Blog powered by Typepad

« Read for Yourself | Main | Who Needs Marriage? »

June 05, 2005

Comments

arturo fernandez

On Lawn:

Ok, so you’re “plenty fertile.” Why do you have this need to affirm your genes and your plentiful fertility at every turn?

(I can certainly see that an adopted child, out of curiosity, would want to know about his biological parents. What is sad is when a child seeks out his biological parents because he, or most likely she, feels something “missing” in his or her life. What is missing, though, results from the parents withholding something critical back, because they, as you, did not “see themselves” in the child. That is selfish. I believe that we’re better than that.)

Marty

On what do you base this little theory of yours, Art? I assume you must have some experience in the matter?

Trey

OpEd

Trey, again:

The comments on this blog (and many other places) that you can 'choose marriage' and 'just get married to a woman' are either flippant, ignorant or just not particularly thoughtful.

As you are the author of the statements in question, I will defer to your assessment of them.

This is the exact flippancy and obtuseness I speak of Op-Ed.

arturo fernandez

Marty:

It is not "my little theory." It's yours. It's just one more ugly consequence of what you find so noble.

On Lawn

Hey look everyone, this is Gabriel's site not mine. And out of respect I think I will leave him his site (mostly). Its his garden, and its obvious I'm not what he wants to cultivate.

So I've written up a little article about the problem I see in this discussion. Anyone who wishes to continue this conversation with me is free to join in over there and Galois can return to his regularly scheduled programming.

On Lawn

Arturo,

p.s.

But don't think I don't appreciate your attempt to deride the difference between procreation and adoption. The difference is something to celebrate, not fear.

But you keep trying, and trying to hard in my estimation. I just don't see anyone interested in your offered gnat free dinner of whole camels.

op-ed

Why do you have this need to affirm your genes and your plentiful fertility at every turn?

So it's selfish to raise one's own children rather than put them up for adoption??

The comedy stylings of Arturo, ladies and gentlemen! He's here all week! Drive safe, and tip your waitress!

arturo fernandez

Op-ed:

So On Lawn needs to tell us about his "plentiful fertility," or else he would put up his children for adoption?

op-ed

So On Lawn needs to tell us about his "plentiful fertility," or else he would put up his children for adoption?

The king of the one-liners, ladies and gentlemen! Tune in tomorrow to see what whacky comedy Arturo comes up with next!

On Lawn

So On Lawn needs to tell us about his "plentiful fertility," or else he would put up his children for adoption?

Yep, if I couldn't tell you I was fertile I'd have to give up my children.

um...

Wait.

No, what were you thinking? What you said makes no sense at all. I'm with Op-Ed on this one, you've gone plain batty.

ppb

This is a really great and convincing essay.

Galois

PPB- Thanks

On Lawn


Yep, PPB does have style.

arturo fernanez

"Yep, PPB does have style."

Why all that anger? I think we are here witness to "personality problems," (op-ed's recent accusation in another thread), among other problems (as I've suggested before), overwhelming someone's ability to see things as they are.

On Lawn


The note about PPB was geniune, and does not denote anger.

arturo fernandez

On Lawn:

Don't lie. It was not genuine. It does denote anger.

op-ed

Don't lie. It was not genuine. It does denote anger.

Well folks. Now you know why Arturo lost his job as a mind-reader and is now focused an comedy.

arturo fernandez

op-ed:

You actually believe that On Lawn was complimenting PPB's style???

Pete

Jimmy,

Such a phenomenon is common in Mormon culture and the consequences are often disastrous for everyone involved (particularly the usually innocent wife and children).

I remember one high profile case of that in “Mormon culture,” and I can’t speak to how “common” it is in that culture, but I do agree with you that consequences can be disastrous.

You say stop with the pretend marriages and go for the real thing, but there is nothing "real" about a marriage between a woman and a gay man.

I can’t speak to that, but I do know that while there might be something “real” in a relationship between two men, that it isn’t a real *marriage*

Do you also often have conversations with the blind over how beautiful the sunset is?

Indeed not. I’ve never heard a blind person trying to redefine the word “sunset.”

When you say things like this, I sympathize for you:

As a gay man growing up in a Mormon community where family and fatherhood are valued above all else, my soul has been tortured by the fact that my sexual orientation makes the idyllic family structure impossible, or at least ill-advised. As someone who has always yearned for his own children, I found the description of your progeny to be quite touching, but am confused by your motives. … Trust me when I tell you I've tried. I spent years praying, fasting, and crying in solitude before finally accepting a part of me that stubbornly refused to change.

When you take OnLawn’s remarks out of context like that, in a plea for sympathy, I lose sympathy for you:

I hope you can understand why I thus find your repeated suggestion that I should just go get married (to a woman) ignorant and insensitive. [Onlawn]’s taunting and snarky suggestion that gays should "get out there and get married.. Nobody's stopping you" seems to be a somewhat juvenile way of making [Onlawn]’s point that heterosexual marriage is available to gays. I won't take the time to explain the hollowness of the argument (if you even attempted to sympathize with a gay man you would immediately understand), but I feel compelled to state that it is very irresponsible and dangerous to suggest gay men should marry women.

OnLawn was responding specifically to Trey’s remark “I choose marriage.” He wasn’t “suggesting” you do anything. If you “choose” marriage, then we can’t stop you. Likewise, if you misuse the word marriage, we can’t stop you, but we can refuse to collaborate with your misuse. We refuse to put out our own eyes just because you say that you cannot see what we call the sunset.

When you use “sympathy” to coerce us to do something that they know is wrong, to pretend that one thing is another, or to give up something of value that they need for their own children, then yes, we tend to lose sympathy for you. Outside the context of the ssm discussion, I can sympathize with what you say. When you talk about neutering marriage, you attack the fulcrum of our culture. We cannot afford to sympathetize with you when we are looking down the barrel of your gun.

Pete

Once again: here I sympathize:
[Trey]:I was told to marry when I was in my mid-20's (1984) by both my Bishop and a LDS SS therapist. Both said it would 'work itself out' (Bishop's words) and 'awaken my latent heterosexuality" (therapist's words). I dated, got engaged... and then a couple months before the wedding became fearful. After 10 years of therapy, prayer and work I still hadn't 'changed'.. I was afraid that I was going to drag that sweet woman into my struggle.

I'm glad (as is she now) that I ended the engagement. Later watching and hearing from men who did and the pain and suffering the went through and were the cause of... well.. I'm just glad I was able to avoid that added suffering in my life.

And here I do not sympathize, because you are misrepresenting someone.

marriage to the person I want to pledge my life and support to and with whom I'm raising my children is very important. I choose marriage. You'd rather deny that to me.

I don't know to what degree homosexuality is biological, socially instilled, environmental, or chosen. But I do know that when you blame your unmarried status on another member of this forum, that you are using sympathy as a means of extortion. Maybe it’s rude on some level to talk to the blind about sunsets, but it's vicious to blame someone for “denying” you sight, just because they talk about a sunset that your situation does not allow you to see.

Marriage is what it is, Trey.

What you are doing to us is no different than what you say that your Bishop did to you: You are trying to change our sexual identity, just so you can feel better about yourself and fit our relationships into your world view.

Most of us don’t want to change the concept that defines our sexual identity.

Maybe some married people are willing to pretend that marriage is something else, just so you can feel better about yourself. Maybe some married people that are willing to neuter the definition of marriage, do so because they sympathize with you. And maybe some of them just don’t value marriage as much as the rest of us do.

But unless you are completely blind to the people that you say that you lived with, you’ll recognize this:

Mormons in the 1980s had at least as much reason to try to redefine the word “gay” as you have now to try to redefine the word “marriage.” And their mistakes were at least honest mistakes.

arturo fernandez

"You are trying to change our sexual identity..."

You guys really need to come clean about your sexual issues. Is your sexual identity so vulnerable, that legalizing gay marriage might change your identity? If it is, and you don't like it, I sympathize. Just don't project your issues on to straight guys--who don't have that "problem"--as an excuse to oppress gays, so that you can feel better about your "sexual identity."

op-ed

You guys really need to come clean about your sexual issues.

Back to the comedy routine, Arturo? Pete said nothing about having a vulnerable sexual identity, and you know it. Tell me this: Is your financial situation so weak that you can't afford to have someone rip off your bank account?

You've had multiple opportunities to make a cogent argument on the level of Pete's, yet all you can do is generate snarky, chest-thumping gibberish laced with your copious insecurity. It may sound like comedy, but it's time you realize those laughs aren't people laughing with you.

arturo fernandez

op-ed:

So your sexual identity can be changed as easily as your bank account can be clean-out? Not mine. And not most straight guys'.

op-ed

So your sexual identity can be changed as easily as your bank account can be clean-out? Not mine. And not most straight guys'.

And that was "Deep Thoughts" by arturo fernandez.

Marty

Indeed not. I’ve never heard a blind person trying to redefine the word “sunset.”

Reminds me of the deaf couple who went out of their way to create an intentionally deaf child. Appalling. (yes, of course they were a gay couple!)

To deny your own child their mother or father because of your own sexist bias? Atrocious!

The comments to this entry are closed.