Fannie's Room
I used to see this sttitude a lot on Know Thy Neighbor.
A new troll would pop in, with the usual "I have nothing against gay people, some of my best friends are gay, etc."
We would calmly discuss the history of marriage, the Bible, the role of the courts and initiative petition in a representative democracy.
After a short discussion, they start bringing up Paul Cameron's research, and start screaming that gay men are fucking in the streets and recruiting children.
He also states, in his twisted article, that "Society’s interest is in promoting the model in which microcosms of society (via one man and one woman) perpetuate society by producing children". I guess love has nothing to do with it. Sad. Very sad.
I wonder if he knows that, according to many forecasting models, we're already at the tipping point for population on this little world of ours?
Yeah, about that microcosm of society bit- I don't think Mr. Walrus does a very good job of distinguishing humans from animals. We humans form partnerships with people for purposes other than or more than procreation and child-rearing. These people always act like the human race will die out if gay people are allowed to marry- as though opposite-sex couples will stop having sex and stop raising children together.
John,
The anti-gays who claim to like gay people and who claim that they're "liberal democrats" yet who also hold extremely homophobic and hateful beliefs about gay people are particularly difficult to deal with. They are completely convinced that they're not bigoted even though their words indicate they are nothing but bigoted. And when you call them out on it, they maintain that they're really just loving Christian people and therefore their beliefs are justified.
"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."
This is one of my favorite passages in the Bible and I'm glad equal rights folks are bringing attention to it because its so relevant in this modern debate. Unfortunately, with a lot of these pro prop 8 folks, you have to speak their language, which means you had better have Bible verses to back up what you say or else it means nothing.
and they will say, "It is not me that has anything against gay people, it's God".
Fannie 1: Walrus 0
I love it when you use simple logic to destroy these bigots' hateful articles.
Same sex coupling is a phrase that obviously refered to sexual relations that lacked either husband or wife.
The context, as you noted in your own blogpost, was the comparison of two types of sexual couplings. One type which, by its form and substance, is essential to the perpetuation of society. That societal contribution is not negated by adoption nor by other forms of social parenting. Each child has a mother and a father. If tragedy or dire circumstances denies a child of either a mother or a father or both, then, adoption serves a societal contribution of much merit.
Adoption, as you must know, is not something based on sexual relations.
Playful Walrus did not say same sex couples, as you did in your blogpost and comments here.
Now, if you would at least acknowledge this reading of what he said, you could still find things to criticize, or to discuss, without resort to the reflexive -- disagreement equal hatred -- mantra that is a dumb feature of the anti-Prop 8 campaign today.
Chairm,
Whoa, down boy. I'm going to make this clear for you, okay?
The Playful Walrus specifically said "...same-sex couplings have not produced anything for society, except for the spread of disease."
In case you don't know, there are at least two definitions of coupling. One is "the act of forming a couple" and another is "the act of uniting sexually." Look it up. Perhaps you are a psychic being but if the definition of "coupling" that the Playful Walrus "obviously meant" when he stated that "same-sex couplings" produce nothing but disease was the second one (ie- gay sex) as opposed to the first one (ie- same-sex couples) then he should have chosen his words with more precision.
But most importantly, do you want to hear something funny? In my own correspondence with PW, he explicitly stood by his statement that same-sex COUPLES contribute nothing to society.
Specifically, I asked him if he would stand by his statement "in which you say that same-sex couples contribute nothing to society except for the spread of disease." He answered "I stand by my statement because it is true."
If PW did not truly mean same-sex "couples" than he should write more clearly and specifically say "gay sex produces nothing for society except for disease." I certainly hope you are logical enough to see that it would simply be inappropriate for me to apologize for someone else's inability to write clearly and with nuance.
The upshot of all this, Chairm, is that this has all been a long-winded way of saying that it was wrong of you to barge in here and declare my reading to be erroneous and then to demand that I acknowledge as much. We will all wait while you apologize for yet another paranoid accusation against me.
By the way, coming here and tossing around judgments like "dumb" typically doesn't get one very far in an argument. I understand that you Opiners don't abide by basic rules of civility, but juvenile name-calling won't get you very far here.
Wow, talk about putting words in people's mouths, Chairm.
Since we all can plainly see the intended meaning of the original author, let's not stray from the topic, as was predictably done on your blog.
Same-sex couples DO, in fact, contribute in positive ways in a society. As I explicitly stated on your own blog (which I refuse to comment at for fear of being censored as I have in the past), the example of lesbian parents who adopt a drug-addicted baby and are going to give it a better life than its biological parents ever could. Yet, you and your buds refused to even acknowledge that example.
Perhaps now you can admit that it is mean, untrue, and insulting to same-sex couples to be told that they only contribute to society by spreading disease.
But I won't hold my breath. If I had a nickel for every honest argument led astray by Chairm...
Cue the "sex integration" and "responsible procreation" cut and paste in 3-2-1...
Jane,
Actually, since this is Chairm we're dealing with, we should cue the "gay identity politics" cut and paste.
I'm pretty interested as to whether Chairm will acknowledge his error or if he'll just abandon the conversation with his tail between his legs. The Opine crowd isn't exactly known for civility or for conceding any point no matter how trivial.
Either way, it's been real.
Nope, no they aren't. I'm sure that conceding a point to a Lesbian Stalker might make them catch The Gay.
I sincerely believe that one of them writes the delusional things he does because he might be mentally unwell. Knowing that that might be true, it makes me feel compassionate for him rather than angry.
I feel sorry for men as society often makes them feel embarrassed to seek counseling.
I know what you mean. One of them wrote a piece questioning whether he, himself, or their little blog had made David Benkof stop supporting Prop 8. Clearly he doesn't understand that the issues are much larger than their little anti-gay echo chamber...and that relentless pursuit of their anti marriage equality goal despite the overt racism, anti-semitism, and obvious homophobia that goes along with Prop 8 supporters and other anti-gay right-wing propaganda is a bit disturbing in itself.
Notice how they all gang bang you over on their blog, yet refuse to come here, where they have no power to delete random comments and divert from real issues. WTF? Like, why are they still arguing about semantics of the fucking word "coupling" instead of acknowledging, as Playful Walrus himself did, that he meant what he in fact said.
These heterosexual homobigot white males have waayyyy to much time on their hands. I hope my taxes aren't paying for them to sit at home all day thinking of ways to try take away my rights.
They're a sad bunch.
As I was reading through their hateful comments about me something struck me- They don't run a marriage defense blog. They fancy themselves masters of a courtroom where they put the character of gay and lesbian bloggers on trial because it distracts from the fact that they hold absolutely no expertise in any of the topics of their blog.
They take themselves way too seriously and interpret any bit of criticism as a gross violation of their human rights. Frankly, I don't think they're cut out for life on the internet if this is how they react to critique.
It's good thing they don't have a larger audience.
They don't have a larger audience because they are sad, delusional fucktards. And everyone except their pathetic little crew understands that.
Jane,
Your anger is justified.
But I have to object to you publicly calling them "fucktards." Because they are sad and delusional, they really deserve our compassion.
can we call them "poor little fucktards"?
No.
Unless you are using the word in the sense that it means a (n.) unnecessarily hostile person who fails to concede even the smallest of points to the other side while projecting all of his own faults onto others thereby degenerating every online interaction he's in into a never-ending hot mess of delusions, off-topic semantic arguments, paranoid accusations, asininity, and overall pointlessness.
Well, you are all mistaken, but don't let the facts stand in the way of a good name-calling frenzy.
>> it was wrong of you to barge in here and declare my reading to be erroneous and then to demand that I acknowledge as much
I did not barge. I commented. I observed that you misread. I made no demand.
I did say that the "disagreement equal hatred -- mantra [...] is a dumb feature of the anti-Prop 8 campaign today.
I suppose you think the mantra is not dumb and would therefore welcome being told that your disagreement with the core of the social institution of marriage is the equal of hatred. I would nope not, but you strongly imply as much.
He did mean sexual relations, which as you concede is the definition.
The act of forming a couple he referred was a sexual act. Not the act of forming a same-sex household, for example.
His context was clearly put in his full response.
He said:
>> I cannot be held responsible for the misuse of my statements. Nowhere do I advocate the hatred of homosexual people. [...]
Here I think your own misuse can be included, Fannie, even if your intentions were good and your umbrage came from your own misreading.
He continued:
>> I stand by my statement because it is true.
And immediately elaborated:
>> If you’ll excuse me getting graphic – none of us would be here if it weren’t for coitus. Even IVF babies come from an ancestry of coitus – the physical joining together of both sexes. The same can’t be said of the physical interaction of two men or two women, nor can two women provide a father to a child nor two men a mother to a child.
Coitus. The physical joining of both sexes. Physical interaction of persons of the same sex. He used euphemisms, sure, but he was also being discrete. His blog.
He said:
>> Society is comprised of both sexes. Marriage is forming an inclusive microcosm of that society, often for the perpetuation of it.
Society is both-sexed and marriage is a community that includes both sexes. Perpetuation. Again, his context is clearly sexual relations since he does see marriage as a sexual type of relationship. A type whose sexual relations is markedly different in kind from same-sex sexual behavior.
You might prefer a more broad meaning for each significant word that he used, but that would be based on your reading stuff into his remarks.
But you are reading insult into it when none was intended nor given toward you. If what he said is factually true, and it is, then, your reaction may be just what he had in mind when he said:
>> I can understand why someone would take offense to it. People are often offended by the truth.
* * *
Definition of coupling:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/d...ionary/
coupling
1. the act of bringing or coming together : pairing ; specifically: sexual union.
2. a device that serves to connect the ends of adjacent parts or objects
3. the joining of or the part of the body that joins the hindquarters to the forequarters of a quadruped
4. a means of electric connection of two electric circuits by having a part common to both
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary offers these four meanings none of which refer to the act of forming a social couple or household or a romantic twosome.
Not unless you think such an act would be comprised of electric circuits, hindquarters/forequarters, a device that connect objects.
No, Fannie, he meant sexual relations, the sexual act, the sexual aspect of marriage versus the sexual aspect of gay or lesbian couplings.
If you choose to continue to cling to your own misreading, then, you would prefer to be insulted than to be corrected. So be it.
* * *
Your readers here may not know it from your blogpost and comments, but Walrus, On Lawn, and I each wrote that we could empathize with your reaction to what he said -- if he had said what you thought he had said. He did not, but his tone and perhaps your inclination, given that you focussed on couples while he emphasized sexual relations, led to misunderstanding.
Not one of us said that same-sex households, or gay and lesbian towsomes, or individuals, contributed nothing to society.
Now, if you would rather take issue with the assertion that same-sex sexual relations contributes nothing, I think you would make more progress in a productive discussion.
But that, too, would be a very difficult discussion given the subject matter. Not all of us would be interested, (not I) but someone might be on the pro-marriage side of things.
For instance, if an act brings joy, it may contribute to the well-being of society. If its downside outweighs its upside, then, the contribution may be a net-negative.
If the upside is heavier, then a net-positive. In judging such things there are objective criteria but these only take us so far; the rest is really subjective judgement.
But if you discuss that, you'd enjoy the advantage of discussing what Walrus actually said rather than what you mistakenly thought him to have said.
Chairm,
Well, thanks for joining us again 17 days after leaving your previous comment.
It is clear, Chairm, that there are MULTIPLE definitions of "coupling" one of which includes "the act of joining together TO FORM A COUPLE." What is abundantly clear, as usual, is that you and I are not having a meeting of the minds. Even if what you say is true, that Walrus "obviously meant" coitus as opposed to forming a couple, I refuse to apologize for failing to psychic-ly know which definition of "coupling" that Playful Walrus intended when he wrote with a lack of precision and NEVER CORRECTED MY ASSUMPTION HIMSELF.
But most importantly, in case you have forgotten, this discussion is OLD HAT and was way beyond over when it ended a few days ago over at your blog space. That you continue to harp on a conversation that occurred between myself and another blogger that does not involve you and in no way pertains to you is odd to say the least. This is precisely the type of off-topic side issues and paranoid accusations that always derail conversations with you.
Get over it.
I'm not trying to be mean here but time and time again you have proven to be an enormous waste of time for me.
And, Chairm, don't even fucking think about pecking out a personal attack here of the type you write about me on your blog. I can promise you that it will be deleted.
Chairm,
it seems like you're putting an awful lot of energy toward explaining someone else's intention. How is it now that you have special insight into what other people mean to say? Fannie has respectfully discussed the issue with Playful Walrus and came to some understanding over 2 weeks ago. Why don't you just let the Playful Walrus speak for himself and leave it alone?
As some disclosure to new readers or visitors to Fannie's Room, I have a rather long and tedious history with the group of anti-gay-marriage bloggers with whom Chairm blogs.
They can be a bit...... much.... at times.
Fannie, Walrus did not say yes to your flawed restatement of what he had said. He stood by his original statement and by his elaboration.
I did not psychically learn that he meant coitus. I just read the sentence in which he said he meant coitus. I quoted it earlier. You linked to his original comment in which this appeared.
I have not asked you to apologize.
You misread. He elaborated. You have continued to cling to your misreading anyway. You blamed his lack of precision, yet he was precise. You blamed him for not correcting your flawed assumption, yet he clarified by referring to coitus.
He is not guilty by ommission, Fannie. He corrected you.
It is not off-topic to discuss the central complaint you made in your blogpost above. Your error has not expired in 17 days. It was repeated yesterday here in your own comments.
Besides, you commented a day ago in the very same Opine thread in which you had first commented about your misrepresentation of Walrus. You freshen your error and pretend it is timeless, although you claim that discussing your error is time-limited.
You tried to impugn the motives of another person, Walrus, and then to extend that to all who'd disagree with you on SSM. You've done that here, in discussing Opine and myself, and you have done it elsewhere. It involves me, Fannie, despite your protestations.
There is nothing odd in correcting your continued misreading of an important point about the disagreement on SSM.
No personal attack, Fannie, just addressing the content of your words.
That you would belittle the diligence and thoroughness of others is not the fault of those who'd take you to task for misrepresentations that arise from your error.
Chairm,
(That was your anonymous post, correct?)
You continue to waste my time. We are not having a meeting of the minds here. Please try to listen to what I'm saying.
Walrus's article WAS rude. You are not going to change my mind here. And, even though I believe Walrus' article was rude, he and I had a nice conversation anyway. It is only you and your fellow drama queen bloggers who continue blowing this way out of proportion.
That Walrus referred to a gay couple's legal marriage licenses as a "marriage" license and to the children of a same-sex couple as "their" children is rude and mean. And with respect to the "coupling" bit, even if he meant "coitus" (which again, he never said), saying that same-sex sex produces nothing for society except for disease is just fucking rude and mean. He could have just as easily said something like "any act of sex that doesn't produce children can potentially spread disease." But no, he makes it all about gay sex.
I wish you had an ounce of compassion to recognize how offensive that article was and how abusive you are being for trying to villanize me for being offended by it. It is degrading that you people try to explain this all away as some sort of overly-sensitive misreading on my part.
Rudeness is a judgment call. It is subjective. And that's why there is no "error" on my part. Instead of defending Walrus you would do better to try to see things from our perspective FOR ONCE. Can you try that for me Chairm? Instead of creating this Fannie is a Vewy Vewy Bad Person narrative that you have going on over at your blog, how about you write a comment that demonstrates that you're capable of writing from a place of compassion.
I would have much more respect for you people if you were capable of that.
Why I can't take you seriously is that there are almost 500 posts on my blog, many of them taking a contrary position to the issues on your blog. Yet, as usual, you insist on miring us in this idiotic off-topic conversation that didn't even involve you.
Let it go. I believe this conversation is, how do you say, irrelevant "meta-commentary."
Jeez, obsessed much, Chairm?
Walrus explicitly admitted what he meant. You are not him. How can you possibly know, then, what he actually meant? Get over it. You are wrong. You should be ashamed and embarrassed of your actions.
Fannie, you now claim that Walrus never said coitus. And JK is under the false impression that Walrus explicitly said what Fannie mistakenly thinks he said. The psychic powers are not claimed by me, since I read what he actually wrote.
Here is what he said in reply to your question -- you know his statement, the one he stands by and the one you thought fitted your misreading?
Walrus: Walrus said: I stand by my statement because it is true. If you
’ll excuse me getting graphic – none of us would be here if it weren’t for coitus.
* * *
Maybe he should have been more graphically precise with you on that point.
Yes, as JK said, he was explicit, right there. But perhaps you needed him to be more graphically precise.
* * *
At least you've acknowledge that "he makes it all about gay sex".
You have moved closer to what he said on that precise point.
He actually made it all about coitus, but I can see where your emphasis shifts if you forget he was that explicit.
Evidently you did understand what he meant since the spread of disease through sexual behavior is not restricted to one-sexed sexual behavior, of course. He did not say the opposite of that and I don't think you can fairly read the opposite into his words, as you just demonstrated.
* * *
Fannie asked:
Instead of defending Walrus you would do better to try to see things from our perspective FOR ONCE. Can you try that for me Chairm?
* * *
You mean like this comment that I made in response to your misreading what actually written?
Chairm: [If he] had said what you have re-presented him as having said, there would be a direct and obvious link between his words and your feeling hurt by those words.
* * *
See, I can do both defend the content and empathize with your misreading. I did, in fact. But I only point it out since you asked and so probably missed that.
Enough Chairm.
The absurdity of this comment thread and your obsessive harping on this issue is really something.
I have compassion for you Chairm. That you have literally spent weeks gnashing your teeth about this "coupling" thing makes me wonder if you are mentally unwell and/or unemployed.
Get a grip. There are very big things going on in the world right now, Coupling-Gate is not one of them.
Thanks.
I know some good therapists...
Well, the insults are about all you have left because you have been run aground.
This kerfuffle demonstrates that the first axiom of SSM argumentation is the basis for a cult-like devotion to falsehoods.
You misread and then misrepresented. You did it again when you accused me of never seeing things from your viewpoint.
I've repeated asked you to state the core meaning of the relationship type that you'd call "marriage".
I've asked for the principled basis for drawing lines around that core meaning.
In other words, you have been invited to clarify your viewpoint so that it can be understood by those with whom you say you disagree about the core meaning of marriage.
If you had an ounce of courage, an ounce of respect for human dignity, and an ounce of respect for the law, you'd be ready with your substantive answers instead of so ill-prepared to make the case for your pet project soley only basis of identity politics.
You could do better if this really was the big issue you claim it to be.
Chairm,
Everybody else understands Fannie's views. She is always abundantly clear.
And you already know exactly what marriage means and the kind relationship that marriage supports and strengthens, and there is almost no disagreement between your side and ours.
The only difference is that your bigotry will not permit you to see that the relationship type that defines marriage is identical regardless of the gender of the participants.
It really is just that simple.
Chairm, buddy, you really need to take it down a notch. "Courage," "respect," "law"?
LOL. Grow up Chairm.
That you keep coming here to harp on this and insult me leads me to believe that you actually think you have credibility with me. Quite simply, you don't. Not only do most people never even know WTF you're talking about when you use your strange lingo-laden Opine-speak, engaging with you is a tedious, utter waste of time. I just don't think it's possible to have a genuine dialogue with you. Sorry, but I don't.
That you continue to paint this entire comment thread as some sort of ginormous demonstration of what the "SSM" side is like demonstrates nothing but delusion.
I've shown you far more patience and respect than you deserve and I am requesting you to stop commenting on this thread. Like I said a long time ago, there are almost 500 posts on my blog, many of them dealing with marriage equality, and you are the only one who insists on miring us in this idiotic off-topic conversation.
Chairm, "In other words, you have been invited to clarify your viewpoint so that it can be understood by those with whom you say you disagree about the core meaning of marriage."
Fannie has already done this for you many, many times. As have I. As have many people. This has been done with you and your buds at your website so many times, it's ridiculous.
You will never accept our answers in good faith, nor do you ever really attempt honest dialogue. Nothing productive ever comes from conversations with you and your buds.
Get over yourselves. You take yourselves way too seriously over there. You think you are saving humanity from the depths of corruption that is gay marriage (to you), when really all you are doing is trying to fuck up innocent people's lives like the snooping busybodies that every neighborhood has.
We are way past the point of expecting anything genuine, empathetic, compassionate, kind, or honest to come from you or anyone at your website, which is why you can C your way out of this A and B conversation.
So crawl back over to your little echo chamber, and continue fighting your windmills, all which, at their "core" are based in homophobia and sexism.
So, now that we've all marinated in the stinking absurdity of being lectured to about "respect" by Chairm, a member of "Opine Editorials," I have a simple request.
Chairm, if you feel inclined to comment at my blog again, I am requesting that you limit your response to one topic and one topic only for the time being:
Specifically, please explain to us why you have promoted a blatantly dishonest piece of writing by Mass Resistance on your website. Since it's clear from your previous comments that you don't actually read my blog or know all that much about my opinions with respect to marriage equality, I must warn you that you should probably read my critique of the Mass Resistance piece here before you respond. That would save some embarrassment on your part.
Feel free to elaborate as to why you promoted this piece, which did not provide a source for a single one of its egregious claims, without question. Show us, Chairm, how promoting this piece demonstrates that you have oodles and oodles of "courage," "respect for human dignity, and the law." Show us that you are interested in truth, as opposed to "cult-like devotion to falsehoods." Show us that you can be more than a juvenile drama queen who denigrates an entire community while feigning to be some sort of victim of internet hostility. (see also, evil mayors, etc.)
The floor is yours. Respond in the comment thread below the above-cited article. We'll all wait for you.
Changing the subject, Fannie, does not work in your favor.
Each claim that appears in your blogpost here that I have taken issue with, incuding those in your subsequent comments, have not withstood scrutiny.
Empathy, you demanded, but it had already been expressed, for the most recent example.
As for your challenge regarding the MassResistance piece, sure, I'll respond at Opine and return here to discuss it, if you are prepared to refrain from namecalling. Can you agree to that much, at the very least?
John, given the clarity with which you claim to understand Fannie's views on marriage, please state the core meaning of marriage, according to your understanding of her view. Fannie could confirm or she could correct or clarify, if your understanding falls short.
OK. Chairm, I'll take a stab at that.
I believe that Fannie believes that the core meaning of marriage is this:
Marriage is a special and precious relationship between two people who have promised to each other their love, commitment and total support.
And that legal marriage serves a useful function to society by formalizing and defining the legal rights and responsibilities of the couple.
Chairm, this is my blog and my rules. It's quite simple. I disagree with your comments. Is it impossible for you to just agree to disagree here? Why the sense of entitlement that you get to stubbornly try to force a conversation that no one else wants to have?
As I requested, please direct all future comments to the dishonest Mass Resistance propaganda piece you posted.
Thanks.
And p.s., this particular conversation is not now and never has been about what I think the "core" of marriage is.
First, it was about Playful Walrus' article. And now it's about how YOU have posted and promoted blatantly dishonest anti-gay propaganda on your blog. I, for one, eagerly await your explanation.
Commenting by HaloScan
