Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“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…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Leader of Maine’s Yes on 1 Campaign Admits to Lying

Jim Burroway

April 18th, 2011

Liar

A new documentary is due to be released this summer which goes behind the scenes of Maine’s 2009 campaign to deny marriage equality for same-sex couples. Documentarians Joe Fox and James Nubile obtained permission to film both camps on the provision that the documentary not air until after the campaign was over. Now that it’s due to air later this year, a trailer for Question One has been posted online, complete with a very candid admission from Yes on 1 campaign chairman Marc Mutty:

We use a lot of hyperbole and I think that’s always dangerous,” says Mutty during a Yes on 1 strategy session, at the time on leave from his job as public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine.

“You know, we say things like ‘Teachers will be forced to (teach same-sex marriage in schools)!’ ” he continues. “Well, that’s not a completely accurate statement and we all know it isn’t, you know?”

“No,” interjects a woman off-camera. “We don’t say that.”

“Let’s look back at our ads and see what we say,” Mutty persists. “And I think we use hyperbole to the point where, you know, it’s like ‘Geez!’”

Mutty admitted that what they were doing was the equivalent of slamming people over the head with “a two-by-four with nails sticking out of it,” adding, ” it’s the only thing we’ve got — it’s the only way. That’s the way campaigns work.”

Mutty now regrets allowing the filming, worrying that “what impact it will have on my professional life remains to be seen.”

Betsy Smith, the executive director of Equality Maine, summed it all up nicely by observing that opponents’ religious motivations (McNutty was an official with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine) didn’t translate into an ethical campaign:

Still, she said, “sometimes you want to believe that at least they believed in what they were saying. You want to believe that they feel so passionately about religion and tradition that the things they put out there, they believe, are true.”

And now?

“It’s striking to hear them say ‘No, we knew all along that wasn’t true,’” Smith said. “‘We were just hitting people over the head with a two-by-four with nails because that’s the only option we had.’”

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

TonyJazz
April 18th, 2011 | LINK

Not only do these people have no shame, but they also have no morals…

Pity on them.

enough already
April 18th, 2011 | LINK

No surprise. Those who oppose us can lie and cheat all they like, everything is forgiven by their “god”.

Ben In Oakland
April 18th, 2011 | LINK

“Mutty now regrets allowing the filming, worrying that “what impact it will have on my professional life remains to be seen.”

They are not only immoral and beyond shame, they are beyond irony as well. I hope people in Maine make a VERY VERY big deal out of this.

CPT_Doom
April 18th, 2011 | LINK

I just hope that Mr. Mutty has had time to “heal” as he said he needed in the trailer. I mean, my heart just goes out to a man who now might have to face the horror of people not liking him, even as they are forced by law to accept and approve of his religious and sexual lifestyle choices. Too bad he couldn’t show the respect he now assumes he deserves to people who simply didn’t want to be Catholic.

enough already
April 18th, 2011 | LINK

This one is is spreading across the blogosphere at warp speed.
We could actually run with it, actually do something with it.
Any ideas?
The sheer hatred of those who oppose us has seldom shone forth quite this clearly.

Ben In Oakland
April 18th, 2011 | LINK

E.a.:

I have suggested to Wayne Besen that he start one of his famous petitions, the gist of which would say this:

You want forgiveness, shithead? Here’s what you do.

You stand up, appear before the television cameras and the reporters, and you say this:

People of maine: I lied to you in order to get you to vote against same-sex marriage. I deliberately appealed to bigotry in order to further the political goals of conservative religion.

Everything i said was lie intended to deceive you. to make up for that, i am sponsoring a new initiative campaign in Maine to put same-sex marriage back into our laws.

I will do everything i can to undo the damage I did. I ask the people of Maine to forgive me. I ask especially the gay and lesbian couples in our state, to whom I intentionally did great harm in the name of prejudice, especially to forgive me

Seeing thru the BS
April 18th, 2011 | LINK

The fact that the Catholic church knowingly and deliberately lied to win will cost them a lot. Many share the sentiments expressed above – they thought the church at least believed its own bigoted ads.
But people are not stupid and are catching-on to the Church’s bull$hit. Morally bankrupt themselves but pretending to have moral authority.
Hypocrites!

Gary Brewton
April 18th, 2011 | LINK

Mutty is the mouthpiecce of Maledictus XVI, how naive of us to be surprised.

David Hart
April 18th, 2011 | LINK

I hate to admit that I remain very angry over Maine. Partly because NOM ran the same Robert George inspired campaign that gay people are a threat to children. Partly because we were so inept at defending what we knew they were going to do.

This is the same campaign that Robby George crafted to try to marginalize Kevin Jennings. According to George, Jennings threatens the “innocence” of children and we all know what that means. George also championed the recall of the three Iowa Judges through his “American Principles Project.” Why and how Princeton allows this bigotry eludes me.

Mutty gave many interviews and engaged in a number of public debates (all on the Diocese’s payroll). He looked right into the camera and lied his Christianist ass off. NOW, he wants to pretend to be civil? He behaved like a despicable putz – he is a putz – he will always be a putz unless he does something to undo the violence that he has done to gay people and their children.

TampaZeke
April 18th, 2011 | LINK

@ Ben in Oakland

I’m with you!

+10

Soren456
April 18th, 2011 | LINK

@Ben in Oakland 2:

I think he should also tell, in detail, what his lies were.

I do not agree with a new initiative.

Other Fred in the UK
April 18th, 2011 | LINK

In reply to Enough Already, I’d suggest that such admissions are used as a basis of a character assasignarion of Mutty and otter senior figures. The intention being to impress on leaders of future anti-gay rights campaigns that they will be held publically accountable for any dubious statements of those campaigns.

enough already
April 19th, 2011 | LINK

Ben in Oakland, Other Fred in the UK,
Sounds good to me.
I signed up for the Catholic blogs in Maine back when this all began. Looked them up again when this all broke.
Wow. Their capacity for splitting hairs is unbroken. He didn’t lie. They never directly said any such thing. They prevented a dreadful act of paedophilia.

Sorry, if anybody spit coffee on their screen over that last. I’ll cut it short – we keep looking for justice. They apply the law, having no interest in either Constitutional justice or being just themselves. This is why they are winning with their lies and we are losing, despite telling the truth.

Stephen
April 19th, 2011 | LINK

I think this is much more important than Marinelli who, rightly or wrongly, I see as being self-serving. This is why NOM tries to define marriage as being about children, it isn’t and never has been, so that they can unleash the ‘homos are coming for your kids’ ads which this abject apparatchik worked so hard to push, knowing them to be lies.

Perhaps now the ridiculously bad ads made by Equality Now might be rethought.

enough already
April 19th, 2011 | LINK

No, Stephen, I fear not.
When I see how badly organized we on the left are and how enormous the resistance to working together to achieve our common goals, I see our victories in the US as exclusively cases of our enemies (I think boxturtle will permit me that in this specific case) tripping over their own hatred.
I’d love to be proved wrong.

TampaZeke
April 19th, 2011 | LINK

@Soren456, if not a new initiative, then how do we restore marriage equality to Maine?

Amicus
April 19th, 2011 | LINK

Perhaps the new “exhibit 1″ that is the counter to Maggie telling trumpeting that everywhere marriage has been put to a vote, voters have affirmed traditional marriage.

They obviously did not.

They voted … fear.

ebohlman
April 19th, 2011 | LINK

TampaZeke: The Maine legislature just needs to propose, and vote for, a new marriage equality bill (admittedly very unlikely to happen in the current legislative session due to the Republican takeover). Unlike Proposition 8, which amended California’s constitution to bar marriage equality, Question 1 was simply a “people’s veto” on a particular bill that the legislature intended to enact. It applies only to that particular bill at that particular time; it has no effect on any subsequent legislative action (nor would it override a judicial decision in favor of marriage equality).

IMHO, Question 1 actually had an easier time passing than Proposition 8 precisely because of this; since its effects weren’t intended to be permanent, fence-sitters were inclined to “play it safe” in the knowledge that if they turned out to be wrong, the effects could be reversed fairly easily. At least some people who didn’t favor marriage equality would have voted against Proposition 8 simply because they thought altering the Constitution was too drastic a measure; that dynamic wouldn’t have been present with Question 1, simply because the stakes were lower.

Soren456
April 19th, 2011 | LINK

@TampaZeke:

Through the legislature. And only through the legislature.

I think ebohlman’s discussion is apt.

We should never, ever trust or attempt to use the initiative/referendum process to grant us our rights. And especially as a matter of principle, we should never willingly agree that rights are subject to popular a popular vote.

Stephen
April 19th, 2011 | LINK

Is it being too paranoid to wonder if there is some connection between diocese that have seen large numbers of abuse cases filed and an active participation in anti-gay rights activities? It would seem to be the perfect way to rally the troops and bring the more active members of the flock back in line. Has anyone made such a comparison?

enough already
April 19th, 2011 | LINK

I am not entirely sure whether I completely agree with your analysis, Soren456.

To be sure – when we are in Germany, we are fully human and have full civil rights and when we are in the US, we live between two of the very worst states in the entire US. We aren’t human nor have we any civil rights. I am, thus, somewhat biased.

Now, I understand the political theory behind the argument that human rights must never be subject to mob rule. The current situation in the US, however, is that those who oppose us use every single tool available to them to oppress us, to anchor their hatred of us in constitutional law, to tear our marriages and families apart, to strip us of our children. They still subject us to electroshock torture.

And they are winning. I don’t think we can afford not to get our hands dirty (strictly within the limits of the law, of course)when our sworn enemies – the vilest people imaginable, have no qualms about what they do to us.

We already are subject to mob rule. Must we wait until we have Nazi Germany Redux until we begin to fight back?

Priya Lynn
April 19th, 2011 | LINK

I’m really surprised he admitted to lying about this, especially on camera. I wonder what motivates a lying liar to admit he lied?

Theo
April 19th, 2011 | LINK

Most under-reported story of the No on 1 campaign is that about 2 weeks b4 the election, Mutty made a comment quite similar to the one referenced above about the curriculum ads being misleading. Astonishingly, No on 1 failed to seize on this. It was a significant tactical blunder. Indeed, there is evidence that Yes on 1 was confident that No on 1 would attack Mutty’s statement and had prepared a quick response ad. I would imagine that they were pleasantly surprised when No on 1 simply let the matter slip away.

I hope this is addressed in the documentary. I don’t think that this alone would have changed the outcome, but it might have halved the margin.

Ultimately, No on 1′s biggest failing was in get out the vote. There is a myth that this component of the No on 1 was well run, but the results belie this notion. The operation was run by “professionals” from NGLTF. But somehow they managed to lose even Augusta, a major city where they maintained a campaign office.

Dave Wimberly
April 19th, 2011 | LINK

We need to take the gloves off. As I’ve done in Maine, Boston, my local parishes…call the bigots and tell them what pigs they are, and remind them of that pesky little court of public opinion.

Here we have someone worried about his professional future. Call the diocese, call the conference of bishops, tell the leaders we are glad this guy is being honest and we will skewer him as an example of what will happen to them.

Cardinal Law used to be respected. He is now afraid to step foot on his home soil. What do you think he tells people who ask him about getting involved in this stuff?

Call them, tell them (politely) what disgusting pigs they are and tell them their bigotry is not only going to hurt their precious image, its going to get them FRIED IN HELL.

They know they are wrong, they know they are lying…I’ve NEVER believed they believe their crap as others have. They very much relate to what you say to them.

Plus its fun.

Soren456
April 19th, 2011 | LINK

@enough already:

You tend to make my case for me.

Our opponents are brutish, energized and without ethics.

Why would we ever, voluntarily, offer our lives for their vote?

Any initiative or referendum that features gay rights will guarantee swarms of activated, excited anti-gay voters at the polls, whipped up by church rallies, false advertising and other appeals to fear. We’ve seen it time and again.

On our side, because actual gay voters are small in number and thus can’t swing elections, we still rely upon better angels in the community to support us. And they don’t bother. We keep losing.

You insist that our opponents are winning. I can’t agree.

On their turf, they do win, yes. But their turf happens to be the initiative and referendum, where they are masters of fearful and dishonest campaigns. And at getting voters to the polls.

Why would we ever, voluntarily, pick a fight on their turf?

But in the larger scheme, they aren’t winning. In legislatures and governments everywhere, and especially in businesses and among the citizens of communities worldwide, we are winning. It’s slow. It’s often heartbreaking. But it’s where we are winning.

We need to fight where we are winning, is the point of my post.

enough already
April 19th, 2011 | LINK

Soren,
I’ll have to think about it. I don’t completely disagree with your position, I just have not quite stated my own feelings on the matter clearly enough.
I agree that whenever nasty lies and fear will serve, they will win.

I also live in walking distance of a KZ where people ended up because the socialists didn’t want to stoop to the levels of the Nazis.

I think we are headed down the same road. We’re not winning in the US, sorry. It only takes one case in front of these supreme Court Justices, one Republican president with both houses and we are done for decades.

If we had all gotten out and voted for the Democrats in 2010, regardless of whatever silly number they place upon us, I’d be more confident.

Timothy Kincaid
April 19th, 2011 | LINK

CPT_Doom,

I just hope that Mr. Mutty has had time to “heal” as he said he needed in the trailer. I mean, my heart just goes out to a man who now might have to face the horror of people not liking him, even as they are forced by law to accept and approve of his religious and sexual lifestyle choices. Too bad he couldn’t show the respect he now assumes he deserves to people who simply didn’t want to be Catholic.

I may be giving him too much credit… but I get the impression that Mr. Mutty is facing a different horror. I think that Mr. Mutty has lost respect for himself and has come to realize that he has forfeited his integrity. And that does take a long time to heal.

It may be too much to hope for, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see Mr. Mutty do an about face on the issue in the not-too-distant future.

Timothy Kincaid
April 19th, 2011 | LINK

enough already,

Your passion is admirable, but…

In Germany you have less recognition of your relationship or rights than you do in five states in the US. Our political opponents are not subjecting anyone to electroshock torture in the US. And every poll is showing that we are winning the debate.

Oh… and “we” are not all liberals.

enough already
April 19th, 2011 | LINK

Timothy,
One of the problems with trying to compare rights across cultures is that many things don’t correspond one to one.
Now, it is true that the conservatives managed – at the last moment – through treachery – to strike several of the advantages of being married.
We are fighting through the courts and the EC commissions to have them put in and are winning. But, yes, some rights aren’t there yet. The really important ones – he is my husband, we are legally one family, nobody can take action to separate us or strip gay parents of their children, or keep bi-national gay couples apart, all those are there. The rest – well, as I noted, we are winning those and if Hungary pushes the issue, probably the EC will be forced to pre-emptively act and tidy up the remaining few limitations.

The most important ones – the federal rights which DOMA forbids the recognition of, are, however, there. They are anchored (that we are fully human and may not be discriminated against in the German Constitution) and these are the rights which none of those five states have.

As for the “liberals”, well, no. Many gays are not. Now, sense I have to really try hard to play by your rules here, this is going to be a bit oblique.

How, in any way, shape or form, do the Republicans and the Christians give you any civil or human rights which the Democrats do not?

To put it another way – I see civil rights and human status as the only non-negotiable in politics. If I follow your reasoning – you don’t?

Other Fred in the UK
April 19th, 2011 | LINK

@ Mr Kinkaid,

In Germany you have less recognition of your relationship or rights than you do in five states in the US.

Just for clarification, that is despite the complete lack of U.S. Federal recognition? Also German samesex couples can travel across the Germany without loosing their rights.

Est
April 20th, 2011 | LINK

Hyperbole is not lying. Not completely accurate is not really lying. Can we say for sure that same sex marriage won’t be taught in school? This post is guilty of the same behavior. Hypocritical comes to mind.

enough already
April 20th, 2011 | LINK

Est,
Why should the principle of legal marriage not be taught in public schools?
Do you object to interracial marriage?
Do you object to interfaith marriage?

Should, they, too, be banned from the public schools?

But this is all a red herring. You know quite well that the fear and terror campaign the Catholic church spread in Maine was based on a lie: That homosexuals would recruit young minds.

An impossibility. Sexuality is natural and fixed.

If it were not so, then all those poor boys raped by paedophile Catholic priests would be rapists themselves and not merely victims of rape.

No Christian faith grants points for splitting hairs in defence of the indefensible. You know that. Your arguments are intentionally subversive, whether your particular branch of Christianity states that this rises to the level of false witness, it most certainly is not the fair and true handling which Jesus spoke of.

ZRAinSWVA
April 20th, 2011 | LINK

Enough Already wrote, “. It only takes one case in front of these supreme Court Justices, one Republican president with both houses and we are done for decades.”

Exactly. Terrifying. Especially with the current push to oust ‘activist judges’. If they continue to win on that front, if we cannot counter their attack on the judiciary, we are done. For decades.

Timothy Kincaid wrote, “In Germany you have less recognition of your relationship or rights than you do in five states in the US”.

Nice for those five states. In my state, though, my husband (oh, wait: we’re not married in my state?!) and I have no, nada, zip rights. And as Fred notes, Federally we’re all nonentitites in nonrelationships.

@Est: “not really lying” = LYING.

Mihangel apYrs
April 20th, 2011 | LINK

Soren456
I’ve said on other threads that these people are our enemies, and also that human rights are not amenable to public vote (but can be destroyed by an elective dictatorship). However, we must reach ast the bigots and mouthpieces of bigotry and appeal to the largely decent people – people we work with, or otherwise deal with. To pour on tales of injustice and tragedy. Not so that they vote these immoral strictures out, but that they empower the politicians – and the legislature – to cleave to constitutional and universal principles.

Est
April 20th, 2011 | LINK

Enough already, I’m atheist so most of what you say about me is wrong. Of course interracial and interfaith marriage is fine. Why wouldn’t they be?

And I think it is pretty obvious that sexual attractions are mutable.

enough already
April 20th, 2011 | LINK

Est,
Not for gay, lesbians and heterosexuals.
Actually, if we accept the premise that bisexuality exists, then not for bisexuals, either.

What a silly statement to make. Or are you pretending that the closeted behavior of those gays who grow up in hateful cultures (like so much of the US) are healthy?

Dan
April 20th, 2011 | LINK

enough already,
I think that your claim that sexuality is fixed and that the boys molested by priests would not become molesters themselves is misleading.

First off sexuality isn’t entirely fixed but has cultural adjustments. For people who are at the extreme ends of the Kinsey scale they are solely attracted to their particular desired gender, however for the middle range of the scale there is a great deal of influence by social norms and cultural acceptability. In modern American culture women who are predominently heterosexual are more likely to be open to homosexual experimentation or relationship compared to men due to the level of disgust and hatred poured on gay men compared to the lesbians who are widely considered ‘hot’. Ancient Greek and Roman cultures engaged in pederasty but it doesn’t follow to claim that those people were ‘fixed’ in their homosexuality and pedophilia which mysteriously changed over time. As a cultural expectation anyone inclined towards those behaviours would engage in them and some of those not would suffer through, just like many homosexuals suffered through unsatisfying heterosexual marriages in the 1900′s.

As for the victims of priestly molestation (and indeed all forms of rape and molestation) there is a concept know as the cycle of sexual abuse where the victims of abuse are much more likely to become abusers themselves. It is extremely unfortunate but often the trauma caused by the abuse distorts their emotional development and they build a different concept of what is normal behaviour. Victims cope in many different ways, some suppress memory, some act out violently, some use drugs or food to escape their emotions, and some replay their abuse on another only this time reversing the power roles. Just to make this clear, it doesn’t in any way justify or excuse the abuse they commit. I, in fact, am an example of this cycle. I molested and raped two girls, I was molested and raped myself as a child, and my abuser was molested himself by his church’s priest (which the Roman Catholic Church covered up and shuffled him off to another church where he did it again). This is why it is vital to not cover these things up so that the victims can get the help they need. Therapy is one of best ways to break the cycle of abuse along with the abusers getting the criminal punishment they deserve.

enough already
April 20th, 2011 | LINK

Dan,
I made the fatal mistake of indulging in hyperbole.
The one absolutely forbidden form of communication of gay blogs, be they liberal, Christian, conservative or even biler…well, no, they aren’t a gay blog.

Look, I see where you’re coming from on the cultural aspects, being German with a wonderful and legally recognized husband, I very much see it.

That is, however, not what was under discussion. Sexuality is immutable. The reason those who oppose us are trying so very hard right now to dispute this is because it is the fourth pillar supporting the level of scrutiny which must be applied to the legality of American persecution (sic) of gays.

In fact, your use of the Kinsey scale (which is total nonsense, but I’ll play for the sake of brevity) acknowledges what I said – a “bisexual” would be open to experimentation when such is possible.

So, again, just as I get ragingly furious with those who defend those Christians who torture gays – because I was tortured by them – I can see why you mistook my hyperbole to mean I supported something different.

It was, in fact, a slightly clumsy dig at the hypocrisy of the Catholic church.

OK?

Timothy Kincaid
April 20th, 2011 | LINK

Other Fred

Just for clarification, that is despite the complete lack of U.S. Federal recognition? Also German samesex couples can travel across the Germany without loosing their rights.

good question. And the answer is “partly”

In other words, in some states EA is married while he is married nowhere in Germany. And in some states he would have the state tax benefits of marriage, which he would have nowhere in Germany.

On the other hand, he would have no federal recognition in the US. So some benefits would be entirely absent.

My point was that “when we are in Germany, we are fully human and have full civil rights” is not actually accurate nor was his characterization of the US.

As AE noted, such comparisons across countries and cultures are not easy. One can rather generously overlook the failings of one (we are winning in the courts) while seeing none of the successes of the other (even though DOMA has been declared unconstitutional in the courts, it is still there).

Timothy Kincaid
April 20th, 2011 | LINK

Est

And I think it is pretty obvious that sexual attractions are mutable.

In precisely the same way that it is pretty obvious that the moon is made of green cheese.

enough already
April 20th, 2011 | LINK

Timothy,
We were married in Canada, so our marriage is “marriage” by your definition.
The point is not “Partherschaftsgesetz”, – I’ve acknowledged that we got all the responsibilities but do not have all the privileges yet.

My husband bears my name and title. He inherits my estate. He is legally my family and I his. He makes medical decisions for me when I am incapacitated. It is a crime (a serious crime) to discriminate against us because we are equal parties to a Lebenspartnerschaft. Trying to abrogate it – as some parents from groups which oppose us tried, mainly Muslims – is also illegal.

Taxes are still not 100% settled. Pensions either just now have been or will soon be. First right of adoption (if suitable otherwise) is settled.
Right to assume all business relations which the widow or widower of a business owner is settled. Health insurance is settled.
All the financial breaks given to what you call “married” couples by all government bodies (places in the Schrebergärten, for instance) are required to be given to us, too.

The term “marriage” has two levels in this culture. First, there is the level of which I speak – as does the German Chancellor when talking about that idiot who runs our FDP and his husband. She calls them married.
And boy do they deserve each other.

There there is the legal aspect to it. You only hear such exacting use of terms when people have a vested interested in stating their protest or when a legal document is at hand.

When we come back home to sanity, the customs police smile at us and say “Grüss Gott, Herr Graf und Herr Graf….” The rest is finishing up the paperwork. Still fighting for it, by the by

I’ve noted before, and you’ve surely independently verified it – nobody is legally “married” in the US sense here, you either have a civil union or a Lebenspartnerschaft. The second is still limited in privileges, but we are getting them all either through courts or the EC.
When you are “married” then it is because your religious affiliation has “married” you. And, yes, we are handfasted, so I am married in that sense, too.

I really don’t go out of my way to provoke you. It’s fairly easy for me to do, and I’m aware of it. We’re both fighting for justice – I’m on your side more than on 80% of the relevant topics.

Didn’t one of your religious leaders say something about that?

enough already
April 20th, 2011 | LINK

Wow, everybody knows the moon is made of Stilton Cheese!
I demand you put it right back, Timothy. We heard those crackers crunching.

Désirée
April 20th, 2011 | LINK

@Enough Already

some of us aren’t Democrats/liberals because we are economic conservatives e.g. we believe in capitalism, free enterprise and individual liberty. That fiscal conservatism has been unfortunately wedded to social conservatism does not make me any less in favor of full human rights for everybody. I’m just not willing to join a political party I disagree with on just about every other issue just for that one thing. I’m not a single-issue voter.

enough already
April 20th, 2011 | LINK

Désirée,
When you are denied your civil rights, that is single-issue politics which matter.
This is how the Nazis came to power in Germany – too many people like you said it didn’t matter how they treated the Jews, the main thing was,they got the economy in order.

Oh, and speaking of which – being a liberal doesn’t mean I don’t understand economics. You conservatives have done an awful job on the economy – or do you think we’ve forgotten?

Dan
April 20th, 2011 | LINK

enough already,
My apologies. I missed the hyperbole and started in on you assuming you were being 100% literal. As you may have noticed, I’m new here and probably should have taken a bit more time to familiarize myself with the posters and social norms before jumping in.

That said I disagree strongly with your assertion that sexuality is immutable, unless you mean something different than (what I think) the common understanding is. However the subtleties involved in sexuality how it interacts with attraction do not lend themselves to useful discussion with bigots whose argument is ‘you can just stop being gay if you really wanted to, so by being gay you are deliberately insulting me and god’. Thus I understand why it is desireable to argue that for the purpose of legal arguments relating to discrimination.

Also, and correct me if I’m misinterpreting you, you seem hostile to bisexuals. Would you mind explaining why, given that bisexuals are intrinsically self-motivated to support marriage and legal equity?

enough already
April 20th, 2011 | LINK

Dan,
I’ve got virtually the entire medical, psychiatric and high-level mammalian life sciences behind me on this:
Sexuality is immutable.
Now, perhaps we mean different things by the term “sexuality”. I mean by it, the natural sexual orientation which leads to pairing when not under duress.
I’m not a native English speaker, so sometimes I make mistakes. Sometimes, I use the term “properly” without realising that the current “meaning” is the exact opposite of the dictionary proper meaning.
So, let me ask you, what do you mean by “sexuality is mutable”?
As neither of us are fundamentalist Christians, it should be possible to find a working range of definitions.

I don’t see anything inherently prejudicial against bisexuals in my statement – one either is capable of sexual attraction to both men and women or one is not. If not, then one is not bisexual. If so, then one’s sexuality is not changed by throwing away one partner and taking another of the other sex. One has been true to oneself.

Dan, the rules of this blog don’t permit us to discuss a limited number of topics here. This is one of them. We can’t have an open discussion about this because it invariably causes intervention by the blog moderators and hard feelings all around. You’ll have to either accept or reject that I also stand 100% behind the right of bisexuals to enjoy full human status and full civil rights, just as I do for the gays, lesbians, transgender and intersexed.

Timothy Kincaid
April 21st, 2011 | LINK

I’m on your side more than on 80% of the relevant topics.

Didn’t one of your religious leaders say something about that?

Well… not exactly. That was Ronald Reagan.

Timothy Kincaid
April 21st, 2011 | LINK

Dan,

In regards to the mutability of sexuality, take a look at this commentary.

enough already
April 21st, 2011 | LINK

Tinothy,
re: Reagan
There’s a difference:-)))?

Timothy Kincaid
April 21st, 2011 | LINK

If Evangelicals had saints, he’d be one.

Shofixti
April 21st, 2011 | LINK

Hi Dan,

Welcome and thanks for sharing, I am very edified by your openness. I hope that you will stick around.

The first social norm that you should be aware of is the frenzy of coherence, perhaps you can already detect this theme? It is objectively rational that everything should fit snuggly into a category, and we do not question the motivation or urgency behind categorisation – because there is none.

The second is that it is normative to talk about sexual identity as something that cannot explain sexual behaviour and conversely, evidence of sexual behaviour cannot be used as an indicator of sexual identity. That appears to be the logic applied to your history.

Pursuant to points one and two: If some aspect of your capacity for sexual attraction was mutable, that would only create dangerous incoherence. Any mutability suggests that Religiously Mediated Change might secretly be gaining credibility (even when it isn’t).

It could be then that bisexuality becomes a catch-all category for anyone who cannot produce normative homosexuality to a satisfactory standard.

The third, is that while EA has “virtually” the entire life sciences behind him, we virtually have to take his word for it. EA is loathe to reference an idea, but I do accept that it may be that those journals are in German.

They are a good bunch. My personal interests are about understanding people who are different to me, Queer theory, and how our use of identity regulates pleasure and knowledge and conformity.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.