Comments on: Gay marriage again http://whiteperil.com/2005/02/22/gay-marriage-again/ Wed, 01 Feb 2012 07:45:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: aTypical Joe: A gay New Yorker living in the rural south. http://whiteperil.com/2005/02/22/gay-marriage-again/comment-page-1/#comment-992 aTypical Joe: A gay New Yorker living in the rural south. Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:56:01 +0000 http://whiteperil.com/?p=517#comment-992 <strong>Updates</strong> Sean at White Pearl wrote another gay marriage post. In this one he mentioned mine and pointed to my About page (which I'm not linking to myself because I've been meaning to spiff it up). Both Doug and I are... Updates

Sean at White Pearl wrote another gay marriage post. In this one he mentioned mine and pointed to my About page (which I’m not linking to myself because I’ve been meaning to spiff it up). Both Doug and I are…

]]> By: Sean Kinsell http://whiteperil.com/2005/02/22/gay-marriage-again/comment-page-1/#comment-991 Sean Kinsell Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:53:19 +0000 http://whiteperil.com/?p=517#comment-991 I agree there. Without Sullivan, the current paradigm for public gay conservatism wouldn't exist; anyone who takes his current decline as an opportunity to act as if he'd always been nothing but an insignificant windbag is a ninny. As for whether the current coloration of his arguments "discredits" him, yes, I think so. It doesn't completely and utterly vitiate everything else he's ever said, but...put it this way: Sullivan has a quiverful of his own arguments, which he researched and developed over the past decade. Is it <i>not</i> disquieting that, out of all of them, he's taken to focusing on the emotive ones? It's certainly possible that he's doing so for other reasons than that those are the ones he believes in most strongly. Given the space of a single magazine article, maybe he figures the argument with the best human-interest angle is the most likely to make an impression on people. I don't know; I can't read his mind. But, personally, I think it's a miscalculation. Most people have already decided they're against gay marriage. That's reality. If Sullivan wants to convince people to give his arguments a closer look, he can't sabotage them from the get-go by making himself look as if he just craved approval. I agree there. Without Sullivan, the current paradigm for public gay conservatism wouldn’t exist; anyone who takes his current decline as an opportunity to act as if he’d always been nothing but an insignificant windbag is a ninny.
As for whether the current coloration of his arguments “discredits” him, yes, I think so. It doesn’t completely and utterly vitiate everything else he’s ever said, but…put it this way: Sullivan has a quiverful of his own arguments, which he researched and developed over the past decade. Is it not disquieting that, out of all of them, he’s taken to focusing on the emotive ones?
It’s certainly possible that he’s doing so for other reasons than that those are the ones he believes in most strongly. Given the space of a single magazine article, maybe he figures the argument with the best human-interest angle is the most likely to make an impression on people. I don’t know; I can’t read his mind. But, personally, I think it’s a miscalculation. Most people have already decided they’re against gay marriage. That’s reality. If Sullivan wants to convince people to give his arguments a closer look, he can’t sabotage them from the get-go by making himself look as if he just craved approval.

]]> By: Michael http://whiteperil.com/2005/02/22/gay-marriage-again/comment-page-1/#comment-990 Michael Wed, 23 Feb 2005 09:23:02 +0000 http://whiteperil.com/?p=517#comment-990 <blockquote>when your man Andrew Sullivan keeps framing his discussions of marriage in lugubrious finally-we'll-feel-valued terms, doesn't it bother you?</blockquote> Let me ask you a question: Do you think because you disagree with him on this one point - when he has written on SO many other reasons people should support marriage - that this discredits him? Or are you just not comfortable the that one argument that "my man" Sullivan has presented? I see Sullivan as a person who has done more than any other conservative to advance gay issues in the Republican party. More than ANY of them. He's done on his own than what 5 LCR Organizations could do. To pick up on his lovey-dovie-marriage-will-make-my-relationship-legit and ignore everything else that he has said on the issue well... ...that kinda feels like what conservatives do to me when they focus on just the sex part. :-)

when your man Andrew Sullivan keeps framing his discussions of marriage in lugubrious finally-we’ll-feel-valued terms, doesn’t it bother you?

Let me ask you a question: Do you think because you disagree with him on this one point – when he has written on SO many other reasons people should support marriage – that this discredits him?
Or are you just not comfortable the that one argument that “my man” Sullivan has presented?
I see Sullivan as a person who has done more than any other conservative to advance gay issues in the Republican party. More than ANY of them. He’s done on his own than what 5 LCR Organizations could do. To pick up on his lovey-dovie-marriage-will-make-my-relationship-legit and ignore everything else that he has said on the issue well…
…that kinda feels like what conservatives do to me when they focus on just the sex part. :-)

]]> By: Sean Kinsell http://whiteperil.com/2005/02/22/gay-marriage-again/comment-page-1/#comment-989 Sean Kinsell Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:13:04 +0000 http://whiteperil.com/?p=517#comment-989 It appears not to have been--I guess I was just having a dizzy spell. Odd. Thanks for asking, though. Anyway, no, I don't think you're just screaming. If I did, I wouldn't link you so often. Not that you're supposed to feel honored, or anything; I just mean that I don't go around looking for people to keep picking apart. I prefer to write about disagreements with people with whom I think I have common ground otherwise. I've looked at your post, and you're right; I may not agree that we need a state institution called "marriage" to be extended to gays, but I don't think that the things you're asking for are unreasonable. So let me ask you this: when your man Andrew Sullivan keeps framing his discussions of marriage in lugubrious finally-we'll-feel-valued terms, doesn't it bother you? Don't you think it's potentially dangerous to invite people to think of the issue that way? I'm sorry to ask so obnoxiously, but I don't get how people can fail to think this is a potential big-time PR disaster. It appears not to have been–I guess I was just having a dizzy spell. Odd. Thanks for asking, though.
Anyway, no, I don’t think you’re just screaming. If I did, I wouldn’t link you so often. Not that you’re supposed to feel honored, or anything; I just mean that I don’t go around looking for people to keep picking apart. I prefer to write about disagreements with people with whom I think I have common ground otherwise.
I’ve looked at your post, and you’re right; I may not agree that we need a state institution called “marriage” to be extended to gays, but I don’t think that the things you’re asking for are unreasonable. So let me ask you this: when your man Andrew Sullivan keeps framing his discussions of marriage in lugubrious finally-we’ll-feel-valued terms, doesn’t it bother you? Don’t you think it’s potentially dangerous to invite people to think of the issue that way? I’m sorry to ask so obnoxiously, but I don’t get how people can fail to think this is a potential big-time PR disaster.

]]> By: Michael http://whiteperil.com/2005/02/22/gay-marriage-again/comment-page-1/#comment-988 Michael Wed, 23 Feb 2005 06:17:24 +0000 http://whiteperil.com/?p=517#comment-988 Oh, and was it a quake? Oh, and was it a quake?

]]> By: Michael http://whiteperil.com/2005/02/22/gay-marriage-again/comment-page-1/#comment-987 Michael Wed, 23 Feb 2005 06:17:06 +0000 http://whiteperil.com/?p=517#comment-987 <i>I can certainly understand why they don't, though.</i> I don't understand it, because when it comes down to it, that's the root, isn't it? People would rather scream and yell though, because they believe he who screams loudest gets what he wants. I hope "I" don't sound like I'm (constantly and consistently) screaming. I get frustrated every now and again, but I think that you and I are a lot closer than you think on the whole marriage issue. Look for a post about 9:30 est. ;-) I can certainly understand why they don’t, though.
I don’t understand it, because when it comes down to it, that’s the root, isn’t it? People would rather scream and yell though, because they believe he who screams loudest gets what he wants.
I hope “I” don’t sound like I’m (constantly and consistently) screaming. I get frustrated every now and again, but I think that you and I are a lot closer than you think on the whole marriage issue.
Look for a post about 9:30 est. ;-)

]]>