I haven't paid a lot of attention to New York races or what either of these two fools have to say. Since I am so uninformed, I am feel compelled to offer my opinions on the subject. I agree with Simon that encouraging comments that fuel hatred toward any group is unacceptable. On the other hand, everybody has the right to hold stupid opinions. On the gripping hand, why is wrong to criticize people in gay rights parade for activity that people would rightly criticize straight people for in any other public venue? If a hetero couple were grinding against each other in skimpy clothing in a St. Patrick's Day parade, the condemnation would be quick and loud. It's the activity, not the people doing it, that deserve approbation.

grip,

I have nothing against moral condemnation. What worries me is moral condemnation backed by government guns.

But I think you have made my point. Yeah. The parade is probably freaky. The alternative AT THIS POINT IN TIME is creating a zeitgeist that encourages suicide by gays or assaults by gay bashers.

You know where I stand.

I'm concerned about the annual orgies in Ft. Lauderdale during the so-called "Spring breaks" -- that "girls gone wild" stuff.

The world of the heterosexual is sick and disgusting!

Eric: I agree that the licentious antics at various spring break locales are as equally appalling breaches of public propriety. The only difference I can see is that the drunken spring breakers are not trying to be intentionally provocative, while most of the "out" participants who engage is similar behaviour are. Additionally, when such antics are confined to bars, the general public (and the Children (tm) aren't terribly affected.

Simon: Agreed. Moral condemnation combined with government guns is frightening, now matter what the subject is. I don't see, however, how my legitimate criticism of outrageous activity would promote suicides among one community but not another.

Eric: I agree that the licentious antics at various spring break locales are as equally appalling breaches of public propriety. The only difference I can see is that the drunken spring breakers are not trying to be intentionally provocative, while most of the "out" participants who engage is similar behaviour are. Additionally, when such antics are confined to bars, the general public (and the Children (tm) aren't terribly affected.

Simon: Agreed. Moral condemnation combined with government guns is frightening, now matter what the subject is. I don't see, however, how my legitimate criticism of outrageous activity would promote suicides among one community but not another.

Simon: Agreed. Moral condemnation combined with government guns is frightening, now matter what the subject is. I don't see, however, how my legitimate criticism of outrageous activity would promote suicides among one community but not another.

You would be surprised what making people ashamed of their core does to how a person feels about themselves.

I'm sorry but it is a slippery slope and every step on it is bad. I wrote about it here in another context. It holds true in all contexts.

How To Put An End To Drug Users

For one day a year if it bothers you - keep the kids home. If it OK on the beach all summer, I'm fine with it one day a year downtown. With my kids. And if they are old enough they could choose.

I understand some people's extreme distaste. I don't find it very attractive myself. But I would rather gays felt accepted than have a culture where open bigotry is tolerated. It sets a bad tone.

I've seen it happen with race in my lifetime. Perhaps we can eliminate another target or two of bigotry before I leave.

Let me add that I have been told that Paladino is better than Cumo. Some comfort.

Classical values?

Clearly not.

It's one thing to tolerate gays.

It's another entirely to allow the left to control all the levers in society, to insist that a (bogus) 10% of all storybook characters be gay, to ban free speech on the pretext that disagreeing with any aspect of the gay agenda is hate speech.

The gay lobby knows no compromise. Nothing less than complete embrace is allowed.

Well, no.

allow the left to control all the levers in society, to insist that a (bogus) 10% of all storybook characters be gay, to ban free speech on the pretext that disagreeing with any aspect of the gay agenda is hate speech

Yes, that's what I advocate daily. I'm glad to see that people are paying close attention.

Robert Arvanitis would have felt very much at home in 1930's Germany. Substitute a word here and there --

It's one thing to tolerate
Jews...The Jew lobby knows no compromise. Nothing less than complete embrace is allowed

Mr. Arvanitis should get a copy of Suicide and the Holocaust by David Lester. I'm sure he would enjoy reading it.

Shall I invoke Godwin�s Law, as Frank dives right for the gutter?

Or perhaps I should ask if Eric Scheie knows only extremes, and refuses to see any slippery slope between acceptance of gay rights and the imposition speech codes against anyone who differs?

So I ask Eric Scheie if one can disagree here without being tarred as homophobic.

******

If so, then a few examples of how easily things can go too far, and the profound implications.

Q: Why did Philadelphia attack the Boy Scouts? http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=6474

Q: How did Canadian �human rights commissions� swing so far to the totalitarian? http://wcr.ab.ca/old-site/news/2008/0616/rights061608.shtml

Q: Suppose we do surrender the historical definition of marriage. On what grounds will we then stand to deny polygamy or incest?

Shall we simply take the state out of marriage? Ok, but then we�ll have to revise the tax code, and rewrite all the precedents of family court.

But then the state can no longer claim an interest in demography, no longer manipulate society with deductions and rebates and other �encouragements.� Nor even justify taxing everyone in order to school the few with children,

That also puts the kibosh on intergenerational transfer schemes like social security� Perhaps these are all for the best. But for good or ill they are the implications of foundational changes.

Robert,

You can disagree here and be tarred as homophobic.

We try to avoid preferred points of view in the comments (except for our own).

In other words when you comment here you are taking your chances.

=============

Shall we simply take the state out of marriage

I have been advocating that for years.

And the tax code can't be changed? Why?

Uh. Robert. What you are essentially propounding is that it will be hard to change 70 or 100 years of socialism. Well duh.

I'm up for it. You?

Mr. Aravanitis reference to acceptance of "gay rights" is the crux of the issue. There should be no gay rights, women's rights, Hispanic rights, or any other special group rights. There should only be individual rights. He has fallen into the collectivist trap.

If the Republican Party had an ounce of consistency it would demand the immediate end to discrimination against gays in the military.
And even though one can argue about state sanctioned marriage, at the very least the laws should be equally applied. This site has run all the arguments about a slippery slope of gay marriage leading inexorably to polygamy & incest. I won't rehash them, but with gay marriage we are really talking about something that is already happening through civil partnerships, which even a majority of Republicans seem to approve. So the issue is now one of de facto gay marriage vs. real marriage.
In terms even Mr. Aravanitis can understand, it's the same as allowing blacks on a city bus, but making them sit in the back.

Aravanitis thinks I stooped to the gutter by referencing Jews in the debate. (And discussing Jews is stooping to the gutter?) He should look at the history of fascism in Germany before WW2, how Jews were systematically deprived of rights and ostracized to the point that thousands committed suicide. We have the beginnings of that here with teenage gay suicide spawned by similar ostracism, and religious intolerance.

No Mr. Aravanitis, I don't need or want your tolerance or acceptance. But I except you to honor my individual rights as a citizen of this country through equal application of the law. If you can't do that you are no better than the collectivists on the left.

Hey Frank, I too decry the fallacy of "collective rights."
That�s precisely why I have a problem with gay activists who demand so much more than the mere �acceptance� you claim to seek.
Acceptance is fine, and so is participation in the military. In fact, that is more than fine. It deserves our gratitude.
What I oppose, vehemently, is the demand that we suppress the free speech of anyone who disagrees with homosexuality. They too have the right of free speech.
I oppose university �speech codes.�
I oppose minority set-asides.
I oppose perverting the school curriculum to go so far beyond tolerance, to promote the gay agenda.
I oppose trampling the right of free association in order to salve the self-esteem of any minority.
And I call foul on your attempts to equate defense of free speech and free association with Nazism.

RA:
So we agree that collective rights are bogus, and that gays should be allowed to openly serve in the military. This sounds promising.
The "redefining marriage" issue can wait?

I too oppose speech codes, minority set-asides, and even hate crime laws. No where in tweaking you did I say anything about limiting your free speech. That some leftists in academia and gay Democrat front groups like the HRC advocate such things, isn't my problem. I don't back them. But, when anyone starts telling me in so many words that they're doing me a favor by tolerating my lifestyle, bring up the staw-man of perversion of school curriculum, and champion the right of free association (which is just another way of saying the right to ostracize), then they shouldn't get too upset when called on it. These, and redefining marriage, are all talking points of the Focus On The Family crowd.

So you're not a Nazi. Just maybe a bigot. Hey, it's a free country.

No, Frank. The �redefining marriage� issue cannot wait.

If gays simply wanted rights of successorship now available to heterosexual couples, they already have that.

So forcing the issue between civil union and true marriage is unmasked as solely and entirely about self-esteem.

Tolerance is never enough. The extremists will push the issue to the limits for pride�s sake.

Well, in that case, we push all the implications arising therefrom, all the way to their logical conclusions.

And the fundamental implication is that marriage is no longer a state issue.

Therefore all the social policies predicated on demographics, fertility, public education, family formation and future taxpayers are made null and void.

The statists cannot have it both ways.

If gays can marry, fine. But marriage is then stripped of all meaning as a social institution. A Pyrrhic victory.

******

By the way, this site has not explored all the implications of slippery slope, plural marriage and incest. Not nearly.

Why, for example �Lawrence� but not �Muth?� Unjustifiable.

Earlier comments were facile, suggesting if certain activities offended them or their children, they should just �stay indoors.�

OK. But then we have no standing to outlaw public nudity, or bestiality, or anything else not explicitly a violation of property rights. Really. Why should men be allowed to expose nipples but not women?

All or nothing, Frank. You call it.

RA:
Let's cut to the chase. You have raised a number of arguments to support your view that allowing gays to marry will redefine it and ruin it. All of these arguments were presented to first the California Supreme Court, and then to a Federal District Court. They were rejected. I have nothing to add. Your side has had its day in court, and so far has lost.

But what you are dancing around is THE issue, the elephant in the room, which is implied in your concern with the right of association, school book content, the Boy Scouts, and "perverting the school curriculum" -- this all leads to the issue that was used by the Mormon and Catholic churches in their bigoted and hateful campaign to pass Prop 8 in California -- that ALL gay men are potential pedophiles.
And therefore the mainstreaming of gay relationships must be stopped before they can get their hands on our children.

This same argument has been used before to ostracize and demonize a hated minority group - the Jews. Come on now, admit your revulsion at the mere thought of two men getting it on, let alone having family law on their side where they can adopt children, young boys, maybe troubled vulnerable foster kids. Just ripe for the picking. After all, gay men can't reproduce, and therefore they must recruit.

The argument used openly by the Church, and skirted around by you Robert Arvanitis, is the one that underlies the over-reaction and the emotion. This isn't about gays trying to suppress free speech. Its about the intrusion of religious bigotry and dogma into the secular arena. A civil ceremony at the court house is not a religious sacrament. When Christian churches get this worked up, over a civil ceremony that they have treated so cavalierly through repeated divorces and re-marriages, they have something else on their plate. They want to stop what you call an extremist agenda, and what I see as a civil right. They are backward thinking, dogmatic bigots, using the same tactics of ostracism, demonizing, and scape-goating that have been used to suppress minorities for centuries.

Further rebuttal:
If gays simply wanted rights of successorship now available to heterosexual couples, they already have that.

This is only partially true, and only in states that have enacted civil partnerships. Otherwise, you must go through a convoluted process of wills, living trusts, and hope for the best that they're not contested. You know as well as I that there is not a will made that can't be broken.

So forcing the issue between civil union and true marriage is unmasked as solely and entirely about self-esteem.

A civil union or partnership is not a marriage. It has nothing to do with self-esteem, unless you want to advance the notion of separate but equal, which would imply that gays are second class citizens. I guess that could affect self-esteem. (But we should be grateful since it beats jumping the broom.)

Tolerance is never enough.

If you give a queer an inch...

The extremists will push the issue to the limits for pride�s sake. Well, in that case, we push all the implications arising therefrom, all the way to their logical conclusions. And the fundamental implication is that marriage is no longer a state issue.

I don't follow your logic here at all. Unless you mean that religious institutions will want to take marriage back from the state. I wasn't aware they ever gave it up, only that the state intervened setting up a secular and parallel sanction. For instance, the Catholic church does not recognize civil marriages after divorce. They don't recognize gay civil marriages either. So what is the problem? What interest do they have in defining a civil procedure they don't recognize anyway? Or if you mean that the logical conclusion to having gay marriage is to end civil marriages and get the state out of it, then that is your choice. Kind of like losing and taking your marbles home. If you can't have it your way, no one can have it. Talk about a sore loser. With this outcome you still win by giving the other side a Pyrrhic victory.

I would ask why this is such an important issue to you. And why does application and enforcement of the 14th Amendment bother you.

And further, you compare allowing loving, same-sex couples to marry, with a slippery slope to incest, polygamy, bestiality, & public nudity. It is almost as though you WANT gays to continue living a promiscuous lifestyle by opposing the right to marry.

And finally, you bring up "Lawrence". What part of re-criminalizing sodomy do you want? Jail time? Diversion to a Christian reorientation center? Or perhaps you can join with your philosophical brothers-in-spirit in Iran by going all the way for public hangings?
Your choice.

Ok Frank. Let�s make this simple. We�ll defer the social implications of your (implied) position until we�ve prepared the ground properly.

You said �I would rather gays felt accepted than have a culture where open bigotry is tolerated.�

That is a false dichotomy.

Cynthia MacKinnon promotes what she calls �substantive equality.� She claims if a member of society belongs to a specific group, they are automatically at a disadvantage in legal proceedings due to that group's standing in society. She claims the substantively unequal groups are thought to be women, gays, and minorities.

Because these people are at a disadvantage because of their group membership, she holds the law has an obligation to treat them preferentially. Her vision of substantive equality requires the law to recognize that because some people are on a "lower level" than others, the law must therefore "raise them up" when it deals with them.

Q: Do you claim such preference? Do you demand the law set aside the right of association in preference to you, so that you are a �protected class?�

Q: Don�t try to second guess motivations. As a matter of principle, should the government attack the Boy Scouts for their beliefs? Drive them out of the very building they donated to Philadelphia? On what grounds?

Q: As a matter of principle, do you believe the government should drive the Catholic Charities of Massachusetts out of placing adopted children, because their principles do not accord with yours? On what grounds?

: You raise a straw man and make slanderous accusations. I believe �Lawrence� was correct�sodomy should NOT be illegal. But then to be consistent, do you likewise admit �Muth� was wrong, and incest should also NOT be illegal? If not, if you disagree, upon what ground to you stand? How do you justify government in the bedroom in one case, but not the other?

Do you understand why I raise the comparables? At some point you will instinctively say �But that�s just wrong,� as if there are some things �everyone� knows. At least I attribute a certain decency in you, and assume you will. At that very point, I will ask upon what grounds you make that assertion.

Only then will we enter the serious discussion, the discussion of what our common values will be, and how we will construct a viable society.

I eagerly await your serious engagement.

So, you're now against sodomy. Next you'll be claiming gay marriage is OK, it's just that it will by precedent lead to social anarchy.

Your arguments are right out of the socon playbook. When cornered, you feign support of individual rights, and then proceed on to repeat your religious based arguments of a slippery slope leading to what, fucking in the streets like a dog?

You're not only a bigot, but a weasel. I have no more time for you.