent leadership.

John Shelby Spong


Royal College of Psychiatrists
Submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality

This report is prepared by a Special Interest Group in the Royal College of Psychiatrists. We have limited our comments to areas that pertain to the origins of sexuality and the psychological and social well being of lesbian, gay and bisexual people (LGB), which we believe will inform the Church of England's listening exercise.

Introduction

The Royal College of Psychiatrists holds the view that LGB people should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes equal access to health care, the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership, the rights and responsibilities
involved in procreating and bringing up children, freedom to practice a religion as a lay person or religious leader, freedom from harassment or discrimination in any sphere and a right to protection from therapies that are potentially damaging, particularly those that purport to change sexual orientation.

We shall address a number of issues that arise from our expertise in this area with the aim of informing the debate within the Church of England about homosexual people. These concern the history of the relationship between psychiatry and LGB people, determinants of sexual orientation, the mental health and well being of LGB people, their access to psychotherapy and the kinds of psychotherapy that can
be harmful.

"This report is prepared by a Special Interest Group in the Royal College of Psychiatrists. We have limited our comments to areas that pertain to the origins of sexuality and the psychological and social well being of lesbian, gay and bisexual people (LGB), which we believe will inform the Church of England's listening exercise.

Introduction

"The Royal College of Psychiatrists holds the view that LGB people should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes equal access to health care, the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership, the rights and responsibilities involved in procreating and bringing up children, freedom to practice a religion as a lay person or religious leader, freedom from harassment or discrimination in any sphere and a right to protection from therapies that are potentially damaging, particularly those that purport to change sexual orientation.

"We shall address a number of issues that arise from our expertise in this area with the aim of informing the debate within the Church of England about homosexual people. These concern the history of the relationship between psychiatry and LGB people, determinants of sexual orientation, the mental health and well being of LGB people, their access to psychotherapy and the kinds of psychotherapy that can be harmful."

[Submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality. For the full report, see here.]

[After reading the above email and report, please read this interview regarding the destructiveness of the "ex-gay" industry."]

Gay Pride: A Place We've Never Been?

Essay by Don Charles (Stuffed Animal)

In a January 2007 essay titled "Doin' Time In Gay Man's Hell", I described how centuries of criminalization and ostracism had infected Gay people with a deep sense of shame. I wrote: "Thirty years ago, there was nothing like the affirmation of LGBT identity that we see today. Society taught us that our love was illegitimate and perverse, and like impressionable children, we accepted that teaching. The Stonewall rebellion notwithstanding, we had very little self-esteem. Closeted or not, we were willing to perpetuate a clandestine culture born of oppression and shame." A separate culture centered around disreputable dive bars, dangerous wooded areas, reeking public restrooms and sleazy Adult book/video shops.


Unfortunately, there are a lot of LGBT folk who still think of these venues as being the center of "Gay culture." Worse, they think Lesbians, Gay men and transgender people should confine their leisure activities to such venues. I got a painful reminder of this when I recently picked up a booklet called Out In Canada; distributed to Gay businesses in the United States, this handout is aimed at promoting LGBT tourism north of the border.

Of course, you'd expect such a publication to highlight places of potential interest to Gay tourists. What I didn't expect is how limited and narrow that interest was perceived to be by the Out In Canada editorial staff. As an example of what I mean, here's an excerpt from the booklet, directed at American Lesbians who plan to visit the Canadian province of Québec:

To make sure I was up-to-date, I asked friends what 'dyke places' I should (go to) . . . it seems that Toronto dykes tend to patronize Straight bars and restaurants; comfort, cost and quality seem to be more important than queerness....

For the rest, please jump to Don's website: Christ the Gay Martyr

GOVERNOR PATRICK HIGHLIGHTS PROGRESS ON THE MASSACHUSETTS-CHINA RELATIONSHIP

Meetings Result in Agreements to Improve Collaboration Around Life Sciences, Clean Energy, Transportation and Higher Education

BOSTON – Monday, December 10, 2007 – Governor Deval Patrick today highlighted progress made on the Massachusetts-China relationship during the Commonwealth’s first governor-led trade mission to China in seven years, including agreements signed between life science and clean energy groups in Massachusetts and China, a new exchange opportunity for the University of Massachusetts and moving a step closer to nonstop air service from Boston to Beijing.

“This was a powerful trip, and we have returned with many new opportunities for Massachusetts companies to do business or strengthen relationships in China,” said Governor Patrick. “The openness to our universities and entrepreneurs was encouraging, and I look forward to the many benefits the follow up produces.”

Governor Patrick and members of the delegation met with high-level government officials, including the Vice Minister of Commerce, and the Ministers of Environment, Science and Technology, and the General Administration of Civil Aviation. The delegation also met with key industry representatives such as the Chinese Ocean Shipping (Group) Company, Grand China Airlines and Wu Xi Pharmaceuticals.

The trade mission, which lasted six days and included trips to Beijing and Shanghai, resulted in several agreements made between entities across life sciences, clean energy, transportation and higher education in Massachusetts and China.

For example, Massport CEO and Executive Director Tom Kinton and Governor Patrick met with high-ranking representatives from Grand China Airlines to move closer toward a final agreement for nonstop air service from Boston to Beijing. The airline has applied to Chinese regulatory authorities for permission to operate the flight. Service between the two cities could begin as soon as the summer of 2009, pending delivery of the new Boeing 787 aircraft to the airline. Nearly 70,000 people travel between Boston and Beijing and Shanghai each year, and this service will create more opportunities for business travelers and tourists to fly more quickly and easily to China.

Governor Patrick and members of the delegation met with CEOs of companies in the life science, clean energy and transportation industries, leading to a number of new opportunities to strengthen those markets in Massachusetts and some agreements to promote sharing ideas and resources to advance these industries. Some examples include:

Organogenesis, a Canton-based company that develops regenerative medicine technology, signed an agreement with the National Tissue Engineering Center in Shanghai to share resources and open the door for Organogenesis to export its manufactured products to China, and eventually other parts of Asia. Both companies also agreed to work toward manufacturing existing cell therapies on site in Shanghai. That agreement will lead to economic growth here at home and benefit millions of Chinese patients suffering with chronic, open wounds.

The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative signed an agreement with the Chinese Wind Energy Association to promote wind energy research conducted in Massachusetts by Chinese companies working with Massachusetts' Universities and to establish an International Wind Energy Fund of up to $200,000 per year to promote research, the exchange of ideas and provision of advice concerning wind energy technology in China, as the country works to address its issues surrounding development and pollution.

The Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council (MassMEDIC) signed an agreement with the Chinese Association for Medical Device Industry (CAMDI) to promote economic and technical development collaborations and partnerships from both sides.

Governor Patrick announced the official opening of the Massachusetts Technology Center on Thursday at the Shanghai Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park, encouraging innovation and collaboration between businesses in Massachusetts and China.

Representatives from the University of Massachusetts, Harvard and MIT strengthened their ties with Chinese academic institutions, including Tsinghua University, and participated in meetings with Chinese scientists and entrepreneurs on topics such as life sciences and renewable energy. During the trip, the CEO of WuXi PharmaTech asked the University of Massachusetts about the possibility of pursing an academic-industry partnership that would include coordinating educational visits for company scientists and possibly making online courses and other degree programs available to employees. UMass President Jack M. Wilson agreed to explore a relationship based on the University's existing programs for Massachusetts-based companies and industry groups. UMass Nobel laureate Dr. Craig Mello also addressed students and faculty at Tsinghua University in Beijing.

Advance Australia Fair

Baby steps, yes, but the end of the conservative regime in Australia is bearing fruit:

Last month, Kevin Rudd was elected prime minister of Australia, defeating longtime incumbent John Howard. Now the incoming attorney general, Robert McClelland, says the liberal Labor Party is not likely to block a proposal that would give legal recognition to unions between same-sex couples. "We would be prepared to look at it with good faith rather than with the intention of obstructing it," McClelland told The Sydney Morning Herald. "The Labor Party has already resolved not to agree to gay marriage, but we are given to examining appropriate forms of registration of de facto relationships, including same-sex de facto relationships."

May Australia soon live up to the words of its inspiring anthem:

"In History's page, let every stage
Advance Australia Fair."

From the Melbourne Herald Sun

Cuckoo Part II

I am actually aghast at the shameless display of poor form over at Opine Editorials recently. What could they have been thinking to start deleting my comments simply because I posted their own comment rules? This is the same group that last week were bitching about me censoring them (although I didn't), right? I suppose it was the easier thing to do than look themselves in the mirror and see what they have become. I've saved their thread in it's entirety (with deletions re-inserted for readability and accuracy), so that none of this factual information will be lost in their deletion madness. For those who grow bored of reading their whole cat and mouse game, the fun begins on 12/03 at about 10:00AM. First let's review a few facts so that we know what we are looking for. Opine Editorials has a policy that claims they are against posting ad hominem attacks.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against.

From wikipedia:
Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.

Argumentum ad hominem is the converse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the person making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument.

The argumentum ad hominem is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion.

Also from Wikipedia:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.[3] It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.

A straw man argument can be set up in the following ways, by:

Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
Quoting an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choosing quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender and then refuting that person's arguments, thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.[1]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.
However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent's argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion.

An example of a straw man fallacy:

Person A: I don't think children should play on busy streets.
Person B: I think that it would be foolish to lock children up all day.
By insinuating that Person A's argument is far more dramatic than it is, Person B has side-stepped the issue. The straw man person B has set up is the premise that "The only way to stop children running into the busy streets is to keep them inside all day", which is not person A's position.

Another example:

Person A: We should legalize marijuana.
Person B: No! Any society with unrestricted access to drugs loses its work ethic.
The proposal was to legalize marijuana. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend: "unrestricted access to drugs".

Since we have spoken already about the clear violations of their own comment policy over on Opine Editorials, let's also post for reference the policy itself as well:

Comment Policy
"As a reader, you enjoy an open invitation to discuss the substance of our posts.

Disputes of fact and of opinion are welcomed. Please try to stay on topic.

Petty insults or ad hom attacks or profanity are strongly discouraged. These detract, rather than add, to the discussion.

If an offensive comment is deleted, the commenter may re-comment without the offensive parts.

Should you have questions or concerns about a comment, please send an email.

Thanks for reading and for commenting. While you are here please take a stroll through our archives."

Without further adieu let us plunge into the madness Opine Editorials thinks is masterful logic:

"ELIZABETH, N.J. (AP) -- The animosity between New Jersey's gay former governor and his estranged wife is overshadowing their love for their only child, a judge told the couple Thursday in ruling on a birthday party dispute.

Union County Superior Court Judge Karen Cassidy said Jacqueline McGreevey, who turns 6 next week, can have her birthday party on Saturday at her father's house, then scolded her infamous parents for bringing their dispute to court.

"The hatred these two seem to have for each other seems to override the love for the child in my mind because it's so out of control," Cassidy told the McGreeveys, who were standing before her buffered by their lawyers.

McGreevey and his partner booked ponies and hired face-painting clowns for a party Saturday for about 20 children. Dina Matos McGreevey objected because the party was scheduled for a time when she has custody."

I think we've all witnessed this in one form or another. I remember being newly married, a neighbor in the apartment complex, shared custody with her ex-husband. On Easter Sunday, late in the afternoon, you could hear her screaming at him over the phone demanding that the children be returned, because her family was present and dinner was on the table.

Ponies, face painting, and clowns do not make up for the damage that is being done to the child. Just because Former Governor McGreevey is gay, doesn't get him off the hook. People, who are straight, suffer from lust and temptation, and a wandering eye. It doesn't make it OK to leave your spouse. You avoid temptation. You work on your relationship. "Staying together for the kids" doesn't mean being miserable for 20+ years under the same roof, it means fix your marriage, it's what you obligated yourself to do on the day of your wedding.


Posted by Renee

Labels: children, Renee's Other Posts


109 comments,:
John said...
". Just because Former Governor McGreevey is gay, doesn't get him off the hook. People, who are straight, suffer from lust and temptation, and a wandering eye. It doesn't make it OK to leave your spouse. You avoid temptation. You work on your relationship. "Staying together for the kids" doesn't mean being miserable for 20+ years under the same roof, it means fix your marriage, it's what you obligated yourself to do on the day of your wedding."


Comments like this make me seriously wonder if you even know what gay means.

A marriage between a gay person and a straight person is irreparably broken and cannot lead to anything but a life of misery.

11/30/2007 09:11:00 AM
José Solano said...
"Staying together for the kids" doesn't mean being miserable for 20+ years under the same roof, it means fix your marriage, it's what you obligated yourself to do on the day of your wedding."

Excellent insight Renee. Today’s education and propaganda would have people imagine they are total wimps at exercising self-control. It undermines their will to control their concupiscence and so they simply surrender to temptations to commit adultery and the problem remains adultery whether it is committed with the opposite or the same sex. It is an irresponsible, self-centered and selfish act. What some homosexualists would have everyone believe is that homosexual desires deserve special exceptions from ethical behavior.

11/30/2007 10:21:00 AM
Renee said...
He had no problem playing 'straight' on his wedding day, and no problem playing 'straight' when his daughter was conceived. If he realized he could no longer actually engage in sexual relations with (for whatever reason), then his marriage could remain chaste and still raise the child as one family unit.

McGreevy is no different the Rudy Guilianni, who left his wife and kids for another woman. His children do not respect him. Neither of them want anything to do with his presidential compaign. You could be the most influential person in the world, but in your kids mind you 'stink' because of what you did to their mother.

You demand equality, but when applying the same facts, you seem to think being gay is a defense. It isn't. Comments like yours make me seriously wonder if you even know what 'a cheating bum' means.

11/30/2007 11:42:00 AM
Jane Know said...
Um, who exactly is excusing McGreevey's behavior because he is gay? Not me. Not the gay community that I know.

Yet I wonder, Renee. Is it really adultery since you don't consider non-procreative behavior sex anyway? ;-)

11/30/2007 12:25:00 PM
op-ed said...
Renee: He had no problem playing 'straight' on his wedding day, and no problem playing 'straight' when his daughter was conceived.
...
You demand equality, but when applying the same facts, you seem to think being gay is a defense.

Well put. John provides an example of letting identity politics overcome his better judgement.

11/30/2007 12:26:00 PM
Ryan Charisma said...
WHAT!?!?

"He had no problem playing 'straight' on his wedding day, and no problem playing 'straight' when his daughter was conceived. If he realized he could no longer actually engage in sexual relations with (for whatever reason), then his marriage could remain chaste and still raise the child as one family unit."

Are you insane? Do you really think this is helping the child? Really? Or is your contempt for gays so "out there" that you actually believe this? Do you honestly think that a child in a broken home worse off than a child in a home where the parents fight like that? Do you really believe children are stupid and don't know mommy & daddy hate each other? Is that the "healthy" relationship that 'said child' should be exposed to to measure her future relationships against? Are you insane?

You're kidding only yorself and your sycophant co-writers if you believe children can't tell that there's something wrong in their home.

On a side note. No one forgives McGrievy for faking being straight. But at this point, his ex-wife should carry most of the blame. She should learn to "move on" with her life and find a real husband. And stop fighting her past. It's not healthy for her, and it's certainly not healthy for their child.

I can't believe you actully wrote this, never mind believe it.

I have to go vomit now because of your ignorance Renee. Obviously you don't know any gay people.

Shame on you, shame on all of you.

11/30/2007 02:04:00 PM
op-ed said...
Ryan: No one forgives McGrievy for faking being straight. But at this point, his ex-wife should carry most of the blame.

Jane, do you agree with Ryan? Is that what you meant by not "excusing McGreevey's behavior?" Do you think that now the woman "should carry most of the blame?" If so, on what basis?

11/30/2007 02:27:00 PM
José Solano said...
Obsessed with the gratification and justification of one’s aberrant sexual appetites it is difficult to understand what is even being said about responsible behavior and commitment. There is no thought of the possibility of changing one’s behavior, so weak is the spoiled brat will that is being cultivated these days. And so we hear infantile ranting and ranging and concocted escapist scenarios of woe at the mere mention of having to fulfill one’s obligations. No sense of what a low life is the adulterer that fragments his/her family for sexual gratification. For too many sex has indeed become the supreme god to whom all must be sacrificed. No guilt, no shame. Truly shamelesss.

11/30/2007 02:37:00 PM
Jane Know said...
Op-ed,
I said that I am not forgiving McGreevey for faking being straight...being gay isn't an excuse to cheat on someone. If he was having these urges or thought that he was gay, he should have come clean with it and talked to his wife and they could've figured out a solution. However, I am realistic in that oftentimes an amicable solution isn't possible in matters of the heart.
But he should have come clean before the situation escalated to one of adultery.

Jose, calling a gay man a "spoiled brat" is only harmful to the discussion, and is just YOUR moral judgment. Is he spoiled for being gay? Or for committing adultery? Or both? Where is your focus here? Morally condemning gay people for their "aberrant" sexual practices is pointless. Would you rather a person live an unhappy life devoid of love, or pretend to be heterosexual for your own personal satisfaction? Are you really that selfish? I don't think you get it.

11/30/2007 03:26:00 PM
On Lawn said...
This post has been removed by the author.
11/30/2007 04:01:00 PM
José Solano said... <B< span>r>On this thread we are talking about adultery and its justification on the grounds of gratifying one's sexual appetite. The spoiled brats are all those unable to exercise sufficient will power to control their appetites so as to fulfill their responsibilities to their families. It relates as much to the homosexual as to the heterosexual.

11/30/2007 04:06:00 PM
On Lawn said...
I have another comment, in light of Michael's commentary on the purpose of marriage as a way to form families. This is because, I suppose, there is no other way for a homosexual couple to form a family? I don't know, Michael will have to answer that.

But I also note this. Does marriage create the relation, or does marriage simply recognize a relation? I mean, think about it. Are Mr McGreevey and his ex-wife not un-related now that they are divorced? If marriage formed the family, did divorce unform it?
<;BR< span>>No, their relationship to their daughter remains, and that wasn't formed by marriage. But it is preserved and recognized, and fostered to its fruition through marriage.

Just my two cents.

11/30/2007 04:16:00 PM
Renee said...
Maybe it is mis representative to say McGreevy is gay or playing straight, rather he is bi-sexual.

He is a spoiled brat for committing adultery. Just like when men do it to women, and just like when women do it men.

I have a problem with any person who leaves their family for another person, then makes a demand for the person who was not at fault for the divorce to take the other person to court to try to take away their scheduled custody time, because he 'already booked ponies'.

What if instead of leaving her for a man, McGreevy left her for a younger woman?

I may be the same weight I was on my wedding day, but three small children sort of stretch me out in places and sag in others. Would I be to blame, if my husband wasn't happy with me anymore?

My husband would gets a brand new happy life, while I have to pick up the pieces and "move on" and pretend how great it is now the daddy is just ducky with another woman. I just can't move on, I'm sorta 'used goods', and in many cases I would be better off staying single.

Does anyone think Rudy now being happy, makes his children and ex-wife happy too? I don't know if anyone has seen the Guiliani ad, where he says, 'I'm not perfect'. What does that mean.? Yeah, I know I'm a failure as a husband and father, but I don't care. Yes, no one is perfect, but just because we have temptations and maybe even give into them, doesn't mean we have lost the obligations to recover and get back on track to our promises.

Like I said... ""Staying together for the kids" doesn't mean being miserable for 20+ years under the same roof, it means fix your marriage, it's what you obligated yourself to do on the day of your wedding." What's the point of the vows and the big party, if there is no obligation to fix things when things get tough?

There are going to be very unhappy disappointing moments is marriage, types of moments that make you just want to jump in the car and drive as far away as possible. Things do and can work themselves out, if two people are equally committed to the marriage and its vows. I believe most marriages, which fall apart because they are just 'unhappy', are very much fixable. I've seen marriages (not my own) even overcome adultery.


Jane: "Is it really adultery since you don't consider non-procreative behavior sex anyway? ;-)"

We could have a good discussion regarding the difference between an emotional and physical affairs.

11/30/2007 04:20:00 PM
Renee said...
1993 Guiliani commercial... with his ex-wife talking what a great husband and father he is and about the 'real Rudy'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0xKoSN6BR8

Use them then dump them, it doesn't matter who they leave their wife or husband for. I don't like it.

11/30/2007 04:30:00 PM
Renee said...
Another interesting tidbit regarding the inequity of divorce between man and women. Following a divorce... it is "determined that the woman’s loss was twenty seven percent while the man’s gain was ten percent. Irrespective of the magnitude of the differences, the gender gap is real and seems not to have narrowed much in recent decades."

When men leave strictly because they are unhappy, it puts women at a much larger disadvantage. When women leave men, because she is unhappy, she is still at a disadvantage and her children may be put in danger if she has such low reservation in the type of men she dates.

Conservatives talk much about family values, but I haven't seen enough regarding preventing divorce. Much of the prevention starts before the wedding day, that's why I think relationships need to be a stronger focus in sex education along side with basic biological understanding of how the body works.

11/30/2007 04:51:00 PM
op-ed said...
Jane: I said that I am not forgiving McGreevey for faking being straight...being gay isn't an excuse to cheat on someone. If he was having these urges or thought that he was gay, he should have come clean with it and talked to his wife and they could've figured out a solution.

So, "pretending to be straight" means trying to deal with his "urges" without involving his wife. That was the "pretend" part? Ryan, would you agree with that?

Jane, what are some reasonable positions for a wife to take when her husband admits "urges" that might break up their family?

11/30/2007 05:13:00 PM
Renee said...
Since we're talking about the lost/lack of interest/desire to sex with one's spouse, it made me think what did married couples do before Viagra?

It is being argued, McGreevey since had lacked interest in being romantic with his ex-wife, despite the evidence of a child created from previous sexual activity, is now grounds for a divorce. Now one could say it is of no fault of McGreevey interest in the same-sex, but what about physical limitations that are created after the marriage vows have been said and the couples has indeed consummated marriage?

Marriage is suppose to be for better or worse, I mean what if after a terrible car accident either a husband or wife, one of their sexual organs is beyond repair, not only can they not produce a child it is now impossible to have sexual intercourse. Should the abled-sex spouse leave the disabled spouse?

There is no fault in the above scenario, but one able bodied spouse, will still want and desire sex, it would be rather cruel to say s/he should get a divorce or the ability to sleep with others because my spouse can't satisfy me.

I can't imagine a husband telling a judge, that liking young pretty women is something under the circumstances he can not control and he must divorce his wife, because she's now flabby.

Interest divorce case regarding Viagra....

"The W's were married in 1982 and have two children; she commenced divorce proceedings in January 2005 with two claims of constructive abandonment and one claim of cruel and inhuman treatment.

In testimony, Mrs. W. told of unromantic vacations and unreciprocated romantic overtures. She also described that after her husband's radical prostatectomy he had taken Viagra "on occasion" but that the couple had not had sex since July 2003.

But Mr. W. - who objects to the divorce for religious reasons - fought back, saying the couple had made love at least once, seven months before she filed her complaint."

Ok, Your husband gets prostate cancer.... and survives by removing a good part of his man-hood and the wife has the nerve to complain the sex isn't what it use to be?

Imagine men leaving their wives, because of hysterectomy or menopause?

11/30/2007 05:58:00 PM
Renee said...
China has the same problem.
Young couples quick to give up on marriage

"Love is a feeling, marriage is a contract, and relationships are work.

That is the reality for many young Shanghai couples in ailing marriages, facing the prospect of working hard to get through prickly relationship problems or filing for divorce. "

"Couples born in the 1980s - and under 30 - are among the most likely to get divorced, with 5,876 Shanghai couples last year saying, 'I don't any more'.

Shu Xin, the founder of a divorce services company said people born after 1980 were more inclined to go their separate ways than other age groups, and more of them needed marriage counseling.

"They are more self-centered and overly protected compared with previous generations," Shu said.

"So when they encounter problems in their marriage, many of them will avoid the problem by rushing into a divorce."

12/01/2007 12:32:00 AM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...
This issue seems to be more about adultery, which we can all agree is wrong, and little to do with his sexuality.

The second and underlying point in this situation is whether or not GLBT people should try forcing themselves into straight relationships in order to better fit into society. My opinion on this issue is clear; be youself, and be proud. Living a lie is always wrong.

12/01/2007 06:13:00 AM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...
Do we know who filed for the divorce? Seems that if the wife filed, Gov. McGreevey doesn't have much of a say in the matter of reconciliation.

12/01/2007 06:16:00 AM
Renee said...
John, I've been trying to read up on Jim McGreevey's past, which includes a first marriage and another child. It seems McGreevey, like Rudy has more of a lust problem then anything else. The McGreeveys divorce trial starts in the spring.

Homosexuals complained prior to a marriage license, that they would have to draft papers with a lawyer to create a relationship. I think what we need to do is have heterosexuals do the same, and file it when the obtain a license. Pre-nuptials and pre-affrements should not be scary things and both should outline the expectations of a couple. People move in, get engaged, but never really think about what types of obstacles they hit down the road.

All I have is my husband's word, and that at the time of a divorce it's meaningless in a court of law. The whole purpose of a wedding is to let people know of such a vow being made, but today the closest people in the family completely approve when one spouse simply isn't happy. It is up to family and friends, whenever possible, to support and help the couple fix the relationship.

Many fault reasons for a marriage breaking up, start off as 'I'm not happy' reasons. Women may start racking up credit card debt, by over shopping, because she isn't happy. A husband might gamble away all of the family's assets, because he isn't happy. People rather then taking the time to fix personal communication problems, find other outlets through emotional affairs or entertaining sexual desires in other forms.

12/01/2007 08:10:00 AM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...
Renee, you lost me. Which point I made were you trying to address:

1. Adultery is wrong
2. Living a lie is wrong
3. Who filed for divorce

12/01/2007 08:18:00 AM
Renee said...
1. Adultery is wrong.
2. Even if you no longer can have sex with your spouse (for whatever reason), you still have and obligation to fix the marriage.
3. Sometimes spouses force the other spouse to file. Whose failure to the obligation of marriage caused the filing? It gets confusing with no-fault. Before no-fault, the person who was wasn't at fault filed, now with no-fault it can be either one.

In the McGreevey situation, from what I am reading so far, is that there was indeed a defect prior to the marriage vows. The defect though was not that he was gay, since he admits to loving his first wife, but he married his second wife for political gain. I don't know how our divorce laws can treat both spouses as if one didn't hurt the other one.

I'm not convinced that being saying one is gay (or even straight), could override a marriage vow. With so many young adults engaging in bisexual activity, one could have knowingly have a spouse, who previously have had open same-sex relationships. I don't think in that circumstance it would be right for that person to claim, "I'm gay" as a escape hatch out of the marriage.


From Oprah...

"Oprah asks Dina: Did Jim apologize? "If that's what you call it," Dina says. "It was a pathetic attempt at an apology."

A few days after the news conference, Dina says she and Jim went away for the weekend to escape the press. "I had complained to some of his friends that he had never apologized," she says. "And he came back into the room and said, 'For the record, I apologize.' And that was like a slap in the face. I mean, I rather would have had him not say anything."

Does Dina feel like Jim has any remorse about what he put her through? "I don't think so," she says. "His actions over the last two and a half or three years are not the actions of someone who's remorseful."

""He just left the papers on the kitchen counter and I went through them and started reading, and that's where I read that he had married me for political gain," Dina says. Looking back at Jim's press conference, she says he had stated that he married his first wife "out of love and respect." When he spoke of Dina, however, she says he only thanked her for her love and bringing joy to his life. "He never said he loved me," Dina says."

More from Oprah

"Dina Matos McGreevey talks about why she didn't leave earlier.
Oprah asks the question many people want to know: Why didn't Dina leave? "I was still trying to make sense of all of this. I knew I wasn't going to stay in the marriage. But I had to make sense of it," Dina says. "I also didn't have a place to live. And I had my daughter. I had to kind of ease her out of this situation. And I'm trying to figure out how to do that. How I was going to handle it. What I was going to do. And how I was going to prepare her."

In her book, Dina writes that she shared a bed with Jim for three months after the announcement. "I assumed that he would move out," she says. "Our bedroom was the only one that was close to the nursery. All the other bedrooms were on the opposite side of the house. So I certainly couldn't move out because I had my daughter near me … and he didn't move out."

Although the couple slept in the same bed, Dina says she never thought they could fix their relationship. "No, I couldn't," she says. "I couldn't live a lie."

Looking back, is Dina proud of the way she handled things after the announcement? "I'm proud of the way I handled it for my daughter and for my family. I should have … kicked him out of the bedroom. In retrospect, I should have done that," she says. "But again, I was in a fog. … Here I was the first lady of New Jersey. I had my job. I had my family. I had the awesome responsibilities associated with that role. And I was left with nothing."

----

The lie wasn't that he was also attracted to men, the lie was she was used for political gain.

12/01/2007 10:56:00 AM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...
I'm glad to see we can actually find some ground to agree with each other on. Yes, adultery is wrong.

GLBT people have no business pretending to be straight, especially when it causes so much heaartache. What's your opinion about that Renee?

In answer to my last comment Renee said, "Sometimes spouses force the other spouse to file." This seems to fly in the face of what is said earier, "Just because Former Governor McGreevey is gay, doesn't get him off the hook" and "it means fix your marriage, it's what you obligated yourself to do on the day of your wedding." Renee, has your standard changed?

12/01/2007 11:24:00 AM
On Lawn said...
Everyone,

Lets pause a moment, everyone, so we can hear from Jane and Mr Hosty just what they could suggest a woman in the ex-wifes case to offer to keep the marriage in-tact, what reconciliations are possible so that Mr McGreevey is not expected to live a lie.

There are many points to say, many conversations about marriage that are possible at this point. But lets hold off until they answer that... I know I'm waiting.

I'm sure Renee, that you have much to clarify of what you are saying. But don't let them off the hook. How can we ignore that they offered actions and conciliations a woman in her position to keep the marriage together? It could be very useful, what they have to offer.

Mr Hosty,

I think that when you answer that, you will find just how Renee's post was very much on topic. But it is a suspicion. Lets see, okay? I await your proposed solutions and reconciliations to the plight of a woman like McGreevey's ex-wife to keep a marriage together without violating McGreevey's need to live the truth.

12/01/2007 11:43:00 AM
Renee said...
A person can physically abandon a relationship, but fail to divorce. The local newspaper you will see a complaints for a divorce in the legal notice section, since the spouse has no idea where to serve a complaint. Usually if a home is jointly owned, the remaining spouse can't sell it without the signature of the other. The house could end up in foreclosure, and all the equity could be lost.

-----
Personally,

I don't believe someone should pretend to be straight. I understand that some people will never experience any opposite attraction in their lives. I believe same-sex attraction as a feeling is not wrong in of itself. I think many forms of sexual behavior is wrong, no matter if it heterosexual, homosexual, or flying solo.

As a matter of public policy,

Children have needs, and heterosexuals need to know and accept that their behavior may create a children, in which both a mother and father is obligated to their children's well-being. Marriage has serves this purpose, and on multiple levels we need to address this.

Adults have a right to associate themselves with who they want. I understand friendships, become strong companionships. I think reciprocal benefits can assist these relationship, but as a matter of public policy if we called this marriage we would take the needs of children out of the consideration.

12/01/2007 12:05:00 PM
On Lawn said...
Heres a recent comment thread where they have begun talking amongst themselves about this thread, and an attempt to convince each other that we are the ones harboring hate against them (but when you read this it is obvious who is really being hateful, demeaning and nasty). But in a way it answers the questions that Jane and Mr Hosty haven't yet answered... (I'll post the response in a subsequent comment)


__________________


Fannie said...

I found the conversation you reference to be extremely frustrating and hostile. We both exercised much patience but ultimately I am starting to conclude that most of these people aren't working with a full deck. They are everything they claim they are not. The very words they use to talk about gay people betray the loathing and disgust that lies beneath their demeanor of "reason" and "concern for children."

They are fixated on calling us "selfish" for wanting rights they already have.

And, the anonymous "op-ed" moniker is perhaps the most hostile and unreasonable of them all. Under his cloak of anonymity, he derails conversations, takes our quotes out of context, and is hyper-combative. He is anything but looking for a dialogue.

Fitz and Jose aren't really worth dealing with anymore. Jose is very hostile and while claiming to "love" gay people never fails to write some *ahem* "philosophical" incoherent rant about gay people, their absurdity, their perversity- which is all just a long-winded way of saying gay people are icky.

And it's impossible to have an actual conversation with Renee who (as you allude) brings everything back to the beauty of man-woman sex. She is incapable of appealing to anything other than natural law for her "defense of marriage."


Anyway, I find it sad and unhealthy that their largely anonymous internet personas are almost solely dedicated to negating and opposing gay people.

November 30, 2007 11:16 AM
John said...

I don't think the Opiners even know what gay means.

November 30, 2007 12:32 PM
Fannie said...

For as much talking as they do about gay people, I really don't think they know what gay means. Renee has actually suggested that Governor McGreevey (the gay man formerly married to a woman) should have just sucked it up and stayed with his wife, because being gay doesn't get him "off the hook" (of what, it's not clear).


Anyway, just for fun, I googled "Opine Editorials" and came across some things.

One of them being Opine's "companion" website:

http://defendmarriageresources.blogspot.com/

What is this website, you may be asking? Proof of the "Fitz" moniker's obsession with negating and opposing gay people. He has compiled an exhaustive internet anti-gay "library" of sorts, rife with his usual unintelligble, mispelled, [ed: note she misspelled "unintelligible" and "misspelled"] and error-prone diatribes interjected within.
I'm sure the Opiners are very proud of it though.


Secondly, hits of the Opiners participating in comment threads all over the internet came up. Amusingly, they invite people back to Opine Editorials a "group blog that defends marriage against the proposed merger with SSM" and such.

http://firststatepolitics.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/judicial-madness/#comment-27219

More telling than these shameless promotions is the fact these people have been using the same arguments for years. They don't want dialogue, because they are already convinced of the correctness of their views. We are too, admittedly- but that Chairm spouts the same fallacious "marriage demands integration of the sexes" arguments time after time, and On Lawn continues with the ridiculous "gay marriage is akin to racial segregation" bit shows me that they are unwilling to revise illogical thinking.

I guess you can't teach some old dogs new tricks.

November 30, 2007 1:06 PM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...

One of the many things that bother me about Opine Ed is that all of them seem so geniunely unhappy. Why the hell would I want to follow them?

November 30, 2007 1:58 PM
Jane Know said...

Yep... I am sure they use the same-old regurgitated not-thought-out responses to every single one of their opponents.
Half of them make no sense at all, and the rest are full of logical inconsistencies and made-up defintions to commonly-used words.

John Hosty, again, I applaud you for your articles.

ps-the picture is great. ;-) [ed: except that it is rather denigrating and sexually exploitative of women. And as a warning, it is not safe for work folks.]

November 30, 2007 2:14 PM
John said...

"Renee has actually suggested that Governor McGreevey (the gay man formerly married to a woman) should have just sucked it up and stayed with his wife"

Expanding a bit on that thought, they also suggest that unhappy, even borderline abusive marriages must be salvaged, either in the interests of the children or for the glory of God.

When I argue on Christian Forums and I bring up the point that people should not be forced to be unhappy, the common retort is:

"Read your bible; divorce is wrong, and if you can't be happy in your marriage, then that is your cross to bear."

And your cross is nothing compare to what Jesus did for you, so to seek relief is to be selfish.

November 30, 2007 2:25 PM
Jane Know said...

"Expanding a bit on that thought, they also suggest that unhappy, even borderline abusive marriages must be salvaged, either in the interests of the children or for the glory of God."

Yes, because growing up in abusive household is MUCH better than the horrors of single motherhood or fatherhood.

November 30, 2007 4:38 PM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Conformity seems so important to the radical right. I spent part of my childhood growing up in New Hampshire, and I remember kids getting beaten up for being the new kid. It seems almost like a "hive" mentality. Communism lite, or something to the same effect...

12/01/2007 12:51:00 PM
On Lawn said...
So Mr Hosty, it seems that there are many who participated in this discussion saying more explicitely over at your site that it is unreasonable for McGreevey's ex-wife to have expected the marriage to stay together.

So, what exactly was your point then in discussing whether or not she filed the papers? Or would you disagree with the comments I copied above, that keeping that marriage together was unreasonable?

If there was something she could have done to keep it together, what would that have been?

12/01/2007 12:58:00 PM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...
I think that bringing my article into this discussion violates your rules of staying on topic, so I won't address that here. If you want to talk about my blog you can either go there or start up another thread about it.

We can discuss my questions for Renee. Renee has said if effect that "there are no outs for people once they get married" (paraphrased), but then seems to change her mind and say that the Gov. McGreevey's wife's hand was forced. The two principles can't co-exist because they are diametrically opposed.

My question was an attempt to better understand her opinions. Renee has presented us something to learn, I'm here to hear what she has to say, not so much to share my own opinions.

12/01/2007 01:12:00 PM
On Lawn said...
As an aside, John seems set on saying, while Jane egged him on, we suggest people stay in abusive marriages. Well I suppose that the fact that we've said nothing of the kind hasn't stopped him. I suppose the fact that we've said that staying with a marriage means fixing it rather than putting up with abuse, won't change his mind either.

I hate to say it, but some of those people seem to be dead set on the big lie theory of politics. The more and the bigger, the less they actually have to actually discuss legitimate concerns. Their discussion reminds me of aristocrats who ignore the problems of others in their cushy lifestyles. Any concern that doesn't inconvenience them is no concern of theirs.

How sad.

Anyway, I await Mr Hosty and Jane's propositions, or their agreement with the elements of that thread who suggest it was unreasonable to expect the marriage to stay together at all. Or perhaps they feel that its really not their concern or Mr McGreevey's, but the wife's concern to just accept their message of identity and move on.

Just saying...
12/01/2007 01:16:00 PM
On Lawn said...
Mr Hosty,

I think that bringing my article into this discussion violates your rules of staying on topic

Fact check. I quoted nothing of your article, just comments below it.

And, by claiming it is off topic, are you really trying to say within what I quoted there are no explicit references and comments about this conversation?

Renee has said if effect that "there are no outs for people once they get married" (paraphrased)

Renee isn't on trial here. And if she was, you would be expected to provide an exact quote, not a paraphrased one.

You aren't on trial here either, Mr Hosty. I'm just discussing the points you raised, and asking what you suggest a woman in the ex-wife's shoes should have/could have done.

I'm asking if you agree with the comment in the quoted thread that say that it is unreasonable an expectation for the marriage to have stayed together.

Those tricky questions, always asking you to reveal what your opinion really is :)

I'm here to hear what she has to say, not so much to share my own opinions.

LOL. Sorry Mr Hosty, but you already did share your opinion...

-- "GLBT people have no business pretending to be straight, especially when it causes so much heaartache. What's your opinion about that Renee?

In answer to my last comment Renee said, "Sometimes spouses force the other spouse to file." This seems to fly in the face of what is said earier, "Just because Former Governor McGreevey is gay, doesn't get him off the hook" and "it means fix your marriage, it's what you obligated yourself to do on the day of your wedding." Renee, has your standard changed?" --

Not only are you apparently vexed with probing questions, but vexed with reality conflicting with your attempts to re-write what has happened here.

Go back to your echo-chamber then. Where no one questions your opinions, and you can convince each other as much as you want that your problems are really someone else's fault (again no explanation needed just people wanting to commiserate with you). ohhhh those pesky Opine Ed's.

12/01/2007 01:32:00 PM
Chairm said...
McGreevey has demonstrated that there is no gay test for marriageability. He was not barred from marriage based on his sexual attraction for men.

The man-woman criterion did not force him to pretend he was faithful to his wife nor did it it require him to bustup his family for the sake of a same-sex sexual relationship.

He is no poster boy for marriage.

But he has become the adopted poster boy for the glibly stated axiom that men like McGreevey should be more faithful to gay identity politics than to his marriage vows, his wife, and his children.

Adultery is a good topic to discuss, but in this case the issue is a man choosing a same-sex union over his own marriage. It is not really about sexual orientation nor about adultery (on its own), but rather gay identity politics -- by virtue of how McGreevery wrapped himself in the mantle of a "gay American" and by virtue of those who point to his example as yet another reason to impose SSM on society.

So much for "marriage equality".

12/01/2007 01:55:00 PM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...
On Lawn, I'm glad you got your comments out of your system so we can now give Renee the attention she deserves.

Renee, you were saying?

12/01/2007 02:54:00 PM
op-ed said...
John: A marriage between a gay person and a straight person is irreparably broken and cannot lead to anything but a life of misery.

Ryan: No one forgives McGrievy for faking being straight.

Jane: I said that I am not forgiving McGreevey for faking being straight...

Hosty: GLBT people have no business pretending to be straight...

I'll take, "stereotype" and "amorphous blob" for 100, Alex.

So, the votes are all in and it's unanimous. McGreevey was "pretending" to be the wrong identity group and that was his real crime, not breaking up his family for his own sexual gratification. Nobody can answer exactly when or how this pretending went about, but clearly he must be guilty. Gee, you'd think with all that unanimity, it'd be real easy to explain exactly where the "pretending to be straight" happened. Well, let's remember what question is still on the table:

"So, 'pretending to be straight' means trying to deal with his 'urges' without involving his wife. That was the 'pretend' part? Ryan, would you agree with that?

"Jane, what are some reasonable positions for a wife to take when her husband admits "urges" that might break up their family?"

What if McGreevey had been attracted to a younger woman instead of a man? Would keeping his marriage vows simply have been "pretending" to be something he wasn't? Would it mean he could never be happy in his current marriage? Would it have been OK if he told his wife about his "urges?" And what about how this affects the daughter? Does it even matter or are the adults the vulnerable ones here and the daughter the strong one who needs to adapt to their needs?

Double standard? Identity politics? Damaging marriage? How else to interpret? The silence is deafening.

On Lawn: Heres a recent comment thread [from Hosty's site]... when you read this it is obvious who is really being hateful, demeaning and nasty...

It's a fact: there are those who can only deal with disagreement by smearing and attacking. We knew we'd run into this type when we started Opine Editorials. Nobody looks forward to this kind of abuse, but if that is the price for defending marriage, then so be it.

12/01/2007 03:24:00 PM
Fannie said...
On Lawn,

You copy and paste our comments from LLL (aka- "echo chamber") as though we aren't aware that ANYONE including you guys can read them.

Here's something to ponder:

Knowing precisely that you WILL read our articles and comments, it is a way to analyze and criticize Opiner bloggers and opinions without being censored here as often happens. I want to point out the hateful language that many of you use and the stereotypical assumptions you hold about gay people that underlie (some of your) "nice guy" demeanors- but more importantly, I want you to recognize it for what it is, which you are mostly unwilling to do. (I mean, seriously, read Jose's latest rant article!). Anyway, when I have done pointed out Opine bloggers' abusive language and/or dishonesty out in the past, the anonymous "Op-Ed" moniker has deleted my comments claiming that I have personally attacked people here (the implication being with strings of profanity).

And besides, come on, if we intended our recent comments on our own blogs to truly be private, we would have just emailed each other instead of posting comments on a public blog.


But anyway, I'll "echo" John's statement in saying I hope you feel better having gotten that rant out of your system.

I know I do.

12/01/2007 03:30:00 PM
op-ed said...
Fannie: ...it is a way to analyze and criticize Opiner bloggers... [emphasis added]

Note the focus on the person rather than the argument. If Fannie had a rational argument to make, she'd make it instead of the personal attacks.

She may feel personal attacks are more welcome on Hosty's website, and that's fine. Here, though, we want rational discussion and personal attacks have nothing to do with that.
12/01/2007 03:46:00 PM
Renee said...
Fannie:And it's impossible to have an actual conversation with Renee who (as you allude) brings everything back to the beauty of man-woman sex. She is incapable of appealing to anything other than natural law for her "defense of marriage."

Thank you!

12/01/2007 04:45:00 PM
Renee said...
Up until forty years ago, before no-fault divorce government was facilitate men and women having a good stable relationship with one another if they open themselves to acts of making children, because children are a big responsibility.

People aren't created out of thin air. The procreative act is different, because it produces people, like you and me. People are important things. I have no shame saying people want to see their mother and father in loving stable monogamous relationships (too many of us, have see the consequences when they are not!) and to say it should be given it's own name and own definition, which is marriage.

That's the point of this post.

I think we laid down a lot of evidence, from how babies are made, and the experience of lost when a couple doesn't have a child or if a woman runs out of time, to the well-being of children during pregnancy, after birth, and beyond.

We can't 'live a lie', the coitus act can make babies.

12/01/2007 05:16:00 PM
Chairm said...
Our profiles are available on our blogsite.

There you will find that most of us are not posting completely anonymously. A few of us use only first names, others use only last names, and four of us, including myself, use our full names either in our identifier or in our posted email addresses. This is unusual for the blogosphere where all manner of topics are discussed, at length.

In any case, the focus should be on the substance of the blogposts and comments, not on names.

But maybe you have different standards. Do you now denounce each and every SSMer who blogs or comments anonymously?

You know, folks like "Fannie" or "John" or "hammerpants" or someone with a name that looks kinda fictional (with no obvious indication that the used names are real) such as "Jane Know" or "Ryan Charisma"? And so forth.

They may or may not be anonymous to you guys, but so what if you know the person? What has that got to do with the content of their pro-SSM writings?

Nada.

* * *

We've got SSMers declaring that the government owns marriage, lock stock and barrel, and SSMers insisting that the legal incidents of marital status is marriage itself, and SSMers declaring that "no one owns the word marriage", and SSMers strenously protesting that there is no shared public meaning for a foundational social institution.

But when Renee points out the great significance of man-woman sex, and points to natural law, she is derided as providing not much in the defence of marriage?

I think our SSMer commenters ought to do a team huddle and figure out just what it is that they are really talking about when they discuss men like McGreevey and his behavior.

Who are these SSMers to voice their opinion about how this man's same-sex sexual union has impacted his marriage? No harm, no foul, I suppose.

12/01/2007 08:12:00 PM
On Lawn said...
On Lawn, I'm glad you got your comments out of your system so we can now give Renee the attention she deserves.

I'm curious just what you think was in my system?

Actually it isn't hard to see. To quote...

-- "And, by claiming it is off topic, are you really trying to say within what I quoted there are no explicit references and comments about this conversation?

[...]

"I'm asking if you agree with the comment in the quoted thread that say that it is unreasonable an expectation for the marriage to have stayed together." --

How curious. Mr Hosty. Its not a matter of getting something out of my system, but getting answers out of yours.

Feel free to answer at any time. I hate to think that you really have something to hide, especially when it might help people in her circumstance...

Folks, I've been accused of being naive to Mr Hosty's games and tactics. I've received concerned notes that warn me that he is up to strange games. The facts are I do know that. Its obvious that his inability to answer questions means one of two things...

1) Fear that not just Opine, but everyone else is too dumb to understand his elevated truths. Readers everywhere are just not qualified to review such elevated opinions.

2) Fear that looking evasive and demeaning is probably as good as he can hope for considering what his answers would be.

Otherwise I can't see why he fears open honest conversation so much. After all, he is the one that called off the peace talks instead of helping us understand his position.

And check this out...


Renee, you were saying?

I think Mr Hosty forgot which site he was on. Both Opine and LLL are on blogger. Perhaps he was confused. He may depend on strict control of what the discussion is over on his site, but on Opine we hold everyone equally accountable.
Especially when he and Jane both promise that there was something the wife could have done to save the marriage. Why not share?

But then, we do know why...

12/01/2007 08:17:00 PM
On Lawn said...
Fannie,

But anyway, I'll "echo" John's statement in saying I hope you feel better having gotten that rant out of your system.

I know I do.

I'm glad you are feeling better. However, asking Mr Hosty to explain what he offers as possibilities for a wife in such a circumstance, is not ranting.

Something like this is incoherent ranting...

-- "What is this website, you may be asking? Proof of the "Fitz" moniker's obsession with negating and opposing gay people. He has compiled an exhaustive internet anti-gay "library" of sorts, rife with his usual unintelligble, mispelled, and error-prone diatribes interjected within.

"I'm sure the Opiners are very proud of it though." --

We are proud of it, thanks :)

But what of your incoherent rant? You couldn't even spell "misspelled" and "unintelligible" correctly when "criticizing" Fitz. And can anyone here diagram that convoluted run-on sentence?

But here is what I think is the real highlight:

-- "Knowing precisely that you WILL read our articles and comments, it is a way to analyze and criticize Opiner bloggers and opinions without being censored here as often happens."

So you meant to give us such a hate filled, incoherent rant because you knew we would read it! And injected with misspellings, and incoherent hate filled rants -- claiming the very same of Opine. Its like chess, only you seem to have every move already played out in your head ;)

Well, I believe you expected we would read it. But you give your opinion too much credit. It isn't criticism, which would attempt to explain what we did wrong and show how to do it better. (Now there is a thought, I wonder just what arguments Fannie would suggest to show the value of equal-gender representation and the bonds of procreation, and children's rights). No, she's just employing mockery. And in a way that is funnier than I could ever write.

Post on Fannie. I hope Jane can come in here and let us all know just what a good job you are doing, because it looks like a comedy routine from out here. Wait a minute, perhaps you are a FoF plant, trying to discredit the GLBT by pretending to be one of them...

Naw. You are probably just who you say you are, and who you show us you are.

"Criticize" all you want. I can add it to my web-comic list...

12/01/2007 08:36:00 PM
Chairm said...
Typo correction: This is not unusual for the blogosphere where all manner of topics are discussed, at length.

I'll add that pretty much all of the topics discussed at Opine have been among those discussed, in-person, with a very wide range of people, by myself.

It is time for SSMers to stop telling us to get know you, on some hyper-personal level, as if there is no substantive disagreement.

Here's the challenge that SSMers really ought to try on for size.

Restate, in your own words, the substantive disagreement on marriage between yourself and those you disagree with, here at Opine.

Then ask for confirmation or clarification. First, seek agreement about what the disagreement actually is, before throwing around words like "hate" and "bigotry".

If you cannot even make the honest effort to do this much, then, it is very premature of you to even announced that you disagree with us. Rather, you'd just be end-gaming.

And, that's one of the surefire signals that gay identity politics has short-circuited the reasoning abilities of even smart and generous individuals who support the SSM project.

What is the disagreement? Try better not to misrepresent the meaning of what others have said. Restate, seek confirmation, discuss clarifications. That's the basis for civil discussion of contentious issues.

Meanwhile, should McGreevey be faithful to "gay identity", as he very publicly claimed he was being, or rather more faithful to his marriage vows, his wife, and his children? Or is it none of your business, either way?

12/01/2007 08:56:00 PM
On Lawn said...
Excellent point Chairm. As I read more of their rants, the ditch deepens.

We all remember Mr Hosty said, "Seems that if the wife filed, Gov. McGreevey doesn't have much of a say in the matter of reconciliation."

It seems John criticized Renee over at Fallacy findings (funny how they all ran elsewhere to say these things)...

-- "If you read her post on the McGreeveys she pretty much exposes her ignorance when she says that the McGreeveys could have, should have repaired their marriage." --

Is John calling Mr Hosty ignorant also for suggesting they could have repaired their marriage if she didn't file for divorce?

Mr Hosty, do you agree with John's fatalist assessment of a gay man's complete inability to love honor and cherish a woman in any meaningfully marital way?

Here's another difference I see. Chairm has invited you to do better, and given you a way to strengthen your arguments. In short he's trying to help you out.

I see nothing so gracious and substantive from the marriage neuterists. Chairm, you are a good sort. I appreciate your diplomacy here, even in light of their constant antagonism and mockery.

12/01/2007 10:36:00 PM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...
"Folks, I've been accused of being naive to Mr Hosty's games and tactics. I've received concerned notes that warn me that he is up to strange games."

On Lawn, instead of hijacking this thread (which is against Opine Ed policies) and warping it to be an attack on me (which is alegedly also against your policies here), why not make a new thread to discuss your newfound fears. It would be nice to see them laid on the table rather than mentioned and left to the imagination.

If you haven't figured it out by now, I really don't wish to converse with you, because I see you as disingenuous. I am addressing Renee and her inconsistencies over how Gov. McGreevey can't get "off the hook" via divorce, yet his wife can. Renee, can you speak for yourself in this matter, or is On Lawn going to continue to attempt to derail that conversation?

12/02/2007 06:53:00 AM
Renee said...
"I am addressing Renee and her inconsistencies over how Gov. McGreevey can't get "off the hook" via divorce, yet his wife can."

I believe I addressed this in the issue of abandonment, in which one spouse leaves the marriage but does nothing in terms of filing for divorce. The excerpts from the Oprah interview well, where the wife is expected to just do nothing in the marital home while her husband goes on with his new lifestyle.

If one spouse has already stated on national TV, that he has no interest in reconciling his marital relationship, how much abandonment do you want? The wife isn't getting off the hook, she is being forced to file, while he goes on with his new life.

Remember why McGreevey had to 'come out' because he made his lover head of homeland security, in which his lover had no credentials. I don't think Jim McGreevey can say, he can't have sex with women, since he already produced a child from a previous marriage. It would be different if he never had sex with a woman before, and maybe a handful of times awkwardly with his wife, and told his wife in private, he just couldn't do it.


My favorite line from the Oprah interview....

"As her husband told the world he's a "gay American," Dina stood by his side with a smile on her face. "I smiled because I didn't want to break down. But, as his world was falling apart, he was still choreographing the entire day and how everything would play out. [He] told me when to smile, what to say if I was asked a question by reporters," she says.

"He was telling me what to do, and he said, 'You have to be Jackie Kennedy today,'" she says. "And I'm thinking, 'Jackie Kennedy—her husband was murdered. You lied and cheated on me, and I have to be Jackie Kennedy?'"

Why did Dina agree to appear at the press conference in the first place? Although Jim had told Oprah that he and his wife had prayed about Dina attending the press conference, Dina says that didn't happen. "He didn't sit me down and say, as he said, [that] we sat and we prayed about it and he said, you know, 'I'm gay,'" she says. "That didn't happen."

12/02/2007 07:16:00 AM
Renee said...
Jim could of saved his marriage, even after admitting to a sexual affair with another man, but after the public abandonment, Dina couldn't.

12/02/2007 07:17:00 AM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...
Thanks for clarifying your point Renee, sometimes when we use links the point can be a little confusing.

So what I understand you to say it that in some instances, like Gov. McGreevey's wife, divorce is the oppropriate avenue, right? Give me more clarification if I don't have it right.

Are there other situations in which it would be appropriate to seel divorce instead of reconciliation?

12/02/2007 11:07:00 AM
Chairm said...
John Hosty, to be clear, in this instance the husband abandoned his wife for the purpose of an extramarital sexual relationship which has since taken the form of a very public "private" same sex union.

Divorce or not, McGreevey's marriage would be none of your business, according to your own stated view of marriage.

His marriage is just a private relationship of two adults and has zilch to do with responsible procreation and zilch to do with integration of the sexes.

Being such, what merits your attention?

12/02/2007 11:28:00 AM
op-ed said...
Hosty: I am addressing Renee and her inconsistencies over how Gov. McGreevey can't get "off the hook" via divorce, yet his wife can.

"'off the hook' via divorce," John? Is that really what you meant to say? That marriage is some kind of impaling hook, an impediment to happiness and that divorce lets one off? I think if you reread Renee's comments you'll see she clearly doesn't think that way, and marriage certainly isn't what she meant by McGreevey being "on the hook."

Mr. McGreevey initiated the divorce in that he is the one who committed the infidelities. He is the one who put his own sexual gratification ahead of the people in his family whom he swore responsibility to through marriage. His actions presented Mrs. McGreevey with a difficult situation she had to try and make the best of, in particular for her family. She committed no infidelity. She did not place her own needs over her family's. Jim McGreevey did that. You are simply on a blame-the-victim bender when you try and blame Mrs. McGreevey for filing for divorce in light of Mr. McGreevey's past and ongoing behavior.
12/02/2007 11:43:00 AM
op-ed said...
Chairm: Being such, what merits your attention?

Good point, Chairm. If Hosty feels there is no public interest at stake, then why is he so intent on assigning blame or investigating what is and is not a legitimate divorce? A clear contradiction between Mr. Hosty's actions and his words. Why would Mr. Hosty be focusing on this aspect of the discussion when he claims he doesn't believe in it?
12/02/2007 11:50:00 AM
Renee said...
Do I believe that many marriages can be saved after an adulterous affair, either same-sex or opposite sex? Yes.

How far can an adulterous affair go before it makes the marriage unable to be save, is something we could discuss.

Simply not being sexually attracted to your spouse, is different then the inability not to be intimate with your spouse. Usually we think of inability with a disability, more like the radical prostatectomy scenario.

Could the argument, that one has no interest in the opposite be grounds for a break down of marriage or lack of fulfilling the marriage vows? Maybe, but the McGreevey case isn't that one. McGreevey is more like Rudy.

12/02/2007 12:11:00 PM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...
Renee, after hearing what you have to say about divorce, I'd say we agree. Marriage should in all cases try to be saved, but there are some situations in which divorce is also appropriate.

Being gay would mean in order to get married they would almost surely have to lie. I would think there a few women charitable enough to marry a man they know thinks he is gay. Your thoughts?

12/02/2007 05:22:00 PM
Renee said...
Even though I don't agree with homosexual behavior, I understand the deep level of commitment and trust in same-sex relationships. I could imagine if a same-sex couple owns a home with a mortgage based on two incomes and one person just abandoned the relationship, the home could just go into foreclosure with the inability to sell the property without the other person's signature.

I didn't own anything jointly with my husband until we were married. I couldn't imagine sharing my well earned credit with someone without some knowledge of their own, and some acknowledgment as being seen as one economic unit.

I see how many legal benefits mirror and benefit relationships, other then husband and wife. Adults should be able to associate with who they choose, and decide who makes decisions for them when they can't as in the hospitals or even, morbid as it is, to ensure funeral/burial wishes are fulfilled.

I definitely see why we should look into public policy to address these issues for adults.

Still, we know what happens when children are brought into this world in an unstable environment. Family planning and the discussion of potential children, and their well being must be addressed by heterosexual couples, because their sexual activity may create a child (planned or unplanned) in which the man and woman are both obligated to raise together. This is best done when they are one family unit. Heterosexual relationships not only mean being a good partner, but also being good parent.

By protecting the sexual act that creates a child, we are protecting the child itself. Think of marriage, much like pre-natal care. We know the child's physical well-being starts while in the womb, including the mother's health prior to being pregnant. We also know if the parents have a strong committed relationship prior to conception, the socio/emotional well being of the child will be ok also.

This must be the focus of marriage as a matter of public policy.

12/02/2007 06:28:00 PM
Chairm said...
Since society needs to be able to recognize a marriage when one is present, even if only to grant a divorce if one is "appropriate", it becomes incumbent upon SSMers to clearly identify what marriage actually is.

Besides, the people who enter marriage need to know what they are getting into.

But SSMers seem very reluctant to explain the nature of the relationship type they have in mind.

What does society care whether a particular man abandons the particular woman in his home, if their relationship type has no shared public meaning?

* * *

Being gay would mean in order to get married they would almost surely have to lie.

But lie to whom? The government?

Or to the woman in his private relationship? Don't the individuals define their relationship all on their own? Maybe McGreevey didn't understand or maybe he decided to redefine the relationship and his part in it.

* * *

No, John Hosty, it is not a question of "being gay" but of behaving married.

When a man and a woman enter marriage, they do so as a couple, not as individuals. They do so as man and woman and become husband and wife, together.

To state the obvious: no man become a husband without a woman also becoming his wife.

McGreevey entered marriage as a man, not as a "gay man". If he didn't understand this concept, then, that may be as much is fault as it is the fault of gay identity politics.

His chosen extramarital behavior was not something he had to do nor did he have to lie nor did he have to abandon his marriage, his wife, and bust-up his family. Surely not.

[Also note: you use the term, gay, rather than homosexual or same-sex attracted, and thus you conflate all three into one thing.]

I hope you are not suggesting that his behavior was predestined or that his behavior was appropriate due to "being gay".

What excuse does his same-sex sexual buddies have? And his current same-sex partner?

Please clarify.

12/02/2007 09:51:00 PM
On Lawn said...
A true model of tolerance, thank you for your example, Renee. When you said..

Even though I don't agree with homosexual behavior, I understand the deep level of commitment and trust in same-sex relationships. [...] I definitely see why we should look into public policy to address these issues for adults.

... you hit the nail on the head. Anyone trying to say that tolerance means acceptance, is simply lying. The phrase, "if you don't do [this or that] you don't love me" is one of unfortunate manipulation. Combine the two, and we have a common refrain, "if we don't neuter marriage we hate gays". Which just an unfortunately manipulative aimed at people who are already trying their best to be nice to others. It is an emotional argument in a debate where we everyone should do better in being rational, astute, and keenly observant.
When you point out, "Still, we know what happens when children are brought into this world in an unstable environment. Family planning and the discussion of potential children, and their well being must be addressed by heterosexual couples, because their sexual activity may create a child (planned or unplanned) in which the man and woman are both obligated to raise together."

So true.

12/02/2007 09:57:00 PM
On Lawn said...
Mr Hosty, you made an interesting comment. I won't pile on, because Chairm has more than adequately inquired about your curious statement, "Being gay would mean in order to get married they would almost surely have to lie."

But I want to know, could you put that lie into your own words? What truth would they be denying, and what is the source of that truth?

12/02/2007 10:01:00 PM
Chairm said...
Related posts that have been bumped today:

SSM won't directly effect anyone's marriage!

Contrary to the stereotype, most married men had already shared with their wives that they were attracted to other men. Of that group, most of the wives and girlfriends were accepting of the attractions. The issue on the table was not one of coming to terms with attractions, but rather of behavior.


Child Custody and Disparagement.

One parent decides to identify as a homosexual, breaks up the marriage, and eventually moves in with a same-sex partner. Eventually, the parent who identifies as homosexual sues for custody, claiming it is not in the child's best interest to remain in the custody of the non-homosexual parent, because that parent (often a Christian) cannot in good conscience condone or remain silent about the departed parent's homosexual behavior.

12/02/2007 10:47:00 PM
On Lawn said...
Hmm, I missed this before.

On Lawn, instead of hijacking this thread...

That is a serious allegation. Is this going to be (speaking of disingenuous) like when you accused Christian of trying to post as different people? I remember our conversation about that. I still have it saved away. I still remember how the more I investigated it the more I found you were simply lying -- Christian had openly noted what posts and other monikers were his a year before you "exposed" it. I have to admit, I've seen you lie often since then. Yet, we are all happy to answer your questions and give you respect.

But here's the deal. I'll accept that there might be some truth this time, which you will agree is far more generous than your underhandedness has deserved. I will let you post here just how my questions to you (that have been echoed by comments from at least two others here, as it turns out) is hijacking the thread.
(which is against Opine Ed policies)

It is against Opine policy to allow someone to hijack multiple threads on different topics with their own concern. You agree that this is something deserving of its own post, and we have given those individuals their own guest post in those circumstances.

and warping it to be an attack on me

I won't blow sunshine here. You just attacked me by claiming I was hijacking this thread -- just now. You attacked the concerns earlier as just something to work out of my system. You attacked the right on this thread to even bring up those concerns even earlier than that, saying, "I'm here to hear what she has to say, not so much to share my own opinions". In that same post you tried to claim that posts made on your site about this thread were a violation of Opine policy also.

Your evasions are living up to the old axiom that lies grow the more you try to cover them up. Your story is so inconsistent now that your comments post together as a marvel if ineptitude.

(which is alegedly also against your policies here)

You continually mistake an discussion of your actions as an attack on yourself. You can do better, and are invited to. You can abandon this constant slimy attitude, and you will find much more open discussion possible.

The case is laid out, and it is one entirely based on actions. That is not against Opine policy. You counted on Opine to be passive, instead it is more than willing to give you the rope you need to hang yourself. You show exactly who you are for everyone to see. And I'm happy to give you the opportunity to do so -- and point out your mistakes so others won't follow.

why not make a new thread to discuss your newfound fears.

Is this like how you created a new thread to essentially say,

--"Opiners, you have asked me questions that you think you already have the answer to, then waited for my answer so you can show me how wrong I am. This is an obvious sign of someone who is thinking as an adversary rather than as someone in a co-operative effort. Even if you deny this to the day you die, it is as plain as day to all that read it, so I'll let the comments speak for me.

"Why all the hostility?" --

It shows a real fear of answering questions. It assumes a great deal of animosity. This is like Fannie misspelling "misspelled" in her comment about Fitz in that article. Here you admit to assuming a great deal of animosity, while claiming that we were doing so -- by [supposedly] answering questions we already knew the answer to. But that is also an admission, that you knew your answers and that is why you didn't answer them. Its like saying you felt there was no good answer to give, so you decided it was a trap. Honestly, if you have no good answer to give you should re-think the constitution of your beliefs. Its not our fault questions about support of concerns outside of the GLBT talking points trip you up. Its your fault for not having a consistent position that you feel confident in.

I answered all the questions in your thread, without any qualms. Even if they were hostile, I can rely on the humanitarian values I hold dear to shine through the responses. And that is the biggest difference I can see in this exchange.

It would be nice to see them laid on the table rather than mentioned and left to the imagination.

Yet you give no such return courtesy. You do yourself a disservice by claiming your views of myself at all excuse such self-serving ends. If you want to lay things out on the table, tell us exactly what McGreevey's "living a lie" was. Put that lie into words.

As for my "fears" about you, you give yourself too much credit. There is nothing to fear about you, not when you are so ready to display such dishonest behavior. It would literally be a slap in the face of the readership here to suggest that your so clever in your attempts that I fear they won't see it. You've telegraphed your every move, and I've only given you the opportunity to do it. Your continued flailing attempts at evasion and re-direction only continue to solidify just how little confidence you have in your own opinions. You are shutting yourself down, what do I have to fear?

If you haven't figured it out by now, I really don't wish to converse with you, because I see you as disingenuous.

No doubt. You have said so from the beginning. And yet when we point out where you have been disingenuous you claim that is insolence against your self-labeled morals of mutual respect.

To say that you just need to work it out of your system would simply be too disrespectful for you. Respect, like I give to my friends, means that I offer correction to you. I offer my opinion of your actions and try to persuade you to do better. I take your accusations seriously, asking you to provide evidence. It is natural you find me in an adversarial role to your advocacy, but disagreement is not disingenuous. Disingenuous is accusing me of violating site policy, of hijacking threads, and (shudder) asking pesky questions that actually attempt to get you to reveal your opinions, when you know very well the fallacy of those remarks. So much so that you abandon even trying to support those allegations after making them. Just what you use such comments for shines through when you only seem to throw them out rather than support them. You know they are unsupportable, and it shows you don't even mean them. I'm more than happy to let you show this to everyone.

I am addressing Renee and her inconsistencies over how Gov. McGreevey can't get "off the hook" via divorce, yet his wife can.

Actually, Renee points out the opposite. McGreevey (and other male adulterers) seem to get off the hood while the woman seems left holding the bag. She said,

--"I may be the same weight I was on my wedding day, but three small children sort of stretch me out in places and sag in others. Would I be to blame, if my husband wasn't happy with me anymore?

"My husband would gets a brand new happy life, while I have to pick up the pieces and "move on" and pretend how great it is now the daddy is just ducky with another woman. I just can't move on, I'm sorta 'used goods', and in many cases I would be better off staying single.

"Does anyone think Rudy now being happy, makes his children and ex-wife happy too? I don't know if anyone has seen the Guiliani ad, where he says, 'I'm not perfect'. What does that mean.? Yeah, I know I'm a failure as a husband and father, but I don't care. Yes, no one is perfect, but just because we have temptations and maybe even give into them, doesn't mean we have lost the obligations to recover and get back on track to our promises." --

Renee, can you speak for yourself in this matter,

I hope she does, because you seem to be trying to speak for her. And she has been doing a rather adept job of not letting you do that.

or is On Lawn going to continue to attempt to derail that conversation?

Just another useless accusation Mr Hosty. It assumes that by answering the question, it will interfere with your conversation with Renee. Are you saying you have no ability to hold two threads together at once? If so it would simply add to an already growing pile of inconsistent and even conflicting excuses and blame you've accumulated so far in your evasion.

Perhaps this is another inadvertent admission as to the fragility of your house of cards you construct here. You've said a lot of words about Opine, but let me lay down specifically my suspicion here. My suspicion is that your actions are speaking even louder about what you think about your own opinions. Its not me, its you evading and pretending that shines through as insecurity in your own opinions.12/03/2007 12:28:00 AM
On Lawn said...
I'll accept that there might be some truth this time, which you will agree is far more generous than your underhandedness has deserved.

I'll head this off at the pass. This is not an admission of guilt ("might" plays an important role in that sentence). It is a suspension of judgment pending Hosty's ability to back up his claim. It is easy enough to dismiss on many grounds.

1) Many other posters here seem to have keyed in on the same need for Hosty to clarify.

2) Hijacking the thread means I demand everyone answer my own opinions. John Howard is an example of this, where he takes threads about other topics and demands people give their support to his opinions in them. My questions entirely originate from opinions he and others have given in this thread, and other threads referencing this one.

3) Mr Hosty has given multiple reasons for not answering, which I have addressed one by one. Why this one shows up just denotes that he has abandoned accusations as fast as he can throw them. It underlies that he is not so concerned with any of these concerns he has about me, as much as his own concerns with his own opinions.

***

But I will forbear and give him the benefit of doubt. Just because he has been wrong on every other accusations (from Christian, to Renee, to myself and others) doesn't mean he's wrong now. He can make his case, and I will be open to the fact he might have something. Its unlikely, but if there is something to it I would certainly want to be the first to know so I (or an Opine Admin) could take appropriate action.

And in the mean time, Mr Hosty, I will repeat the questions you are evading...

We all remember Mr Hosty said, "Seems that if the wife filed, Gov. McGreevey doesn't have much of a say in the matter of reconciliation."

It seems John criticized Renee over at Fallacy findings (funny how they all ran elsewhere to say these things)...

-- "If you read her post on the McGreeveys she pretty much exposes her ignorance when she says that the McGreeveys could have, should have repaired their marriage." --

Is John calling Mr Hosty ignorant also for suggesting they could have repaired their marriage if she didn't file for divorce?

Mr Hosty, do you agree with John's fatalist assessment of a gay man's complete inability to love honor and cherish a woman in any meaningfully marital way?
12/03/2007 12:45:00 AM
Fannie said...
This post has been removed by the author.
12/03/2007 08:22:00 AM
Fannie said...
On Lawn said this to me:

"But what of your incoherent rant? You couldn't even spell "misspelled" and "unintelligible" correctly when "criticizing" Fitz. And can anyone here diagram that convoluted run-on sentence?"


Simple typos there, buddy. Very telling how you latch on to those to discredit my comment, however.


Now, proceed with your next novella-length rebuttal and comment/derailment.


Regarding internet anonymity, its dangers, and its relevance to anti-gay and anti-feminist rantings, I will refer all to my recent post regarding the topic:

http://fanniesroom.blogspot.com/2007/11/missed-connection-with-identity.html


John,

Excellent job staying on task while disregarding attempted derailments.

12/03/2007 08:23:00 AM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...
"Even though I don't agree with homosexual behavior, I understand the deep level of commitment and trust in same-sex relationships. I could imagine if a same-sex couple owns a home with a mortgage based on two incomes and one person just abandoned the relationship, the home could just go into foreclosure with the inability to sell the property without the other person's signature."

This statement shows that you do have compassion for same sex partners, that's a healthy sign.

"I see how many legal benefits mirror and benefit relationships, other then husband and wife. Adults should be able to associate with who they choose, and decide who makes decisions for them when they can't as in the hospitals or even, morbid as it is, to ensure funeral/burial wishes are fulfilled."

Again this statement shows an understanding and sympathy for the plight of GLBT partners, of which I applaud your courage to say so in the present enviornment.

"I definitely see why we should look into public policy to address these issues for adults."

This is why we are fighting for marriage equality. The institution of marriage already exists, and we in the GLBT community see no reason that we should have to create another similar institution. One marriage seems not to effect another, all of us being individuals have very different effects on the common good.

"Still, we know what happens when children are brought into this world in an unstable environment."

This is where we begin to disagree. I do not automatically see a GLBT relationship or marriage as an unstable relationship. For me a relationship is unstable for other reasons that are more identifiable, like spousal abuse, poor financial planning, or substance abuse to cite a few examples. I think I would understand your point of view better if you could explain to me what it is you see in a GLBT marriage that would found your fears.

"Family planning and the discussion of potential children, and their well being must be addressed by heterosexual couples,"

I believe this statement to be true regardless of the parent's sexuality. If you are going to bring children into the world, or into your home, you should have prepared properly.

"because their sexual activity may create a child (planned or unplanned) in which the man and woman are both obligated to raise together."

This is more wishful thinking than factual. Parents have no obligation to raise the child, although they may find a financial obligation to the child if they do not. In Massachusetts we have drop off centers so that child parents can give the child over to the authoritites, no questions asked. This gives the child a better home than if the child had stayed with it's teenage parents who may be struggling with many other issues.

"This is best done when they are one family unit."

I do agree that in most cases a child is best raised by their biological parents, but their are a lot of other factors to determining child welfare.

"Heterosexual relationships not only mean being a good partner, but also being good parent."

This is not true of all relationships. There are many people who will have a relationship with someone who they won't have kids with. That in mind it is equally as important for GLBT parents to be good parents to their children.

"By protecting the sexual act that creates a child, we are protecting the child itself."

This seems to say that homosexual sex is not acceptable rather than GLBT marriage. While I understanding your beliefs can sympathize with your desire to say marriage is for straight people, I cannot condone the leap to saying we cannot conduct ourselves as free people, and show our sexual nature to our partners.

"We also know if the parents have a strong committed relationship prior to conception, the socio/emotional well being of the child will be ok also."

I don't see a stable committed relationship by the parents as automatically ensuring socio/emotional well being for the newborn, but I can say for sure that it helps.

"This must be the focus of marriage as a matter of public policy."

Renee, as you can see we have a bit of common ground to work with. I don't agree with everything you have to say, but I agree on some. Hopefully in time we can learn from one another and grow more aware of a better solution to our mutual problems than the solutions we seem to have now. It is through compassion and co-operation that our challenges will be resolved.

As for the others here that are constantly snapping at my heels, no amount of disrespect will make a person talk with you if they choose not to. Have your fun at my expense, it only proves vile things about you, not me.

12/03/2007 08:48:00 AM
On Lawn said...
Fannie about Fitz...

What is this website, you may be asking? Proof of the "Fitz" moniker's obsession with negating and opposing gay people. He has compiled an exhaustive internet anti-gay "library" of sorts, rife with his usual unintelligble, mispelled, [ed: note she misspelled "unintelligible" and "misspelled"] and error-prone diatribes interjected within.

Now she says about her own "mispelled", not only that they are typos but diversions to even talk about. At this point, Either she trolling with self-humiliating hypocrisy to make us laugh, or she really doesn't see just how much she is being the very hateful, incoherent mis-speller she is complaining others are.
And I wonder just what Fannie knows about Hosty's task that discussing his opinions and those around them are "derailments". Just what is Hosty's "task" that he feels us asking him to clarify his position even his own questions, is derailment.

But this much is true, Fannie is adding to the admission that their purpose here is not to discuss, or to show mutual respect. Or else Fitz would have been accused of "typos", that is if she felt like derailing the conversation at all.

Mutual respect is showing the same respect you demand from others. And that is something I've not seen from them, though I've tried and tried. If Hosty wants answers (and Renee has been gracious about providing them, btw) then mutual respect would suggest he would do the same. But that, we learn from Fannie is not his task. And more than that, she celebrates him in that effort.
12/03/2007 08:55:00 AM
Fannie said...
Pointing out the hatred that others hold in their hearts is not hateful, as much as On Lawn would characterizes it as such.

On Lawn goes on to conclude:

"But that, we learn from Fannie is not his task. And more than that, she celebrates him in that effort."

How does he get from A to B to make his conclusions? Clarity is appreciated and encouraged. False assumptions are not.

I do celebrate John's dialogue with Renee in the face of attempted derailments that Chairm, Op-Ed, and On Lawn are throwing out there.


As an example, On Lawn has irrelevantly thrown in this side comment about me and my alleged horrible behavior.

THIS IS AN INTERRUPTION OF THE THREAD FOR COMMENTARY:
FROM HERE IN THE COMMENTS HEAT UP SO THEY ARE NOT HIGHLIGHTED
12/03/2007 09:07:00 AM
Fannie said...
If On Lawn has further comments to make about the comments I made on someone else's blog, he is free to post them at the original source.

http://livelovelearn247.blogspot.com/


It is odd internet etiquette to create a side discussion irrelevantly on another blog within someone else's article.

12/03/2007 09:13:00 AM
On Lawn said...
Pointing out the hatred that others hold in their hearts is not hateful, as much as On Lawn would characterizes it as such.

Actually, my point is that pointing out hatred where there is none is lying. The fact that you interpret the same actions benignly when you do them, shows that you know that these actions are not hatred. Yet you accused anyway.

How does he get from A to B to make his conclusions? Clarity is appreciated and encouraged. False assumptions are not.

A) Fannie accuses Fitz of misspelling.
1) Fannie misspells the accusation.
2) I point out that misspelling as hypocrisy.
3) Fannie then says for her it is a typo and for me pointing out misspellings is nefarious to divert the discussion.
B) Fannie is accusing others of nefarious actions that she knows are benign. Hence making false accusations.

That is a pretty clear cut case, and there are more. Hosty makes many accusations, which he later never supports. On the face of it there is great reason to be suspicious of his allegations as they don't really fit the actions he is making the claims from. Then, asking for him to support his allegations is considered by Fannie as (once again) derailing the discussion. Then she accuses others of making false allegations. She celebrates Hosty as staying on task by avoiding supporting his allegations and opinions.

It was explained above, but since you plead ignorant I feel it important to restate.

The case supporting the allegations of your hypocrisy is pretty clear.

If you disagree or have evidence to the contrary, please present it. But as you just said, pointing out another's hateful actions is not in and of itself a hateful action. I'd be willing for you to try to support your allegations.

12/03/2007 09:47:00 AM
On Lawn said...
If On Lawn has further comments to make about the comments I made on someone else's blog

Wow, that shows an amazing amount of arrogance in telling others where they can and cannot comment.

12/03/2007 09:49:00 AM
Chairm said...
Fannie, are you anonymous? Please clarify.

How about "John" and "hammerpants" and on and on among bloggers and commenters you have come across on your own blog, Jane's blog, John Hosty's blog, and KTN?

Dangerous all?

Besides did you not read the comment I left in which I pointed out that Opiners post with different levels of anonymity and four of us use our full names?

Focus on the substance, Fannie, and you'd learn quicker that there is common ground even with those you so belligerently disagree with.

12/03/2007 10:02:00 AM
Fannie said...
On Lawn,

Please point to where I told one where one can and cannot comment.

To jog your memory, I said this:

"If On Lawn has further comments to make about the comments I made on someone else's blog, he is free to post them at the original source."


While you are belligerently blasting away at the honesty of others 'tis looks like you aren't being quite so honest yourself.

Hypocrisy indeed.

12/03/2007 10:07:00 AM
Chairm said...
This post has been removed by the author.
12/03/2007 10:09:00 AM
On Lawn said...
Fannie,

So you have no problem with me replying to it here? Please state your position clearly.

12/03/2007 10:10:00 AM
Fannie said...
And yes, Chairm, let's all focus on substance instead of these distracting, irrelevant derailments.

12/03/2007 10:10:00 AM
Chairm said...
John Hosty, you are quite the phoney.

In discussions you have heard directly from several Opiners who have said as much as Renee has about alternative adult relationships.

But here you are trying to claim credit for discovery of common ground. It is you, sir, who needs to focus on substance and to really think much more clearly about the actual disagreement.

What is the nature, the core, the essence of the relationship type you want all of society to call "marriage"?

Is it the legal incidents of marriage? Is that your circular thinking?

Perhaps it is whatever each particular individual says it is, for himself alone, as you do? You've asserted as much.

Or maybe you can distinguish yourself by providing a fulsome answer on the question asked.

If not, your behavior demonstrates that you have conceded that you lack reason to denounce the man-woman criterion of marriage and that you are posing, yet again.

That's the context for your evasion of the questions regarding divorce, McGreevey, and so forth that have been put out there like floaters for you to hit out of the ballpark.

Instead you have pretended to instruct Renee on what she has already instructed you on.

12/03/2007 10:11:00 AM
Fannie said...
So, On Lawn,

No apology? No admittal that you belligerently misprepresented what I said?

Fun game.

12/03/2007 10:12:00 AM
Chairm said...
Okay, deal Fannie, please address the questions posed to John Hosty, since you have applauded his comments, and explain what he has failed to even acknowledge.

12/03/2007 10:12:00 AM
Renee said...
Since I started the thread, I wish to close it down now.

12/03/2007 10:13:00 AM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...
Comment Policy
"As a reader, you enjoy an open invitation to discuss the substance of our posts.

Disputes of fact and of opinion are welcomed. Please try to stay on topic.

Petty insults or ad hom attacks or profanity are strongly discouraged. These detract, rather than add, to the discussion.

If an offensive comment is deleted, the commenter may re-comment without the offensive parts.

Should you have questions or concerns about a comment, please send an email."

Is it too much to ask that these simple rules are followed? This thread is about "When marriage is about more than two people", not "let's pretend we're not insulting our opponents, then talk mainly about them."

If any of you have one ounce of honesty in you, you will concede that things are out of control on this thread, and take care of the issue.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
12/03/2007 10:13:00 AM
Chairm said...
Fannie, if you feel you have been misrepresented, then, clarify.

12/03/2007 10:14:00 AM
On Lawn said...
Fannie,

If you find I am blasting away at the dishonesty of others, do you disagree that your lies and inconsistencies should be pointed out? I find exposing dishonesty a good thing. Especially when it shows where I can do better, though showing others where they can do better is also important to me. I would advise you do the same...

12/03/2007 10:15:00 AM
Fannie said...
Bravo, Renee.

I truly mean that.

12/03/2007 10:16:00 AM
Chairm said...
John Hosty, your latest comment has been deleted. If you have a problem with the comment policy, send an email to On Lawn.

Focus on substance.

12/03/2007 10:17:00 AM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
12/03/2007 10:18:00 AM
On Lawn said...
No apology? No admittal that you belligerently misprepresented what I said?

Please clarify your remarks. Telling me that I am free to post somewhere is assuming authority over LLL policy. Telling me that it is wrong for me to reply here, is assuming authority over where I comment.

Please clarify your statement.

--"If On Lawn has further comments to make about the comments I made on someone else's blog, he is free to post them at the original source.

http://livelovelearn247.blogspot.com/


It is odd internet etiquette to create a side discussion irrelevantly on another blog within someone else's article." --

Especially considering your insistence on others acting hostile towards you. Please clarify that inconsistency also.

12/03/2007 10:20:00 AM
Renee said...
In regards to John...

On my personal blog, I was 'blog swarmed' back in June 06' when I was pregnant. It was ugly.

I do feel a part of sex education and the understanding how human sexuality functions is about obligating oneself to your children and person you had sex with.

Here is what I wrote.

"It would not be fair for anyone in our previous discussions if I asked them to use kid gloves on me because I'm 24 weeks pregnant. The truth is pregnancy takes a physical and emotional toll on the mother's body and I'm thankful the the father of this child is also my husband. We are both called to a duty to care and protect this unborn child, as for the other two little ones ages four and two years of age....

Pregnancy and being a mother to young children makes you "weak", I know it is not cool as a woman to say it. Women in these situations need special protection, and the institution of marriage protects them. That is why heterosexuality is different them homosexuality. Two people of the same sex can not get each other pregnant.

I'm not old enough to remember, prior to the days when the laws said a woman had a duty to her unborn child. I do not know what family life was like, before a husband could just walk away from his family by simply paying his wife and mother of his children a third of his income or a wife leaving her husband."

12/03/2007 10:20:00 AM
Fannie said...
On Lawn,

I disagree that my simple typos in my comment about Fitz were "dishonest." It would, in fact, be dishonest of you to claim as such as you do not know the inner workings of my mind.

If you are talking about Jane Know's article, I did not write that. How would what she wrote constitute MY dishonesty?

Please clarify. Substantially.

12/03/2007 10:21:00 AM
On Lawn said...
Chairm,

If it is okay with you please let Hosty take this side adventure. I wish to discuss this publicly in the thread he brought the accusation up in.

12/03/2007 10:21:00 AM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...
Why are you censoring your own comment policy? What is wrong with your comment policy that you need to censor me repeating it here? Obviously the conversation has gone WAY off track, and I am bringing attention to that?

What could you POSSIBLY have a problem with that for?

12/03/2007 10:26:00 AM
Fannie said...
If On Lawn has further comments to make about the comments I made on someone else's blog, he is free to post them at the original source.

http://livelovelearn247.blogspot.com/


It is odd internet etiquette to create a side discussion irrelevantly on another blog within someone else's article."


You replied:

"Wow, that shows an amazing amount of arrogance in telling others where they can and cannot comment."


Saying that one is free to comment on another blog is not telling one where one can and cannot comment.

Pointing out your behavior as odd internet etiquette is not telling one where one can and cannot comment.

One is, of course, relatively free to comment wherever one wishes to comment.

You can read English On Lawn. I was making statements of fact. Therefore, it was dishonest of you to suggest that I was telling "one where one can and cannot comment" and it was a personal attack for you to suggest I am arrogant for supposedly doing so.

12/03/2007 10:27:00 AM
On Lawn said...
I disagree that my simple typos in my comment about Fitz were "dishonest."

Please re-read the outline above (points A, 1, 2, 3, B) and let me know just where you thought my accusation your typos were dishonest. This sounds like you are misrepresenting my position, which is dishonest. The comment above notes it is your inconsistency with allegation that is dishonest. Your typos are only worth mentioning in the hilarity of self-inflicted hijinks of misspelling your very accusations of misspelling. It is not the instance of misspelling that is so funny, but that you did it in a way that is worthy of a Simpsons episode.

12/03/2007 10:29:00 AM
On Lawn said...
Fannie,

So you have no problem with me replying to it here? Please state your position clearly.

12/03/2007 10:33:00 AM
Chairm said...
John Hosty, you are attempting to change the topic. Question were put to you, on-topic, and you keep complaining about that.

Focus on the substance.

If you wish to discuss the comment policy, take it to email.

I'll leave your latest comment up for now. If you submit it again, it will be deleted, again.

12/03/2007 10:35:00 AM
op-ed said...
Fannie: Please point to where I told one where one can and cannot comment.
...
I said this: "... he is free to post them at the original source."

Looks like you did a good enough job yourself, there, Fannie.

On Lawn: A) Fannie accuses Fitz of misspelling.
...
3) Fannie then says for her it is a typo and for me pointing out misspellings is nefarious to divert the discussion.

Good job, On Lawn. Too funny. Fannie attacks spelling and then says attacking spelling is a diversion. Way to nail her on that. Well, Fannie knows her intentions and if she says she was trying to divert the discussion, I say we believe her. :-D

I notice Fannie dropped the spelling point like a hot rock in her most recent comment. I applaud her for abandoning the obviously indefensible parts of her backpedaling. I applaud Hosty for doing the same thing. That blame the victim thing clearly wasn't going where he wanted and he's run from it like the blunder it was. He's also wise to have ignored the daughter in this case (what you call a "diversion" to the marriage question) since his whole argument is about making marriage adult-centric and leaving children to deal with it. Jane's pretty smart, too, for not trying to defend her "urges" nonsense.

12/03/2007 10:36:00 AM
On Lawn said...
Why are you censoring your own comment policy?

We usually invite people to take up administration complaints over email. Would you like us to make an exception in this thread with you? Please ask specifically.

What is wrong with your comment policy that you need to censor me repeating it here?

LOL. It is on the right hand side of each page. What "censorship" or hiding of the comment policy is going on here? However I can suggest that you should be much more clear just where and how you feel the comment policy needs to be adhered to.

You are duly deputized in finding comments that are awry of the comment policy. Please be specific in quotes, and how those quotes violate the policy.

Just posting the policy over and over again, is spam.

Obviously the conversation has gone WAY off track, and I am bringing attention to that?

You have had no problem in attempting to guide the discussion by what you reply to and what you don't. By the side-swiping accusations you make and such. Why have you abandoned the thread? Where did you get out of control?

What could you POSSIBLY have a problem with that for?

LOL.

12/03/2007 10:40:00 AM
op-ed said...
Fannie: I disagree that my simple typos in my comment...

Fannie! Just when I get done complimenting you for dropping obvious losing positions... I'm so disappointed.

12/03/2007 10:41:00 AM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...
I think before we continue I need to know what rule I violated by posting the comment policy, and make sure I understand your rules here so I can avoid future censorship.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
12/03/2007 10:41:00 AM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...
You have been allowing personal attacks against me. Whether it is believed to be true or not calling someone a liar is an insult. You claim to have policies against such things, and I merely brought up the fact that you are not holding yourselves to your own standards, of which this I have much experience.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
12/03/2007 10:45:00 AM
Chairm said...
Hosty you most recent complaint about policy has been deleted. Please read my previous remark.

And note On Lawn's invitation: if you would like to discuss it further, go to email; or specifically request a blogpost on that meta-topic.

Repeat your meta-complaint here again and it will be deleted again.

12/03/2007 10:47:00 AM
Fannie said...
Op-Ed,

Nice of you to have joined this conversation so late in the game.

Please read my explanation to On Lawn where I clarified his dishonest belligerence.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
12/03/2007 10:47:00 AM
op-ed said...
On Lawn: LOL. It is on the right hand side of each page.

LOL! Right below the link to Opine's Defend Marriage Resources that Fannie's oh-so-clever appeal to Google uncovered. Dang! We should have thought that someone might try Google! With such amazing super powers of observation, its a wonder Hosty and Fannie don't open their own super sleuthing detective agency. :-D

12/03/2007 10:48:00 AM
Chairm said...
John Hosty, take it to email or await On Lawn's reply to your yet-unstated specific request for a blogpost on your meta-complaint.

Your latest comment is deleted and if you repeat it, it will be deleted again.

The previous complaint I've left up, for now.

12/03/2007 10:49:00 AM
On Lawn said...
Should you have questions or concerns about a comment, please send an email.

-- specifically. Beyond that you didn't have any specific complaint, just posted the comment policy as if it were another of your newly found and quickly discarded false accusations.

Better yet, why not try to support the allegations you have raised rather than pretend quoting the comment policy (which is already available on the side of the page) is anything but SPAM. If you had specific complaints, it wouldn't be spam.

12/03/2007 10:50:00 AM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...
my comments still have made their mark, as this one will, because the people interested in what's being said here have these comments emailed to them.

What a sad attempt to silence the voice of another. This is very telling...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
12/03/2007 10:50:00 AM
Chairm said...
Fannie, from this point onward, repeating Hosty's meta-complaint will qualify a comment for deletion.

Read my remarks to Hosty.

To All: I will not explain future deletions that are based on Hosty's meta-comments.

12/03/2007 10:57:00 AM
op-ed said...
Fannie: Nice of you to have joined this conversation so late in the game.

Too Funny!! Early Fannie said this:

I do celebrate John's dialogue with Renee in the face of attempted derailments that Chairm, Op-Ed, and On Lawn are throwing out there.

So which is it, Fannie, am I "late in the game" or have I been here all along trying to throw in "derailments?" You're flailing so hard looking for attacks you can't even keep them all straight! Thanks for the comic relief, anyway. This is much funnier than your failed "all courts are currupt" joke.

12/03/2007 10:59:00 AM
On Lawn said...
Thread re-opened.

Mr Hosty, no need to panic. Your repeated spamming attempts have been properly dealt with. And the thread has been opened to deal with your concerns also.

So back to the topic at hand, I ask again for you to clarify just how McGreevey was living a lie. Please state that lie in a sentence so that we can avoid any further ambiguity on McGreevey's dilemma.

12/03/2007 12:30:00 PM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...
I haven't spammed this or any other blog. I merely attempted to communicate the fact that the rules are not being followed. Your comment that I restate my "lie" is an overt insult, but I expect this post will also be deleted.

Have no fear though, all of the posts deleted are saved in my email and will be made available to the public so they can see just how unnecessary this all was.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
12/03/2007 03:11:00 PM
On Lawn said...
And they will be pointed to the empty thread we created for you to complain in :)

Sorry Hosty, you've botched this one. I'm waiting anxiously for you to "expose this".

12/03/2007 06:10:00 PM
John Hosty-Grinnell said...
your comments are shamelessly aggressive.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
12/03/2007 06:25:00 PM
On Lawn said...
Take it up in the appropriate thread Mr Hosty.

12/03/2007 06:26:00 PM

As any reasonable person can see these comments are proof of just how angry and hateful Opiners can be. Little needs to be said after reading these comments, aside from a question to the Opiners; how do you live with yourself?

Anyone wishing to has my full permission to add links to their own site so they can have an example to show others of what Opine Ed is really about.

I wanted to give an answer to the only legitimate question in this thread, although it is again off base from the thread subject.

"Restate, in your own words, the substantive disagreement on marriage between yourself and those you disagree with, here at Opine."

Here goes:

In America we have an expectation of equality. The principles of this equality have been passed down from generation to generation within our Constiution and Bill of Rights. Yet in spite of the fact that we have had these principles since the begining, our understanding of how those principles are best promoted have changed as our nation has grown. We no longer think women should not vote, but we used to. We no longer think of black people as property, but we used to. Even after we understood that slavery was wrong, we still found reasons to keep blacks down in society via segregation. This too has come to an end through our social evolution.

Our advances however have not ended, nor do I expect them too. If our nation is smart we will constantly challenge authority to remind ourselves why that authority exists; to serve for the common good. Sometimes it takes the government stepping in and correcting a social wrong for there to be considerable advancements in equality. We have observed people like Gov. George Wallace who was willing to defy even the federal government until the National Guard was sent in. In fact, all of the great social advances in equality were made through civil suit. So how does marriage equality fit in to all this?

GLBT people have the same expectation of equal representation and enjoy the same rights as anyone else, with one glaring inconsistency; they can't get married to whom they love. The assumed reason behind this denial is that these marriages will cause social harm. This standard is neither explained in detail nor equally expected of other marriages, only same sex ones. We are left with the impression that gay marriage is bad because gays are bad. This is of course untrue, yet people are defending this mindset like it was an attack on their own lives.

Only forty years ago our country was so backwards that it had to shake itself awake from the idea that God had put different people on different continents to keeps the races from mixing. That was our coutry's position on interracial marriage prior to Loving vs. Virginia 1967. Now we are in the 21st century and the last glaring inconsistency in equality is how our government denies GLBT people the right to marry who they want. Marriage is doled out freely to whomever asks, so long as they are straight. Straight people can use and discard marriage with reckless abandon, and I found few circumstances in which a straight couple can be denied marriage, those all having sound rational behind them. But there is no sound rationale to keep GLBT people from enjoying the same government benefits and recognition as equals.

There are those who think GLBT people are all the same, and they are all bad. They fly the fears that marriage equality will render the institution of marriage meaningless, and that children of these people will be at more risk if they are able to be married. This must be true of their thinking because in their eye denying GLBT people marriage somehow protects children, even their own. Evidently the evil from gay marriage is so intense that it requires no actions of the gay couple, it's mere existance is enough to destroy lives. It is nonsense like this that is used as a viable excuse to deny equality, and it flies in the face of logic. GLBT people are like any other group, and they deserve the SAME EXACT rights as everone else gets. Not seperate but equal, like civil unions offer. I do not drink from a seperate water fountain, I do not sit at the back of the bus, and I most certainly am not going to allow someone to tell me what I am going to call my marriage. If someone wants that from me they can explain their need first.