« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
07/09/2009
His name sounds like a gay couple; his views should scare the bejesus out of same
The National Organization For Marriage's Robert George, a professional voice for discrimination:
"...it is not really about benefits. It is about sex. The idea that is antithetical to those who are seeking to redefine marriage is that there is something uniquely good and morally upright about the chaste sexual union of husband and wife—something that is absent in sodomitical acts and in other forms sexual behavior that have been traditionally—and in my view correctly—regarded as intrinsically non-marital and, as such, immoral."
Good As You's Jeremy Hooper, a legally married gay man who wants the same for anyone who chooses it (and full federal recognition for his own union):
"You know who is really obsessed with gay sex? SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES. And I don't say that in the cliché way in which gay activists sometimes like to claim that their opposition is secretly gay. I personally don't give a rat's rimjob what you or any social conservative does is bed, Mr. George. But what I do care about is your intense focus on my natural desires, and your implication that I somehow live my life in a way that seeks your pre-coital approval!
For gay activists, civil marriage is, above all else, about promised freedoms that are currently denied to far too many. It's about equality. It's about fairness among the citizenry. It's about rights and what is right (as opposed to what's far-right). It may be convenient and comforting to tell yourself that people like myself are sitting around hoping that someday Ethel Blumpkins will bless my bedroom from her pew. But the reality is that for the vast, vast, VAST majority of LGBT advocates, the goal is for that same churchgoer to KEEP HER VIEWS ON MORALITY OUT OF MY HOUSEHOLD, AND ESPECIALLY OUT OF OUR SHARED CIVIL GOVERNMENT!"
The National Organization For Marriage's Robert George:
"[Gay activists] use their cultural power to enforce assumptions instead of advancing arguments or engaging the counterarguments made by defenders of the conjugal conception of marriage as the union of husband and wife."
Good As You's Jeremy Hooper:
"Yea, Mr. "protect marriage" / "sanctity of marriage" / "preserve traditional marriage" / "marriage threatens children"? It's the gays who are relying on assumptions rather than putting out new ideas/ challenging their opposition's pre-existing one? Interesting.
Guess that's why your side is notorious for relying on talking points, constantly refuses to acknowledge your opposition when you are called out on flawed data, refuses to separate CIVIL marriage equality (what gays are actually seeking) from religious ceremony, and generally writes off any progressive notion on marriage equality as being born out of "liberal extremism." It's because you all are just SO into "advancing arguments," huh Mr. G?"
The National Organization For Marriage's Robert George:
"Campaigns of intimidation succeed only if the victims of such campaigns permit themselves to be intimidated. They fizzle when people refuse to alter their behavior out of fear. As anyone who has ever confronted a school-yard bully knows, bullies are cowards. When their victims stand up to them, they fold like accordions. My advice to supporters of marriage who are targets of intimidation is this: make clear to the bullies that if they seek to intimidate you, your response will be to ratchet up your support of marriage by, for example, increasing your financial contributions to the pro-marriage cause, devoting more time to making phone calls to family members, friends, and members of your religious community, and doing other grassroots work on behalf of marriage. That is what I have personally done. Just as the campaign of intimidation will fail if we refuse to be intimidated, it will backfire if we decide to make it backfire by redoubling our pro-marriage efforts in the face of it."
Good As You's Jeremy Hooper:
"Right, Mr. G: Intimidatory campaigns do only succeed if the victims allow themselves to be threatened. That is exactly why I stand up -- boldly, proudly, and unabashedly -- to your militant anti-gay agenda. I will tell you in print, on video, on phone, in your face in the privacy of either of our homes (we do live close by), or via frcikin' smoke signal that you will not -- WILL NOT! -- ever take away what is owed to me by virtue of my tax-paying American citizenship. Because you will not bully me into accepting your unfortunate view that I am unfit for this world.
Oh, and seeing your claims and raising them: I will gladly put my love and my marriage up against your any day of the week. Then once you see my benign, peaceful household, I dare you to say that my domesticated bliss (tonight we're having veggie dogs!) is intimidating anyone!
To me your organization is actually worse than the schoolyard bully, Mr. George, because at least that archetypical character tends to realize that his or her lunch money-pilfering is self-serving and mean. NOM will steal the gay kids' pizza and then blame their digestive systems for wanting to eat in the first place!!!"
The National Organization For Marriage's Robert George:
"In the words of a prominent politician who says that though he supports civil unions he opposes same-sex “marriage”: Yes, we can!"
Good As You's Jeremy Hooper:
"In the words of a gay man who supports his president despite of his still-evolving marriage stance: 'Stop creating a nasty, hostile climate in which LGBT human beings are painted as sick, perverse, and immoral, and then maybe our president will be able to act on the principle that we know is within him without having to fear the indefatigable pushes for unreasonable political retribution that we all know as lying within you!'"
*Read all of Mr. George's words: Robert P. George on the Struggle Over Marriage [Public Discourse]
Your thoughts
In the words of another gay man who seeks equality in the civil forum, "Yes, we will!"
Posted by: SammySeattle | Jul 9, 2009 5:19:58 PM
"... is that there is something uniquely good and morally upright about the chaste sexual union of husband and wife..."
What a fucking crock of shit! There is nothing "chaste" about sexual unions. And nothing that is particularly good, moral, or upright about two heteros fucking, just because they have a marriage license. And a lot of them have no problem fucking on the side even if they are married. But, there is also nothing that is NOT good, or NOT moral, or NOT upright about it either. And the same is equally true about equivalent same-sex sexual unions.
But, he did admit that younger voters overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage. And, that the only way that that will change is if those more open minded young persons suddenly begin to embrace the antithetical. While anything is possible, it probably is highly unlikely.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jul 9, 2009 8:34:35 PM
1. To ban gays from marriage based on lack of procreative ability, we have to push for the ban of marriages of sterile heterosexuals first. We can't put the procreative stipulation on one group, and not apply the rule to all groups.
2. To argue that religious freedom means banning gays from marriage, we first have to ban atheists from getting married, because they currently can get married without any church's support.
3. To argue that legal gay marriage will lead to polygamy, bestiality, etc--we first need to get all areas that have gay marriage, to show that legalizing polygamy happens automatically in all cases.
4. To argue that children need both a mother and a father to be successful, we have to show that more homosexual parents kill their children and adopted children, than heterosexual parents do.
5. To argue that lifestyle choices should not have protection under the law--if they are not innate like gender and race, we have to give up the laws that protect the lifestyle choice of religion, since religion is a lifestyle choice that is protected by laws
Posted by: Roxes | Jul 9, 2009 11:24:02 PM
The problem with anti-equality arguments is that they can't be made objectively. They are forced to use subjective terms regarding goodness and morality, usually defined in their own religions.
"...there is something uniquely good and morally upright about the chaste sexual union of husband and wife."
Citation needed.
Posted by: Jake | Jul 10, 2009 12:42:49 AM
Radical anti-gay activist George gives us the recipe to win against those anti-gay thugs promoting the anti-gay agenda. Redouble our efforts to beat them! Bad things can only happen when good men (and women) do nothing! We shall overcome! Thanks Mr. George!
Posted by: Michael | Jul 10, 2009 5:48:23 AM
Why does it never seem to occur to these guys that gays have "cultural power" because we have so many people who take our side? Talk about living in denial.
Posted by: Derek in DC | Jul 10, 2009 12:05:06 PM
Whatever virtue (Latin for manliness) there may be in standing up to bullies like George and his bankrollers, it is also important to remember to call the cops. The questions at hand are matters of social policy and the presentations made are offered to the variously divided public. While projectionist rantings may be informative, they are also not legitimate in serious public discourse.
The pretense is that the bully and the victim are the only parties, a case in which the stronger party would win. The fact is, even in the imagined school yard, that it is a piece of political theater acted out for several audiences. As such, it is subject to both rules and interventions by variously constituted authorities to enforce the rules and promote broadly beneficial outcomes.
In these public policy discussions, it is very much to the business of calling the cops for Jeremy Hooper to help us to see that Bob George is a pitiable pathological liar and front man for a bunch of Rando/Nietzschean ubermenchen who are too busy puffing on their gold embossed cigarettes in the back room to bother with the rest of us. Jeremy's great virtue is that he sweetens the barb as he plants the sting. I like that.
Posted by: Jonathan Justice | Nov 20, 2009 1:32:13 PM
"...there is something uniquely good and morally upright about the chaste sexual union of husband and wife."
You're doing it wrong.
Posted by: WMDKitty | Nov 24, 2009 6:58:49 AM
comments powered by Disqus
