Who Let The Sane Guy In?

In the din of mindless sloganeering that marks most hearings at 75 Reverend Martin Luther King Boulevard, you sometimes stumble upon the rare “holy crap, that was actually thoughtful” moments. Like the sighting of an endangered Red-cockaded Woodpecker, those precious moments must be treasured.

Simon says:

– Loveland

28 thoughts on “Who Let The Sane Guy In?

  1. Joe Loveland says:

    Simon is right, you want to be careful about citing the Bible in politics. While Republicans are “defending marriage,” they should also look to other biblical references to the institution, such as ever cheery Deuteronomy:

    “A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed.” (Deut 22:13-21)

    Why is no one looking to put constitutional power behind that biblical edict? Because non-virgin heterosexuals are a politically potent majority, while homosexuals are a politically exploitable minority.

    The truth is the Republicans pushing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) aren’t focused on preserving marriage. They’re focused on preserving their legislative majority. They want “defending marriage” on the ballot in 2012 to bring the hard core religious fundamentalists to the polls to fuel their retention of political power. DOMA is sold with sanctimony, but it is borne of the teachings of Machiavelli, not Jesus.

  2. Howard says:

    Beastiality, necrophilia and pedophilia are sexual orientations too. It would be judgmental to enact laws that don’t accommodate those organic preferences.

    1. Dennis Lang says:

      Hey Howard–It may be just me, but don’t you think that’s kind of a stretch? Seriously, give that viewpoint a little more thought, I’m thinking you’ll be a better person for it. Oh, I get it–you’re being facetious. Cute.

      1. Gary Pettis says:

        Sorry guys, but this series of comments is all frosting with no cake. The reason why same-sex marriage advocates are not building a stronger group of supporters in mainstream Minnesota is because they are not adequately providing substantive answers to some really basics questions, for example:

        By allowing same-sex marriage, are our existing laws regarding “traditional” marriage being broadened or re-defined?

        If sexuality and sexual orientation are gifts from God, is it possible that three or more people can enter into the same legal marriage and live together as loving and committed husband and wives or wife and husbands or whatever? If yes, why? If no, why?

        Will the legal age for marriage be lowered to 16 without the consent of parents and 12 with the consent of parents? If yes, why? If no, why?

        If same-sex marriage becomes legal, are there some forms of human sexuality that will still remain unlawful by government and faith-based laws? (In other words, do you believe that same-sex marriage will or will not signal the ultimate social-acceptance of hedonistic, anything-goes behavior, so long as nobody gets hurt?)

        Even if same-sex marriage garners widespread acceptance, are there some forms of “sexual orientation” that must always be kept in the closet and be regarded as taboo?

        If yes, what are they? And should we pray that God creates less of these folks who indulge in these forms?

        And guys, I am the fence on this issue, so I hope a few thoughtful answers will persuade me to see things your way. I need something I can sink my teeth into.

  3. Dennis Lang says:

    Of course we’ve all heard those same questions before on this subject, as though gay marriage opens a Pandora’s box to the end of civilization or something. But we’re not talking beastiality, pedophilia, necrophilia–utterly absurd, really stupid obviously– the marriage of twelve year-olds, or however you choose to define “hedonistic anything goes behavior”. We’re talking the marriage of consenting adults of the same sex. I wonder the questions raised prior to allowing women the vote. I’m trusting culture has evolved intelligently with an understanding and respect for the sexual orientation of others.

    1. Gary Pettis says:


      You’re not offering any thoughtful answers and giving a poo-poo response of “we’ve all heard those same questions before on this subject,” Give me the benefit of the doubt and offer up your answers.

      That is one of the problems of the same-sex marriage debate among ordinary folks is that it’s assumed by a limited number of people that everyone else is high on the learning curve, but we’re just starting to make the first move on the move upward on the curve.

      Political and PR pros are well versed in answering the same questions over and over again to secure new fans or advocates.

      That’s why the concept of Talking Points was invented. Right?

      The bantering of words like “sexual orientation” will only make things more confusing unless you are pitching “sexual orientation” as a term that applies only to gays and lesbians. (Below are the types of sexual orientations commonly listed.)

      Homosexual = when somebody likes some one of the same sex as them
      Heterosexual = when someone likes the opposite sex as them
      Bisexual = when someone likes the opposite and the same sex as them.
      Pansexual = when someone is so to say gender blind. Love is love and gender does not matter, it is almost non existent.
      Polysexual = when someone who likes more than 1 gender but refuse to call themselves straight, they be call polysexual.
      Asexual = no sexual attraction to anyone.
      Objectum sexual = some one who is attracted to objects instead of people.

      If I have this right now, and please correct me if I am wrong, same-sex marriage only applies to homosexuals, and that bisexuals and others whose sexual desires we attempt to label. are left out in the cold during this retooling-of-marriage debate.

      Is that because their sexual orientation is not marriage-worthy?


      1. Jim Leinfelder says:

        Gary, we’re all of us restricted to the one marriage partner: hetero, gay, bi, pan, whatever, one per customer. It’s a uniformly enforced social norm and law here in the USA.

        What’s so confusing?

        Non-heterosexual people just want the right to enter into the same time-honored two-person marriage partnership that heteros have been struggling to make work since the country was founded.

        It’s not a new arrangement.

      2. Joe Loveland says:

        I don’t understand what is so vexing about all of this. Statutorily define “marriage” as being between two live adults. In the unlikely event that someone later wants to expand that definition, oppose THAT change.

        I can’t accept the logic of the slippery slope argument, and find it offensive, because I can’t accept the parallel between two loving adults committing themselves to each other and the extreme examples cited. They simply are not comparable.

      3. Dennis Lang says:

        Yes, I see your point Gary: the challenge to persuade those whose viewpoint is deeply entrenched and–in my view– of questionable rationale to think differently. I had a teacher once who said it’s impossible to have a serious debate when the other person is unreasonable. We are then simply opaque to each other–and a screaming match is rarely productive.

      4. Jim Leinfelder says:


        Did you marry your wife because she’s a woman, or because you loved her?

        ‎”The important thing is not the object of love, but the emotion itself.” — Gore Vidal

      5. Gary Pettis says:


        Glad you asked. I am single.

        However, I do have an ability to connect on various levels with my preferred choice of gender. Encounters, of course, can transcend space and time and zip codes. When that intimate moment arrives, stars in the heavens align perfectly and birds can be heard chirping near the window in the morning as I make my special guest breakfast. (Insert a sigh here).

        As I wave goodbye to my guest–or in single Baby Boomer lingo, “my special friend,” I am reminded of lyrics from a song recorded by Poco:

        I play my hand
        You call my bluff
        We push each other
        ‘Til we’ve had enough
        When it’s all you’ve got
        Call it love


      6. Dennis Lang says:

        I probably have this wrong and wouldn’t attempt to speak for Mr. Pettis but given the obvious resistance to the concept of gay marriage I rather think he’s seeking the argument–for lack of a better expression–the p/r message and strategy with the strength at least in the hypothetical to overcome that resistance, much of which is apparently built on the “slippery slope” argument. Personally, if at some point in the future a cultural movement demands a referendum on an aspect of human behavior and interaction presently considered taboo, let them have at it.

      7. Jim Leinfelder says:

        Encounters can transcend time and space, you say? Sounds like someone’s got plenty of bandwidth. As Richie Furay’s old band mate, Stephen Stills sang: “Love the one you’re with.”

        Wonder where your man, Richie Furay falls on this question now that he’s a longtime Christian preacher in Colorado.

        Here’s hoping he’s kept an open heart and mind.

  4. PM says:

    Usually, when one side or the other in an argument has to resort to “slippery slope” arguments or “camel’s nose under the tent” arguments, that is really a sign of desperation.

  5. john sherman says:

    It’s worth remembering that until fairly recently the definition of traditional marriage was one man, one woman, one time except in cases of death. However, now our marriage custom is not monogamy, but serial polygamy; that is New Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh have each had three wives just not all at once. A lot of the straw men raised are fairly easy to dispose of.

    There was I guy in I believe Missouri who claimed he should be allowed to marry his horse; he got several interviews but nobody was able to interview the horse to see whether or not she thought it was a good idea. People under a certain are not allowed to sign legally valid contracts, and there’s no reason why a marriage contract shouldn’t be one of them.

    A complication is that by marriage we mean at least four things: (1) a relationship between two people; (2) the recognition of that relationship by the community; (3) a legal agreement with specific rights and obligations; (4) a sacrament. Though the state can influence the second, it’s proper sphere is the third. I think that if gays and lesbians are citizens for purposes of paying taxes, serving on juries and all the other responsibilities of citizenship, they ought to be allowed the rights that other citizens have, including marriage. If Catholics refuse to extend the sacrament to gays and Methodist do, the state should be as indifferent to that as the choice between dunking and sprinkling in baptism.

    1. john sherman says:

      Should read “People under a certain age are. . .” Someday I’ll learn to edit off a screen, but it doesn’t look like it will be any time soon.

    2. Gary Pettis says:

      Gosh John, this post was excellent. It’s a point-of-view that has to be spread to build a case for same-sex marriage. True, it’s an uphill fight, but responses like yours to the vexing, as Loveland puts it, will help disarm a lot of folks whose perceptions and prejudices are off-kilter to reality.

Comments are closed.