Report: McCain meets with president of Log Cabin Republicans
posted at 7:27 pm on June 25, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Unconfirmed as yet by the campaign, but the LCRs say it’s so:
A source with close ties to the Log Cabin Board of Directors provided information about the meeting to GayPatriot earlier this week. This source disclosed that the Log Cabin meeting was not reflected on Senator McCain’s published schedule in advance and the meeting…
Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon confirmed the meeting with Senator McCain in email correspondence with GayPatriot earlier today…
Based on published news reports, the meeting with Senator McCain would be the first between any national-level gay Republicans and a Republican Presidental nominee since “The Texas 12″ met with then-Governor George W. Bush in 2000.
One of Maverick’s more appealing mavericky qualities during the campaign has been his attempt to expand the tent by reaching out to minority voters. The rift’s not going to be healed anytime soon and he surely realizes it, but this gets us a tiny bit closer to healing it eventually. It’s commendable that he’s willing to devote resources to the task. What’s especially impressive — or insane, from the strict Machiavellian point of view — is that meeting with the LCRs could actually cost him votes among the most strident members of a social conservative base that’s not real keen on him to begin with and even less so after he dumped Hagee and Parsley. Surely there aren’t so many gay Republicans and independents that winning them over will offset the potential loss in votes among evangelicals, so what’s McCain’s game here? Or is there no game at all and he’s simply acting out of decency towards a GOP constituency?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
The above references took about 3 minutes to find. If you had spent just 3 minutes learning what you were talking about you would have saved yourself the embarrassment of looking so foolish.
Anna tried to help, but you were hell-bent on proving that you do not know the subject you were talking about.
Next time, listen to Anna…
As you so eloquently put, and you may want to apply it to youreself.
right2bright on June 26, 2008 at 1:24 PM
You make a good point. I disagree with many of your arguments, but respect your thoughtfulness.
On this narrow question, I’ll simply raise the issue that it is possible for the state to “encourage” socially beneficial family structures without “causing” them. In other words, the government doesn’t “make” people get married, but can legitimately (IMHO) support and encourage the institution of marriage because the benefits of stable families for the society at large.
cs89 on June 26, 2008 at 1:27 PM
yeah thats nice, so what?
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 1:29 PM
newsflash: what I said is true:
do you really know their numbers? does anyone? the point is they exist, and for all the pro-gay ‘equivalence’ arguments with straights, there is not a straight equivalent.
and just because a gay group denounces them, doesn’t impact my point.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 1:30 PM
The KKK exists, too. It doesn’t mean all white people are bad. You even admit you don’t know how many gays actually support or belong to NAMBLA, so what’s your point? If you’re going to say NAMBLA is representative of mainstream gay culture at least back it up with some facts.
RightOFLeft on June 26, 2008 at 1:31 PM
But they are not anti-scouting, they have tribes etc., they are an alternative to the traditional scouting.
Probably to combat the “militancy” of the scouts.
Probably more anti-christian, anti-military, and open to any gender relationship.
Interesting group though, I can just imagine who shows up at a meeting of parents.
right2bright on June 26, 2008 at 1:31 PM
there no ‘counter’ to move on?? lets see the ’swift boaters’ were there to counter move on…this site counters move on….are you for real???
I wasn’t even talking about an anti-NAMBLA group, God are you dense as hell….there are no gay political groups that have an agenda to counter the gay rights agenda.
how stupid are you?
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Hell, depending on the sponsor, there is a very religious element to scouting.
My troop was evicted from our sponsor church because we had two Muslim, one Catholic and three Jewish Scouts.
Not even LDS sponsord troops were that bad
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 1:35 PM
again you are so dense. people like you say how ‘equivalent’ gays are to straights, but you cannot name an equivalent straight group to NAMBLA
THAT THEY EXIST SPEAKS VOLUMES….to anyone with half a brain that is…..
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Nice bait and switch.
I liked your argument subtly linking the gay rights agenda with the pedophile agenda.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Or to anyone with a predisposition to believe that Gays are recruiting kids.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Yeah, I know they’re not anti-scouting. I only mentioned them because I remember reading about how they were formed to counter the BSA. My husband is an Eagle Scout and still active in scouting, hence the interest by me. And yeah, they’re pretty far-gone liberal.
This thread has taught me I need better hobbies. Or to disconnect the internet while working on the computer.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 1:38 PM
http://www.acronymfinder.com/NAMGLA.html
RightOFLeft on June 26, 2008 at 1:41 PM
that NAMBLA exists proves the point.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 1:43 PM
You’re making perfect sense to me. I’m gay, and I whole-heartedly condemn NAMBLA or any other group of any orientation that seeks to abuse children in any way. However….
If I were to apply right4life’s logic, I could claim that most Christians support Fred Phelps. But, unlike others, I choose not to demonize an entire group just because they happen to have a few asshats.
Vic on June 26, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Solid
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 1:44 PM
just out of curiousity, why did gays sue to be scoutmasters??
Homosexual activists jeered and taunted young Boy Scouts at the Democratic National Convention last week, and today they escalate their campaign with protests in front of 36 Boy Scouts of America offices around the nation.
Scouting for All is asking homosexual activists to contact local United Way chapters and demand they stop funding the Boy Scouts. They want the BSA to sign a non-discrimination policy before funds will be restored.
link
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 1:47 PM
nice inability to coherently argue your points.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 1:47 PM
What is the principle, though, behind preventing siblings and first cousins from marrying?
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Your challenge was that the gays are monolithic in support of NAMBLA, I gave you two large groups that disprove that point.
Anna took you apart in your other arguments.
Your one argument is about a straight group like NAMBLA is perculiar, NAMBLA by definition is not straight so you can’t have a straight group like them.
Now you have organizations that promote adult men with underage sex with girls, and groups (like the FLDS) that practice it. Which by the way you never answered if the FLDS prophet has the authority to marry underage girls, by you not responding I am assuming the answer is yes and you are to embarrassed to answer.
You are obviously very young, I think most people have answered your questions.
Spend a little time and read the responses. You spend too much time arguing and not enough time reading.
right2bright on June 26, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Really?
I can’t find a website for them though. Is it an active group?
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Maybe because they thought they would make good scoutmasters and that their sexual orientation does not make them pedophiles? Although, I do support the BSA, that as a private organization they have the right to pick and choose their own members. It doesn’t mean that I personally agree with their stance on homosexual members, though, which seems to be that gay men are pedophiles (and that any gay man who wants to be involved in scouting is in it for the molestation).
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 1:55 PM
I just explained that. I’m not sure why you’re asking.
Siblings and first cousins are more likely to pass on undesirable traits.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 1:57 PM
I never said, or implied that. you really need to read more carefully.
coming from you, this is no surprise…and it means just the opposite of your conclusion.
it makes perfect sense, to anyone with sense.
go ahead and list these groups, but you haven’t, why not? and you contend that FLDS does, but you offer no proof.
more proof that your stupidity is not merely an assumption.
you’re obviously very deluded.
laughable.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 1:58 PM
I’d still be surprised, but I do kinda expect it. I realize that is paradoxical.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 1:58 PM
This was one of the definitions under NAMGLA:
* NAMGLA North American Man Goat Love Association (humor)
They must be the cousin association to whomever runs the camel beauty contests in the ME.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 1:58 PM
So that gays who have been scouts for years could be leaders.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 1:59 PM
To be honest, I wasn’t inclined to look too deeply into the matter. At one time there was a website, but the FBI shut it down.
http://losangeles.fbi.gov/pressrel/2006/la072606.htm
RightOFLeft on June 26, 2008 at 1:59 PM
It’s okay, I completely understand. I don’t really expect it, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 2:00 PM
maybe, and maybe they thought it would be a good place to recruit.
yeah they should just let NAMBLA members be scout masters to prove how ‘tolerant’ they are…..
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Weird. NAMBLA.org is still up and running.
Though that would kinda prove my point that we as a society are more protective of girls than we are of boys.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 2:02 PM
well it would be homophobic and intolerant to shut them down….
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Let me spell it out, real slow: Not. Every. Gay. Man. Is. A. Pedophile. Or. A. Member. Of. NAMBLA.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 2:03 PM
let me spell it out, I never said they were duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:05 PM
But we don’t apply that principle consistently, if at all, to couples applying for licenses. There is a slight increase in the probability of defects with first cousins. Many other couples have a higher probability of defects yet the state doesn’t prevent them from marrying or even force them to be informed that they aren’t a good genetic match.
Probably the reason for this is that the citizenry would never go for it. Even though the genetic testing and counseling would produce healthier offspring for the state, voters would find it intrusive for the state to interfere with the most important decision you can make in your adult life–who you exchange marriage vows with.
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 2:05 PM
I’m done here. I have a book to read (thank goodness for naptime!).
Thank you, right4life. You have taught me much about arguing with bricks. I’ll take my newfound skills with me next time my daughter argues with me. : )
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Behind a keyboard I have always found the weakest to attack like that. I guarantee a person like you would never attack in person with those words…you use the words of a weakling.
BTW, swift boaters were created to fight Kerry, not MoveOn.org. Hot Air is not here to counter MoveOn, the fact that moveon is in opposition, is not the reason Hot Air exists. Hot Air would be here without MoveOn.
You need to lighten up…and do a little reading.
Once again your arguments show your depth…
right2bright on June 26, 2008 at 2:06 PM
and none of you pro-gay types has answered any of my allegations about the gay rights movement
1) their primary goal is to silence all dissent of gays. and they will criminalize anything they disagree with
2) that gay marriage hurts traditional marriage, and ends up with more family breakdown, which translates to societal breakdown.
none of you can dispute this. your logic is laughable.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Sound more like Drama camp than boy scouts you paranoid idiot.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 2:07 PM
See, that’s pretty much the problem with your arguments. On the one hand you admit that not all gays are NAMBLA supporters, but on the other hand, you make this comparison as though letting in NAMBLA is the same as letting in gays in general.
The Boy Scouts have a fairly Christian background, so if they just don’t want gays in as Scout Masters because they don’t believe the lifestyle is a moral one, then that alone can work as an argument.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 2:07 PM
again you show your stupidity. this is a battle of ideas, and these groups are in opposition to one another. they don’t have to be formed to specifically fight moveon…
now where are ANY gay groups that oppose the gay rights agenda??? you have not named any….pathetic.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:08 PM
this was an example of sarcasm.
but thats not good enough for the gays, thats why it went to the supreme court, and they are trying to get the scouts defunded and kicked out of public venues all over the country.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:09 PM
According to the FBI site namgla was openly trafficking in pornography. nambla is more careful, I guess.
I think you’re right about being more protective of girls. One of the cultural expectations of men is that you can take care of (protect) yourself, maybe that expectation extends to boyhood.
RightOFLeft on June 26, 2008 at 2:10 PM
your stupidity shines through with every post.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Let the sunshine…
Let the sunshine in…
The sun..shine in….
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 2:12 PM
I agree right2bright I think he has to be a 14 year old or something.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 2:12 PM
well squiddy, since you’re so smart, why don’t you take up my points on the following post:
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:06 PM
and refute them?
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:13 PM
That’s true.
Except that voters seem to be fine with the government’s ruling on incest, which does exactly what you claim voters don’t like; lets the state interfere with the most important decision you can make in your adult life.
Making a blanket rule that gets rid of one group that may or may not be problematic gene-wise is one thing; having to pay for tests that must be performed before you can even start wedding plans (making quickie marriages impossible), is quite another.
For one, it’s expensive and time consuming, and for another, this technology is relatively new.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 2:14 PM
none of you pro-gay types can give a coherent argument, other than:
you’re hateful
straights are just like gays
blahblahblah
has any lib ever taken logic 101?
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Just like your insults?
I got that it was sarcasm, but it still functioned to equate the two, like saying, “well if we have to let Muslims in this country, why don’t we just let in Osama bin Laden.”
Things like that needlessly confuse your arguments.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 2:17 PM
I dont have to because I agree with it in principle.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 2:17 PM
You sound like one of those college kids who just took logic 101 and think you know everything.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 2:18 PM
I’m sorry, I disagree.
it wouldn’t matter. the pro-gay types have purposefully twisted my points, and refused to respond to others.
they can’t argue logically, rather have to lie to desperately try to make points.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:18 PM
uh ok, so why are you arguing with me at all?
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Since you insisted.
I dont think that criminalization is their primary goal, I think achieving some sort of official sanction for their lifesytle is. The more radical organizations are indeed committed to supressing dissent. Mostly through the abysmal idea of hate crimes.
I think that “gay marriage” will cause some societal problems. Legal unions allowing a one stop contract to share benefits, etc should be left to the states and th effect on society will be evident in those states which choose to saddle the risk.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Those who attack straw men shouldn’t make hay.
RightOFLeft on June 26, 2008 at 2:23 PM
As I said, your rhetoric would never hold up face to face…the words of a punk.
That is like asking what PETA group is opposing PETA?
So you never said swift boaters were there to counter Moveon? Thought sure that’s what you said, let me see, where is that quote.
there it is, I contend Swift boaters were to fight Kerry, you think they were there to fight MoveOn.
I think your nasty rhetoric, and your name calling has put you in the position of having no respect.
This is my last post, but I will help you in your answer to me to save you time.
Right2bright you are:
stupid,ignorant, can’t understand, a fool, deluded, you have no brain…
Now you can go sit on your bed and bang your feet against the wall to get attention…makes about as much sense as your arguments.
right2bright on June 26, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Their site doesn’t seem to show any actual porn. It’s likely NAMBLA was more interested in being seen as respectable than NAMGLA.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Because of the rest of the drivel you have spouted so far.
I expect you to feel “persecuted” any minute now.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Nothing more I can say then.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 2:25 PM
you basically agreed with everything I said.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:27 PM
none of it was ‘drivel’ sorry. it proved a point.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:27 PM
So say you
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Voters don’t have a problem with incest laws since nearly all find it inconceivable that they’d want to marry a sibling or first cousin. However, you stated that the principle behind the government ban on sibling marriage was based on reducing birth defects (presumably to ensure a healthy next generation of tax payers). That’s not the reason Americans support the ban on sibling and first cousin marriages. They wouldn’t accept the principle applied to themselves, even assuming minimal cost and inconvenience, since it might prevent them from marrying someone they loved.
The technology for blood tests is not new. Going back to the 1930’s a blood test was more commonly required than it is today. I think, currently, about 8 states require blood tests.
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 2:30 PM
oh yeah you’re real tough…not.
obviously its not. laughable.
they were there to counter moveon..which was trying to get Kerry elected, they were trying to make sure he did NOT get elected…see how easy this is?? they don’t have to write in their charter ‘we’re here to oppose moveon’ to oppose moveon…. laughable.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:30 PM
oh ok, then in your great ‘wisdom’ show us.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:31 PM
I personally believe that if we want to change marriage that we need to go all the way with it and offer up the option of a legal contract, available to consenting adults of any gender and any number.
I’m just not sure people really want to change marriage though.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Show you what, that you are an idiot?
That you debate like a snotty college kid?
These things are evident to everyone but you.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Marriage is a religious construct, legal union is the contract which accompanies it.
I dont want to change marriage, that is up to religion.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 2:34 PM
but somehow I manage to make you look foolish.
not that you need any help.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:35 PM
I agree that strong families are the most important building blocks to a strong community, and, at a larger scale, strong country. While I’d like to see taxes lower and less government having the majority of my local taxes go to programs for children and families is OK.
I think using the power of government to assist couples raise a family is reasonable and beneficial to the society in general. I don’t think that preventing infertile, elderly or gay couples from marrying makes it any easier for a couple with children to get from the beginning of the week to the end of the week with their marriage in tact.
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 2:40 PM
They felt the same way not to long ago about homosexuality.
And you’re right, it’s not just the heredity issues. Many people would oppose allowing to male siblings to marry each other even though they support homosexual marriage.
I think the cost and inconvenience are contributing factors, but sure. No one wants to get engaged and then be told that the marriage can’t be.
I know Texas doesn’t. But I didn’t mean blood tests per se, just the tests to determine what shouldn’t be passed on. We’re still discovering genetic diseases, and many are still inconclusive. For instance, they believe there is a connection between breast cancer and heredity, but it’s not exactly proven.
I’m not sure where you’re going with this. It’s true that incest is still incredibly taboo. And that’s certainly the reason people support a ban of it, but it’s justified legally by most governments because of the potentially damaged children that can come from those unions.
And isn’t that what these discussion are about anyway? Possible legal justifications instead of moral or other outrages?
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 2:43 PM
But isn’t that the whole point of the gay marriage movement? If they can’t call their relationship a marriage, then it’s the “separate but equal” thing.
Besides, marriage isn’t completely a religious construct. If it were, then the homosexual unions performed at religious institutions would also be called marriages.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 2:47 PM
its a good try, but its lost on squiddy.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Of course it doesn’t. My marriage isn’t damaged at all by anyone else’s relationship, gay or not. In fact, it isn’t even harmed by NAMBLA or bin Laden’s multiple wives.
However, the government doesn’t do anything to help couples who can or do have children other than support their marriage. Are you proposing that the government start handing out additional benefits that don’t go to homosexual or infertile couples?
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 2:50 PM
A lot of people support that option. I think people just forget that marriage was created to help people who had fallen madly in love. Love often had nothing to do with it. That’s a relatively new concept.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 2:52 PM
thats true, most marriages were arranged.
lost in all talk about ‘rights’ (that don’t exist) are the children…they’re just pawns in a political struggle.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 2:54 PM
The government already does a lot. One gets a tax deduction for each of your children. Local taxes are progressive and mostly used to pay for public schools, playgrounds, recreation leagues, etc.
As I said I’d opt for lower taxes and fewer services, letting each family pay their own way but given that taxes are what they are I take some comfort in seeing them applied to helping families.
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 2:57 PM
That only helps after the fact, and it’s not specifically related to children; it’s based on dependents.
Taxes that everyone pays, including parents who have opted out of the public school system.
I’m for lower taxes as well, but that’s not exactly what I was talking about.
Public schools and minor tax cuts don’t encourage citizens to produce more citizens. My whole argument is that marriage does that, and that that’s the only reason government has any business anywhere near marriage.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 3:02 PM
I have a feeling that will always be the case. I wouldn’t mind being wrong though.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 3:04 PM
I’m glad to hear that. My marriage is threatened mostly by my failing to keep up with my chores or inability as a mind reader and knowing the moment my wife needs a hug.
My marriage is neither better nor worse due to the legal status of some gay partnerships.
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 3:05 PM
that is a non-sequitur, but its always thrown up there by the advocates of gay ‘marriage’
of course they ignore the destructive effects on children, and the wider societal damage that will result from that.
we’ve seen what happens in the black community when families fall apart.
children need a mother and father. gay marriage will further weaken, basically destroy the institution of marriage…and the children will suffer, all so some people can score political points.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Sorry I should have clarified, I see those two things in the way I described.
The government has muddled the two heaviluy, I agree.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 3:10 PM
I can see the effects on the quality of my children’s lives every day. Recently, the cost of gasoline and food have had an effect. In the future so will the rising cost of health care and education (I think both are increasing at about 2x the rate of core inflation). Having to make a decision on whether both parents need to work full time has an effect on income, and also parental supervision. Crime certainly has an impact. The quality of the neighborhood we live in has an impact.
If a gay couple can already legally buy the house next door and live there, how could their marital status matter to my children?
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 3:17 PM
link
yeah everything’s fine in mr. roger’s neighborhood, while you ignore the cost of gay ‘marriage’.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Man, this thread has gotten *really* off topic.
For a brief moment, I thought about joining LCR. That is until they withheld endorsement from Bush in 2004.
Not over Iraq, immigration policy, spending…..oh no.
They refused over his support of FMA
In my mind, that made them no different than their liberal counterparts.
The Ugly American on June 26, 2008 at 3:24 PM
It’s not a non-sequitur since I was concurring with Esthier.
It is also not a non-sequitur when offered as a rebuttal to the point that the institution of marriage will be harmed. Since not all marriages will be harmed, perhaps some will be harmed. Then I’d ask which types of marriages? Of the dozen or so couples that I know well I don’t see the evidence. Maybe my sample group is skewed. What types of straight marriage would be harmed? I honestly don’t know.
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 3:29 PM
well we have the research from european countries..that is where that quote is from…but then facts never get in the way of liberal ideologies.
just curious, how can a ‘conservative’ support gay marriage,and the gay agenda?
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Did Andrew Sullivan write this?
Spanglemaker on June 26, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Yes, that’s true. I probably agree with your wife. I know we’re difficult to live with at times, and I have a lot of respect for my husband when he’s able to deal with it.
I often say the reason our marriage works is because he can let go of anger easier than I can. Every time we fight I try so hard to let it go but just can’t. He always has to stop the fight.
Sometimes I don’t deserve him, but that’s OK. Sometimes he doesn’t deserve me, so it evens out.
We certainly do agree there.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Those are statistics rather than facts. Stats are subject to interpretation and qualification. Even Kurtz alludes to that.
Primarily I’m arguing the position that gay marriage doesn’t materially impact the state of straight marriages. Mostly it doesn’t ring true to me.
As it relates to supporting gay marriage, I’d assert that it is in the best interest of the community to recognize and support a couple who wants to pledge themselves to sexual fidelity and financial and emotional partnership “til death”. If I thought gay people could find the happiness and stability of marriage through heterosexual unions I’d feel differently.
As far as defending marriage goes, I am uncomfortable with second marriages after a divorce, especially when it involves starting a second family. I can’t see how people do that.
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 3:56 PM
It’s tough for sure. My older siblings are products of that, but me and my younger brother were largely immune from it.
A few weeks ago my older sister, my mother and I went on a short trip and after a few drinks, my sister really surprised me. She started talking about how difficult life with her mother was (drunken boyfriends, etc.) and confessed that she always felt that we could send her to live with her mother if we ever got sick of her.
Growing up, I always just saw her as my sister. I had no idea. At times she was so close to my mother that I’d get a little jealous, not jealous as in, “she’s my mother not yours” just jealous in the way most siblings get jealous of each other.
Blended families are incredibly difficult. That’s certainly true. And this was in a case where my father’s divorce was completely amicable (they’d only gotten married in the first place because she got pregnant after a one-night stand; my father’s biggest mistake but one that gave me my sister).
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 4:05 PM
uh yeah thats why he ends the article with:
The Dutch scholars are right. Many factors are in play in European marital decline, and more research is needed to separate out the relative importance of the various factors. But continued marital decline in Scandinavia and the Netherlands has already provided us with enough evidence to call the wisdom of same-sex marriage into serious doubt.
well why just a couple? how intolerant of you.
they can’t find it in their own sham ‘marriages’
A study from the Netherlands – the first country to legalize same-sex marriage – found the average length of these parings was two and a quarter years. Furthermore, most homosexuals in these unions do not remain monogamous, nor does that appear to be the goal. The Dutch study found that homosexual men in these relationships had an average of eight “casual” sex partners per year.
link
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Certainly there are many gay couples who believe that they have found happiness. Perhaps one could assert that they are self delusional, but one could assert that about any group one objected to–athletes, vegetarians, drinkers, the faithful, patriots, parents, teachers, etc.
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 4:29 PM
don’t let facts get in the way of your ideology…I know if it just helps one gay couple then the resulting devestation of families, children etc, is worth it…
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 4:33 PM
He ends by drawing conclusions from statistics. Perhaps his conclusions are persuasive but he admits that he hasn’t demonstrated a cause & effect relationship.
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 4:33 PM
I’m missing the demonstration of fact. What types of families will be devastated and what is the mechanism by which they’ll devastated?
I understand how divorce, death, or drug abuse can devastate a family. The cause & effect is clear there.
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 4:38 PM
its obvious facts don’t get in the way of your ideology.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 4:38 PM
no you just prefer to ignore it. I’ve already posted enough proof, you have posted nothing to counter it.
all you can do is ignore it.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Dedalus,
Its not worth it, when you best him, he will declare your argument irrelevant and call you a fool. There is no retort to that level of pervasive stupidity.
Hopefully when he graduates from college, he will acquire a brain.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 Next »