« High Noon at the High Court: Coming to your PS3 | Main | What We Celebrate When We Celebrate the Fourth of July »

Friday, July 01, 2011


Stan Gibilisco

"I think that means that the whole point of the gay agenda is not to legalize gay marriage but to destroy marriage altogether."

Ken, I think you're missing the point altogether.

In regards to gay marriage, I'm agnostic. We can call a gay relationship anything we want, and assign any name to it that we want, just as we can do with a heterosexual relationship. The practice, not the theory, matters in the purely legal sense. It's not how we define our acts. It's how we conduct ourselves. Not what we say, but what we do.

It's not my place to judge the morality of the issue. That's God's business. I'll leave the conundrum up to God, and wish all the luck upon the heavenly host, for in this circumstance, they'll need all the luck they can get.

So what is the point of the so-called gay agenda? I can't claim to know from an insider's standpoint, because I'm as straight as an East River highway. However, I spent five years in South Beach Miami where most of the male population is gay. I met a lot of gay people. I got a good idea of where they're coming from, what their fears are. One of their fears is that the heterosexual population is bent on destroying them, even if that obsession remains below the surface of consciousness. It's a bit like racism. No, it's a lot like racism.

Some of the gays that I met actually feared that the mainstream (that is, straight) population had a hidden agenda whose end goal would be to place all HIV-positive people in quarantine "camps." That was in the early 1990s, when an HIV-positive diagnosis constitued a death sentence. Some gays specifically referred to "the camps." Paranoid? Maybe, maybe not. I met a straight person in Minnesota (just before moving to South Beach) who advocated exactly that sort of quarantine, saying, "We just don't know whether HIV is contagious like the flu, or not. The scientists say it isn't, but we just don't know."

I refused to allow that fear to infect me, thinking that such a poisoned mind could be more deadly than any actual risk of HIV. I even got tested once because I developed an atypical case of pneumonia. Fear factor: Low. Result: Negative. Surprise coefficient: Zero.

So, getting back to the point for one final blow of the hammer on this figurative nail: I do not believe that gays have any sort of marriage-destruction agenda. However, I do suspect that they, like some Blacks, like some Jews, and increasingly like some Muslims, fear that the mainstream population might harbor a gay-destruction agenda. Is that true? I don't think so. Is it possible? We'd better believe it.

Bill Fleming

So Ken, are you saying that if the real definition of marriage is the social means (both cause and effect — verb and noun) by which people become true family with one another, you're all for it?

Because that's what I think it is.

That's what I think it has always been, your flawed definitions notwithstanding.


Flatly stupid.

Ken Blanchard

stan: good comment, but you could use some of bill's rapier like wit. check out has last inspired barb.

Your argument and mine are not, as you seem to think, mutually exclusive. If gays are paranoid about the larger society they may well want to weaken both marriage and its traditional religious foundations. They may see the later as sources of the animosity against them, as German protestantism was a source of antisemitism. One thing we do seem to agree on, marriage itself is a substitute for other issues.

I have backed up my view with a sample of opinions. We will soon learn whether they are representative. Will gay men marry in significant numbers? Evidence from other places where same marriage is legal suggests not.

Ken Blanchard

Bill: yes. My flatly stupid argument actually defends a view of marriage that we seem to share. I am defending your honor which is more than you ever did.

Of course, "true family" needs some explication, doesn't it? I think that involves commitment, as I said above. I understand why you reject my definitions as flawed. It is not because of any flaws, as you have pointed out none. Its because they are definitions. You want your terms to mean anything you please whenever you please.

Bill Fleming

Ken, the "Flatly stupid" remark didn't come from me, just so you know. That's a different "Bill."

Bill Fleming

Now, Ken, that other "Bill's" remark notwithstanding, I have posted the accepted scholarly definitions of the word "marriage" elswhere on your blog and find it tedious to go look them up and post them for you again.

You can look them up as easily as I can, and when you do, you will find that they are more in line with my description of the institution than with yours.

I do salute your for your willingness to reconsider the validity of your longstanding personal marriage meme though.

That in itself is progress, and by extension a sign of real intelligence.

Good work, professor.

Bill Fleming

The effect KB and I seem to agree on is perhaps better described as "monogamy" and/or "pair-bonding" which is probably a little bit smart of us, since it seems that in doing so, we are simply acknowledging a survival strategy that our species appears to have adopted eons ago — long before we invented law, and religion, and marriage ...and screwed it all up (pun intended.)

Bill Fleming

We also seem to agree that marriage is a social bond that creates kinship. Where we differ is in the emphasis placed on the transmission and protection of the male's genetic material. KB seems to maintain that it is primary, and I that it is secondary and perhaps even of no real consequence.

Bill Fleming

Some info on Pair Bonding:


Ken the 14th century called, they want their views on gender and marriage back.


To balance Ken's bigoted, homophobic comments, what the gay community wants is equal protection under the law, not the destruction of anyone else's beliefs.

Bill Fleming

A beautiful girl in the village was pregnant. Her angry parents demanded to know who was the father. At first resistant to confess, the anxious and embarrassed girl finally pointed to Hakuin, the Zen master whom everyone previously revered for living such a pure life. When the outraged parents confronted Hakuin with their daughter's accusation, he simply replied "Is that so?"

When the child was born, the parents brought it to the Hakuin, who now was viewed as a pariah by the whole village. They demanded that he take care of the child since it was his responsibility. "Is that so?" Hakuin said calmly as he accepted the child.

For many months he took very good care of the child until the daughter could no longer withstand the lie she had told. She confessed that the real father was a young man in the village whom she had tried to protect. The parents immediately went to Hakuin to see if he would return the baby. With profuse apologies they explained what had happened. "Is that so?" Hakuin said as he handed them the child.


It would seem to me that for a man so adamant that abortion should not be an option, we would do well to adopt the old Zenmaster's philosophy KB, and not be so hung up about who the father of the child is. We are all the child's father.

larry kurtz

Ken is absolutely right. Nothing will ever change in the chemical toilet. Coming to a theatre near you: http://www.aclumontana.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=156&Itemid=62

Ken Blanchard

Rob: if calling me names makes you feel better, I have no problem with it. If you ever decide you are interested in thinking and engaging in dialog, your comments would be welcome here.

Ken Blanchard

Bill: no, we aren't, but we can all take responsibility for each other. Thank you for that Hakuin story. I have heard it before, but it is beautiful.

I think we are dangerously close to agreement here (Rob's objections notwithstanding). Marriage is a ubiquitous institution. The important thing is not to define it but to understand how it works. Only then will we know whether or how it will work for the gay community. I see no reason not to extend marriage to cover homosexual couples. But if that is going to achieve anything beyond a temporary and empty political victory, marriage has to be understood as a mutual obligation and not as a set of goodies to be distributed. I am skeptical, but perhaps now we will find out.

Bill Fleming

Yes, we agree then, Ken. Pardon me for not sharing your skepticism, only because I think all marital relationships are equally challenged in the way you mention, regardless of gender mix. Plus, I'm an eternal optimist. Happy 4th of July, my friend.

Ken Blanchard

A belated happy fourth to you, Bill.

Mitchell Malone


You and I have differed in opinions before. On one point we do agree- "As it is, the legalization of gay marriage in the United States is likely to achieve absolutely nothing." I would go on to say, it is contrary productive to our society. As a religious libetarian, I moved to a small town in rural South Dakota to raise my children in an environment isolated from perverse human relationships. Now I have heterosexual neighbors who is purposely socially engineering our small community by buying and renting houses to their homosexual aquaintances. So now I must move or accept their "in your face" forced tolerance. So who's rights are violated now!

The comments to this entry are closed.