Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyJune 23rd, 2008
I hesitate to write a new posting about David Benkof. I’m of the impression that much of his effort in writing anti-gay rants is based in a desire to see his name in print. However, I also recognize that he has been fairly successful in getting his views heard and I believe it is necessary to provide clear documentation of the lies and deceptions that he employs.
I’ll not argue with his views, because to do so is pointless. Absent my ability to persuade him that G-d did not write the Torah, there are no convincing or compelling arguments that would sway his opinions. But I will challenge his “facts”.
If this posting seems a bit dry, that’s because its intent is to provide an update to the examples of dishonesty illustrated in our report, David Benkof: Behind the Mask
Misrepresentation and Deceit
In an opinion piece which ran in the Providence Journal on June 18 in which Benkof argues that “our society should keep its highest place of honor for families that represent the best configuration for the raising of children — families with both a mother and a father”, Benkof said the following:
Now, many gays and lesbians would like more, if not all, young people to investigate the dress and behavior of both sexes. They would favor social change that leads more children to be attracted to and to experiment sexually with members of the same sex. And certainly, they think anything that reduces sexually stereotyped career goals and social interactions is a good thing.
A few gays and lesbians have been open about this attitude. For example, Kate Kendall, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told the Associated Press she felt “elation” when she heard about a study showing that children of same-sex parents “may be somewhat more likely to reject notions of rigid sexual orientation.”
I was curious whether Kate Kendall had “this attitude” about sexual experimentation and dress and behavior investigation. So I asked.
I’m sure it will surprise no one that Benkof was mischaracterizing Kendall’s position.
Wow, I have not seen this. We certainly support eliminating sexism and discrimination based on gender non-conformity but the rest of this is utter distortion and clearly intended to inflame.
kate
False Claims of Columnist and Column
In a June 23 posting on his site, Benkof said the following:
It’s not about marriage per se, but my column for Pride month that questions what was so great about the Stonewall rebellion is up at the Web site of the Macon, Georgia Telegraph. The column is consistent with my complaint that gays and lesbians are so focused on being “equal” that they have no compassion for who they hurt, whether it’s orphans, Boy Scouts, or in this case, New York City cops.
Benkof provided a link to the “column” that he was discussing which “was up at” the Georgia Telegraph. The link did not lead to a column in the paper. It led to a letter to the editor.
Although Benkof had indicated on June 16th on this site that he would change his deceptive language about being a columnist to “writer whose columns have been seen in”, in this letter to the editor, Benkof again used the following self identification
David Benkof is a columnist for several gay newspapers around the country. He blogs at GaysDefendMarriage.com and can be reached at DavidBenkof@aol.com
Stonewall Deceptions
In his letter to the editor, Benkof presents a description of the Stonewall Riots that seems inconsistent with other reports. In his rush to criticize gay people (this time for having no compassion), Benkof said the following
But the circumstances of gay life in the late 1960s, while certainly pain-filled and oppressive, did not justify spilling blood.
Spilling blood? What blood?
The term “spilling blood” generally refers to loss of life. But no one died at Stonewall.
Could Benkof be unaware of that fact? Perhaps he’s just not well versed in the facts?
As it turns out, there is an article on PlanetOut.com about the Stonewall Riots written by none other than David Bianco, which was Benkof’s name prior to his anti-gay rebirth.
Eyewitnesses recalled that the scene outside the bar was at first campy and festive. Patrons were joined by tourists and passers-by, and everyone cheered when a gay person emerged from the bar, dismissed by the police. But when a paddy wagon arrived and the police loaded the bar’s staff and the three drag queens inside, the crowd on the street grew surly. One person threw a rock through a window, and eventually garbage cans, bottles, and even a parking meter were used to assault the building. Someone set a fire with lighter fluid. By newspaper accounts, 13 people were arrested and three police officers sustained minor injuries in the confrontation.
Let’s see how that compares with Benkof’s current description.
Benkof: The demonstrations were sparked by a legitimate police raid on an unlicensed, Mafia-run bar in New York City’s Greenwich Village the night of June 27, 1969.
Bianco: The charge was illegal sale of alcohol. It was the second time that week the bar had been targeted by the police, and other gay bars had also been raided in prior weeks.
Incidentally, the police involved in the raid tell a different story, it was a raid by out-of-precint officers using a fraudulent “tip” about a police officer being stabbed.
Benkof: At least four cops were injured in the unrest, suffering maladies like broken bones and a bloody facial wound. One cop told a reporter he was “almost decapitated” by a thick slab of sharp glass a rioter threw “like a discus” at his throat.
Bianco: By newspaper accounts, 13 people were arrested and three police officers sustained minor injuries in the confrontation.
The “reporter” was Jerry Lisker writing a purple prose piece for the New York Daily News entitled “Homo Nest Raided, Queen Bees Are Stinging Mad“. Even the slightest glance at this piece reveals that accuracy was the last thing on Lisker’s agenda (“Queens, princesses and ladies-in-waiting began hurling anything they could get their polished, manicured fingernails on. Bobby pins, compacts, curlers, lipstick tubes and other femme fatale missiles were flying in the direction of the cops. The war was on. The lilies of the valley had become carnivorous jungle plants.”)
Benkof: Protesters doused the bar’s facade and some of its interior with lighter fluid, which they ignited with matches. Had this unconscionable arson engulfed the building, we’d be commemorating the Stonewall Massacre.
Bianco: Someone set a fire with lighter fluid.
The claims about the lighter fluid appear to be from an account by Dick Leitch, a leader in Mattachine. However, the officers who were in the bar that night – dispute that version.
Neither of them saw anyone – drag queens or otherwise – trying to burn down Stonewall with cops inside.
Benkof: Even so, surely we’ve chosen the wrong memory through which to unify a diverse community that includes many segments – like lesbian Quakers and gay Republicans – unsympathetic to rioting as a political technique.
Bianco: Estimates suggest that, at the time of the riots, there were a few dozen gay organizations in the United States. Within a few years, the number had risen to more than 400.
There is no question that the Stonewall Riots were instrumental in changing the gay community. They became a rallying point around which the community gained a new perspective, not as weak victims begging for less-harsh treatment but as citizens demanding fair and equal treatment.
David Bianco knew this. So does David Benkof, however much he may wish it were not so.
Given the inconsistencies between the stories, I’d have to state that either David Bianco or David Benkof shows contempt for factual accuracy. I’m inclined to think both.
UPDATE:I completely forgot to include the following:
Identity Crisis
As I’ve said before, Benkof identifies in whatever manner he thinks will give his statements the most credibility. And, yet again, he provides an example in his letter to the editor:
I call on my fellow gays and lesbians to create holidays and events that honor them…
Benkof is quite clear that he isn’t gay when he wishes to trash gays on conservative websites. But if he wants to stake claim to the right to criticize from within he magically becomes part of his “fellow gays and lesbians”.
Talk about chutzpah (and I do mean that in a pejorative way).
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
David Benkof
June 23rd, 2008
I have responses to everything above. I particularly do not understand how I can be responsible for knowing that Kate Kendall disputes the quote she made to an Associated Press reporter, since she refuses to respond to my E-mails. But anyone who wants specific reponses to Mr. Kincaid’s lies and deceptions can E-mail me at DavidBenkof@aol.com or invite me to respond openly and freely at the Web site of your choosing.
Evan
June 23rd, 2008
Oh my god, calling a letter to the editor a “column” is the saddest thing I’ve ever seen in my entire life, and I’m including orphans and Kirk Cameron’s career trajectory…
I’m beginning to think this is all a thinly veiled cry for help.
Ben in Oakland
June 23rd, 2008
It is a bit of a waste of time. It is clear from the other 145 postings on the subject of Benokof that ‘truthiness’ is his modus operandi, not truth.
Either can be a path to self validation, which seems to be his real issue, not his concern for marriage.
David
June 23rd, 2008
Timothy,
Your postings are excellent, but they would be even better if you used a spell check.
Examples:
Pursuade should be persuade
Deceipt should be deceit
Precint should be precinct
Scism should be schism
Jake
June 23rd, 2008
David,
Do you care to name the AP reporter and the article in which Kim states this? I’d love to see it.
Jake
June 23rd, 2008
Sorry, that should be “Kate” not “Kim”
Timothy Kincaid
June 23rd, 2008
David,
I know. I suck at spelling. Sometimes on the longer pieces I write it in word first so I can spell check.
And English spelling makes no sense. Shouldn’t receipt and deceit be spelled the same? And what about scissors and schism?
Sigh.
Timothy Kincaid
June 23rd, 2008
Jake,
Unless I’m mistaken, Benkof’s source for that quote was NARTH
http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html
Emily K
June 23rd, 2008
People, PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.
that is all.
Fiona
June 23rd, 2008
Thanks for doing all this research Timothy. I know he is a troll and feeding trolls only make them talk/write more, but this guy has been spewing so much anti-gay rhetoric the past few days that it has actually become alarming. It’s hard to decide what to do. Feed the troll and it just keeps him going, but the more he types, the more he exposes his lies and deceit. It’s a fine line to walk. Thanks again Timothy.
Wayne Besen
June 23rd, 2008
The following quote came from Mr. Bianko/Bingcoff on the Truth Wins Out website. I think it says all you need to know about him and where he comes from. Additionally, he was caught misquoting the ACLU today. It can be read on his website, although I hesitate to give him any traffic.
“Mishkav zachar (gay sex) is such a horrible sin that you are commanded to submit to being killed (yehareg v’al yaavor) rather than committing it.”
— David Benkof/Bianco
Jason D
June 23rd, 2008
Well, I looked up the actual quote, I paid the 1.50 to get the AP article and here’s what was actually said in the article:
Some gays worry that the report, in the latest issue of the American Sociological Review, will provide ammunition for opponents of adoption and foster-parenting by homosexuals.
However, leaders of national groups supporting gay families welcomed the article.
“I’m thrilled that they’re tackling these issues,” said Aimee Gelnaw, executive director of the Family Pride Coalition, who is raising a 16-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter with her lesbian partner in Oak Park, Ill.
“Of course our kids are going to be different,” Gelnaw said. “They’re growing up in a different social context.”
Kate Kendall, head of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, also is raising two children with her partner.
“There’s only one response to a study that children raised by lesbian and gay parents may be somewhat more likely to reject notions of rigid sexual orientation — that response has to be elation,” Kendall said.
She urged lesbians and gays to overcome any uneasiness they might have about the report.
“If in fact our kids are somewhat more likely to identify as lesbian and gay — if we’re ashamed of that outcome, it means we’re ashamed of ourselves,” Kendall said.
Now, that’s not nearly what Benkof is claiming Kate said. He butchered her quote to suggest she said something she clearly didn’t say.
Benkof claims that Kate agrees with this:
“Now, many gays and lesbians would like more, if not all, young people to investigate the dress and behavior of both sexes. They would favor social change that leads more children to be attracted to and to experiment sexually with members of the same sex. And certainly, they think anything that reduces sexually stereotyped career goals and social interactions is a good thing.”
When, in fact, you can’t really get that from what she did say. I took the quote to mean that kids raised by gays are less likely to hate gays. Not having your kids hate you and reject you is something any parent would be elated to find out.
It’s a small twist of the truth, but that’s how hacks like Bianco succeed, one minor twist at a time.
a. mcewen
June 23rd, 2008
oooh, David. You did distort Kendall’s statement. She didn’t say A WORD about sexual activity.
David Roberts
June 23rd, 2008
Whatever personal issues he may have, and I suspect he has plenty, it’s obvious that Benkof/Bianco is smart enough to pick a strong contrarian position in order to stand out from the crowd. Our own brief dealings with him suggest he has an insatiable need for attention and control, though that’s hardly news I guess. But seriously, think 6 year old prone to tantrums and he makes perfect sense.
For that very reason I wouldn’t suggest posting much about him if you can avoid it, though Timothy’s simple, direct, factual correction approach is probably the best to use when and if you do. I would suggest that those whose work and words are mangled by Benkof continue to speak up, as he seems to have little or no scruples and will keep doing so if allowed.
I wouldn’t really care about his views if he had some intellectual honesty about him, but his is just a circus act, and I’m not sure it will work for him this time around.
Duncan
June 24th, 2008
I agree widh Timothe dhat dhe tradÃshonal speling ov Inglish simple duz not maek sens. I urj evre’won too caenj too a mor reguelar sistem. I-v been wurking on it for yeers’.
Willie Hewes
June 24th, 2008
Thanks for this. Feeding trolls is bad, exposing liars is good. It’s a narrow line, but I thought this was informative and useful.
zrainswva
June 24th, 2008
Actually, I think feeding the troll could be fun…if it’s done on his own website (so that it doesn’t clutter-up the very informative, well sourced, and stimulating BTB). Believe me, there’s plenty of unsourced opinion on his website to serve as fodder–and he’s already agreed in the previous ‘debate’ that he would respond to all those who questioned his opinions! Perhaps if we keep him very, very busy… Oh well, one can dream! :)
Bruce Garrett
June 24th, 2008
The link did not lead to a column in the paper. It led to a letter to the editor.
You know…Paul Cameron did somewhat the same thing in one of his references in The Medical Consequences Of What Homosexuals Do, when he cited the New England Journal of Medicine, and the cite turned out not to be a peer reviewed article, but a letter to the editor.
Joel
June 24th, 2008
“Timothy,
Your postings are excellent, but they would be even better if you used a spell check.
Examples:
Pursuade should be persuade
Deceipt should be deceit
Precint should be precinct
Scism should be schism”
This is why i dont want to be an english teacher(or someone thats inclined to check grammar). You waste your time trying to fix things that dont need to be fixed(unless it means something else or its unclear).
Joel
June 24th, 2008
Hit in the post button to early, sorry.
“Now, many gays and lesbians would like more, if not all, young people to investigate the dress and behavior of both sexes. They would favor social change that leads more children to be attracted to and to experiment sexually with members of the same sex. And certainly, they think anything that reduces sexually stereotyped career goals and social interactions is a good thing”
Our(Benkhoff’s and mine) moral compasses on this issue point differently. The only thing evil or wrong i see about this is… nothing.
Because…:
Although im not entirely clear of what
“many gays and lesbians would like more, if not all, young people to investigate the dress and behavior of both sexes.”.
I assume it means that gays and lesbians do not necesarily ascribe themselves to a speficic male and female dress code and thus see nothing wrong in a male being a, mmm… a drag queen comes to mind. Or a female being a tomboy.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
As for “They would favor social change that leads more children to be attracted to and to experiment sexually with members of the same sex.” i think it comes with the changing society. Promiscuity+acceptance-of-gay-behavior= possible experimenting because its normal. Albeit i wish condoms were 100% safe i guess to be against this assertion is be against the safe-sex>abstinence model and to some degree, homosexual intercourse. Im against neither so i welcome this assertion.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
And as for “And certainly, they think anything that reduces sexually stereotyped career goals and social interactions is a good thing”
Maybe im off but “reduces sexually stereotyped career goals ” just sounds like sexism or if he means something along the lines of ‘gays would encourage woman(normal ones not the body builder types) to play football with men’ then the statement is just silly.
“Reduces Sexually stereotyped… social interactions is a good thing” Doesnt sound half bad. But i dont see that hapenning anytime soon even IF the world fully accepted homosexuality today.
– – – – – – – – –
SO maybe Kate is upset that hes trying to inflame but i don’t think that shes opposed to the conclusions bekhoff extracted from her ‘elation’ comment.
Evan
June 24th, 2008
Oh look who’s citing David Bianco now…
Porno Pete via Maggie Gallagher!
http://americansfortruth.com/news/redefinition-revolution.html
Nice company Bianco’s keeping.
werdna
June 24th, 2008
Best part of Pete’s reprint of Gallagher’s article:
We’ve taken the liberty of adding quote marks around “marriage†and “wedding,†as in same-sex “marriage,†in our ongoing attempt to preserve the real meaning of words.
It’d be sad if it wasn’t so funny.
Evan
June 24th, 2008
Oh, I know.
Every time I see that, it’s a healthy reminder that we’re fighting the so-called “culture war” against deputized second graders.
AJD
June 24th, 2008
I think it’s important not to feed the troll here. A better way to make a difference would be to write to every newspaper in which Benkof publishes his columns and complain, providing a partial list of his copious lies and maybe a link to the stories on this Web site.
We all know he’s full of crap and obviously self-deluded, but a lot of people don’t know that and are likely to take what he says seriously.
Newspaper editors will take very seriously the strong evidence that he’s a “journalist” of the Stephen Glass variety. It damages any publication’s credibility to publish blatant lies, even unknowingly.
The goal shouldn’t be to change Benkof’s mind, which is probably impossible, but to eliminate his means to spread his lies to the general public.
AJD
June 24th, 2008
Ri:gardi:ng tha ka:ments abav thaet wi: meik thi: I:ngglish leinggwedj mo:r fanetik, Ai prapo:z thaet wi: ada:pt samthi:ng beist a:n thi: Intrnaeshanul Fanetik Aelfabet, aez yu: si: hi:r.
Emily K
June 24th, 2008
“I have never been at a soiree with multiple straight “committed†couples in which someone suggests we take off our clothes and see what happens, but I’m sad to say it’s happened with gay friends in long-term relationships. Of course, I know, many men cheat on their wives. But they almost never define their marriage as something that accommodates adultery.†-ex-gay Benkof
Would any ACTUAL gay people like to point out other wise?
Musicguy
June 24th, 2008
This guy needs help. I can’t believe how much he twists the truth. Thanks for bringing this nonsense to light. It’s obvious that he’s not worth my spit.
a. mcewen
June 24th, 2008
Yes,
I have been to many parties with gay friends where sex is the LAST thing on our minds.
Evan
June 24th, 2008
Actually, ALL of the parties with all my gay friends have absolutely nothing to do with sex, and guess what, Bianco, we’re young, hot, available, and NOT WHORES.
Jealous?
In related news, a gay friend of mine was horrified recently to learn that her straight parents are swingers.
David Benkof
June 24th, 2008
1. I have never heard of an 800-world letter to the editor. If a 100-word piece ran on the “columns” page would that NOT be a letter to the editor?
2. Everyone’s creative spellings of my name especially those of Wayne Besen – is that supposed to insult me? Is it suppposed to be clever? funny? I always learned that making fun of someone’s name was childish behavior. Maybe in certain gay circles it’s a mark of sophistication. Well, whatever floats your….
Wayne Besen
June 24th, 2008
Dear Mr. Bianco:
It has been confirmed that you no longer write for the Dallas Voice or Q-Notes. Neither publication knew you were an anti-gay activist before you were hired. You mislead them. Now you are unemployed.
Try telling the truth sometime. You’ll find it makes life much easier.
Jason D
June 24th, 2008
the gay parties I’ve been to, it’s considered jokingly scandalous if two single people end up KISSING during the party!
And the usual “well I don’t know any straight people who are into swinging” is amusing. Gee, I wonder why a celibate, self-hating, anti-gay, “”bisexual””, scold would have a hard time getting swingers to come out to him?? Gee, I can’t imagine why they would avoid talking to him about this facet of their relationship. I suppose the fact that a) it’s none of Benkoff’s business, b) there’s a social stigma against swinging, and c) Dave doesn’t exactly come across as Mister Open-Minded-Let’s-Talk has NOTHING to do with it.
rusty
June 24th, 2008
in response to benkof’s ‘the linguistics of gay marriage’
i ask mr b. . . .
How about a discourse on the word ‘bastard’?
but first here are some interesting, yet dated facts based on the 2000 census
Facts About Single Parent Familiesnn By PWP, International
http://www.parentswithoutpartners.org/Support1.htm
——————————————————————————–
· As of 2000 an estimated 13.5 million single parents had custody of 21.7 million children under 21 years of age whose other parent lived somewhere else.
· The proportion of the population made up by married couples with children decreased from 40% in 1970 to 24% in 2000.
· One parent families numbered over 12 million in 2000.
· Single parent households increased from 9% in 1990 to %16 of all households by 2000.
David, you are arguing that Gay marriage will be the downfall of traditional marriage. Two loving people coming together to profess their love and set in legal terms to garner the benefits of making such a committment is not going to strike down the world of Traditional Marriage.
With your continued arguements about ‘mother and father’ families, it seems to me that you are doing a great disservice to all those single parent households who have successfully completed raising their children on their own. When a parent dies, leaves or just neglects parental responsibilities and the other parent takes on the duties of parenthood, the children still come from a ‘family’. You are trying to define ‘family’. Take some time and do some research on family dynamics pre-WWII. Most families came together and raised children in pods/litters. Families supported each other. And sometimes ‘family’ members were not connected by blood or marriage.
Yes we live in a world where males are refered to as fathers and females are referred to as mothers. But we also live in a world where many children may not celebrate mother’s day or father’s day because of circumstances beyond their control. Children are now living with grandparent(s), neighbors, single moms, two moms, two dads, one dad, a dad and a mom, step-parents, siblings, aunts, uncles. . .it is hoped that whereever a child lives and grows up, he or she is wanted and loved, cared for, and is encouraged to fullfill dreams.
Families are not limited to one design or a specific set of criteria. They never have been and never will. And when you, David, try to define family, and there are children that come from families don’t fit your definition, tell me how they might feel.
I honor the product that has come about the process you have created through your blog. It is making people think. But again, it is disturbing: your continual rants seem very dismissive and demeaning to many people, not just LGBT folk, but straight folk who don’t fall into your little, very little controlling box and are also very disrespectful. Not positive traits for such a devout Jew.
Timothy Kincaid
June 24th, 2008
Benkof says on his site that
…others support [gay marriage], but want to be very careful to reinforce the marriage idea by bringing same-sex couples into it, rather than destroying it through a rash redefinition.
His example of this is Jonathan Rauch.
Now I’ve no idea what Benkof means by “rash redefinition”, but on June 21, 2008, the Wall Street Journal printed an article by Jonathan Rauch entitled “Gay Marriage is Good for America”.
Perhaps Benkof is referencing where Rauch says “gay marriage requires only few and modest changes to existing family law” or perhaps it’s “In 2008, denying gay Americans the opportunity to marry is not only inhumane, it is unsustainable.”
Yes, Rauch wants no rash redefinition. He prefers the “conservative – in fact, traditional – grounds that gay souls and straight society are healthiest when sex, love and marriage all walk in step.”
So I certainly agree with Rauch when he says, “More ceremonies will follow, at least until November, when gay marriage will go before California’s voters. They should choose to keep it.”
Yes. Lets.
Evan
June 24th, 2008
“Everyone’s creative spellings of my name especially those of Wayne Besen – is that supposed to insult me? Is it suppposed to be clever? funny?”
Whatever Bianco, you have a stage name for your anti-gay dog and pony show.
chrisb
June 25th, 2008
I have to agree with the “Don’t feed the troll” sentiments expressed here. In my regular blog reading, it has become apparent (and Bianco/Benkof/Douchebag has admitted) that he runs an RSS feed looking for Google News hits containing his name. If that’s not a desperate plea for attention, I don’t know what is.
I do, however, appreciate this site continuing to record the factual errors and lies he makes.
Ben in Oakland
June 25th, 2008
Mr. Benkof: you must understand that people use creative mis-spellings of your name not they they think they are being clever or polite– they’re not– but out of frsutration because you seems to be a very annoying person, and you are unfortunately not in the same room, so they can’t bitch-slap some honesty or consistency out of you, or to help you to see that your self-hatred, justfied and sustained by your religion, is your path to self-validation that being gay is not a good thing to be.
forgive my armchair analysis, but it seems to me that it really bothers you, as a gay-man-who-wants-to-be-straight-but-isn’t, that other gay people don’t share your self-image, or its needs for validation that being gay is not a good thing to be. You may believe that the prejudice against gay people has some basis in reality, or that G disapproves, or some other nonsense, but it all boils down to prejudice, whether disguised by religious belief or admitted for what it is. I believe that it is only the myth of heterosexual superiority, which supports the structure of heterosexual privilege, rather than any reality about gay people.
and that we as gay people feel
David Benkof
June 25th, 2008
Timothy- What evidence do you have that NARTH was my source? NARTH lies about everything including me. I would never use them as a source. It is unbelievably irresponsible to make up facts out of thin air that make me look bad, then say “if I’m not mistaken” as if that excuses me. You have to have a good faith basis to do what you did with NARTH, and I’d like you to say what it was.
I love it when Wayne Besen criticizes a statement I make that literally anyone knowledgeable about Jewish law would make. Besen is Jewish, and yet he claims that I am the one who is self-hating. Hmmm….
I keep seeing more and more of you sad people misspell my names in various ways, as if that will hurt my feelings or expose my hypocrisy or… something. I am certain that a neutral person would think it reflects worse on you than it does on me, so go ahead. I’m afraid to let you in on this secret but it actually helps me when you misspell my name in one of your lies about me, because that means it won’t turn up in google. So keep doing it, I don’t mind.
Those of you who think Timothy has done a wonderful job of making me marginal are just clueless. It’s true he’s gotten some gay-press outlets to drop me, but I’m doing better in the mainstream press than ever before. You can read in tomorrow (Thursday’s) San Francisco Chronicle some of the ways LGBT people have no idea what marriage is. If I end my gay press writing (which I will depending on the decisions of two editors at big gay papers) I will have several more hours per month to devote to mainstream papers. I’ve already had pieces in 9 of the top 25 metropolitan dailies, including 4 of the top 10. I’d like those numbers to go to at least 15 and 7, respectively, and now I’ll have more time to make that work. You thought you were helping the gay marriage cause? Keep helping! It helps me more than anything.
EmilyK-
One of the men at the soiree is one of the most prominent gay-press journalists in the country. If you E-mail me, I can tell you his name. Please don’t force me to publicly reveal that he and his partner, even if they’re monogamous in the gay sense, are not sexually exclusive.
Wayne-
I never wrote for Q-Notes, only for the paper they absorbed, The Front Page. As for the Dallas Voice, they have commissioned six pieces from me and run two. I am still negotiating with them what will happen with the other four; the editor is out sick today. But it is correct they have informed me they will not purchase more than those six, which I am fine with because it frees me up to write at least three op-eds per week for the mainstream newspapers that have been purchasing my work at a nice clip (had a piece on Obama in the Santa Monica Daily News yesterday).
chrisb-
I am sure you won’t believe me because everyone keeps saying I’m a liar, but I’ve seen the phrase “RSS feed” and never knew what it meant, much less fed one, or was fed by one, or whatever.
Ben in Oakland
June 25th, 2008
damn thing posted before I was ready.
Strike the last line. here’s the ending.
“I stand unalterably opposed to any differential treatment of or attitudes towards, gay people, especially if enshrined in law, for one simple reason:
All of it is based on two lies: 1) that heterosexuality is superior, right, and holy, and 2) that because this is about sex– at least what it appears to be for the gay haters– that it actually MATTERS.
Mr. benkof, if you and the people who believe as you do could put the same energy into preventing war, educating others, and feeding people that you put into your obsession of what makes my dick hard, what a better world this would be.
And people on this website might be very nice to you, instead.
Musicguy
June 25th, 2008
Interesting how Mr. B (I don’t want to misspell his name, lest he become upset) didn’t bother to respond to the Jonathan Rauch bit that Timothy posted. This guy is drowning in his own pool of lies and half truths. He doesn’t even know where to start anymore.
He’ll keep writing, but eventually no reputable paper will publish his drivel. I give it until the end of the year, if that!
chrisb
June 25th, 2008
Ack, I was wrong. Benkof has created Google News Alerts (not RSS feeds) containing his name. I stand by the sentiment though.
Timothy Kincaid
June 25th, 2008
My speculation about Benkof’s source was just a guess based on the following search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22kate+kendall%22+%22may+be+somewhat+more+likely+to+reject+notions+of+rigid+sexual+orientation%22
Of course, I could have been mistaken. Concerned Women for America has the same quote. It may be purely coincidental that NARTH has an article updated in February that seeks to make a point quite similar to Benkof’s by using the same quote.
And it’s certainly possible that Benkof has had the AP article sitting in his files since 2001 and didn’t get it from an anti-gay source at all.
Evan
June 25th, 2008
“I’m afraid to let you in on this secret but it actually helps me when you misspell my name in one of your lies about me, because that means it won’t turn up in google. So keep doing it, I don’t mind.”
Oh Jesus Christ, fine:
David Benkof
David Benkof
David Benkof
David Benkof
David Benkof
David Benkof
David Benkof
David Benkof
David Benkof
David Benkof
David Benkof
David Benkof
David Benkof
Is that better, Mr. Bianco?
Jason D
June 25th, 2008
“I’ve already had pieces in 9 of the top 25 metropolitan dailies, including 4 of the top 10. I’d like those numbers to go to at least 15 and 7, respectively, and now I’ll have more time to make that work. You thought you were helping the gay marriage cause? Keep helping! It helps me more than anything.”
Looks like we’ll just have to inform the mainstream press that they’re aiding a self-hating, judgemental liar. I realize that places like The Enquirer and Weekly World News will be happy, others, probably not so much.
David Benkof
June 25th, 2008
Musicguy I’m not familiar with the Rauch piece, but I’d love to read and respond to it. He’s one of the few leaders of the marriage equality movement who really understands what marriage is. If you post it somewhere at GaysDefendMarriage.com, I’ll be happy to read it and respond. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
chrisB-
Oh, yes I love Google News alerts! Are RSS feeds better? what are they? how do I learn how they work? Thanks.
Timothy-
As for the Kendall quote I don’t remember where I got it from, but I’m certain it wasn’t an anti-gay source, which would be terribly irresponsible. I don’t want to get caught taking my sources from some site that also talks about Gay Bowel Syndrome and whatever. My friends know I’m the King of Googling, plus as a Ph.D. student at NYU I have online access to dozens if not hundreds of databases of newspapers, magazines, and journals that contain oodles of information that normal Web users cannot search through. I don’t really understand your critique, are you saying Kendall didn’t really say what I quoted her as saying? Or are you saying that your low-tech searching skills turned up NARTH, so you thought that must be where I got it? Is it possible you owe me an apology? Or is that too painful for you? Because I promise not to gloat.
Jason D-
Be my guest. Unlike the rags you guys have been contacting in the gay press, no mainstream newspaper would not take a call from a pro-choice group complaining about the ethics of a pro-life columnist seriously without giving the columnist a chance to respond. I am very comfortable with my ethics and honesty and I have done nothing wrong among the things cited by Timothy Kincaid except use the phrase “until they relent” with Ed Murray, which I have apologized for, and say “latter” instead of “middle” due to an editing error with Jonathan Rauch, which I immediately corrected once it was pointed out. At the same time, Timothy’s “expose” is filled with lies and distortions that I can demonstrate easily, which will immediately show the newspapers you guys are talking out of your tuchises. (it’s Yiddish; google it)
FYI my SF Chronicle piece should be online at sfgate.com just after midnight Pacific Time. I don’t know what their headline will be but mine was “Monogamous same-sex adultery.” Here’s my favorite paragraph:
I find it strange that the New York Times, CNN, and other media pointed out the supposed contradiction in Sen. David Vitter, R-La., opposing same-sex marriage while committing adultery, but I’m the only one who has complained that all four of the most prominent heterosexual politicians to have pushed for same-sex marriage (New York Gov. David Paterson and his predecessor Eliot Spitzer, as well as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa) have admitted to adultery with one or more women. Think about it: Why wouldn’t those guys want to extend marriage to people who think their philandering is compatible with the institution?
Ben in Oakland
June 25th, 2008
And that comment, Mr. Benkof, is exactly why so many people think you are… well, you know what we think you are.
Evan
June 25th, 2008
A self-loathing hypocritical loser begging for approval from wherever he can find it, smug yet utterly without merit, as most smug people are…Bill Kristol & Charles Krauthammer’s pouty gay love-baby?
In case he doesn’t know what we think he is. :)
David Benkof
June 25th, 2008
I love Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer! Thanks, Evan! Oh, and Evan, what nationally acclaimed newspapers have run your work? Because people “without merit” rarely have the kind of continuous success I’ve seen in May and June, with exciting things to come for July.
My piece on monogamy in the San Francisco Chronicle is up at sfgate.com. I believe it’s the best thing I’ve ever written on marriage. It certainly is the best placement for one of my pieces so far (though I have a few exciting things in the works).
Check it out and start your ritual grasping at straws to show how I’m a liar and a fraud:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/25/EDNR11F0AU.DTL
werdna
June 26th, 2008
Oh goody a pissing match. Are watersports banned under Jewish law?
David Benkof
June 26th, 2008
I’m not going to respond to werdna. But I would like to point out that LAwaters27, who was very angry at me on this Web site, has been conversing with me at GaysDefendMarriage.com and has come to what I would describe as a grudging respect for me (my words, not hers). Certainly she is much more cooperative, complimentary, and friendly than she was in this relatively toxic environment. Ask her.
Evan
June 26th, 2008
Haha, he loves Bill Kristol. That’s really telling. Bill Kristol gets caught lying pretty much every single time he either writes a column or opens his mouth, and his record on the issues is, “Oh, Bill, have you EVER been right about ANYTHING in your entire sad life?”
So, Bianco, if that’s what you aspire to, then yes, there is a niche for you in journalism. Excuse me, “journalism.” See, Folks, Bianco is bragging about being run in the national media, but the problem is that the American media has drunk a special kind of Kool-Aid over the last decade or so that it’s so over-obsessed with being “fair and balanced” that it’s willing to present viewpoints that are patently ridiculous and unsupported by ANY facts, in an effort to appear “objective.”
The trouble is that, well, in cases of bigotry and discrimination, that’s merely not how it’s supposed to be done…I mean, really, you don’t call for the KKK’s opinion when reporting on civil rights legislation, you don’t call Neo-Nazis for their take every time Jews open a community center, and one day, very soon, it will be accepted journalistic practice that it’s completely unnecessary to even PRETEND to give “equal time” to bigots who hide behind God.
Evan
June 26th, 2008
“has been conversing with me at GaysDefendMarriage.com…”
Whoring for web traffic…Sad.
Might as well just leave comments on random blogs “Plz be frenz w/me LOL!”
David Benkof
June 26th, 2008
Evan-
Yes. I’m a conservative. To show you’re fair and not ideological, could you name five conservatives you think are good journalists/commentators? I like Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, Margaret Carlson, Rachel Maddow, and Ellen Goodman. Who are your favorite five on my side of the debate?
Oh, and what’s that sound? Oh, it’s the sound of Timothy Kincaid NOT pointing out that the very first opinion piece turned in AFTER I agreed to stop saying I was a “columnist for” gay newspapers said nothing about the gay press at all. Mr. Kincaid, this is the second opportunity I’ve given you in a row to apologize and admit you were wrong. It takes a big man to admit he was wrong. Are you a big man?
Emily K
June 26th, 2008
Tim, be a big man and do not give this guy the time of day. Please do not respond. Continue to write your unemotional, fact-based expositions. But all this comment spam is not good for the blog.
Timothy Kincaid
June 26th, 2008
I’m not pleased with the turn this conversation has taken.
I request that our regular readers keep your comments to Mr. Benkof’s statements and leave his personality out of this. Itemize his deceptions. If you feel so inclined you can challenge his assertions. But please don’t let yourself be goaded into a personal battle with Mr. Benkof.
werdna
June 26th, 2008
Evan-I’m a little embarrassed to admit I’ve “been conversing with” David at his site, too. I can’t say I’ve developed any respect for him, grudging or otherwise–more like an increased sense of frustration tempered with the tiniest bit of pity. He’s the same deluded, solipsistic, petty windbag he seemed to be at the beginning and discussing anything with him in good faith is an unproductive waste of effort.
The best you can hope for is he’ll pull a small bit of something you’ve written out of context and use it as the basis for a new, even zanier post where he’ll thank you by name as he calls you immoral or says you’ve come up with the “dumbest” argument “ever”. Then when you prove him wrong in comments he might admit he was wrong but he’ll leave the original post uncorrected. My biggest regret is having contributed in any way to his being “thrilled with the growing popularity of [the] blog”. I feel dirty…
I do heartily recommend checking out one commenter there, Mark Barton, who’s super bright and funny. He makes it easy to resist the temptation to add to the conversation because he’s usually said it first and better. It’s nice that someone is there to point out Benkof’s colossal wrongness.
werdna
June 26th, 2008
Oops, sorry Timothy, posted that as you were writing your last comment. Now that I re-read it I’m not even sure why I addressed it to Evan, except that he’d reminded me of Benkof’s comment about LAWaters27’s “grudging respect” (his words, not hers!) and I couldn’t help myself… Not another word from me about that man, not one.
Evan
June 26th, 2008
“I like Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, Margaret Carlson, Rachel Maddow, and Ellen Goodman. Who are your favorite five on my side of the debate?”
1. George Will because, though I disagree with 98% of what he says, he argues with enough conviction and reliance on facts that he forces me to reinforce my own beliefs.
2. Peggy Noonan, because she happens to be a decent writer.
3. Tom Friedman, yet again, because he forces me to reconsider and then reaffirm my own arguments.
That’s all I can think of on the top of my head…your side is so full of damned liars that it’s hard to narrow down favorites…
Loki
June 26th, 2008
I find it amusing that while David is so proud of his article at SFGate, he also has almost every other comment inthe comment section defending his views from those that criticize. I have read a lot of articles and many comments sections and this is the first time I have seen an author feeling the need to constantly defend what they have written. The article is either strong emough to stand on its own or in need of constant reinforcement. If your arguments are so easily assailed, perhaps you need better arguments.
TJ McFisty
June 26th, 2008
five conservatives you think are good journalists/commentators? I like Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, Margaret Carlson, Rachel Maddow, and Ellen Goodman.
Rachel Maddow? When did she become conservative? I’m sure Air America would find that rather interesting/surprising. And her partner.
TJ McFisty
June 26th, 2008
Oh, duh…totally botched that. Saw her NAME and CONSERVATIVE and ignored the others entirely. Forget my post.
Ben in Oakland
June 26th, 2008
Just sent the letter below to the chronicle. benkof, you may be proud of what you have written, but it’s a piece of crap. dishonest, hypocritical, and short sighted doesn’t begin to cover it. you should be ashamed of yourself.a
Editor:
David Benkof’s diatribe against gay marriage, like much of what he writes on the subject, is very long on ideology innuendo, but very short on fact or logic. Benkof claims that gay men (gay women, I guess, are not important) do not believe that “sexual exclusivity is an essential component of a proper marriage”. He sites as his ‘evidence’ a website, http://www.buddybuddy.com , that he ‘stumbled across’. He adds insult to slander by pointing out adulterous heterosexual politicians who support full marriage equality. After all, if men who cannot honor their marriage vows support marriage equality, what does that say about marriage equality?
Frankly, none of this says anything about marriage equality, but it does say a great deal about Mr. Benkof. The website in question is just a website, one of hundreds of gay oriented resource websites. It is not ‘evidence’, and it is no more representative of the gay community than Benkof is.
Yes, some well known adulterers support marriage equality. And some well known adulterers– Ted Haggard, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Kwame Kilpatrick, and Bill Clinton, to name just a few– oppose it. And lots of people who honor their marriages support gay marriage, and lots oppose it.
So what exactly is the point?
The point is the hypocrisy that permeates Benkof’s article, and indeed, the whole marriage debate. Two of the most reliable studies on heterosexual adultery come to similar conclusions. The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior says that “More than one-third of men and one-quarter of women admit having had at least one extramarital sexual experience.” A survey by the National Opinion Research Center (University of Chicago) found lower percentages: 25 percent of men had been unfaithful and 17 percent of women.
The actual figures are probably higher. I don’t think people like to admit adultery, even to complete strangers. In short, heterosexuals have no corner on the morality market in this issue.
Why is it that the alleged attitude of some gay men only towards sexual exclusivity is sufficient justification to deny all gay people legal marriage, but the demonstrated infidelity of at least 25% of married heterosexuals is irrelevant? That any given couple should be denied the right to marry because others behave unacceptably is no more applicable to gay people than to straight people.
Unless, of course, hypocrisy is now as moral as adultery.
Priya Lynn
June 26th, 2008
Excellent letter Ben.
Ben in Oakland
June 26th, 2008
Put this in the I-shoulda-said file:
Yes, some well known adulterers support marriage equality, NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE BAD PEOPLE, BUT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WISH TO BE HYPOCRITICAL WHEN THEY KNOW THEIR OWN MARRIAGES ARE LESS THAN PERFECT. And some well known adulterers–- Ted Haggard, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Kwame Kilpatrick, and Bill Clinton, to name just a few– oppose it. And lots of people who honor their marriages support gay marriage, and lots oppose it.
David Benkof
June 26th, 2008
Werdna-
I agree that Mark Barton is super-bright and funny. He has raised the level of debate at the blog and my arguments have become significantly enhanced from trying to pass the “Mark test.”
Evan-
Most conservatives do not consider Tom Friedman a conservative. He’s center-left.
Loki-
I make no apologies for trying to dialogue with the people on the other side. I know I make a better case when my ideas are tested in debate with smart people who disagree.
TJ McFisty-
I was friends with Rachel and her partner for a few years starting when she was a freshman at Stanford. I have two particularly funny stories about her I’d be happy to tell anyone who’s friendly (which is unlikely to be many people reading this Web page). We haven’t spoken since she became so famous, though I’d like to. She’s smart as a whip, and a very nice person.
Ben-
It’s interesting that you completely ignored my point that major gay web sites like GLSEN and even MCC listed buddybuddy.com as a marriage website for years and years and nobody seems to have complained. If the League of Women Voters linked to a site like it as a “marriage resource” there would be an uproar. There was no uproar because gay people, being used to having their sexuality criticized, are loath to criticize other people’s sexual decisions, even on something as basic as open marriages.
Then you argue against the idea that lots of gay people have open relationships, which I never said. My argument is that gay people don’t think open relationships are a problem, where as straight people like David Vitter and Bill Clinton do.
I stated plainly I do not care at what rates straights and gays cheat. I care if they understand what marriage is, and most gays do not.
Evan
June 26th, 2008
“Evan-
Most conservatives do not consider Tom Friedman a conservative. He’s center-left.”
Most conservatives are incorrect.
One only need read this free-market globalism fellatio-fest The World Is Flat to see that.
So no. I would suggest that you’re so far to the right you really don’t know what “center-left” is.
Kinda like your rosy-chub cheek daddy Bill Kristol.
Evan
June 26th, 2008
“I was friends with Rachel and her partner for a few years starting when she was a freshman at Stanford. I have two particularly funny stories about her I’d be happy to tell anyone who’s friendly (which is unlikely to be many people reading this Web page).”
PLEEEASE come to my website and I will tell you funny stories about famous ladies! PLEEEASE I need friends on my website! PLEEEASE!
Ben in Oakland
June 26th, 2008
I didn’t ignore it. i just pointed out this is only one wesbite among hundreds, not evidence, especially because it merely failed to toe some imaginary ideological line that you set as a test. I link with people all the time, and it means only that I have linked with them. Nor did i “argue against the idea that lots of gay people have open relationships” or disagree with what you now say you said– that open relationships are not a problem for gay people. It’s not my business-nor yours. your statement that most gays do not understand what marriage is about is more of the same– your opinion, not fact, not evidence, just plain old homobigotry.
you’re proud of this piece, though it displays an astounding amount dishonesty, hypocrisy, self hatred, and moral and intellectual ineptitude.
Some people would find that reprehensible. i merely find it sad.
What i find reprehensible is your willingness to trash the lives and aspirations of your gay brothers and sisters in service to your own greater glory, at least, the validation of your self-hatred. Their only crime is that their lives stand as living rebukes to the fears and choices that comprise yours.
Emily K
June 26th, 2008
Evan, he made a similar offer to me closer to the top of the comments page.
“One of the men at the soiree is one of the most prominent gay-press journalists in the country. If you E-mail me, I can tell you his name. Please don’t force me to publicly reveal that he and his partner, even if they’re monogamous in the gay sense, are not sexually exclusive.”
No thanks. And nobody can force anybody to do anything unless that person allows them to have power over them. Free will still exists on the Blog, as far as I know.
Plus, I’m not interested in anyone else’s love life. I don’t even want to know the details about my FRIENDS’ love lives because it is none of my business.
What a desperate bid for attention.
Jason D
June 26th, 2008
“My argument is that gay people don’t think open relationships are a problem, where as straight people like David Vitter and Bill Clinton do.”
WRONG – You neither know my mind on open relationships nor do you know David Vitter’s or Bill Clinton’s. A google search shows nothing on Vitter and Open Relationships, and only a fictional conversation with Bill on the subject.
Circumstantial evidence does not prove that gay people have one solitary attitude on open relationships.
“I stated plainly I do not care at what rates straights and gays cheat. I care if they understand what marriage is, and most gays do not.”
First: I wasn’t aware there was a reliable gay poll asking “do you know what marriage is?” Please point me to this poll, because I’m gay, and I know a thing or two. I’d like to stand up and be counted.
Secondly: Your paragraph contradicts itself. Not surprising, but look at it. You say you don’t care at what rate gays (or straights) cheat yet you say that gays don’t know the definition of marriage. Your axe to grind on this has been open relationships, people who are not sexually exclusive, in other words, cheating. So, if you don’t care at what rate straights, or gays cheat, then how can you use that as evidence that they don’t know what marriage is? You would have to care to use it, your argument stands on nothing but that notion. If it doesn’t matter to you, then what exactly about gay folks leads you to believe they don’t know what marriage is?
Jason D
June 26th, 2008
Sorry for the double post, but DB is also operating on a set of assumptions that are deeply flawed.
He assumes that straight folks are predominantly monogamous, that virtually none of them are involved in open relationships. As a purveyor of the stigma against open relationships, he fails to see how that stigma might make someone less than honest about their open relationship.
The only data that proves any level of monogamy vs. open relationships in the straight community relies on self-reports — the least reliable of all reporting tools.
He makes a point, yet he fails to see the other side of that point. Marriage, to DB, is about monogamy. Many straight people, I’m sure, agree, as do many gays. Even straights who are in open relationships are aware of that expectation, and what it means to fall below that expectation. The Stigma against it. That is why they keep it quiet. They have much to lose by coming forward. And really, what business is it of the general public’s what, or who a married couple are doing behind closed doors?
Gays, on the other hand, are living, breathing stigma. After all, what’s a little open relationship when you’re already gay? See, we don’t have far to fall. Straight people do, and it is a very very bumpy road afterwards. So gays are actually much more likely to be open about their open relationships.
So DB’s argument is based not on reality, but perception.
Monogamy is the public expecation of a married couple. What they actually are doing is another matter. Some gays openly defy that expectation, that desired perception, and for that, DB holds the whole of homosexuality responsible. DB knows that a mass self-induced Outing of straight couples isn’t likely, so he can safely claim the perception is reality on both camps.
DB cares more about pointing out the supposed flaws of gays, than he cares about the actual flaws of straights. For someone who sometimes identifies as gay or bisexual, this is the manifest definition of self-loathing.
Ben in Oakland
June 26th, 2008
Jason– he doesn’t assume, he just ignores.
Aaron
June 26th, 2008
Wow, I came across this site and was stunned at the number of ad hominum attacks, and that the moderator didn’t remove most of them.
As a H.S. teacher once said, “When you have no facts, use ad hominum attacks – that way you can still argue once you’ve implicitly conceeded the point”
They also said, “If you can’t beat their arguments, then beat them (or a pillow), that way you’ll feel like you have accomplished something when you’ve actually done nothing.”
One other note, when you attack as sophisticated speaker with sophisticated arguments, you have a chance that your side might be right, but if you have nothing to challenge the arguments, and only challenges to the person, then it’s pretty clear who has already won, and who hasn’t admitted it to themselves.
Thanks all for letting me see how personally wounded you are all from Benkof’s position. I’ve gone to his website and started reading. He’s got some interesting arguments.
kevin
June 28th, 2008
It continually amazes me that I spent tens of thousands of dollars and years of my life studying journalism, only to have the entire profession degraded by clowns.
aaa
November 11th, 2008
This comment has been deleted due to multiple violations of our comments policy
Leave A Comment