I’m Obsessed; Nation Review writes 7 pages!

I’ve been told I’m obsessed with the gay thing. Jeff Perren of http://shavingleviathan.blogspot.com/ is but one who told me this. He emailed me quite specifically on the matter. And yet he and I sort of agreed that the word “marriage” is perhaps problematical, and I proposed “twainage,” and he “joinage.” OK, so we think somewhat along the same lines. In fact, on so much we agree. But he worried I was obsessed, and liberal in my “group think.” To the point that he told me to stop sending him the rare things I do send out to anyone. I’m not aggressive about this, that’s for sure. I just have my fun where I do, commenting here and there, which is how I met him in the first place. Oh, two hours a day, maybe. It’s a hobby. I don’t send anything to anyone more than once or twice a month. Obsessed? Hardly. Well, no not really. Not at all. I ignore it the best I can. I always have. But you heterosexuals, you can’t stop talking about it. And you don’t even realize it, which is sad. Particularly because you blame us for the discussion. And you bring it up: first with “Are you married…?” and it goes from there.

But what does one do when one encounters http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263679/real-marriage-sherif-girgis > an article on marriage which started off with the most ridiculous assumption – hurled at all gay people, as a group – by a “conservative” who supposedly doesn’t do “group think”.

Here’s the first three paragraphs: “It’s the fall of 2006. John Partilla, an Upper West Side advertising executive, meets Carol Anne Riddell, a local news anchor. Like-minded and both brimming with energy, they hit it off; within five years, they’re exchanging vows. But when the New York Times covers their wedding, it sparks a blaze of controversy. Why?

“Partilla and Riddell were already married when they met — at their children’s pre-kindergarten. In fact, their families became friends. But rather than “deny their feelings and live dishonestly,” they decided to abandon their spouses and children. As the Times put it, “All they had were their feelings, which Ms. Riddell described as ‘unconditional and all-encompassing. . . . It was a gift . . . but I had to earn it. Were we brave enough to hold hands and jump?’”

Just days before Partilla and Riddell’s story appeared in the Times, Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson, and I posted online an article to be published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy defining and defending what we called the “conjugal view” of marriage, according to which marriage is inherently the union of one man and one woman. We showed how redefining civil marriage to include same-sex romantic partnerships would speed the cultural currents that led Partilla and Riddell to “jump,” and thus seriously harm the common good. Recently in these pages (“Two Views of Marriage,” Feb. 7), Jason Steorts published a counterargument that, while not mentioning Riddell and Partilla, amounts to a brief in their defense.”

So essentially, this Sherif Girgis, gender unknown, writing now in 2011, says that these two divorced because gay couples – can’t get married? But the potential of gay marriage by any name, or even romance — will lead them to their divorce and remarriage? Which they did in 2006 – just 3 years after gay sex was even legalized nationwide, but gay marriage was legal only in Massachusetts? Leaving the bizarre circumstance that a legally married couple in Boston could go to New Orleans for a honeymoon and be arrested in the nuptial bed for “crimes against nature,” and serve up to 10 years at hard labor. Perhaps the gay couple could room together at Angola, the state pen, and be assured of conjugal visits, ahem.

And this gay unreality led Riddell and Partilla to divorce? And I think, is Girgis rational? Is he or she serious? The statement I put in bold is absurd. What the hell did Henry VIII use for divorce? Gay rights in 16th century England? Really? Why was Reno a divorce mill back in the 1950s? Because Stonewall Inn wasn’t raided every night, but only once a month? Is that why? Gay marriage is illegal in all but 5 states, and I think three of them only use “civil union” and well, maybe, I don’t know and don’t care, it’s 8 states. OK, so maybe Eight out of the other 42 > which have all outlawed it quite sufficiently. And DOMA outlaws it all nationwide. And this is why these two heterosexuals got divorced from their first loves and to each other for the sanctity of it?

Am I just crazy, or is there something wrong with this reasoning?

There were some 72 people who posted utter mush, all conflicted with each other except for one tenet – gay folks are to blame for the downfall of marriage in this nation; and just possibly all of civilization. What utter hogwash. Unicorn hunting of the finest sort. To believe that stomping on sissies is the lynch pin of society and marriage and family and heterosexuality is not rational. It’s impossible to sort it out what all these people say. It’s so bumfuddled and supercagifragilisticoushus or however you spell that confabulation of a word. But that’s the thesis of it all – stomping on sissies is the true way to help heterosexuals. This is nuts. But I thank you all for thinking so highly of me and mine, nonetheless. Who knew I and we were so important? Why, with rights for gays nascent in 2011, no wonder Eleanor of Aquitaine got a divorce from Louis VII of France in 1150. That’s no doubt why she had her “gai” son, Richard the Lionhearted, King of England. Yes, “gai,” that’s the word they used in their letters to each other. That’s why Partilla and Riddell got divorce and married. Sure. Sure.

And all I could comment on there was: NUTS.

Our answer to the culture was is “NUTS.” No other word fits. None.

Have at it folks. But it’s ludicrous. And the comments are so conflicted, at odds with each other, and each claiming themselves right. And what the most ridiculous charge is of course is that we “chose” to be gay. When this happens, naught will say. Why we do this, naught will say. But we do it, supposedly, because heterosexuals say we do. To “attack” society. Sure, sure. Sounds good, I guess. And no matter how often we say “we’re born this way” and put up websites like www.borngaybornthisway.blogspot.com – we’re told NO! We’re wrong, and you’re right. Because this you believe, and it doesn’t make a difference what we say for we’re promoting an agenda for some nefarious reason. It’s delusional and laughable. It would require hundreds of millions of people all over the globe to independently, without contact with each other, and no public notice whatsoever, anywhere, ever, to all agree on the same thing, and say the same thing. It would be some sort of mass organized synchronized dishonesty on our part. Of unimaginable proportions.

This from a magazine which I’ve subscribed to since 1975. This from a rational in all other regards publication – but which goes gaga on gay stuff. Simply gaga. This magazine which used “hlavac” as my name, until one fine day when I started to get two magazines in my mail box, one to me, and one to this fellow “hiavac.” Perhaps Hiavac was my evil twin on the “homosexual lobby” “promoting the homosexual agenda” for some nefarious reason known only to heterosexuals. I never get no stinkin’ memos that’s for sure.

The whole debate is so dumb as to be beyond belief. And yet I’m told I’m obsessed, as these people accuse me of the end of marriage, Mr Girgis in 7 pages of text and the others in 72 comments, some of quite some duration, engaged in endless “debate.” Of what they are so sure of that they each speak with “authority” as each confounds the other. And they don’t even see it. I’m not sure that even if they were all in the same room with a line by line refutation of their mush would they see it. Why should I bother? They apparently believe what they believe, regardless of all evidence to the contrary. But of this they are sure, we are basically working to destroy society. I don’t even need to think about my responses to this crap. It’s so routine. You say, I say. Back and forth. And occasionally one of you gets it. Now it appears to be ½ the country. We await the other half.

But such a claim as I caused this divorce and remarriage? I just giggle, get worried, have a cocktail, and giggle again. Then I think. Hard. Will they come after us again? I don’t think so. But I’m not sure. Will we be outlawed again? I hope not. But it made no difference before. It’ll make no difference again. I lived a wonderful life, all the negativism and laws against me notwithstanding. They were laughable words on paper that made no difference. And no one I knew but few ever had a bit of bother about it. Those who did, I just excluded from my life.

Which is what heteros don’t quite get. Look at us – makes no difference what you say – we giggle, and tell you, “Well, we don’t know what else to do, we’re born this way.” And then you all get back to your condemnation, and we get back to living productive lives and avoiding the worst of you.

Good luck folks. But really. Who’s obsessed? A 7 page article and 72 comments? Surrender? Nuts!





1 Comment

  1. Jim and I share a common outlook on some things, but he gets a few of my views wrong. Since I never write about ‘gay issues’ and almost never about marriage, it’s barely worth the time to make a correction, but since I was called out and linked to, I’m going to do that this once.

    First, here’s the relevant portion of the private email I sent to Jim, after receiving a half dozen or so copies of his posts:

    “Clearly you are so consumed with
    homosexuality you talk of nothing else.
    Worse, your posts are littered with “we
    this” and “we that.” That collectivist
    approach is no different than the standard
    Progressive identity politics you
    presumably are attempting to combat.

    Until or unless you re-think your position,
    please remove me from your mailing list.

    Jeff Perren”

    As you can see, at least as I interpret what I said, I was not asking Jim to shut up, just to leaven his posts with commentary on subjects other than gay issues if he wants me to continue reading them. Naturally, he’s free to focus solely on that area; it’s his blog and he can do what he likes. But I, personally, think there is not only more things to think and write about, but much more important things, especially today. (See my penultimate paragraph below.)

    That’s not someone (me) making a universal moral prescription; it’s one reader providing feedback to an author about the author’s material.

    Second, the more serious point (in my view) is the wrongheaded approach (in my view) he takes even to gay issues. He adopts the position of his avowed enemies, the Progressives, and treats ‘gay people’ as a collective, not a collection of individuals.

    There is a difference, a crucial one. Any (human) group is a collection of individuals. A collective regards all those individuals as interchangeable units, without individual identity as if they all held the same values, the same goals, the same outlook.

    Collectivism is the exact metaphysical, psychological, and moral opposite of my own views on gays, blacks, Jews, and every other hot-button social group. When discussing social issues from a moral or political perspective, just as I care absolutely nothing about a person’s genetic history or pigmentation chemistry, I care absolutely nothing about what they choose to do with their genitalia or whom they choose to love.

    I simply do NOT care. It is NONE of my business and it is morally irrelevant, and should be politically irrelevant.

    I am all too sadly aware that there are many conservatives who do not share that view. However, I am not a conservative of any flavor. Some conservatives, too many, are as irrational and collectivist (and even statist) as their Progressive counterparts. This Girgis idiot is clearly one, and so is the guy he’s arguing with, Steorts.

    Steorts utterly shreds Girgis’ view in a few lines of his reply, with his example of the infertile man who chooses to marry. But then he goes on to utterly undercut his position by saying: “(By the way, I also advocate using the tax code to encourage people who are married and can do so to procreate, and who have procreated but not married to do so.)”

    Clearly, both idiots are willing to use the State to enforce their social values in an area where voluntary choice should reign supreme – something I utterly oppose. Jim and I agree on this. So, therefore (getting back to my earlier point) why should we adopt the collectivist and statist view of our opponents by talking about ‘we gays’, ‘gay people this and gay people that’, and so forth?

    The fact that a person is homosexual is utterly irrelevant to the issue, no matter what conservatives (or Progressives) say, and it’s counterproductive to implicitly accept their premises while attempting to argue against their conclusions.

    As Girgis’ (and revoltingly many other) article(s) show, many conservatives are obsessed with reproduction (and death), as a result of their embrace of Christianity, certain traditional views, and decades of layering of Progressive philosophy which they (often unknowingly) accept. You can see that in this absurd essay, a rather typical one on National Review, it saddens me to note. But it does no good to adopt their perspective if you want to argue they’re wrong.

    The appropriate approach, in my view, is to say (as I did to Jim in a follow up email when I allegedly suggested to him to, in effect, shut up:

    “It’s one thing to say “individuals who are gay are individuals with the same fundamental needs, values, and rights as everyone else.” It’s quite another to say “my people,” “we have a right,” etc.

    The key is to point out – to conservatives and everyone else (the former, after all, are not the only ones who vote in favor of state referenda upholding exclusively heterosexual marriage) – that being homosexual is utterly irrelevant to this issue. The relevant point is that EVERY individual has the SAME rights.

    Frankly, why ANYONE is obsessed with the issue of marriage is simply bizarre. It’s just not that important. Conservatives see the attempts to ‘re-define it’, i.e. to allow any two (or ten or twelve) to marry rather than solely “one man, one woman” clearly grows out of their absurd religion. Gays are obsessed with it because – I’m guessing I don’t really know – they see it as a matter of principle.

    I’m sympathetic to the latter viewpoint, but when there such important issues to talk about — when we are figuratively staring at the abyss of financial ruin of the sort that sunk the German welfare state and aided the rise of the Nazis to power, when we have our own brand of Nazis who dominate the media, the universities and public school system, and three-quarters of Congress (not to mention the White House), when Progressivism is only a generation away from utterly destroying what’s left of the United States political system AND the once-dominant distinctively American culture of individualism, self-reliance, self-responsibility, and love for liberty – why in hell would anyone spend more than an hour a year talking about marriage?

    Agree or disagree, I hope my position is a little clearer now.

    Jeff Perren

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: