Marriage is a civil right. it’s a law of the land, and there’s no legal reason to prevent people from accessing the law or the benefits that come with it.
Gay marriage doesn’t change marriage – it remains 2 people exclusive of all others.
Polygamists are not gay allies – they are an entirely separate thing. Polygamy is one man married to several women. The women are not married to each other.
Polygamy is very much a heterosexual and religious thing – men showing ownership of women or showing off their wealth as measured by the number of wives they support.
Yeah, so not gay.
Polygamy is a dramatic departure from marriage. Another departure is that a gay couple are a couple consensually and are both adults – in polygamy, the man is often a grandpa with a granddaughter age girl assigned to him in a marriage.
Incest is abhorrent, not just because of the power imbalance, lack of consent, and that it’s criminal rape – but also on the survival level – inbred babies. Again, there is no overlap to gay adult relationships.
Polygamy and Incest however are linked because you have a disgust factor of a grandpa fathering children on a teen-child – so you have some birth defect issues there.
Not to mention, when you have a closed community of 100 men and 100 women – but 5 of the men are married to all the women…..
You have inequality all over the map – the 95 men without wives aren’t equal and if they are in the mormon group, they are doomed to hell without at least three wives – and the entire next generation having only 5 fathers – is a huge genetic collapse concern.
Basically, the argument against gay marriage on the disgust factor (which is not at all a legal argument) falls apart by thinking of Sesame Street – one of these things just doesn’t belong here, one of these things just isn’t the same:
polygamy/bigamy
bigotry/intolerance
incest
gay marriage
that’s right, gay marriage does not belong on the list of disgusting things.
this blog was in response to this one
Nina's Garden 
Pingback: BC Court Affirms Anti-Polygamy Law | Random Ntrygg
Hey nktrygg,
Have looked on here for your email for a while but couldn’t find it so I thought I’d post on here anyway! Im from Cambridge (England) and I originally came across organicpeas blog post about homosexuality being unnatural and read it all (from some strange morbid fascination) and was very quickly saddened and worried by her views. I’ve had many bad experiences with people baring her views which have caused significantly more problems than actually being gay have, socially, mentally and in relationships, but I just wanted to thank you because after reading your calm, collected and robust responses to her increasingly childlike and opinionated posts I could breathe a sigh of relief knowing that someone, somewhere out there could remind me what I already knew to be correct, but couldn’t put into words when faced with similar abuse. So thank you again, the world is slowly becoming more sensible and tolerant thanks to people like yourself 🙂
Matt
Thank you – I try to model the behaviour that I would like others to engage in – not always possible, but at least I feel that I can be a source of calm and reason mongering in a world that otherwise tends to go for the flashy and lacking in substance, just to be controversial at best or promoting hate/ignorance at worst..
Fine with me. But next time, please don’t make an accusation, followed by a series of not-quite-right explanations.
A few weeks after our initial discussion? Okay, and perhaps at that time I was still peeking in and out to see if there were additional comments to our original discussion. It’s been a loooooonnnnnng time since then; perhaps several of your anti-gay posts blended together in my consciousness into one long, agonizing discussion. Many apologies for my mistake on that. You do believe your views are correct, and I do believe they’re wrong. Now let’s give this blog a break and move on.
Elizabeth said: “I stumbled upon your site this last time (regarding the gays issues). I hadn’t visited it since the UU discussion (and yes, that portion of the discussion was not offensive, but lively.) It’s the attitudes towards gays that I find offensive.”
Unfortunately, that’s not quite true. In fact, in your first comment on this thread, you said, “I tried to discuss it with him a while back and his big, final question to me was…”What has homosexuality ever done to benefit the world?””
The only article I wrote that contained a phrase even somewhat similar to the question you quote, came a couple weeks AFTER our initial discussion. So you did visit my site after the UU discussion, and you were aware of my stand on homosexual issues.
Gay and lesbian marriage is one of the most critical issues of the day??? I wonder where issues like terrorism or the escalating world hunger crisis or global warming or sex trafficking rate on the critical list? Whether some guy kisses another guy at the altar or 2 women want to express their love by uniting in holy matrimony, as long as it is done out of love, why should anyone get their panties in a twist? It is estimated that 52% of all heterosexual first marriages don’t go past 15 years. If that is the case is marriage really that sacred? Stats were sourced from divorcemagazine.com, yeah there is a divorce magazine. I wonder if we will ever reach a point where we can be truly accepting and happy? I wonder if Bill has the same views of Jews or African American people as he has with gays and lesbians? They are different so we must hate and persecute them, take away their rights as human beings, wait they aren’t human they are gaaaaaaay. Now you may argue that it is not the same thing. Are you sure? Not long ago people were shoved into ovens, or hung from tree limbs all because a group of people was not accepting of them. They had a different skin colour they worshipped in a different way, they were different, so a portion of society decided, we must exterminate them or at least a large enough portion of them so the rest of them are afraid of what could happen if they step out of line. This was widely regarded as acceptable behaviour. Was that acceptable behaviour Bill? I wonder if Bill understands that his keyboard is his oven or noose. Hatred is such a waste of time, I am amazed people can afford to put that much energy into it. I wonder what could be accomplished if this energy was put towards promoting something worthwhile like, I don’t know, feeding every child breakfast before he or she started school for the day, or what if we got together with our neighbours to clean up a park or a creek to beautify the neighbourhood or to provide better inner city wildlife habitat. I bet we would learn that in the end we all want the same thing in life, happiness. Maybe that is what people like Bill are afraid of, that his goals and dreams are not that different from those of gay Gary and wouldn’t that be an awful thing to have to admit.
I stumbled upon your site this last time (regarding the gays issues). I hadn’t visited it since the UU discussion (and yes, that portion of the discussion was not offensive, but lively.) It’s the attitudes towards gays that I find offensive.
I don’t recall the meeting, sorry; guess it’s old age creeping up on me.
Enough commenting on this site and this thread, though.
You say you stumbled across my site… my recollection is that you came to my site when I posted about you making comments about me on Chris Graham’s site. You said:
“Actually, my last post to AFP wasn’t so much about you (“about me” you wrote) as for anyone who might read your comments and not have the full picture of UUs. And in my last AFP response I made no false allegations. I merely made clarifying points. There is a difference.”
We had a nice discussion about UUs, John 14:6, the inspiration of the Bible, and more. You replied, “Thanks for your thoughtful post.”
I guess if you “stumbled” across my site and found me so offensive, we would not have had a good discussion.
BTW, we have met before and it was a civil experience.
I stumbled on your site when researching gay rights and gay-bashing; your site wasn’t something I sought out specifically. When I saw more of the same type of comments from your end regarding homosexuality (and also trashing Obama using slick tactics of the far right) I got angry. Yes. I got ANGRY. And I’m sure my post here came across the same way.
Usually I’m very polite and respectful; I try my best to give people and their views the benefit of the doubt. But here was the same stuff again, and it hit major nerve. I was seeing red and so let it out. I’m sure you’ve done the same. If not, more power to you. I’m sick and tired of my gay friends and family members being talked about and treated like they are scum, like they don’t know what they’re doing, like they are defective. Like they are unnatural and need correction.
I apologize that I wasn’t my normal calm and respectful self. That is true. You are right there. But after a while, the same old harmful, hateful nonsense and misinformation will drive one over the edge and cause them to lash out. Which I did, sharing my thoughts with a like-minded person. Actually, I was feeling quite a bit a venom when I posted.
Perhaps someday when we meet in person it will be a civil experience. But you have to know that when I run into views that are destructive, I will speak out. We’ll never agree on these issues, I’m certain.
Hope you enjoyed the Battle of Waynesboro reenactment. I was impressed.
If you know my stance, as you say, and it offends you, why come to my site?
As I wrote, I’m really disappointed in you because what you said in your comments here really isn’t true. We had a good discussion on my site, as attested by your own comments, even though we disagreed. I never avoided anything you posted there as you now claim. I answered every point you raised. You may not have agreed with me, but I responded in a polite, thought-out manner.
You came across as a reasonable person, willing to discuss one of the most critical issues of the day, but based on your comments here, you apparently aren’t the person I gave you credit for being.
All rhetorical.
You know, when you post things on line you should expect that on occasion folks will comment…and not always on your particular blog. That’s the way of the WWW. It’s one great big world wide conversation that shifts this way and that.
Elizabeth Massie posted: “No questions for you at all. I know your stance and find it offensive. Have a nice day.”
Strange, since in her comment that I was responding to, she said:
“I’d love to ask Bill Dolack…”
and
“Do tell, Bill, why is…”
Those sure look like questions to me.
He certainly did ignore the line about you being a married lesbian. He doesn’t know how to best criticize that…it’s an inconvenient truth and so he’ll just sweep that under the rug. Why discuss something if you can’t come up with a good (if not terribly flawed) comeback? Best to ignore. Though I’m surprised he didn’t mention God. That came up in our discussion. He is all about “God didn’t create people gay! It’s against nature!” Blah blah blah. I can’t imagine living inside his mind.
Have a good day.
Cool site that you have, I’ll come back to visit when I have a bit more time
It would seem we have a lot in common with horror and SF.
Hi Elizabeth
Yes, Bill definitely fits the pattern of the garden variety godbot – except he doesn’t mention god.
But the ignoring what he can’t refuse and twisting what he doesn’t understand and playing word games, is all standard tactics.
He certainly ignored the line about me being a married lesbian.
What I find most funny about those who rant about homosexuality is the complete ignoring of lesbians.
I noticed you attempting to explain some things to Bill Dolack on his so-called Valley “Truth” website. He’s at once fascinated and grossed out by the idea of gay sex and so he’s got his own little battle raging to prove how awful it is. I tried to discuss it with him a while back and his big, final question to me was…”What has homosexuality ever done to benefit the world?” He seems to fancy himself quite the scientist and that everything that exists in the universe must meet the challenge of his limited understanding of nature, life, and existence or else be declared wrong and unnatural. One of his last comments to you, “It has everything to do with the fact that homosexual men have sex by inserting their penises in each other’s rectums and mouths; time and time again” just shows he’s flying on the “ick factor.” He’s of the mindset that scientifically the anus has only one function and one function only – the going *out* of something (remember Mel Gibson’s rant that the anus was “only for taking a shit”?) I’d love to ask Bill Dolack if vagina has only one scientific function – the going *in* of a penis? But then what about menstruation? I’d ask him if the mouth has only one scientific function – the going in of food? But then what about exhalation, coughing? What about the nose? Air goes both in and out of the nose. So how can Bill Dolack know empirically that the anus does not also have a scientific function – use during gay sex. (Do tell, Bill, why is the prostate gland, which is reached through the rectum, such a sexual hot spot? Did nature make a mistake?)
Bill accused you of ignoring most of what was posted. He certainly ignored most of your comment (it made too much sense and he knows he had no valid point-by-point argument to counter it.) His final line, “We want every right you have” proves he just doesn’t get it and never will. Of course everyone wants the same rights. I had to resist the urge to get into it with him again on his site, but it wears me out. He jumps around and avoids anything he can’t counter. I can’t imagine he’ll ever change his mind.
Just wanted to say your comments made a lot of sense. Thanks for reading my rambles.
Elizabeth, if you have questions to pose to me, do so on my blog. Quite interesting that you come here to take some shots at me.
No questions for you at all. I know your stance and find it offensive. Have a nice day.