Good As You

And what self respecting gay man would ever sit down with Warren and ask him, "Well why shouldn't I have multiple sexual partners, it's the natural thing to do." How deep did he have to dig up that rotund ass of his to pull that gem out. And, if you can get past the fact that the statement is an obvious fabrication, then the fact that Warren conflates that with same-sex marriage, and further insinuates that EVERY gay man is inclined to have sex with every man he meets is just piling those turd-gems on top of each other.

I saw that and wondered how long it would take for Media Matters to jump on it. Maybe they take Sundays off.

Just wanted to point out something annoying to me. Why isn't Warren the kiss of death because of his views on women? He wants to control my uterus and my reproductive capabilities. That to me is unacceptable along with his nastiness towards GLBT persons, but we're not hearing anything about that. Apparently it's just flat-out OK to invite a womb control advocate to pray to God--no question brought up in the national press at all that this might be problematic in any way.

As a progressive woman, this choice of Warren is really making me nervous that Obama's going to undo all the crap Bush has done to reproductive rights over the last eight years, particularly the most recent bit of odious rulemaking that came out this week.

We need to talk about ALL of Rick Warren's odious, out-of-the-mainstream views and get it through Obama's thick skull that a man who (despite the rhetoric) hates GLBT persons and can't trust us women to control our own reproductive destiny is not someone we need to have praying at the inauguration.

Of course, as an ardent church-state separationist, I'd get rid of all of the praying as unnecessary in any case.

"And what self respecting gay man would ever sit down with Warren and ask him, "Well why shouldn't I have multiple sexual partners, it's the natural thing to do." How deep did he have to dig up that rotund ass of his to pull that gem out. "

Only as far as the New York Times.

"Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.”

Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/us/15marriage.html?_r=3&pagewanted=2

And elsewhere.

"She demanded the details, but I would only give her a basic outline. One was a nice French guy who looked like Tom Cruise. The other was with an ex-boyfriend of mine, a Microsoft millionaire who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars building a "playroom" in his basement -- a kind of sex toy wonderland. Terry wanted to see this playroom for himself and so we went over for dinner... and one thing led to another..."

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2004/07/17/gay_marriage/print.html

And keep in mind, these are gay people who ARE married who are saying publicly that, you know, there's nothing wrong with having multiple sexual partners.

Next up:

"Just wanted to point out something annoying to me. Why isn't Warren the kiss of death because of his views on women? He wants to control my uterus and my reproductive capabilities."

Actually, no; he just doesn't think that it's a valid or wise choice to kill another human being for your convenience, especially when said human being exists because of your choice to have unprotected sex.

It's always amused me that "progressives" think LGBT people should automatically support abortion. As people who know firsthand the dangers and consequences of unprotected sex, why on earth should we be expected to support a behavior that facilitates it?

Meanwhile, when you're willing to call people like Senator Bob Casey and Democrats For Life "womb control advocates", call us back.

Mirele, I could not agree more. I don't have a uterus, but if I did, I wouldn't want Warren's snout rooting around anywhere near it. I also don't have an opinion on abortion, since it isn't a remedy for anything that might ever happen to me.

But, that said, I also think that the media should never give a pass to anti-abortionists without also grilling them as to their stand on oral contraceptives (or IUDs for that matter). Most of them believe that the pill is perfectly alright (for married couples), even though oral contraceptives are responsible for more abortions than surgeries are.

Oral contraceptives are about 80% effective at eliminating ovulation, but are over 97% effective as birth-control methods. The reason is the hostile environment that is created which effectively miscarries any fertilized egg that makes it that far. That, in every way, is an abortion.

So, they loudly decry abortion, but tacitly approve another form of abortion. That's hypocrisy for the sake of political expediency. They know that the minions would revolt if they castigate married couples who use the pill for birth control. But, "a call for the head of anyone who is pro-choice" is an effective rallying cry. And, I know that they get the disconnect, because of all of the infighting that goes on which is centered around that very subject.

Well, NDT, you have listed two cases and a third that you didn't mention is Dan Savage and his partner and their (one time, at least) three way. And, for each of those, you can probably come up with a thousand opposite sex couples who openly play around, and a hundred thousand who do it on the down-low.

That they exist isn't the issue, that any one of them sat down with Warren and talked about it is. And, I am saying that none of them ever did.

But if I am wrong about that, then the second part of my statement is still true, which is that Warren conflates the fact that SOME gay men do actively seek as many fuck-buddies as they can get with his lie that ALL gay men do. His insinuation that EVERY GAY MAN FUCKS AROUND is an intentional LIE. His point was that LGBTs should be denied everything (and eliminated if possible), because they cannot be monogamous - AND MORE THAN A LIE, THAT IS HATE!

My freind said that pushing for marraige instead of domestic partnership was a strategic mistake. It was. And now everyone is getting an emotional high from complaining about this Warren creep.
Let me 'splain somethin'. Obama and the Clintons are our freinds. BUT THEY CAN'T GIVE US EVERYTHING WE WANT BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE DEFINITELY NOT OUR FREINDS.
We went balistic over dodt, and didn't lift a finger to help when Hillary went to the mat for healthcare. Now Obama needs to reach out to the religious right, whose support he'll need for a domestic agenda.
If a black man is successful in fixing the disaster left by Bush, it will be a huge moral victory for Liberals. And I intend to do everything I can to help. At the very least, that means taking this insult like an adult and moving on.

"Well, NDT, you have listed two cases and a third that you didn't mention is Dan Savage and his partner and their (one time, at least) three way."

I suggest you try reading that second link.

But if you want a third one, the Beyond Marriage statement, signed by an overwhelming number of gay leaders, specifically calls out that marriage should be given to parent-child relationships, sibling relationships, and, quote, "households with more than one conjugal partner".

http://beyondmarriage.org

Meanwhile, let's return to the first statement you made:

"And what self respecting gay man would ever sit down with Warren and ask him, "Well why shouldn't I have multiple sexual partners, it's the natural thing to do.""

Now, since there are examples of gay and lesbian couples saying that to the world at large in national news outlets, tell us; does this mean these people are not "self-respecting"?

Furthermore, it is amusing to see gays and lesbians upset with Warren for saying that gays cannot be monogamous when not a word is said about gays like Dan Savage and Eric Erbelding saying in national newspapers and news outlets that monogamy is not "practical" for gay men, and that promiscuous sex with multiple partners within marriage "doesn't mean anything" and is perfectly OK.

If it is wrong when Warren says it, it should be wrong and receive the same level of vitriol when Savage, Erbelding, and the hundreds who signed the Beyond Marriage petition say it. But it doesn't, and what that makes obvious is that gay and lesbian people have no problem supporting the belief that gays cannot be monogamous -- when their gay leaders and representatives are saying it.

"But, that said, I also think that the media should never give a pass to anti-abortionists without also grilling them as to their stand on oral contraceptives (or IUDs for that matter). Most of them believe that the pill is perfectly alright (for married couples), even though oral contraceptives are responsible for more abortions than surgeries are.

Oral contraceptives are about 80% effective at eliminating ovulation, but are over 97% effective as birth-control methods. The reason is the hostile environment that is created which effectively miscarries any fertilized egg that makes it that far. That, in every way, is an abortion."

I do wish that gay and lesbian liberals who are so desperate to ally themselves with Planned Parenthood would actually read the literature that Planned Parenthood produces.

"The hormones in the pill work by keeping a woman’s ovaries from releasing eggs — ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. The hormones in the pill also prevent pregnancy by thickening a woman’s cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg.

Some people say that the pill works by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. But there is no proof that this actually happens."

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm#work

Now, is this a result of misinformation on your part, or is Planned Parenthood lying?

Mirele, Dick: Also completely agree. I do want to say that the reason this site has not tackled his other views is because G-A-Y targets LGBT issues only. I decided long ago to put a razor sharp focus on only LGBT issues, so as to not get off on the MANY other tangents that surround these "culture wars."

"My freind said that pushing for marraige instead of domestic partnership was a strategic mistake. It was. And now everyone is getting an emotional high from complaining about this Warren creep."

WillBFair, if you think DP's are going to be ok with conservative Christians you are sadly mistaken. They want no recognition of our relationships in any way, shape, or form. Conservative Christians in several states are already gathering the signatures to place on their ballots for the next election to make DP's and civil unions illegal. And these are the states that have laws that already state in their constitutions that marriage is to be between one man and one woman.

They will not be satisfied until all gay rights laws are repealed across the land.

NDT, the very fact that Oral Contraceptives are not 100% effective proves that in many cases the fertilization of the egg does occur. Some report that as many as 9% of women using oral contraceptives actually get pregnant. There may not be concrete evidence that actual fertilized eggs are aborted, but there is evidence that for up to 2 years after a woman stops using oral contraceptives that her risk of miscarriage is elevated - as evidenced by miscarriages which are in excess of normal rates of miscarriage.

Planned Parenthood may not be lying, but to believe what they are saying, one must believe that oral contraceptives are 100% effective - they are not.

Give me a break. I'll bet you 99% of respondants to any legitimate survey of gay people would turn up precisely 0% familiarity with beyondmarriage.org. I've never heard of it and I live in the heart of gay liberation, right next to Stonewall.

On Dec 31st, in a gallery in New York, I know of a sex and drugs party where about 200 people will take acid and other psychedelic drugs, screw each other in front of their partners and spouses, and claim spiritual enlightenment. Gays aren't welcome. Not my thing...but will I start a jihad against it? No, because it's not my business. I suggest the procilivities of a few aren't yours either.

Most people pause before making broad, thinly-veiled judgements passed as observations, but then again, not everyone has such an obvious agenda as you seem to. I don't have any need to excuse or justify the behavior of some people who choose different sexual habits than me and my monogamous husband. You might want to ask some of yer straight buddies tho; I'll bet if you could get an honest answer from them it wouldn't be any different than any gays that run in your circles. Maybe we just are more honest - chalk another one up for the home team.

Cheers

NDT, one last thing, it seems obvious that you can't read, or can't understand what you read, or that you are intentionally trying to be misleading, but if you look again at what I said, "And what self respecting gay man WOULD EVER SIT DOWN WITH WARREN AND ASK HIM, "Well why shouldn't I have multiple sexual partners, it's the natural thing to do."

My intention was to explicitly state that any LGBT person who would sit down with Warren would not be self-respecting. In fact, it is much more likely that they would be self-loathing as evidenced by the fact that they are asking the him anything even remotely related to their sex life.

Too many gays are USED to being treated like shit.

Why-oh-why do we allow our government to legally abuse us psychologically, emotionally, and financially and then file our taxes every April 15th as if things are just dandy?

The I.R.S. can go FUCK ITSELF until these two American Myths are made REAL:

* Separation of Church & State
* Equal Protection Under the Law

[equality tax protest]