Friday, December 28, 2007

Do Opiners opine how they say they opine?

Opine--intransitive verb: to express opinions
transitive verb: to state as an opinion


Editorial--an article giving opinions or perspectives

Opiner--n. a frequent commenter, supporter, or editor of blog Opine Editorials. [my definition]

Opine Editorials claims to defend "marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity" and that they are open to dialogue out of mutual respect.

Let's take a gander at the defintion of dignity, shall we?

Dignity: "1. The quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect."

Now, throw the "human dignity" aspect of their motto in their and you get the idea that Opiners believe humans are worthy of esteem or respect.

Observe the following comments and see for yourself how accurate this is:

Marty said: "The "inner city" (read "African American") experience has proven to everyone the importance of a father in a child's life.

I wonder why white lesbians are ignoring the evidence?

Racism perhaps? Or just plain old sexism?"

(Because yes, all lesbians are really just sexist and racist. Perhaps if they learn to like dick a little bit more, they will stop being so narrow-minded.)

Or how about this article, in which they already assume that which they set out to prove, among other things?

The article starts out with a logical fallacy:

"Objectively, marriage is both-sexed by its very nature.

The nature of something is its essence, its core, its reason for being. One can acknowledge the nature of marriage but one cannot construct it out of thin air"


How, pray tell, can something which is man-made (marriage) be something "by its very nature?"

Something may have sociologically started as one definition, but definitions have changed throughout the course of history for many, many things... marriage being but one of them.

By this reasoning, the fact that marriage is now same-sexed in some states and countries, also means that this type of marriage is also "the essence" of marriage.

Oh, and read here Renee's obsession with "coitus" and lesbians. (in which she implicitly denounces all lesbians because her college roommate was one):

"Unlike other relationships, only heterosexual who engage in coitus, have to assume the possibility of another human being being created from the sexual act. So I'm a 'homobigot' is I say... a man's penis is more well endowed then a gorilla three times his size, so he can please a woman with a forward tilted vagina with face to face intercourse?

In high school/college my best friend was a lesbian, since I use my real name in my profile, I rather not to speak too much in detail, because some people reading could know who I'm talking about. I'll say, she had issues with men and abuse. She was lonely, especially seeing her girlfriends getting attention from guys. I have to admit though this wasn't good attention. Guys would seriously say some wicked awful things to her, she became more and more depressed. She started not to take care of her appearance, and self esteem was very low.

We were close, until I met my husband. My husband wasn't a 'guy', very early on, it became clear one day we were going to get married. She became very angry how nice my husband was while dating. She couldn't stand me being happy with a man, she rather enjoy hearing me bitch out how horrible the guys I was with and how SHE would be there for me."

First, respect for human dignity, means ALL humans. Not just heterosexuals who are "capable of coitus." And it also includes all lesbians. I have a feeling that Renee's hatred of lesbians stem from a relationship she almost had with this alleged roommate, and perhaps her own internalized homophobia. (yep, there I said, I think she's a closeted lesbo). Just my own opinion, though.

Here is Chairm's own description and explanation of the SSM debate in regards to their motto:

"Identity politics tends to create self-serving short cuts that cut out far too much. When people find themselves lost in the woods, they regret the short cuts taken and become frustrated and panicky.

That is not something rarely experienced in this day an age of identity politics. This is not peculair to gay identity politics, but the SSM campaign illustrates it most flagrantly.

SSMers propose a replacement for marriage recognition but they have come to believe their own publicity. They truly believe that marriage already has been replaced and that the rest of the world will inevitably catch-up with them.

But they are in the woods, lost, with only hopeful short cuts to get them from one place to another.

There is more wrong with SSM argumentation than the issues of elegibility, however, it is such an obvious problem since the SSM campaign is all about revamping the line-drawing. How can they possibly hope to find their way out of the woods without owning this fundamental aspect of a special relationship status?

Perhaps only through willful ignorance, based on clinging to misrepresentations.

I think we should continue to invite SSMers to do better. And, of course, we need the patience and resolve to remain diligent and to promote improved understanding of all sides.

The standard that is evoked in our motto is a guiding light that we must strive to adhere to even when others run off into the woods to get lost in darkness.

We defend marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity."

*pause, to wipe a tear from my eye*

Again, apparently "human dignity" only applies to heterosexuals. Or to those who are happy in heterosexual relationships and will realistically marry someone of the opposite sex. And, apparently when gays ask for marriage rights, they are self-serving and playing identity politics. He could easily take the more humanly dignified route and gay people the benefit of the doubt, and seek to understand why gay people are seeking marriage rights for their relationships. Instead, he pettily dismisses their arguments without a clear argument as to why, exactly, they are so "lost in the woods."

Really, Chairm. I invite you and your cohort to do better.

Opiners also frequently deny that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue. Again, the respect for human dignity thing...

Going back to the definition of dignity, if one is to indeed respect that humans are worthy of respect (as they claim), one should acknowledge that often in issues of civil rights, the claims of offense of those seeking civil rights often go unheard for decades.

If one is to respect that humans are worthy of respect, one should also recognize that the rights of the minority need to be acknowledged, too.

If one is to respect that humans are worthy of respect, one should respect that their actions and/or words are offensive to an entire group of people.

Observe Renee's article here. In this article she (again) insists that gay marriages are "unnatural" (see above for my reply to this) because they are void of procreative ability.

She states, "No amount of human consensus can change physical and biological reality. A while back a friend of mine pointed to a bumper sticker on a car (from California, of course) which read Repeal Entropy and it's a bit like that. Same sex marriages may happen, but the folks going through their motions may as well participate in ceremonies to reverse gravity or get licenses to allow them to breath water."

To which the self-labeled "Culturologist" responds, "It would be interesting to have some systematic data on how African-Americans feel about the homosexual lobby's attempt to hijack the language of the civil rights movement."

Is anyone else bored with this argument? I am. I've already addressed it. Here. Here. Here. Oh, and here.

And here.

Enough said.

Now, getting back to the topic of human dignity and their other claim of "Petty insults or ad hom attacks or profanity are strongly discouraged. These detract, rather than add, to the discussion."

Observe here which petty insults and ad hom attacks are allowed, encouraged even, so long as it goes along with their anti-gay message:

One of several Jose Solano posts. (though On Lawn does do some scolding here, thanks).

One of "Culturologist's" comments:
"...In this sense, not only are homosexual 'pairs' (the very term is wrong here) absurd, they are anti-difference. This may seem a strange thing, given the constant cry of the pro-SSM crowd for the toleration of 'difference.' In point of fact, it is the difference of the fundamental binary of human existence that they reject."

Another Jose Solano quote about gay people: "We have a deconstruction work of our own to do in dismantling the myth that somehow a man having anal intercourse, or other thoroughly aberrant sexual behavior, with another man could possibly relate to a marriage regardless of any “lifetime commitment.” We must without any compromise whatsoever continually emphasize that it is not only preposterous to imagine such a relationship could possibly constitute a marriage, but that the relationship itself is an absurdity, an act of grave depravity. You see, the anus is simply not designed to be penetrated by the penis." [emphasis mine]

And consider this gem by Jose Solano:

"It is important to remember that everyone dies. If it’s not disease that kills us, it’s accidents or world cataclysms. Populations are reduced by nature itself and we do not need artificial means of birth control or human destruction. We must emerge from the very primitive mentality that calls for human sacrifice to solve world problems. When abortionists consider destroying the unborn, defenseless human being, in the interest of humanity, they should contemplate aborting themselves. This is said just for contemplation to emphasize that non-hypocritical altruism calls for self-sacrifice not murder or suicide.

There is meaning in the natural birthing and dying process which those obsessed with materialism fail to understand. The foundation of this meaning is compassion, compassion for the aged, for the infirmed, for the unborn.

[I have no problem drifting from the thread as tangentially significant issues enter the conversation.]" [emphasis mine]

I fail to understand why someone would be more interested in a not-yet person than an actual human being. But that's a whole other can of worms. Mkay, Jose. Go ahead and try to "abort" an adult, we'll see where you end up.

And consider this ad hom by On Lawn, the ringleader of the brigade:

"[John Hosty] is a classic pathological liar."


Per On Lawn's request to keep Opine Editorials honest, that is just a mere recent accounting of personal attacks that Opiners have made (in the midst of claiming others are "abusive" and traverse personal boundaries, nonetheless!).


Here's another. From Renee:

"You have to understand the ideology of Jane Know is nothing more then of a con artist..... She isn't a feminist..."

My attempts at clarification were predictably unmet by Renee or any of the other Opiners, even after I explained my ideologies.

Observe On Lawn's immediate reply to this: "Jane,

What would you define as your brand of Feminism? How would you describe Renee's brand of Feminism?"

Yes, right after I had just defined my brand of feminism. And right after seeking clarification as to Renee's brand. I have yet to get any answers from them.

But I am not surprised.

In summary, my point is that no. The Opiners do not opine the way they say they opine.

Thus, I may venture to their blog when I am bored. I may continue to voice my opinions. But my main goal will continue to be to get my message out there...and to continue to support my allies in this battle...a battle that we will inevitably win.

344 comments:

Fannie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fannie said...

Ha ha ha ha.

I am laughing as I write this.

I heard it through the grape vine that "On Lawn" and "Op Ed" and the Opiners think that you and I are the same person. Or that other commenters are you or me or us. Or something. I'm not really sure what goes on their wittle heads.

If they had a rational argument to make against us, they would have. But instead they continue trying to discredit us with their ad homs and irrelevant distractions.

*Gasp* What??! On Lawn studied my blog banner and yours and thinks they look alike?! There is just no other rational explanation for a similar-looking banner than us being the same person! That would just preposterous!

What??!! You mean you and I and our friends and girlfriends, WHO ALL LIVE IN THE SAME CITY and sometimes go to each other's houses(!), therefore sometimes posting from the same IP address! Outrageous!!


Logic never was their strong suit.

Anyway, I'm sure our friends who know us in real life find their paranoid rantings quite funny. And a little sad.

I understand that they're desperately flailing over there... but geez...

hammerpants said...

I'm glad you took the time to point out the vast disparity between what Opiners claim to do and what they actually do do (hee hee. I said do do).

And Fannie! Don't forget about me! I'm one of the multiple personalities too, you know! Honestly, they should see that I take much less time to respond to any of their ramblings and both of you are usually far more articulate.

BUT, I must say...I couldn't help but blush when On Lawn described your banners as "artistic."

And let's not forget that they actually don't care one way or another, even though the accusation or allusion-to seems to slip into the most unexpected of places.

Fannie said...

Oh yeah, I forgot that I and/or Jane are also "hammerpants."

Which would be weird, if you think about it ;-)

One more thing, the Opiners can't even keep their false assumptions straight.

On the one hand they refer to "hammerpants" and "This Is Not Okay" as "he." (They're women in real life, btw) But on the other hand, the Opiners also think these "guys" are me and/or Jane.

Well, which is it?


Whatever. For a blog that is supposedly into dialogue out of mutual respect they've sure spent a lot of time speculating about us. "On Lawn's" post about me, in fact, is one of is longest (THE longest?) posts he's ever written, and it has nil to do with "defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity."'

The guy's a joke.

On Lawn said...

I left the reply at Opine.

Happy New Year one and all!

On Lawn said...

it has nil to do with "defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity."

Actually, the stated purpose of the post was, "meta-topical" meaning it was about Opine more than what Opine is about. Specifically,

--"I appreciate the public review of the matter, even if it is the boring squabbling that most people (including myself) detest. But I have my side of the story, and I feel it fitting to explain it." --

Later in the comment section I continued that when people like you fail to keep the discussion on the topic of marriage, and "attempt to defame, discredit, and dismiss with all the ignorance they can muster" that I endeavor to defend against such tactics. No doubt you support people in being able to defend themselves :)

However, that it had nil to do with marriage defense and human dignity is just another false-hood easily disproved. For that article holds the following points along those lines:

1) Yet defending children's rights, and recognizing unique capacity of procreation in securing those rights, is something she can only personalize as opposition to "negating and opposing and entire group of people" to which she identifies with. Disagreement isn't hatred, and for manipulation consider the teenager who claims their parents hate them whenever their parents don't do what they want them to do. A parent can explain the rules of life, love, and fairness to them, but it equates to if they don't get what they want, its hatred.

2) Helping people live better lives is being a good person -- especially when those better lives in turn help others lead better lives too. Like marriage, where you devote your life to someone and the children you two create together. This is shown to have very positive effects on many aspects of your spouses life and your children's lives. This external evidence of the life well lived is not my own, it is not self-righteous. It is well proven.

But wait! Did you notice her inaccurate restatement? Its not just getting married and having babies as Fannie relays the message, but actually living the purpose and responsibility of marriage that helps you and those you love find happiness. Too many broken marriages happen because the wedding was all they really prepared form. A purpose and responsibility that comes from understanding responsible procreation is not evident in the states where marriage is neutered, or for people who themselves use a neutered definition of marriage -- for the sake of an already relatively politically powerful and well to do set of people who wish everything in the world to center around them.


3) She then takes the following exception to the fact I allude to that a man and a woman can do things that they couldn't do without each other (namely procreation but that is just the beginning of the wonder of life). I am amazed at her response because I didn't know that I'm the one who created our humanity so with two sexes, both needed to reproduce.

4) I've said that neutering marriage will be considered one of the most abusive things one group of people have done to another since abortion and slavery. She doesn't challenge that statement, just complains that it isn't challenged. I think I'd rather the challenge than accusing people of overlooking such a gross error, and then failing to challenge it herself.

For the record, this has to do with how I've found the push to neuter marriage as throwing the status of the disabled (most recently in the call to ban infertile people from marriage), and the rights of children (in assuming the right to commission children and pay the father or mother to abandon them and remain anonymous to them), and the basic foundations of family development along a model of procreation, under the bus. Selfishly, they don't care what happens as long as they get what they want out of it. Thats my opinion, what is yours?


Fannie, it just seems you really struggle in reporting what we do accurately and fairly.

John said...

"Fannie, it just seems you really struggle in reporting what we do accurately and fairly."

I LOL'ed !!!

Fannie said...

"I LOL'ed !!!"

Me too.

:-)


What a joke!

Fannie said...

All that coming from a man inventing sock puppets for me.

Lying about me is not inaccurate or unfair at all.

;-)

Jane Know said...

i definitely LOL'ed. ;-)

On Lawn, you ARE a joke. i can't even sift through your comments anymore because they are such long-winded bags of horseshit. that's right, you aren't a bigot because you say so...just keep telling yourself that.

Jane Know said...

Oh, and in re: this comment: "I've said that neutering marriage will be considered one of the most abusive things one group of people have done to another since abortion and slavery. She doesn't challenge that statement, just complains that it isn't challenged. I think I'd rather the challenge than accusing people of overlooking such a gross error, and then failing to challenge it herself."

the burden lies on you, On Lawn, to be able to back up such a bold claim. thus far, you haven't, nor has anyone else. no proof, no evidence...zilch. even in countries where SSM has passed.

John said...

For the record, this has to do with how I've found the push to neuter marriage as throwing the status of the disabled (most recently in the call to ban infertile people from marriage), and the rights of children (in assuming the right to commission children and pay the father or mother to abandon them and remain anonymous to them), and the basic foundations of family development along a model of procreation, under the bus. Selfishly, they don't care what happens as long as they get what they want out of it. Thats my opinion, what is yours?"

Do you realize how stupid that sounds to anyone with an ounce of brains?

Fannie said...

I also find it curious that "On Lawn" posts his article regarding my article about him in the comment section to Jane's blog.

But hey, whatever floats his little boat.

I also wonder what he means and who he is referring to when he calls us "people like you."

Oh well.

Because I'm such a nice guy, "Happy New Year One and All!"

:-)

Jane Know said...

On Lawn never answers questions. I am curious, for the record, whether he believes same-sex couples deserve ANY legal protections.

And taking that further, I wonder whether he thinks same-sex couples deserve happiness.

I'm sure IF he answers it would be in the form of a question like this, "why should the government be deciding who deserves happiness?" (or something other diversion) I am challenging him to answer that question on a personal level. Even if not publicly, because I've learned not to expect much from him in terms of answers.

Dan L said...

LOL. So many lulz to be had at the expense of the Opiners.

At least "On Lawn" and "Op Ed" aren't nearly as malicious as that Jose Solano twit.

Of course, coupled with Renee the Burqua wearing Feminist, all of them make up enough stupid to shut down the internet.



Speaking of stupid fundies (and noticing that Jane is from Chi-town:

http://capitalfax.blogspot.com/2007/12/cicero-hate-crime.html

I'm sure the kids at opine will immediately fall in love with Peter Labarbera.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

John said to On Lawn:

"Do you realize how stupid that sounds to anyone with an ounce of brains?"

That's a great question.

Let me start by stating what is obvious to anyone who has read Opine Editorials; they are bigots.

We are not talking about some well intentioned people who are simply misinformed. We are talking about people who are systematic at trying to dismiss any and all points others make for the humane and ethical treatment of GLBT citizens. I can have respect for my opponent's right to his opinions, and even the right to voice them. What I find intolerable is the level of dishonesty used not only in the attempt to make Opiners seem more reasonable, but in attacking their opponents.

Fannie brought up a great quote of On Lawn's where he calls me a liar. They claim that personal attacks are not allowed on their blog, yet they go on to violate this rule with wreckless abandon.

I was looking through the posts on Opine and noticed that the only time they have any measurable amount of comments is when we go there to talk with them. Perhaps the "echo chamber" they keep referring to is their own blog, where few readers seem to bother with.

I'm glad they asked me not to comment on their blog, I needed to remind myself of an old expression:

"Never argue with a fool, people may not be able to tell you apart from them."

We should not let any misrepresentations go unanswered, but we should also remember that it is OK to walk away from these people and talk to someone with less hate in their hearts.

Dan L said...


Fannie brought up a great quote of On Lawn's where he calls me a liar. They claim that personal attacks are not allowed on their blog, yet they go on to violate this rule with wreckless abandon.


They (admittedly like most wingnuts) try that shit all the time. They took a 101 philosophy class and all of a sudden they can say "AHAHAHAHAHAH U R WRONG BECAUSE U UZED AD HOMINEMS!!!!"

No dipshit.

If I say "You are a fucking idiot therefore you are wrong", that is an ad hominem.

If I say "You are wrong because x, y, and z and tangent to that point, you are also a fucking idiot", that is not an ad hominem.

Fannie said...

"Never argue with a fool, people may not be able to tell you apart from them."

That's a great quote.

Fannie said...

Regarding the "echo chamber"... "On Lawn" once stated with pride that they at Opine never "abandon" conversations on other blogs, they only leave when they are kicked out.

Which, of course, begs a very important question:

Why would people who dialogue in a respectful manner get banned from their opponents' blogs?

Ultimately, I think many of us know, as Jane says, the Opiners do not Opine how they say they Opine. Their dialogue is anything but respectful or logical. (eg- "On Lawn" diagnosing John as a "classic pathological liar")

dan l said...


Why would people who dialogue in a respectful manner get banned from their opponents' blogs?


Because of intense annoyance.

Opiner: The sky is green.
Blogger: No the sky is blue.
Opiner: No. There's plenty of scientific evidence that says that the sky is green.
Blogger: What? are you fucking high? The sky is obviously blue.
Opiner: Ad hominem attack. You and the blue sky agenda will believe all the propaganda you see.
Blogger: -ban-

dan l said...

PS: Has anybody figured out what in the hell they're talking about when they're talk about "neutering" marriage?

Or is that just some mental cartwheel they performed to convince themselves they're not bigots?

Fannie said...

Ah, "neutering marriage." Learn the definition (along with other odd Opine words) in my handy manual of Opine-speak ;-)

http://fanniesroom.blogspot.com/2007/12/handy-manual-for-opine-speak.html

Jane Know said...

Dan, thank you for stopping by. I appreciate the comments! And you are absolutely right about their "logic." You can call someone a bigot or an idiot in tangent to your actual argument, and it still be a valid argument. Especially if they are idiots... ;-)

JHG, did they really ask you not to comment on their blog? You are right on the money when you said this, "We are not talking about some well intentioned people who are simply misinformed. We are talking about people who are systematic at trying to dismiss any and all points others make for the humane and ethical treatment of GLBT citizens."

That is Opine Editorials. THAT is its essence and its message.

And I have definitely noticed that the "Echo Chamber" that On Lawn constantly refers to appears only to be his own blog. The only time they get any comments (apart from their own) is when WE comment on their blogs. I suppose it IS hard to find people who agree with their pathetic message.

On Lawn said...

Fannie,

You and your sock puppets are always welcome at Opine. Just try to keep your comments to hold to some kind of values of accurate reporting, good reasoning, and well meant understanding.

Mr H-G,

We are talking about people who are systematic at trying to dismiss any and all points others make for the humane and ethical treatment of GLBT citizens.

An bold assertion. Tell me, if you are accusing us of dismissing and casting off your arguments, why did you delete your comments in-mass of late? That wasn't us. We were happy to keep them there as part of a discussion on that very topic. But you deleted them. That was most curious.

Speaking more to your point, its just insanity to call us bigots. What poor taste of words, and what a malicious lie. You were the one who said you were only out for GLBT issues. What makes you different than us is that we are not bigoted, or biased. We are out for GLBT issues as well as other issues which may or may not conflict with your agenda. You, as you said (and we still have copies of) are only out for the GLBT. That is your own admission of bigotry, not my accusation. And deleting those comments are your own admission of shame on your own actions and words at Opine.

They claim that personal attacks are not allowed on their blog, yet they go on to violate this rule with wreckless abandon.

This is another lie from Mr H-G. Proving someone is a liar, like we did with Mr H-G, even though he tried to delete the evidence of it, is different than trying to make a hasty accusation to diffuse the issues presented.

The difference? I just posted a reply to Jane dealing with her claims. Taking her comments with respect, even though she in my own view is less than deserving of such credibility. She will continue to get such credibility...

Why? Because I am looking for that argument for same-sex marriage which really does make sense. That holds up to scrutiny. I've not seen it offered here, because even if Opine does a botched job of defending marriage (as Jane continually claims) I've yet to see any real arguments or counter arguments offered here in reply to that post.

There are two items quoted, but devoid of reply. One accusing people who understand it of having no brains (which is a compelling argument probably for a first grader) and a hasty claim made admittedly in ignorance (see above) that a comment wasn't proven (which is different than proving it false).

You all can dream up all kinds of demons and put them behind the names "Jose" or "Op-Ed" or "On Lawn" if you want. Especially since that looks like all you got. But it is a poor substitute for making real arguments.

I'm glad they asked me not to comment on their blog, I needed to remind myself of an old expression:

All you were asked to do was refrain until the end of the holiday, and you understood that when you replied that you don't want an invitation back.

Which is fine. Its up to you. Posting here or there or someplace else is only different in the level of blind faith they will be given.

Dan L,

-- "
Opiner: The sky is green.
Blogger: No the sky is blue.
Opiner: No. There's plenty of scientific evidence that says that the sky is green.
Blogger: What? are you fucking high? The sky is obviously blue.
Opiner: Ad hominem attack. You and the blue sky agenda will believe all the propaganda you see.
Blogger: -ban- " --

Blogger does not accommodate banning people from sites that I am aware of. Also, you realize that your appeal to the "obvious" without regard to objective reality is itself a contradiction. And you mistake disagreement with ad-hominem, which has a very specific meaning in the art of debate. You may make that mistake with ease, but we don't.

By those three things, you have engaged in a straw-man fallacy, one that was (not surprisingly) celebrated by Jane.

Think about it this way. Do we know you? Have we coordinated previously for you to present that story to show just how bad a logic Jane will desperately grasp onto? No you presented it on your own, and she accepted it on her own. The example is now present for all to see, and like Jane's other gaffes, you can't blame us for simply pointing them out.

Also I should note that ad-hominem is not synonymous with "offensive remark". It is when you call someone a bigot or liar to mean that something they say is incorrect that you have engaged in ad-hominem. It is putting the cart before the horse. If, instead, you used what they said to show they said something bigoted or that it was a lie (like we did with Mr H-G on a constant basis, and why he deleted all those comments) that is simply something they will take offense to.

To all,

We work hard at Opine to give people an outlet for what they want to say. John Howard gets guest posts, and you all when you try to make things personal get meta-topic threads. And this is the thanks we get.

Fannie said...

"On Lawn,"

If continuing to lie about me and my alleged "sock puppets" makes you feel better or more "right," more power to you. I, however, find it unfortunate that you continue to lie about me at the same time you invite me to respectful dialogue at Opine.

If you truly had respect for others, including your "opponents," you would not falsely accuse me of such sinister motives. Nor would you call John a "pathological liar."

That you continue to harp on alleged sock puppetry makes It clear that you are threatened by my friends and me. It is also odd that you find it unbelievable that so many would disagree with you and that my friends would come to my defense and oppose your irrational arguments.

Your last remark indicates that you somehow expect "thanks" from us. For what? For lying about us, characterizing us as "pathological liars," painting us as "abusive personalities," deleting most of our comments, treating us and our arguments with anything but respect?

Come now, "On Lawn," surely you jest. You are living in a sad, paranoid, negative, warped world over there at Opine.

Fannie said...

Yet, my biggest problem with you, "On Lawn," is that you (and other Opiners) too often undeservedly pat yourself on the back and declare victory when you haven't earned it. And your view of reality is too warped and paranoid to even realize it.

For instance, you declare that you "proved" that John is a liar (when I find your "proof" utterly lacking), that John deleted comments with some evil intent to shred evidence (when you have no idea what his state of mind is or was), that you have "demolished" some "SSM" argument or an entire book (by writing a couple sentences that you disagree with it), that you have "discredited" me and everything that I stand for (by telling everyone that I once misspelled "misspellings"), that I log in under multiple names (when you have absolutely no way of knowing that), that Jane's claims lack evidence (without saying why they lack evidence), and other instances.

You have zero credibility with me. And, to borrow from John, I have hunch that lack credibility with pretty much anyone with brains. Not because I disagree with your position, but because of your dishonest and intellectually weak logic.

Now, what was that about same-sex marriage being like slavery again.....?

Jane Know said...

On Lawn said, "We work hard at Opine to give people an outlet for what they want to say. John Howard gets guest posts, and you all when you try to make things personal get meta-topic threads. And this is the thanks we get."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

On Lawn, you are so fucking delusional. I don't give two shits what you allow John Howard to do. He is not my ally. If you seriously think you deserve ANY thanks from any of us, you are sicker than I thought.

Take another gander through your own archives and try real hard to figure out why gays and lesbians would find your idiot blog offensive. Peace out, asshole.

Jane Know said...

...everyone take note at how the ringleader of a largely anti-gay blog is now painting himself the victim... and expecting thanks from us.

wow.

you. have. got. to. be. kidding.

dan l said...


And you mistake disagreement with ad-hominem, which has a very specific meaning in the art of debate. You may make that mistake with ease, but we don't.



LOL. You wouldn't know an ad hominem if it clipped you in your bigot ass.

On Lawn said...

Fannie,

you would not falsely accuse me of such sinister motives

Not falsely no.

It is also odd that you find it unbelievable that so many would disagree with you

Hmmm, funny. The evidence was IP addresses and cookies of you and Not-Ok being similar -- which I give you credit for admitting to. I also agreed that doesn't prove you are the same people. But the fact that account was created right before commenting there, and repeating the very same items you made that I had responded to, convinces me that you and Not-Ok are the same person. Its not proof, and honestly I don't care. But it is an fair judgment based on no paranoia whatsoever.

I don't remember saying that I can't believe so many people disagree with me. Or that you and Jane were the same person. Again the post that I linked to earlier states plainly that I don't care about your sock-puppetry or your motives.

I don't even think the use of sock-puppets discredits your opinions. The lack of logic and how they contradict with known facts discredits your opinions.

characterizing us as "pathological liars,"

Unless you wish to say that you are the same person as Mr H-G, then you cannot say I called "us" pathological liars. Was that a slip on your part? There is more to that comment than the editorial "we" where you consider each other as part of a unified whole. I do not say that is one person, I don't believe you are (or that it matters). But you all certainly consider yourselves to be a unified coordinated front. And that operates in many of the same ways.

It is your own words which paint that story.

And Mr H-G is, to me, shown to not only lie but do so without remorse or ability to recognize his wrongdoing. And he is shown doing that in repeated fashion. That, to me, is what differentiates a pathological liar and one who is just a liar.

deleting most of our comments

No, not most of them. Mr H-G deleted many times more comments of his own than we deleted. And even when we did delete them we gave you meta-topic posts to repost them in. You know this, we had an email exchange about this where you asked what to do to repost a certain comment. I said all you needed to do was to move it to meta-topical because it was attempting to be too personal than topical.

treating us and our arguments with anything but respect?

Yes and I will continue to do so. Even with how much you have discredited yourself, I still believe in your ability to present arguments. And that is all that is asked of you.

If you want to discuss topics, you will have much more productive discussions. If you want to take things personal, then you abusive tendencies will be frustrated to find we do have boundaries and we know how to use them.

you declare that you "proved" that John is a liar

I proved that he lied, some he even admitted to (for instance that I used the word 'vacuous" in reference to him), others are just as evident.

Beyond that he has expected double standards, some he admitted to (like looking out for GLBT interests more than others) and others that are also evident (for instance hoe he claimed the afore mentioned "vacuous" reference was meant to insult, though he was assured it did not, yet assumed his demeaning of Renee's wedding day was not insulting be cause he did not mean it that way).

In short. respect doesn't mean you won't ever feel positively affirmed all the time. You have been given respect, but in respect for others you cannot always be positively affirmed.

and everything that I stand for (by telling everyone that I once misspelled "misspellings")

You misspelled "misspelled", in an attempt to discredit Fitz by claiming he misspelled words. When that was brought to your attention you claimed it was a harmless typo. The double standard discredits your use of standards. Indeed, you claim to demand respect from Opine when you show none. You are right, that doesn't discredit everything you've said. Which is why you are always welcome to make real comments on topic and we will take them seriously.

All it reflects against is just your use of double standards, and it reflects negatively on yourself for making such gaffes.

You have zero credibility with me.

From what I read of your first attempt to expose Opine, that is probably an improvement for me :)

Now, what was that about same-sex marriage being like slavery again.....?

In the annuls of time, neutered marriage will (I think) be seen with slavery and abortion as some of the most abusive institutions one set of people have established to oppress another.

Thats my view, and it is based on what neutered marriage throws under the bus. Children's rights (even setting them up to be purchasable items which has strong 14th amendment ramifications if you ask me) and disabled entitlements.

Its not a proof, but history will certainly not be written kindly for the generation which wrote off children's needs the way neutered marriage asks us to.

Jane Know,

You should probably take a few moments to catch your breath and calm down. I know you have a very negative opinion of Opine, and that you have your reasons. That is why I'm here.

You claim you were banned, or censored but that is not true. All we have done is channeled thoughts and ideas in a way which can be organized in respect to our readership and their wishes for dialog.

That does mean we delete comments which were wrongly placed. We delete comments which use foul and abusive language like you use commonly here (which is the only thing we truly censor). We work hard to give people outlets to voice their complaints openly, without interfering with threads that people would wish to read without such noise.

I think we do deserve thanks for that.

My "scolding" (as you put it) of Jose shows two things. One, I'm not the ring leader. Two, we are not anti-gay as a site. As I mentioned there and here with the exception of Jose we all support some sort of benefits package being available to homosexual couples -- especially those raising children. And none of us, even Jose, supports any government regulation against one's liberty to be and practice homosexuality (though homosexual liberties such as NAMBLA request are not condoned at all). But I think you and I would agree on that point.

Jane Know said...

On Lawn,
Seriously. Who do you think you are? Classic authoritarian.

Oh, and the fact that you even bring up NAMBLA in a "homosexuality" conversation when barely any real "homosexuals" participate in "man-boy love" proves that you are, in fact, a bigot. But really, thanks for acknowledging that the government has no business telling me I can't go down on another woman. You really ARE a nice guy after all.

This Is Not Ok said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
This Is Not Ok said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

"In the annuls of time, neutered marriage will (I think) be seen with slavery and abortion as some of the most abusive institutions one set of people have established to oppress another."

This is beyond bigotry and into the realm of batshit insanity.

Anonymous said...

The only reason your posts gather so many comments on opine is because you love to hear yourself spew.

You Hosty and the others are the funniest people I have ever read

"and the fact that you even bring up NAMBLA in a "homosexuality" conversation when barely any real "homosexuals" participate in "man-boy love" proves that you are, in fact, a bigot."

this is interesting

What is a "real" homosexual anyway?

And what is "batshit" lunacy?

These comments really offer a window into your perverse world

hammerpants said...

On Lawn,

Until you provide a shred of evidence that same-sex couples cause ANY harm to the children they raise, I continue to not take any of your "saving the children" battle cry seriously.

John said...

The batshit insanity of which I speak is the obscene notion that somehow the rights of children are in any way violated when gay couples are allowed to marry. Even if one subscribes to the Utopian belief (a foolish and dangerous belief, I might add) that a child has a right to be raised by his/her biological parents, what on earth does that have to do with marriage in general and gay marriage in particular?

hammerpants said...

That is, that two same-sex parents inherently cause harm to childern just by being of the same gender. I have yet to see any evidence. Trust me, as a lesbian, if I choose to have children, I will do so responsibly. As of yet, have come across no findings that indicate any negetive effect on children due to having two parents of the same gender.

And evidence regarding "fatherless" children doesn't count. Single mothers are not to be compared with gay and lesbian couples. They just aren't the same. Apple (singular) and oranges (plural).

John said...

I am a damn good father (if I might be permitted a brag), but I will tell you that absolutely nothing about the way I raised my children would have been different if I were female.

And my children would have been harmed in no way.

Fannie said...

"On Lawn's" comments show that he is not interested in truth. He writes a novella-length comment falsely accusing me of posting under a different name and yet goes on to say that he "doesn't care" one way or the other. Expect, of course, that he continues to bring it up. Because in his mind he is correct (as always).

He is a classic authoritarian and a joke. Basically, every time he speaks, an angel loses its wings.

Fannie said...

And, why does "On Lawn" re-post all of the comments he writes here on Opine? Oh right, he's super-duper smart and his fellow bloggers are not smart enough to come here on their own.

Weirdo.

On Lawn said...

Jane,

Seriously. Who do you think you are? Classic authoritarian.

I don't pretend that who I am has any sway in the conversation. If I did, I would be authoritarian. I believe Not-Ok just pulled such a trick on Opine, stating that she is obviously more knowledgeable in a particular subject than anyone else so she is right.

She was appropriately called on that logical fallacy at Opine, no need to pile on here also.

he fact that you even bring up NAMBLA in a "homosexuality" conversation

That is a fallacy of division. You failed to note the specific context of "homosexuality", and instead took it as a statement of homosexuality on the whole.

The context is to show the limits of support of homosexuality that I have. I believe, though perhaps it would be good to hear from you directly, you share those limits.

Not-OK,

i'm fannie/jane/hammerpants too!!!

If you say so, but I believe you are different than Jane at least.

Fannie/not-Ok seems to never have learned accurate reporting on this issue.

He’s come up with a persuasive tactic called boring your opponent into submission

For someone who is bored, you sure seem to have a lot to say about it. I'm frankly bored of the subject too, but seem to have a higher degree if discipline on the matter since I'm not complaining about it. You all have complaints, and I feel you deserve answers. That is the respect I show to you all, and again I see the thanks I get for doing so.

hammerpants,

Until you provide a shred of evidence that same-sex couples cause ANY harm to the children they raise

Actually, the evidence of children who are raised in in-tact families with married parents doing better off on a number of statistics is well proven. Do you disagree?

To you this is a heterosexual v homosexual debate, because that is how you draw your own lines. For me I draw it around in-tact and not in-tact. All homosexual relationships with kids are from some kind of broken relationship (sometimes paid for, sometimes just by divorce, or other broken family ties). I am for helping out those relationships as a whole with many other versions of those relationships. But the in-tact ones are the most statistically and morally meaningful especially in raising children. That meaning should be preserved wherever possible.

As of yet, have come across no findings that indicate any negetive effect on children due to having two parents of the same gender.

Depends on what you think are negative side effects or not, I suppose. Because the lack of one gender or another has shown statistically significant differences in children.

Single mothers are not to be compared with gay and lesbian couples.

Yet in the studies that show no difference, that comparison is made quite often. But not always.

John,

the obscene notion that somehow the rights of children are in any way violated when gay couples are allowed to marry

Yet in each state where marriage has been neutered, so has the meaning of their ties to their parents and heritage. Birth certificates are altered from recording an event to being registration tickets for legal parents. IVF industries are more prevalent and the "right" to pay someone to remain anonymous to their children their whole life is strengthened. These adjustments treat children more like commodities than products of a real relationship that is best handled within marriage. And so both marriage and parenting are demeaned in order to equalize homosexuality and heterosexuality.

Fannie,

He writes a novella-length comment falsely accusing me of posting under a different name

You were caught, such is life. I accepted your explanation of you and Hammerpants being different, mostly because it doesn't matter to me. But what you don't see is just how as both you and Not-Ok the similarities in the same misconceptions and misinterpretations (for instance in the latest one that I ever claimed you and Jane are the same person) makes it even clearer you are Not-Ok. I could be wrong, and in many ways it doesn't matter and I don't care. But, its pretty safe from here to see that you've been caught, such is life.

And, why does "On Lawn" re-post all of the comments he writes here on Opine?

For their own benefit and mine. I think you are a bit paranoid, if anything it probably makes people more interested in coming hear and reading the whole of the remarks I am replying to. That is a lot of the reason why I do it.

John said...

"Yet in each state where marriage has been neutered, so has the meaning of their ties to their parents and heritage. Birth certificates are altered from recording an event to being registration tickets for legal parents. IVF industries are more prevalent and the "right" to pay someone to remain anonymous to their children their whole life is strengthened. These adjustments treat children more like commodities than products of a real relationship that is best handled within marriage. And so both marriage and parenting are demeaned in order to equalize homosexuality and heterosexuality."

Do you think I just stepped off the turnip truck?

Does not every adoption treat children as a commodity?

SSM has had no more effect on "the meaning of their ties to their parents and heritage" than opposite sex or single adoption.

Fannie said...

"You were caught, such is life."

You are wrong. Such is life. At what point was a caught? You have wrongly deduced a conclusion. That does not constitute being "caught."


"I accepted your explanation of you and Hammerpants being different..."

So you admit to wrongly accusing me there? And what, no apology?

Shocking.


I'm sure in your world of twisted logic, I am the one who should apologize to you.

Fannie said...

"I think you are a bit paranoid..."

Ah, in other words, I know you are but what am I.

You are the one who continues to wrongly accuse me of being dishonest and you are too paranoid to even realize it. Yes "On Lawn," let me enlighten you- YOUR ANALYSIS CAN SOMETIMES BE WRONG!

Fannie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fannie said...

Of "On Lawn" I asked him to explain his curious habit of copying and pasting all of his comments here onto Opine.

To which he responded that I was paranoid.

Please, "On Lawn" do enlighten us how merely asking a question constitues parnoia? Or better yet, spare us the novel. See, you are the one who brought your assumptions to the table in answering the question. You assumed, of course, that I had evil motives in asking the question.

You are a liar at worst and a delusional man at best.

I pity you.

Jane Know said...

On Lawn said, "the fact that you even bring up NAMBLA in a "homosexuality" conversation [my words]

That is a fallacy of division. You failed to note the specific context of "homosexuality", and instead took it as a statement of homosexuality on the whole.

The context is to show the limits of support of homosexuality that I have. I believe, though perhaps it would be good to hear from you directly, you share those limits."

Okay everyone, per On Lawn's request: For the record, I believe in rights to homosexuals, but not to pedophiles!

My point in bringing that up, is that of course I agree with you there...that seems like a given.

It's insulting that you would even bring that up.

I wouldn't, for example, say "heterosexual men are deserving of rights and protections, except the ones who molest their daughters and sons." Because that's a given. No one who engages in sex with minors should be allowed to have children. But those are just my thoughts.

I don't expect you to understand, though. You lack a lot of empathy.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

On Lawn, you always seem so focused on ripping apart what others contribute, but what do you have to offer?

Clearly you want others to believe you are the voice of reason. What changes would you impliment to bring about social harmony from where we find ourselves today? If you're so smart, what do you have to offer us (society)?

Well, where's the beef?

This Is Not Ok said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
On Lawn said...

Fannie,

You are right you deserve an apology. I left it at your site (the scooby doo post).

Jane,

I do not see that setting my own boundaries in what I support and do not support, and establishing that I feel you have the same, is in any way negatively shadowing your good name. And you needn't either.

Mr H-G

you always seem so focused on ripping apart what others contribute

It would be presumptive of me to say that what I do really rips them apart though. I'm not that good :)

What do I offer?

Hopefully help for families including and beyond the outlook of the GLBT. And that is all I ask for from you and others here, is to broaden your cares and wishes further. I'm not saying care for gays and lesbians less, just add to it an appreciation of others unique needs to.

To appreciate the distinctive virtues in others and their relationships, and to march in solidarity with all of us in helping a world much bigger than the GLBT community center.

That is pretty much it. The details are published all the time over at Opine.

John,

Adoption can either try to restore children with what tragedy took away, or become a way to commission and purchase babies. It can even be both. I only support the former.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

What help OnLawn.

Where's the beef?

This Is Not Ok said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
On Lawn said...

Not-OK,

Do you support a government institution that focuses specifically on the role that procreation has in our society, the equal gender representation built into the humanity of that reproduction not by man but by nature, and promoting the bonds that are created from that procreation stay in-tact?

On Lawn said...

Mr H-G,

What help? Funny, I already answered that,

-- "1) Yet defending children's rights, and recognizing unique capacity of procreation in securing those rights, is something she can only personalize as opposition to "negating and opposing and entire group of people" to which she identifies with. Disagreement isn't hatred, and for manipulation consider the teenager who claims their parents hate them whenever their parents don't do what they want them to do. A parent can explain the rules of life, love, and fairness to them, but it equates to if they don't get what they want, its hatred.

2) Helping people live better lives is being a good person -- especially when those better lives in turn help others lead better lives too. Like marriage, where you devote your life to someone and the children you two create together. This is shown to have very positive effects on many aspects of your spouses life and your children's lives. This external evidence of the life well lived is not my own, it is not self-righteous. It is well proven." --

Which by now is quoting myself, quoting myself. Where have you been?

I also mentioned,

-- "As I mentioned there and here with the exception of Jose we all support some sort of benefits package being available to homosexual couples -- especially those raising children." --

The "there" being the article written in reply to Jane already alluded to...

-- "Actually, many of us here do support extending to homosexual couples benefits and rights that are currently associated with marriage. One of us without question. Others of us with the caveat that the proponents of such an extension clearly explain why other same-sex or deserving couples would not get the same rights and benefits." --

Jane Know said...

Not Ok, I agree completely. While men like On Lawn accuse us of only looking at the "GLBT community center," he ignores the fact that he ignores us. These are our lives and happiness at stake, not an unidentified, hypothetical harm that has thus far been proven to not even exist.

Nothing, I repeat, nothing is taken away if gays are allowed to get married. No matter which way you look at it, heterosexual couples will still be getting married and having kids and families of their own. That won't change.

But there is much to be gained from same-sex marriages. We can look back and be proud that we became a more tolerant, loving society. One that is accepting of all family types, and one that encourages all loving, commited couples to form families of their own.

When people like On Lawn accuse the GLBT movement of only looking at it from their perspective, he forgets that there is a good reason why this group wants equal rights. He forgets about hate crimes. He forgets that no one chooses to be attracted to or fall in love with the same sex. He conveniently forgets about empathy, tolerance, diversity, and compassion. When gays and lesbians fight for equality, it is because they are tired of being treated like second-class citizens in regards to their relationships. They don't want to take anything away from heterosexuals, and nothing in regards to gay rights has taken anything of substance away from heterosexuals. They just want validation of their own. And, frankly, they deserve it after all this time.

Jane Know said...

"Do you support a government institution that focuses specifically on the role that procreation has in our society, the equal gender representation built into the humanity of that reproduction not by man but by nature, and promoting the bonds that are created from that procreation stay in-tact?"

blah-dy blah blah blah.

We already know your spiel, On Lawn. In regards to your regurgitation, no. I support ALL loving, monogamous, non-related, human couples.

On Lawn said...

Nothing, I repeat, nothing is taken away if gays are allowed to get married.

Nothing? Its you who are ignoring me.

I've outlined what will be taken away, and you haven't replied to that yet.

To repeat, what Jane isn't telling you is that gays can get married anywhere in the world. What they want is the ability to segregate their marriages based on gender, which it can be argued they can still do anywhere in the world just with or without the recognition of the government.

To have government recognition of sex segregation equalized with equal gender representation and integration, you need to first take something away from the definition. You have to take away the reference to one man and one woman, its very promise of equal gender representation. And that is for the whole body of law.

When you take away that reference you take away the significance of gender altogether. You take away the significance of procreation, and tie the governments hands from recognizing responsible procreation and the rights children have in regard to it.

You take away the significance of marriage equality through gender integration, which has been a long hard fight for centuries, and replace it with a false sense of equality where separate is equal, e.g. separating men and women is somehow equal.

The sex segregative relationship is by its nature intolerant. It is created on the argument that certain people cannot integrate with the other gender in any meaningfully marital way.

People will long see neutered marriage along with slavery and abortion as institutions of selfishness, where one group was pampered at the expense of others.

Neutered marriage is not a step forward, it is a step that flies in the face of the civil rights of integration fought for through the 60's. Flies in the face of the importance of equality of men and women fought for through the 1880's. And it flies in the face of the recognizing children's rights, their right to their heritage and to be cherished not as purchased commodities but as real people with a real past and real connections.

These are the facts that Jane ignores in making such a statement as, "Nothing, I repeat, nothing is taken away".

On Lawn said...

And apparently Jane remains ignorant of something I bet everyone else here has already read. That I support extending benefits to gay couples through a program which extends equally to all committed relationships with possible dependents.

But not for a lack of me trying.

Jane Know said...

And what On Lawn ignores are the plain facts that no heterosexual marriage or children that are produced by it is harmed by a homosexual marriage.

On Lawn, I challenge you to find me a real-life heterosexual marriage in MA, Canada, or anywhere else that allows same-sex marriages that is in some way diminished by a gay marriage.

*crickets chirping*

I'm talking actual harm here, On Lawn. Not hypotheticals. Not theoretical harm. REAL. HARM. Real loss.

This Is Not Ok said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jane Know said...

On Lawn constantly uses that idiotic argument (gay people CAN get married to the opposite sex).

That's like saying in the 1950s that black people CAN go to public schools...albeit ones that are only for black people, and probably not as well-funded or good. But you see, they have their own schools? Therefore they have nothing to complain about.

Maybe they need to stop being so selfish by asking for "special rights" of attending white-only schools when they already have the option to go to school.

Similar to the way gay people can not justifiably say they can marry someone of the opposite sex. It does not give them a good life, liberty, OR the pursuit of happiness. Why do you seek to deny people of that, On Lawn?

On Lawn said...

Jane,

I challenge you to find me a real-life heterosexual marriage in MA, Canada, or anywhere else that allows same-sex marriages that is in some way diminished by a gay marriage.

All of them, in the eyes of the state. Their relationships with their children are diminished in the eyes of the state, parents are encouraged to have and sell children with state license and protection, and the marriage certificate becomes a regulation of romance rather than preservation and family commitment.

That is the essence of what I wrote but again you ignored what I said, which is typical but sad. Or perhaps you do acknowledge it but don't see it as real harm. Which, like ignoring, just shows how little you value in what marriage really is.

Not-OK,

Suggesting that a gay person marry someone of the opposite sex is an absurd argument. Remove it from your place and start over.

Hmm, sounds like Governor Wallace rides again. Integration is absurd, just remove it from your language...

what's it called when one is forced to have sex with someone with whom they do not want to have sex

Thank you for providing evidence of how marriage becomes romance regulation rather than a preservation of family. Marriage does not force gays to have heterosexual relationships. It is not about forcing people to do anything especially outside of the institution.

On Lawn said...

Jane,

That's like saying in the 1950s that black people CAN go to public schools...albeit ones that are only for black people

Oh my, you segregate genders by virtue of gay and lesbian, and then call me the one who says you can have access to the institution just only with someone of the same kind?

Get a hold of yourself, do you really read what you are writing here?

In fact, there are no public segregated schools. Brown v Board of education essentially said that if you want a public school it has to be integrated. Do you find that regulation to be bigoted?

John said...

"parents are encouraged to have and sell children with state license and protection"

Do you know how stupid that sounds to anyone with an ounce of brains?

This is not ok said...

jane-
On-Lawn is suggesting that gay people have sex with straight people. The most insulting of all anti-ssm arguments. It is sub-human and cruel. He promotes psychological rape, which makes him a threat to society. Do what you will, but I feel very strongly about severing contact with him. He is a dangerous man.

On Lawn said...

John, you already tried that school-yard argument.

Instead of assuming people know less than you do, you ask questions to help you understand what they mean.

I can point you more to the particulars of the surrogacy and egg/sperm donor industry. And cross reference that with a case in the UK where a fireman, who chose not to avail himself of the government protection for such donors, now is paying child support. Or this emotional story where a woman regrets ever selling her baby away.

It is the stories of people like her and the babies who realize their meaning and heritage was sold out by selfish adults who will write the final judgment on neutered marriage.

John said...

"I can point you more to the particulars of the surrogacy and egg/sperm donor industry"

Which has precisely NOTHING to do with Same-sex relationships.

On Lawn said...

Not-Ok,

Where did I suggest that? You tell me.

I do not tell people who to have sex with. Even in the most generous twisting of words is that message still absent from what I've said.

-- "Marriage does not force gays to have heterosexual relationships. It is not about forcing people to do anything especially outside of the institution." --

Now, Not-OK, in all honesty what are you really trying to say here?

It seems that while I am not telling people who to have sex with, you are. If a gay of their own free will and choice has sex with someone of the opposite sex, to you that seems to still be rape -- a punishable crime.

You are the one making choices for others. Not me. After all you said, "suggesting that gay people have sex with straight people [is t]he most insulting of all anti-ssm arguments. It is sub-human and cruel."

I'm not even suggesting it, but you seem to be really adamant in enforcing what people do with their intimate lives. As I mentioned before, this shows much of the underlying fascism behind turning marriage into a institution of romance regulation rather than its humanitarian cause of promoting in-tact family preservation through responsible procreation.

Fannie said...

"All of them, in the eyes of the state. Their relationships with their children are diminished in the eyes of the state, parents are encouraged to have and sell children with state license and protection, and the marriage certificate becomes a regulation of romance rather than preservation and family commitment."

See, "On Lawn," Jane asked you to explain in-depth real, actual harm. Your failure is that you are able to merely provide your abstract description of what happens to an institution and to parenthood, as general concepts.

(If you are interested in respectful, non-abusive dialogue you would also do better to avoid such phrases as "do you even read what you write")

Let me help you out here.


1. How specifically are "their" relationships with their children "diminished" in the eyess of the state. Qualitatively and/or quantitatively.

2. How are parents encouraged to "have and sell" children with "state license and protection"? That sounds like hyperbole and a propagandistic statement.

3. What is the specific and actual harm of turning the marriage license from "a preservation of family and committment" into a "regulation of romance"? Is the marriage license currently a "preservatio nof family and commttment"? And, would same-sex marriage even change it as you say it would?

In fact, I recently read David Blankhorn's "The Future of Marriage" and your arguments sound very similar to his- as you both ignore history and approach the issue with many baseless assumptions.


I am asking you specific questions. Your competency, as they say, is on display.

On Lawn said...

John,

Did you say "absolutely nothing" to do with same-sex relationships? Nothing.

John said...

OK, I stand corrected.

But you say it like it is a bad thing.

On Lawn said...

See, "On Lawn," Jane asked you to explain in-depth real, actual harm.

I make on pretense on being able to show harm to a degree that you cannot deny its existence :)

I'll tell you what. I perhaps just don't understand what kind of evidence you are looking for. So give me an example of good evidence on this point, just to help me know what you are expecting.

Take any social institution of your choice. Describe a change that you could answer those questions to your own liking. I'm giving you full license here, provide your own example.

I will endeavor to take your own criteria that you show through that example and provide one for this change for marriage.

Fair enough?

(Hint: John is finding me provide evidence aplenty, on this very subject).

On Lawn said...

John,

Thanks, I appreciate it! I think so many of these topics come down to not whether the change will happen or not, but whether or not you think the change is a good or bad thing.

Thanks again.

John said...

"I think so many of these topics come down to not whether the change will happen or not, but whether or not you think the change is a good or bad thing"

You know, I almost agree with you.

I do not hold myself out as qualified to determine whether these changes are good or bad, so much as I simply trust people to decide for themselves how best to live their lives.

This is not ok said...

On-Lawn,
By saying gay people can get married; you are saying they can get married to the opposite sex. Marriage includes sex. Sex with opposite genders makes babies. Aren't you all about the babies? So when you suggest that gay people marry opposite sex people, you are then suggesting they have sex with them. Gay people do not want to have sex with opposite sex people...they're gay. Do not deliberately leave out my using of the word psychological. "Psychological rape" is what I said.

I do believe marriage is a romantic union first, and from that deep love comes the desire to develop a product of that love, whether or not from your own DNA. The development of a child's self happens after birth, which has nothing to do with sharing DNA. You have said gay people can get married. You meant to straight people. Sex happens in a marriage. Stop playing games. You are sick and perverse by suggesting a lesbian just lie there and take it in the name of wanting to have a family or that a gay man close his eyes and drive it home for the same reason. You’ve turned my stomach. And your children should be pitied for having a father with no soul or compassion. Let’s hope you don't have a gay child...or rather, let’s do.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

76 comments deep and still going. Not exactly the echo chamber some people would have called this blog, eh Jane? ;)

On Lawn said...

Not-OK,

By saying gay people can get married; you are saying they can get married to the opposite sex.

That is one way of saying it, and I have said it that way in the past and still agree to that. Why? Because I agree with what John said just previous that, "I simply trust people to decide for themselves how best to live their lives".

If they say they can, and wish to I fully support them in that liberty.

However, the comment you were replying to was meant in a different way. By saying gays could get married anywhere in the world I really mean they can get married to each other. As I pointed out, that is met with various degrees of government recognition. That is important because marriage existed long before formal governments, and gay marriage long before there was any push for government recognition of it.

When we are making this debate it is not about the liberty to have a relationship and call it marriage whatever you wish. But to have government call it that too. That is an important distinction to you, isn't it?

On Lawn said...

You are right Mr H-G, I will have to re-evaluate considering this an echo chamber considering the liberty I've been given to defend my position here.

Many thanks for the hospitality Jane!

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

All the attempt to hold back equal rights for GLBT people has done is make the public more aware of the real inequality issues.

There is no actions that the GLBT take as a whole that need to be addressed, we are individuals. To say that all of us behave in the same manner is to stereotype, and stereotyping is discrimination.

People can say they want to protect the children, but if you follow them down the rabbit hole a little further you find out there is little more specific than that. Protect them from what?

Giving equality opponents an individual to focus on so that we can see what specific actions they are afraid of is one way to prove this. If all gay people are the same danger, then surely you can show us through one individuals actions what the danger comes from. I tried to use my own life as an example for them to point to, but they countered that by saying I was making this issue all about me. An interesting way to divert the point.

There's nothing there, proving to me that the only thing they want is to silence our impact on society. Taking away gay marriage and our rights won't accomplish that. Nothing will. We have fought hard to show that we can be positive contributors to society, not only to ourselves but to others. It is only a matter of time before we have equality across the country.

Does our equality diminish anyone else's rights? Well, ask yourself, does other people rights diminish yours now? No, of course not.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

OnLawn, did you also notice that she doesn't delete your comments she doens't like? How refreshing it is to have the conversation flow without interruption.

By the way, thanks for sticking to one moniker here. I do find it extremely dishonest of people to use more than one. ;)

Fannie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fannie said...

[The above deleted comment was mine. Typos.]

On Lawn said,

"I'll tell you what. I perhaps just don't understand what kind of evidence you are looking for. So give me an example of good evidence on this point, just to help me know what you are expecting.

Take any social institution of your choice. Describe a change that you could answer those questions to your own liking. I'm giving you full license here, provide your own example.

I will endeavor to take your own criteria that you show through that example and provide one for this change for marriage.

Fair enough?"


Nope. Upon being asked a question, it is not a valid retort to say to the questioner "you answer it." See, I am seeking information from you. You speak much of this Great Harm regarding marriage, yet you are only able to speak of it in glittering generalities and abstractions. Which is indicative of propaganda tactics.

Come on, "On Lawn"-y boy, show us the harm? If it is so daunting, and if you were truly competent to speak of it, you would have no problem understanding the question or being able to articulate it.

Further evasions are intellectually unacceptable and will be noted.

On Lawn said...

Mr H-G

How refreshing it is to have the conversation flow without interruption.

Wouldn't that be nice?

thanks for sticking to one moniker here.

Hey you too (as far as I know or care :)

On Lawn said...

Upon being asked a question, it is not a valid retort to say to the questioner "you answer it."

But be honest, I am not asking you to answer your own question.

And, I have answered the question more than enough here and it just doesn't seem to meet your requirements. Lets take you at your word that I am completely incompetent and cannot answer the question, that (if true) would be all the more reason you need to lead by example.

So, you need to be more specific about your requirements. If not by providing an example of your own, then just give more specific (rather than abstract) criteria you will be judging the response by.

By the way, if you are stumped with an institution to provide an example answer for, try this one.

Without neutered marriage same-sex couples will be harmed-- how?

Real harm, not abstract, etc...

John said...

How is this bad news?

Parker has a baby brother !!!

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4061

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

More circular logic.

"I've already answered this" is nothing more than an avoidance of the questions. If You have answered them so many times before then you should have a pretty succinct point by now, so let's hear it.

Why else would you be here other than to talk these points?

Oh, and before we go any further, it was not a long time ago at all that you had been posting under other names. Try not even a year ago to be exact. Let's not try and confuse your lies with more lies, shall we? ;)

Fannie said...

Like I said "On Lawn" further evasions will, and now are, noted.

Oh, and regarding comment deletions, I have no qualms about deleting comments in violation of my stated comment policy. I would invite you to come back and do better, but I already know that you aren't capable of doing so.


Happy New Year! :-)

Fannie said...

John,

That's great news!! I will send him my wishes!

On Lawn said...

Fannie,

I know your position on your own deletions, I'm wondering what Mr H-G's are since he is the one who brought the subject of uninterrupted conversation up. Is he going to condemn us both for doing the same thing? Or is he just plowing another of his one-way streets?

On Lawn said...

Mr H-G,

"I've already answered this" is nothing more than an avoidance of the questions.

What question have I avoided? Why are you and Fannie so afraid of providing an example if as you feel one should be so readily available to meet your criteria?

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Stick to your points OnLawn and try not to fall off topic.

We don't need any of your compulsive lying here.

Fannie said...

On Lawn,

I'm not afraid of anything, I'm trying to get you to coherently articulate what is that YOU are so afraid of. You know, regarding gay marriage.

Surely, you're not just scared of an amorphous bogey-man that you can't even describe?

And regarding your "apology," I will accept an apology when it is a genuine apology and not more of the same false allegations. As of now, you are only deserving of pity and ridicule.

Fannie said...

In other words, On Lawn, convince us. Convince us, as articulately as you can, the threat that gay marriage poses.

If you could have, you would have. Long ago. Simple as that.

Now you just look like a game-player. And a lying one at that.

On Lawn said...

Mr H-G,

We don't need any of your compulsive lying here.

LOL! Nice try Mr H-G.

If you wish to accuse me of lying, state the accusation, and evidence.

Here is an example.

In discussing logic with Mr H-G I noted where he used a vacuously true statement. He then accused me of using the term "vacuous" to describe him. He later admitted that was a lie, but continued that instead I used the word "vacuously" to describe him.

When it was pointed out that "vacuously" is an adverb, and it is grammatically impossible to describe people, he admitted he knew that. When asked why he said two things he knew wasn't true, he said nothing more for the moment.

Yet after that, he still accused me of using that term to purposely insult him. Something already disproved and admitted to by him, he continues to put forth. He knows it isn't true by his own admission elsewhere, but says it anyway.

That, Mr H-G, is how you show someone is a liar.

I showed by example, just like I am asking Fannie to show by example an answer that meets her criteria in any topic of sociological dynamics she wishes.

Can you match that same level of evidence in making that claim against me?

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

OnLawn is part of a orchistrated effort to keep people thinking that GLBT people are not only harmful, but selfish.

The fact of the matter is that I care very deeply about my community in which I live, and my country as a whole. If he were to provide to me EXACTLY WHAT ACTIONS he is afraid I'll take, we could at least talk about them.

Instead what we get is the "I've already answered you" response to paraphrase it.

I doubt any of my neighbors know or care that I'm married. To them we are "the nice guys that live over there".

Indeed Fannie, he should put up or shut up.

On Lawn said...

Fannie,

I said I already did answer those questions. You acknowledge that I answered them when you said:

--"Your failure is that you are able to merely provide your abstract description of what happens to an institution and to parenthood, as general concepts."--

So its not that I haven't answered the question, it is that you have some criteria that you wish it to meet. I'm asking you to be specific in describing that criteria or give an example that we can use to understand it better.

Obviously what you see to be abstract and real is different then me. Accusing me of not answering the question in light of that is not helpful.

I'm happy to answer, as I have already. If you want something different, then put forth a good faith effort to explain in real specific terms or an example just what you are looking for in an answer. But don't claim I didn't even try, that would be untrue even by your own words in this thread.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

I'm glad you asked for proof OnLawn:

Rat Hunting

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

What actions do I take as a private citizen that endanger children that my right to marry whom I wish can be restricted?

People are given restrictions for measurable reasons. Where is there such a measure for gay marriage?

Most reasonable people would agree we need to have an age minimum for driver's licenses, for safety reasons. We can demonstrate to the satisfaction of critics this evidence. Where is the beef?

Fannie said...

You know "On Lawn", your fingers are apparently typing but we still don't see any output.

Everyone,

Wait for it, wait for it.... "On Lawn's" twisting of the situation is beginning,

"But don't claim I didn't even try, that would be untrue even by your own words in this thread."

And BAM! The accusations of dishonesty to distract from his inability to answer a question. It's not he that is being intellectually dishonest, others are just liars. And mean. And abusive. And sock puppets.

I would be bored, but such a display of pathology is just too damn entertaining!

I need to approach this like a car accident. Continue driving, stare briefly, feel sad, and then go about my business. Or I'm never gonna get my work done today!

On Lawn said...

I took the liberty of cross-posting this on Opine too.
________

Actually, it appears if given a choice Fannie would rather I "shut up".

She deleted a comment on her own site replying to your accusation,

--"OnLawn, Genghis Cohen, Counterpoint, Christian; these are all the same person."--

I asked her opinion on this matter, especially considering that I naturally would say that I have never posted as any of those names but On Lawn. And that Christian (as I know him) even lives in a different state than I do.

She obviously has a strong opinion on people accusing others of sock-puppetry, even when they adamantly deny it. Yet didn't let me reply to that accusation on her site.

She is also unwilling to give clear descriptions of just what criteria she has, or an example of what would meet her criteria. It sounds like she would rather not care about my answers.

Jane, Mr H-G, what do you think of this administrative style of hers? Especially considering what you've said about deleted comments on Opine? What do you think of Mr H-G's accusation against me, especially in light of what you have said about (and apologized for) in my opinion of Fannie and Not-OK?

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

So you are saying that you are not the person called Counterpoint on Ed Brayton's blog that posted there in Feb. 2007?

How does he have your IP address then? ;)

On Lawn said...

Your proof is Brayton said he has IP information?

Fannie, what do you think of people who say they proved sock-puppeting based on IP information? How about when it is here-say about IP information?

On Lawn said...

Oh and while I have your attention Mr H-G, where is the proof on me posting as Christian and Ghengis Cohen?

John said...

On Lawn,

You and Counterpoint use nearly identical language.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Notice how when he gets the more succinct question he asks for, he still avoids answering it.

It's not just the IP address, it's the way you communicate. Your own word usage damns you OnLawn. There is no question in anyone's mind that this is you posting as Counterpoint. All you have to do is read it and your persona comes out.

You got caught, now you are trying to cover it with more lies. This is why you no longer have any credibity, nor does Opine Editorials.

On Lawn said...

It's not just the IP address, it's the way you communicate.

Oh, well I'm glad you admit that hear-say of IP evidence is not enough. And according to Fannie, even IP address isn't good enough since anyone could have been a guest at my home posting in my defense.

But you should explain more what evidence you do have. I'm curious about this communication style evidence.

You have to admit, this is nothing like the evidence we have of you lying habitually (in fact this will turn out to be another of those examples :).

Notice how when he gets the more succinct question he asks for, he still avoids answering it.

All things in due time, but its funny that not getting an answer to something you asked 20 minutes ago, amidst another topic you brought up, is evidence of nefariousness to you.

You are showing your colors there Mr H-G.

Fannie said...

On Lawn, you confound me, are you talking to me or about me?

And what?! More distractions from him!!!??

How truly shocking!

I could care less whether On Lawn engages or engaged in sock puppetry. Or whether he is or is not Christian. They do have similar authoritarian hypocritical, illogical, and manipulative arguing styles. Although Christian at times was at least able to be a bit respectful. On Lawn has proven incapable of that. So, they may indeed be two different people.

But, the more important question is, what does it say about On Lawn that he attempts to rebut these allegations?

Self-absorbed, perhaps? That he makes everything all about him? Narcisstic? Easily insulted? Thin-skinned, maybe?

(I mean, why do anti-SSM'ers always bring it back to being all about them and their needs?)

For someone who doesn't care about such allegations, you, On Lawn, sure are spending a lot of time addressing them, and cross-posting your rebuttals on 3 different sites.

Oh right, that's because you hold others to different standards than you hold yourself.

In other words, you're a hypocrite!


And, regarding your frequent allusions to my deletions of your comments('cuz it all about you, we know), the difference between you and I is that I am honest about it. I admit to deleting fuckwaddery. You claim to delete only "ad hominem" attacks, when in reality, you merely delete comments that you don't like. Or that you disagree with. Or that are in violation of some made-up rule. I delete your comments because you are an ass, and unable to be intellectually honest (see your evasions in this thread for reference). Simply put, I don't like your internet persona, and don't want it muddying my floor with its dirty boots.

John said...

On Lawn,

It was only a few days ago when you said this:

"For the record, this has to do with how I've found the push to neuter marriage as throwing the status of the disabled (most recently in the call to ban infertile people from marriage), and the rights of children (in assuming the right to commission children and pay the father or mother to abandon them and remain anonymous to them), and the basic foundations of family development along a model of procreation, under the bus. Selfishly, they don't care what happens as long as they get what they want out of it. Thats my opinion, what is yours?"

Now really, are you going to say that you are not counterpoint?

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"You claim to delete only "ad hominem" attacks, when in reality, you merely delete comments that you don't like."

Great point Fannie. He even went as far as to delete a comment of mine that said, "Thanks for the info OnLawn" because I said it in a sarcastic way.

Yes, he is most definetly a hypocrite, especially now since he has been caught at the very things he accuses others of.

Fannie said...

"Fannie, what do you think of people who say they proved sock-puppeting based on IP information? How about when it is here-say about IP information?"


Because On Lawn's alleged sock-puppetry is about me, now?

I don't find it useful to allege sock puppetry in the first place. As there are many innocent explanations regarding IP addresses. You and the Opiners, however, brought it up, claimed I was being dishonest, and then told me to drop it. It is unclear why you would even bring it up and publicly speculate? And, you ignored all attempts at communicating via email regarding the topic. That indicates that you don't care about the truth and were not interested in my explanation. You, and Op-Ed and Chairm, already had your minds made up that I had this evil master plan. That you ascribed me with this evil motive without accepting my explanation (and you continue to do so!!) is anything BUT respectful of human dignity. Even though you claim to dialogue in a respectful way.

Which, we all know (and knew before), is a lie.

Nonetheless, your evasions continue to be noted, On Lawn.

On Lawn said...

You and Counterpoint use nearly identical language.

I am sure that is what Mr H-G means, but he still overstates.

I also showed how Fannie and Not-OK used the same terms, and same arguments. But here is another difference between us -- I never did present that as evidence they were the same people.

In his post he quotes someone who keys in on the phrase "neutered marriage", which is shared by a number of Opine posters and perhaps others. In fact, Fannie in her Handy Manual on Opine Speak, didn't say it was "On Lawn" speak for a reason. A good reason for that is because it is more common than just myself.

This is interesting to watch, especially in the hypocritical angles running amok here.

So Fannie, what is your take on this? Oh yeah you provided that on Mr H-G's site...

I'm linking to this article. It explains a lot about where "On Lawn" is coming from.

It explains that she accepts the same evidence to accuse others of sock puppetry that she adamantly complained was an attack on her.

Thanks Mr H-G, just for the record we did not collaborate on this, right? You presented this on your own free will?

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"For the record, this has to do with how I've found the push to neuter marriage as throwing the status of the disabled (most recently in the call to ban infertile people from marriage), and the rights of children (in assuming the right to commission children and pay the father or mother to abandon them and remain anonymous to them), and the basic foundations of family development along a model of procreation, under the bus. Selfishly, they don't care what happens as long as they get what they want out of it. Thats my opinion, what is yours?"

"Neutering marriage for the sake of homosexuality, it was told to me many years ago, would be one of the most oppressive things one segment of society did to another since abortion as birth control and slavery. The way it throws children into the position of being a commodity, and the handicapped under the bus I have to say they are right."

How can anyone say this is not from the same person, who just happens to have the same IP address?

On Lawn said...

Fannie,

Thanks for the admission, "I don't find it useful to allege sock puppetry in the first place. As there are many innocent explanations regarding IP addresses."

Mr H-G, what do you think of Fannie's opinion of your evidence?

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

What do you think about how Ed Brayton says, "Yup, it's OnLawn again", like this happens all the time.

Are you a troll OnLawn?

On Lawn said...

I should add, Mr H-G, what do you think of her opinion of claiming sock-puppetry in general as, "I don't find it useful"?

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

The reason OnLawn accuses everyone of posting under other names (including me) is because he expects others do what he does himself.

On Lawn said...

Am I a troll?

I'm sorry but did we coordinate on this? Why are you accusing me of being a troll? What is your opinion of what Fannie has said about these kind of allegations?

No, I'm no troll. You are doing this all of your own accord, I can't say I trolled you into this or trolled Brayton's site.

I think he thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a troll and bans them, he's done it for many more than myself.

What do you think of Brayton banning people, Mr H-G, in light of your call for free and uninterrupted discourse?

How about Fannie's ban for doing just what you are doing to me now? Remember I apologized. Are you going to apologize too?

Most curious.

On Lawn said...

because he expects others do what he does himself.

Funny, not because I've encountered sock-puppets before?

For the record, I remember saying how much I don't care if people are sock-puppets are or not. And its because even when they try those tactics on me, reason still wins out.

Where did I accuse you of posting under different names Mr H-G?

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

You said you needed a more succinct and clear question. Now that I proved one, how about providing the answer you claim your willing to give?

Fannie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fannie said...

On Lawn,

Your manipulative attempts to divide us are noted.

Pathological indeed.

Please note that, "I don't find it useful to allege sock puppetry in the first place. As there are many innocent explanations regarding IP addresses" applies to you as well.

But you can continue making this about other people.

And, while I don't find it useful to allege sock puppetry, your earlier admission that you engaged in the practice for sport to teach some guy a lesson is indicative that you engage in the practice or have done so in the past. So, I would not be surprised if the claims about you were true.

We, of course, have no way of knowing and so I would not state it as a fact, as you and the Opiners have done to me.

Now that it's happening to you, I hope you get it. Since you are clearly that self-asborbed and un-empathetic that you don't see the harm until it happens to you.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

OnLawn you made an implication when you noted how hammerpants came to my defense. It's all there, look it up. You did not come outright and say so, but the imlpication still stands.

I'm sure you'll have an equally dishonest answer about this point too, you always do. Such is the life of a patholical liar.

Fannie said...

ALL NOTE THAT ON LAWN, WHO DOESN'T CARE AT ALL ABOUT SOCK PUPPETRY, CONTINUES TO HARP ON THE ISSUE AND STILL HAS AVOIDED ARTICULATING THE ACTUAL HARM THAT WILL RESULT FROM GAY MARRIAGE.

On Lawn said...

Your manipulative attempts to divide us are noted.

Like I said, I didn't manipulate this or coordinate this. Mr H-G though he has given me a real Christmas gift here to expose hypocrisy with, is not my sock-puppet nor did I coordinate with him previously.

Mr H-G did this on his own accord. You've stated your opinion on this of your own accord, no manipulation involved.

applies to you as well.

And to show consistency, you should admit that I have said as much also.

your earlier admission that you engaged in the practice for sport to teach some guy a lesson is indicative that you engage in the practice or have done so in the past.

Actually the sport was that I said I was anonymous while posting as my login. In other words, my real login appeared as the owner of the comment while saying something like "I'm not the same anonymous as the other guy". It was a great time, but rather than understanding the nuances of the prank, he used the simple cry of "sock-puppet" too, even though that is contradictory to the fact that I used my actual log in, "On Lawn".

Read it again, I believe that was stated. For the record, Brayton is the person I mentioned needled by posting as a different name each post to circumvent a ban. But he deleted all of those comments, and rightly so. They were an attack on his admining of the site, and I regret that action. Just as I apologized already to Fannie and regret diverting the conversation with my opinion of the IP and cookie information I have.

Those different monikers started as things like "Ghost of On Lawn", and "Gone Lawn", and then became specific to the message I was replying to.

Good times all.

Let me know when you all are done with this tangent and we can get back to Mr H-G's example and perhaps other criteria to show harm to real relationships by neutering marriage.

You decide what you want to do and I'll just go along with it.

On Lawn said...

You did not come outright and say so, but the imlpication[sic] still stands.

Actually, if I were to produce a devils dictionary of terms, from my experience with you and Fannie and Jane, I would give this definition for "suggest" and "implicate", and insinuate, etc...

*) You really didn't say it, but I'm going to act as if you did anyway.

By the way, Fannie I am happy to move back to that subject. And thank you for sharing your opinion of Mr H-G's actions. I'm just waiting for Mr H-G to catch up with you and what you've said about his diversion.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

I like how blatantly obvious his lie is, and how he continues to deny it. His own word usage damns him, and he still asks for more.

What do we need, a picture of him naked next to a bowl of Jello while surfing Ed Brayton's Blog?

OnLawn, your peers will decide for themselves if you are guilty. No amount of denial on your part will sway that in your direction. You got caught.

That aside, we are all eagerly awaiting what it is you have to say on how our actions warrant our current denial of rights.

Fannie said...

ALL NOTE THAT ON LAWN, WHO DOESN'T CARE AT ALL ABOUT SOCK PUPPETRY, CONTINUES TO HARP ON THE ISSUE AND STILL HAS AVOIDED ARTICULATING THE ACTUAL HARM THAT WILL RESULT FROM GAY MARRIAGE.


You are truly a despicable, pathological personality "On Lawn." You see this meaningless exchange of over 100 comments as some sort of "gift." A gift would have been honest dialogue void of your judgments and pathological twisting of the situation that you will undoubtedly turn into some sort of unintelligible and ultimately meaningless post meant to expose us but which really only further proves that you are not truly interested in defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity.

And ultimately, that, and knowing that our opposition is comprised of pathological figures such as yourself, is a gift to us and the SSM side.


Thank YOU, On Lawn.

On Lawn said...

OnLawn, your peers will decide for themselves if you are guilty. No amount of denial on your part will sway that in your direction. You got caught.

And I hope they do. However, I have extended the courtesy of Fannie's denial (and her denial alone) as swaying me. If you say I cannot expect the same courtesy of being taken at my word in spite of hear-say of IP evidence, then I think you have a lower opinion of Fannie and the others here than you should.

But that doesn't mean I don't think you might be right. Just that I acknowledge that is a pretty low opinion of another person to suggest they are that unkind.

So Fannie, lets set the record straight. Mr H-G thinks that even though you were extended the courtesy and apology, that you will not be big enough to to be persuaded similarly. Especially considering what you've said and asked for in this regard?

(Like I said, when Mr H-G is quite done and catches up with what you've said about this topic, I'm happy to return to the topic we both would rather discuss. But now he's made an implication against you, and I'm curious your opinion of it.)

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

In exposing the rats of society we find the many evils they bring.

One of the things that has crossed my mind is how very insane the opposition to GLBT rights really is.

Look at Brian Camanker for example. On KTN we have a video of the interview Camenker provided for the John Stewart Show. He's a total "tool", and that's one of their leaders!

I expect that to know who OnLawn is would predispose us to disqualifying his comments before they're read. Better to keep an open mind and disqualify them for what they say they pass for logic.

If I get my marriage neutered, can I still have sex?

Fannie said...

I am having trouble following On Lawn's latest manipulative line of "reasoning."

Please speak clearly and specifically On Lawn.

Fannie said...

"One of the things that has crossed my mind is how very insane the opposition to GLBT rights really is."

We will ultimately win. And this is one of many reasons why.

Mainstream America is starting to see these bigots with distaste and disgust bringing millions of heterosexuals, John for instance, to our side.

Everytime On Lawn speaks about us and SSM, it is another point for us in essence.

On Lawn said...

And Fannie, you are right.

This deserves a post on Opine.

Mr H-G, who was shown to be lying about Christian being "caught", and now claims I am Christian too, is now back peddling and preaching the doctrine of evaluating comments rather than the people.

If this exercise is what it took to make Mr H-G realize that, (perhaps it was Fannie's opinions of his diversion that helped?) then it is all worth it.

So Mr H-G, while you are still missing that apology, I take you for your word that you wish to, "keep an open mind" and look at what people say rather than making these spurious accusations.

This is a very welcome change from you, and I appreciate it. Fannie thanks for your comments on this topic which I hope helped Mr H-G see how silly he's been.

Now on to answering a post Mr H-G made during his diversion.

Fannie said...

And as much as I "appreciate" On Lawn's chivalrous willingness to "defend" my honor, I was never personally offended by anything John Hosty-Grinnell said.

"On Lawn" also states numerous times that he has apologized to me. We all know that he hasn't. But most importantly, he finds that the person he apologized to (me) doesn't see it as an apology and just doesn't care. He doesn't understand that the point of an apology is not to publicly look good by deigning to apologize, it's to recognize that you did something that offended someone. On Lawn doesn't see it like that. Because, of course, it's all about him.

Fannie said...

So, lemme get this straight, On Lawn has lied about me and instead of accepting responsibility and really apologizing, he is going to distract from that and write a post about someone else's alleged dishonesty?


On Lawn, let me ask you, why do you believe that such a post deserves to be on Opine, a website devoted to defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity? Your most eager articles of late, in fact, have been about us. Not marriage. Not values. Not parenthood. But Fannie, Jane Know, and John Hosty.

Each time you write of us while claiming that you are doing something else- ie- defending marriage- you are making a further mockery of your site.

(So, thank you. I guess.)

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Fannie, I think that OnLawn is trying to pit us against each other.

This is up there with putting your head in the sand and expecting people not to see you. Logic black belt huh? hehehe...

On Lawn said...

I was never personally offended by anything John Hosty-Grinnell said.

No? Whaat is your opinion then of Mr H-G's diversion?

So far I've noted that you think it is a diversion, and not important. Is that not true?

I'm glad Mr H-G looks like he is coming around to agreeing to that. Lying that people have been sock-puppeting was something, as I explained before, something he's done for quite some time.


Its only more so interesting here where he is telling it to an audience that just got done with saying how little it matters, and how much IP evidence is meaningless, etc...

Is he catching others in the same hypocrisy? Well yes in a way. You just got through giving a victory speech on top of saying how much this discredits me -- even though you admit that it doesn't discredit people before.

I hate to postpone again, but when you all get a consistent view on this subject just let me know. Talk amongst yourselves if you must.

Just what is your opinion of Mr Hosty's false allegations? Especially in light of stating a similar opinion of Fannie and Not-OK earlier and the reaction you had to that?

Of all things I'm not hypocritical about it because I apologized to Fannie for the diversion already for having even more evidence than Hosty presents. If you find that apology warranted, where is my apology?

I think everyone will see very clearly who is trying give mutual respect, and who is just plowing one-way streets of hypocrisy. So take that into account when you answer.

John said...

"I think everyone will see very clearly who is trying give mutual respect, and who is just plowing one-way streets of hypocrisy. So take that into account when you answer."

I LOL'ed

Fannie said...

I agree that he's trying to pit us against each other and trying to deflect attention from his own dishonesty. Notice how suddenly he's making everything all about us? (Something they say we do, ironically).

And threatening to write an exposee. Ooh hoo hoo.

All tactics that "Christian" also used. I'm not insinuating anything though.

On Lawn said...

What I think is funniest of all here is the work of the coordinated effort.

Note that Fannie stated that evidence of the type Mr H-G presents, is not enough. Yet they seem to have moved past the evidence to patting themselves on the back.

Its not sock-puppetry but it is just as dishonest :) Thanks for providing another example of that.

Fannie said...

But wait, On Lawn, why don't you answer OUR questions for once. I know how much you like to bleat about whatever you want but will you just try to engage in, you know, actual dialogue.

I'll repeat:

"On Lawn, let me ask you, why do you believe that such a post deserves to be on Opine, a website devoted to defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity? Your most eager articles of late, in fact, have been about us. Not marriage. Not values. Not parenthood. But Fannie, Jane Know, and John Hosty. "

On Lawn said...

deflect attention from his own dishonesty

No, I rather enjoy that you are claiming that I'm dishonest. Especially when you already undermined those claims before you presented them. And even after.

But acting, none the less, as if it were still true.

That is your own actions that I cannot be claimed to manipulating or being dishonest in. You've shown it yourself.

And I'm just watching and pointing it out.

Or are you going to deny everything you said about sock-puppet claims (especially false ones like Mr H-G's)?

That would be something too.

Oh and yes, this deserves an Opine post. Most definitely.

Fannie said...

On Lawn, who are you talking to? You speak about us to... readers here? Lurkers? People who if they have any brains, as John would say, do not accept your warped view of things.

It's cute, though, how you keep trying to say "Nu-uh, it's like this! Really. It is."

Aw, poor delusional man.

:-(

Fannie said...

"Oh and yes, this deserves an Opine post. Most definitely."

Then you will surely have no problem answering my question:

"On Lawn, let me ask you, why do you believe that such a post deserves to be on Opine, a website devoted to defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity? Your most eager articles of late, in fact, have been about us. Not marriage. Not values. Not parenthood. But Fannie, Jane Know, and John Hosty. "


Come on, On Lawn, show us your guns. Put your money where your mouth is. Put up or shut the fuck up.

On Lawn said...

why do you believe that such a post deserves to be on Opine, a website devoted to defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity?

Good question. Probably the same reason you wrote complaining that someone was accusing you of sock-puppetting.

And that is good evidence of an abusive personality. Expecting that people should be "above" defending themselves. You all made the accusations, you all stepped in the hypocrisy pile. And now you all ignore the fact that Mr H-G has by your own standards shown nothing but false accusations.

That is all worthy of being pointed out, what are you afraid of, me defending myself? Or just how it will reflect on the charade that you all have been attempting to set up here for the past hour?

I'm not going to say that this is a contest of showing bad behaviors in others. I have better points than this, but there are reasons for it none the less.

The point is, that the personal controversy angle is important to defend against. It is one of the reasons I apologized for making allegations that had more merit than Mr H-G's. I respect your self-defense, and when you insist I'm wring I'm willing to put it down and apologize.

But you two have taken it further than that. You have assumed it did discredit me -- just the fact that he made allegations. You assumed he was right on mere here-say from some other site. You assumed he was right even after condemning the use of such an accusation and such evidence previously. If I respect your right to defend yourselves, then how much more reason have I to respect myself and defend myself.

Like I said, you all were looking for a victim to abuse with these obvious and flagrant lies.

I'm no victim. And I will take the extra step of documenting this so that others you try to abuse can know who they are talking to also.

Because I respect them too.

That is why I will make the post on this at Opine. What do you all have to be afraid of, if not that you realize that you've made a big mistake?

Fannie said...

We'll wait. Again, it is your competency on display.

You can choose to evade, again. Or you can choose to run away with your tail between your legs crying the threat of "Just wait 'til you see what I post on my bwog."

Whoop-dee-do, On Lawn.

If your blog wasn't such a joke, it might constitute an actual threat. But like I said before, everytime you write or speak about us and SSM, we score another point.

Go us! Go us!

*Throws football between my legs while criss-crossing them*

Fannie said...

"And that is good evidence of an abusive personality. Expecting that people should be "above" defending themselves. "

Thank you for finally admitting that you are an abusive personality. Remember when you and Op-Ed told me not to defend myself, and that it was selfish of me to do so?

What say you about that? I REALLY want to know.

You claim you aren't victim, but you have victim-speak down pretty well.

On Lawn said...

An awkward display to say the least, it is interesting what you attempt to support your claims with.

So, what evidence does Mr H-G have that I'm Christian and Ghengis Cohen again? He's stated why he things I'm "counterpoint", and that by your own admission wasn't good enough.

Or do you just admit you've really shown everyone who you are and what you all are up to?

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Like I said OnLawn, people will judge for themselves whether you are lying or not.

If you're not going to continue playing the victim card, perhaps you can start real dialog.

Fannie said...

I am afraid of nothing that you can do or say about any of us, because you are a joke.

A sad pitiable joke of internet persona.

You accuse me of being selfish for being angry about your false allegations, but it's a WHOLE other story now that you feel that you've been falsely accused.

Such. A. Hypocrite.

Fannie said...

On Lawn,

Don't forget to address why it was selfish of me to want to correct your lies about me, but it's not selfish of you to want to do so.

After that, please explain why your behavior in discouraging me to defend myself does not constitute abusive behavior.

Please. I am very curious.

Dear victim.

On Lawn said...

Remember when you and Op-Ed told me not to defend myself, and that it was selfish of me to do so?

I don't remember such an event, and will go on record with the opinion that you are lying again.

So what other lie are you going to use to divert from the fact that Mr H-G has no evidence that I'm Christian and Ghengis Cohen? And divert from the fact you believe him anyway even though you just pleaded on your own site that people not accept such shameless accusations, and evidence like he presented that I am "Counterpoint"?

Your actions are clearly showing who you are and what you are up to, that is my warning and invitation for you to do better.

What do you really think you can provide that will make up for your lack of evidence, and how hypocritical it is for you to accept what he's presented so far in light of what you've written on the subject?

Fannie said...

"Or do you just admit you've really shown everyone who you are and what you all are up to?"


What do you think we are up to On Lawn? Surely you aren't delving into our minds and speculating about an evil master plan. Again.

That's what you just got busted for, buddy. Don't you ever learn?

On Lawn said...

Don't forget to address why it was selfish of me to want to correct your lies about me, but it's not selfish of you to want to do so.

As you recall, I was the one who apologized and accepted you just at your word.

How does that show me saying you are selfish for "correcting"?

After that, please explain why your behavior in discouraging me to defend myself does not constitute abusive behavior.

Ibid, but nice try.

On Lawn said...

That's what you just got busted for, buddy. Don't you ever learn?

Thats a laugh. What was I busted for again?

Fannie said...

"I don't remember such an event, and will go on record with the opinion that you are lying again."

Are you seriously kidding me?

Note to self: clearly dealing with psychopath.

Let me jog your memory:


You are now on record as having lied, while simultaneously accusing me of lying (and "warning me").

Did you or did you not say this just today, a mere few hours ago, regarding my defense of myself:

"But as Op-Ed notes, the more one tries to talk to Fannie the more she just talks about herself and drops the subject at hand. Everything insults her, and nothing is right. The selfish attitude continues to show her underlying...[more ad hominem attacks]"

http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/12/forrest-of-opines.html#c8158451264245375314

How are you going to weasel out of this? You've been busted for the liar that you are.

This Is Not Ok said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fannie said...

And, Op-Ed, when "TINO" was defending herself, replied:


"Why do neutered marriage advocates always want to discuss themselves instead of marriage? What is so inately selfish about the desire to neuter marriage that it constantly attracts these "lets talk about me" types?"

http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/12/forrest-of-opines.html#c5230394477005606835

What say you, On Lawn? Huh?

WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE ADMITTEDLY ABUSIVE TACTICS YOU AND OP-ED USE?

On Lawn said...

but it's a WHOLE other story now that you feel that you've been falsely accused.

That is where we are different. Its the same story, and the differences in our actions in this story shows light on your continued tactics of false accusations.

1) Mr H-G still makes false accusations (as documented already).
2) Fannie accepts false accusations made by Mr H-G, and feels that she's found something to discredit people in these false allegations. This after pleading to be cleared of similar accusations, and simular evidence (though Mr H-G still has yet to provide evidence that I am Christian and Ghengis Cohen).

Funny, where did he go? He's probably working or something. No doubt he will explain his evidence of me being Christian and Ghengis Cohen, though he seems to have forgotten to include it so far :)

Fannie, so do you accept when I say that Christian (a.k.a Ghengis Cohen) lives in a different state than me? Just at my word? Like you pleaded (and I did) accept your word on the matter?

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Notice the selfishness here. Nothing can go on until OnLawn is done expressing his frustrations.

Of course he is here to bring reason and respect to the argument's in marriage. The only trouble with that is he can't belly up to the bar with anyhting substantial, so these diversions is all he's got.

Fannie said...

Can I just say how much I love that On Lawn has been caught being abusive, UNDER HIS OWN DEFINITION OF ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR!


On Lawn, please direct me to where I said I think you are Christian. I don't know if you are Christian, Ghengis, Shmingus or Fuckwad. I have said that I wouldn't be entirely surprised if you were, but there is no way for me to know if you are the same person.

Stop trying to bring me into this.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

While we are coming clean, why not explain where Renee went? Surely you don't think that lame ass reason you gave about her leaving because she's pregnant would fly, did you? Last time I checked being pregnant didn't keep people from blogging.

I expect she was getting too friendly for OnLawn's liking.

Fannie said...

"But as Op-Ed notes, the more one tries to talk to Fannie the more she just talks about herself and drops the subject at hand. Everything insults her, and nothing is right. The selfish attitude continues to show her underlying...[more ad hominem attacks]"

It is certainly funny now that "On Lawn" is certainly doing a lot of talking about himself now that he's been accused of what I was accused of.

He, of course, deserves the right to defend himself. Who here denied that? No one. He threatened to write a piece exposing John H-G and myself as "hypocrites" or "liars" or whatever evil thing he can think of- doing THAT is a far cry from a mere defense.

So, On Lawn, which is it gonna be? A defense of yourself or an attack?

And, which one is abusive?

Jane Know said...

Wow. It's a busy day for me at work today, and unfortunately I don't have time to keep up with all the posts.

On Lawn, you're welcome. I hope you follow my example, and in the future allow comments on your blog, even ones you don't agree with.

One thing I managed to catch while sifting through all these comments was this quote by On Lawn, "By saying gays could get married anywhere in the world I really mean they can get married to each other. As I pointed out, that is met with various degrees of government recognition. That is important because marriage existed long before formal governments, and gay marriage long before there was any push for government recognition of it."

You are right. Gays can marry each other. They have been doing so for many, many years in private ceremonies that usually have gone unrecognized by the state or country in which they live. It is almost a given that they will continue to do so. Since this is the case, why continuously deny public and legal recognition of their relationships?

Oh, that's right, to keep them marginalized. To keep them in their place as the immoral, absurd people they are, per many of your bloggers. (or you).

On Lawn said...

Fannie,

You realize that you just provided a quote where Op-Ed replied to Not-OK.

You promised a quote where... "Remember when you and Op-Ed told me not to defend myself, and that it was selfish of me to do so?" Hmmm, was that a slip?

And you found a quote from me stating that you think people are insulting you all the time.

Are you really saying that means you can't defend yourself?

Are you saying I shouldn't post what I've found out here about your false accusations?

I just want to know.

This Is Not Ok said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
On Lawn said...

Since this is the case, why continuously deny public and legal recognition of their relationships?

As stated before, I don't. I am for a giving them government recognition and benefits. I just see it as a different program with a different purpose than marriage.

I don't think you disagree, when you look at it from the angle that we see marriage having different purposes. We disagree which purpose to use moving forward, but do you see that they are different?

And you are welcome, we don't delete comments we disagree with, and have created meta-topic threads for comments which attempt to get into personal throwdowns. Thanks for the concern though, and I appreciate you noting it so I could explain it again.

I think the only thing we actually censor is profanity, and that has nothing to do with whether the argument is something we disagree with or not.

Fannie said...

"You realize that you just provided a quote where Op-Ed replied to Not-OK.

You promised a quote where... "Remember when you and Op-Ed told me not to defend myself, and that it was selfish of me to do so?" Hmmm, was that a slip?"


Ah, another diversion. Shocking. No, it wasn't a slip. Was it a slip for you to insinuate that I am TINO, when you already "apologized" for doing so?

Although Op-Ed is replying to TINO he is clearly referring to ME. As he said my name and talked about me being selfish.

Stop playing stupid On Lawn.



"And you found a quote from me stating that you think people are insulting you all the time."

I like how you left out the part where you agreed with Op-Ed that I think everything is "all about Fannie." Was that purposeful?

What you said doesn't mean I can't defend myself, because I damn well will defend myself against baseless attacks that you have leveled. But you and Op-Ed clearly insinuated that it was selfish of me to do so. Which makes your behavior abusive.

You've been busted, On Lawn.


What false accusations have I made On Lawn?

You are such a fucking pathological liar, I can't even believe I've wasted this much time with you.

On Lawn said...

on-lawn would be hard pressed to fine a human being with more intelligence and more integrity with a harder work ethic and a sense of humor while remaining so humble.

I'm glad to hear such good words about Fannie. I hope she can extend that good nature to her website and to these discussions rather than engage in the fruitless (and in this case hypocritical) attacks.

If she appreciated my apology on the matter, she can practice those virtues you speak of by extending the same. So can Mr H-G.

On Lawn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fannie said...

"why are we spending all this time on fannie?"

Good question.

Because it's all about me, of course. Well, according to On Lawn and Op-Ed. Who act obsessed with me and are obsessed with trying to discredit me with their abusive tactics.

On Lawn said...

I deleted the last comment because Fannie did address the question it re-iterated.

Thanks for doing so.

Fannie asked, "I like how you left out the part where you agreed with Op-Ed that I think everything is "all about Fannie." Was that purposeful?"

The answer is yes. I left it out on purpose because it be redundant to state that along with my summary, "And you found a quote from me stating that you think people are insulting you all the time."

Of course, you find it important to note also but it only continues to state the point that in no wise were you told to stop defending yourself.

This Is Not Ok said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
On Lawn said...

Now just pause and note, I'm defending Fannie and that she can defend herself. I've not yet seen such courtesy from here.

Why are we taking only about Fannie in all of this?

Mr H-G is the one who made the false accusation in the first place. Fannie is just the one who can't seem to decide if it is meaningful or not.

That is funny, Mr H-G makes a gaffe and Fannie openly sets herself up for the fall. Why? I don't know, she did sort of condemn his actions. If she fully condemned them she would not only have focused the attention back on Mr H-G, she would have shown a consistent position with what she has written on her own site for the past few days.

Nor has anyone noted the evidence I presented (as en example) of how Mr H-G was caught persisting in a lie on Opine. No "that's not what happened", or "evil accusations". Just letting him go condemned for lying.

Its that kind of "unity" that makes sock-puppets and routines like this one all the same.

Yes Fannie, I think you got the short end of the stick here.

On Lawn said...

if you had your way you'd be committing those crimes.

And false accusations like that. You all really should stick up for yourselves more, and quit letting each other drag you down with their own false accusations.

Its a common fallacy that people who are out to defend marriage are ready to form lynch mobs against homosexuals. Its like me associating you all with NAMBLA (note how Jane reacted to when I was careful to say she didn't endorse them). Someone has to stick up for what is right, and quit letting each other get away with such flagrant lies.

This Is Not Ok said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
On Lawn said...

Not-OK,

If I am guilty of supporting someones ability to choose their life and their lovers, then I am guilty.

But one can hardly state that is the oppressive totalitarian view, rather the person who says gays cannot decide for themselves would be.

Jane Know said...

I suspect this that either:

a)Christian, the alleged aspiring lawyer-to-be, either flunked the Bar and is now too embarrassed to post, (he stopped posting around the time Bar exam results came out)

or

b) On Lawn is "Christian"

either one would not surprise me at all.

This Is Not Ok said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

"i must not understand what you're saying and/or missed one of your prior posts."

Don't feel bad; NOBODY understand him.

On Lawn said...

Jane,

I am not Christian, (which is his real name). But it is no real bother if you think so. I am not an aspiring lawyer, I work in a technical field and am already practicing the craft.

Honestly, I haven't heard from Christian lately but I did hear he did pass the bar.

Seriously though, Christian is a very competent arguer who I esteem. I believe you all know he has a child with autism, which breaks my heart. As he points out that is a likely death knell to his marriage if he doesn't tend to his marriage and family.

We are all out trying to save the marriage institution, and the fight is much more immediate for him.

I think he could use your prayers and well wishes too, if you don't mind me saying.

This Is Not Ok said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
On Lawn said...

where's the not allowing gay people to decide aspect of my argument?

I hope you are not making that argument, actually. I think you would agree it is totalitarian though.

These are the quotes which make me worried about such a view...

--"On-Lawn is suggesting that gay people have sex with straight people. The most insulting of all anti-ssm arguments. It is sub-human and cruel. He promotes psychological rape, which makes him a threat to society."--

--"So when you suggest that gay people marry opposite sex people, you are then suggesting they have sex with them. Gay people do not want to have sex with opposite sex people...they're gay. Do not deliberately leave out my using of the word psychological. "Psychological rape" is what I said."--

--"you suggested that gay people have sex with the opposite sex in the name of wanting a family. these are not good traits, but rather dangerous."--

On Lawn said...

wtf does this have to do with anything?

It answers Jane's theory, that

-- "a)Christian, the alleged aspiring lawyer-to-be, either flunked the Bar and is now too embarrassed to post, (he stopped posting around the time Bar exam results came out)

or

b) On Lawn is "Christian""--

On Lawn said...

i'm looking to hear why you think people who choose to view marriage as being a romantic union first (you did say that you were about letting people choose) should not be able to marry.

Remember that it is an important distinction between getting married and getting government recognition of that marriage. Please let me know if you mean just getting married or government recognition of the marriage.

For now I will assume the latter, but you can correct me.

Mostly because that puts the cart before the horse. Romance is fleeting, but the bonds we have with our children remain forever.

Also there are many who feel that the government should stay out of our bedrooms and not regulate romance.

Those are just two reasons.

On Lawn said...

many heterosexual couples choose not to have children and they're allowed to marry.

Again, its a privacy thing. The government does not presume to ask if people are planning or not planning on having children. And even if they did, what do you do with all those best laid plans that don't work out the way you planned?

This isn't child regulation, it is not about forcing people to have children. Its about encouraging them to be committed because having children makes your relationship live on its own. That commitment is for the sake of the child who is an incarnation of that relationship.

Again best laid plains, but it is at least a good plan with a valuable ideal. other plans have other ideals which are valuable, but not the same value and ideal.

This Is Not Ok said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jane Know said...

"Mostly because that puts the cart before the horse. Romance is fleeting, but the bonds we have with our children remain forever.

Also there are many who feel that the government should stay out of our bedrooms and not regulate romance."

Fundies always talk about "putting the cart before the horse" when they want to "save the children."

again, I have to stop and wonder when they will stop being so concerned with the unborn and focus on quality of life of children, and the children who eventually grow into adults. I also wonder if, since they love chldren so much, they are willing to love even the little children who grow up into gay adults. Because that's what all of us were at some point.

More importantly, I have to wonder why he believes "romance is fleeting." Because I expect that when he got married, his intent was to honor his vows to his wife more so than any unborn potential children they were going to have.

Or... maybe he is just talking about the romance of his own marriage being fleeting... One has to wonder.

Jane Know said...

In short, what is the point of honoring hypothetical unborn children MORE than the already-living? Seems shitty if you ask me.

Paul Jamieson said...

Hosty is at it again

The very definition of someone slowly going insane

And all these people riding along with him

Hey Hosty - have you threatened anyone lately?

How is Tom Lang doing since I shut down his blog?

I see all Aaron's false alias's have gone away - John, Lula etc

You are the funniest man on the planet

Fannie said...

190 comments later and we have yet more evidence of the answer to Jane's (rhetorical) question:

No. The Opiners do not opine how they say they opine.

Paul Jamieson said...

I am no "Opiner"

I belong to no one

I am a concerned parent of three in Massachusetts who was threatened by John Hosty and his minions and am standing up against his ilk

Never let anyone intimidate you

Even when they call you liar, Nazi, Klansman or worse, publish your home telephone number and behoove gay activists to call you and harass you. Or send magazine subscriptions to your house in your 11 year old's name

or intimate that you know personal details about my deceased parents and other family members in order to scare or intimidate you

or describe to others what your house looks like and exactly where you live in order to insinuate you have driven by said house - THAT ALONE IS SCARY ENOUGH

but finally, when you are standing outside on a warm sunny night watering your wife's garden and a car moves slowly past you with 2 men looking squarely at you 3 or 4 times over the course of the summer

These are the things John Hosty is responsible for

that is reality folks and that is why I have reported him and Aaron Toleos of Know Thy Neighbor to my local police.

This Is Not Ok said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fannie said...

I don't know if your allegations are true, Paul, but I don't support threats of physical violence either. No matter what side is doing it.

Paul Jamieson said...

Oh I am so sorry

Why did they do these things to me?

I signed the marriage petition in Massachusetts

and when I heard about Know thy Neighbor I went to their website and was outraged, first off because of the intimidating aspect of it, and secondly because the creator lived 5 minutes from my house.

I got on their blog and pretty much said what i have said all along -

LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!

This was tantamount to a hate crime in the eyes of Hosty et al

I never saw so much invective released by so many over the simple fact that I wanted to vote.

They couldn't understand that the only way to really settle anything on the SSM argument is to let everyone have an equal chance to give their opinion!!!!!!!!

so the slurs came,and then the threats came when I wouldn't back down

Its really just a guy with way too much time on his hands who has a desperate, selfish need to save the world. His own fantasy world.

John said...

"They couldn't understand that the only way to really settle anything on the SSM argument is to let everyone have an equal chance to give their opinion!!!!!!!!"


IT IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION.

You lost; get over it.

On Lawn said...

Not-OK,

i am saying that gay people should be able to marry people of the same sex because they love each other and have that marriage recognized by the feds.

Its a relationship which should be recognized, but marriage is something more. To illustrate in a small way:

gay people should not have to be in a heterosexual marriage if they want a family

I believe as you put it there, I agree with your statement.

I hope you appreciate as I expound why.

There are many family relationship bonds, marriage is unique among them. Each are loving bonds, each encourage commitment and support.

But a marriage bond recognizes that a family is beginning. I am related to my wife by blood, because of our children. If our marriage dissolves, we are still related and a family through our children. Marriage is meant to keep the family relationship healthy, committed and loving because of the interest of the children. And the governments interest in the children moves its hand in recognizing the relationship.

That is a firm grounding in something that does not presume romance, it does not presume that romance itself is in need of regulation.

This is a good segue into Jane's comment...

again, I have to stop and wonder when they will stop being so concerned with the unborn and focus on quality of life of children, and the children who eventually grow into adults.

Caring that people set the proper foundation and have the correct expectations of marriage is probably the number one thing we can do to ensure a quality life for those children. This is well established with studies, etc... It is a statistically meaningful distinction between children who are raised in low-conflict intact homes and low-conflict non-intact homes.

Beyond that, I agree that we need to help children in the circumstances they are in. And that is a good encapsulation of a compelling argument for a plan like Reciprocal Beneficiaries. Hawaii has had that plan for a while now, since they were the first to attempt to neuter marriage by judicial decree, they seem to be the most mature in this debate.

Why RB's? Well because they recognize one thing, committed adults who might be raising children. Thats it. Just like how your comment puts it.

Because RB's doesn't focus on homosexuality it has the ability to reach many times more families than CU's and DP's and neutered marriage.

I've honestly never heard someone give me a good reason why CU's and DP's are homosexual exclusive -- honestly. Especially considering the focus on equality and helping non-intact family arrangements. I'm not kidding when I say this but the only response I've gotten so far (I perfectly hope that there is a better response I have not yet seen) amounts to they can fend for themselves and try for these rights on their own. But that flies in the face of civil rights altogether.

Just my two cents on the matter. I think Jane has a really good argument there for extending benefits. People who might disagree are Rausch and Carpenter who have argued in the past (and I think persuasively so) that marriage lite amounts to watering down our ability to have a marriage ideal.

It is a conversation worth having.

Paul Jamieson said...

John,

I mean Aaron

"You lost; get over it"

I never got a chance to play. How could I have "lost"?

John said...

"How could I have "lost"?"

Read the papers. Read the court's opinion. Hell, just ask John Hosty-Grinell to send you a copy of the letter (suitable for framing) that he got from the State Legislature.

Jane Know said...

On Lawn,
I agree that an RB plan would definitely be a good idea for two people raising children together who aren't husband-wife or same-sex couple. Definitely. Like, say a mother and grandmother. Or even a friend.

But you do recognize that marriage provides for more than just protection of children, right? First and foremost, it is a relationship between two adults. It is a contract that protects either of them and their finances in the event they decide to no longer stay together. And it protects them so long as they stay together. THAT is why marriage is necessary for same-sex couples.

There are already documented cases in civil union states of "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" causing problems for same-sex couples, who are still not paying equal rates or getting double-charged for things that "married" heterosexual couples are not. How is that fair?

Paul, please do not use my blog as a forum to vent your hatred for John Hosty. I've seen you fanatically post on other sites. If you want a forum, take it to the courts or the police, as you have done, but don't bring it here.

For the record, I do not approve of threats of violence against anyone, opponent or not. There are civil ways to make social change a reality real or perceived threats of violence is not one of them. But I don't want this blog to turn into a KTN vs. Paul Jameison pissing contest.