August 04, 2003

Polyamory and the State

Anti-gay marriage activist Stanley Kurtz says of Andrew Sullivan:

In my recent piece, I also noted Sullivan's failure to take up the real challenge of the slippery slope argument as it relates to polyamory. In fact, I don't think the word polyamory has ever been formed on Sullivan's keyboard.

The word ďpolyamoryĒ has never been formed on my keyboard either, until now.

Iíd like to ask Dr. Kurtz, and anyone else, why Iím supposed to worry about this in the first place.

I understand the slippery-slope argument. Gay marriage may lead to legalized polyamory. This argument is intended to freak me out, but it doesnít.

Let me be clear here. I think people who get involved in polyamorous relationships are making a terrible mistake. I went to college in Eugene, Oregon, and I saw quite a bit of that there. It always ended in disaster; otherwise strong relationships disintegrated with the addition of a third person. Kathe Koja wrote a truly harrowing novel about this called Kink, which reads almost like a horror story. That book all by itself would have been enough to scare me away from polyamory if I hadnít known better already.

But why is this the stateís business?

The best argument is that a three-parent household is a poor environment for raising children. But what about childless three-way relationships? For whose benefit are they banned?

Besides, I can think of plenty of destructive behavior the state doesnít regulate, even when it severely affects children. Drinking and smoking, for example, or letting the television babysit the kids all day. You can raise your kids in a wacko cult, or teach them that Jews are Satanic demons that control the Congress. You can deny your children vaccinations and medical treatment for religious or other kooky reasons. Itís best that divorced parents live near each other for the sake of their children, but no one thinks to enforce it.

I think children should be kept far away from television and given books to read instead. I think American children should learn a foreign language when they are pre-school age. And I think they should be kept out of churches until they are old enough to understand whatís going on in there. I donít think anyone under the age of 20 should have a baby. But I would not dream of legislating any of this stuff, even though I think it would make children better off.

To me itís obvious that a healthy two-parent household is the best place for a child. But I wouldnít ban divorce in order to enforce it. Nor would I require single parents to get married. Most people agree with that.

So why is polyamory the stateís business?

Iím not convinced that it isnít the stateís business. I honestly donít know. Iím open to persuasion either way. But I really think the burden is on the state to tell us why it should be allowed to micromanage our personal lives in this (and any other) way.

Itís a free country, folks, and not every bad thing is or should be an illegal thing. Even when kids are involved.

Stanley Kurtz wants Andrew Sullivan to address the slippery slope to polyamory. And I want conservatives to tell me why Iím supposed to be afraid of it. And donít tell me polyamory is not a good idea. I know that well-enough already.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at August 4, 2003 11:24 PM
So why is polyamory the state’s business?

OK, I'll bite. But this is a narrow, technocratic criticism of polyamory, not a "conservative" one.

"Marriage" (and the emerging "civil union") entails rights and privileges granted by the state and other institutions. My wife may not be compelled to testify against me (a kind of mutual 5th ammendment). My wife has rights of survivorship for joint property. My wife may be added to my health care at work. Etc.

Polyamory would at best be a nightmare to codify, and at worst would be subject to "hacks" and abuses. How many wives do I get to sponsor for immigration? How many wives do I get to put on my health benefits? Marriage as a legal institution is "gamed" and abused as it is; I believe it is arguable that the social costs of extending this institution to polyamory would outweigh the benefits.

Posted by: lewy14 at August 5, 2003 01:31 AM

Dear Mr. Totten,

The "defense of marriage" would be greatly enhanced if it were limited to one per "customer".

If divorce were banned see Mr. de Bonald's arguments in On Divorce I would gladly trade the extension of that single act of marriage to any other human or any other group of humans as one wished. But, there would be no would be married until death did you part.

This solution is most unlikely as all sides are not really interested in the defense of or even the destruction of marriage but in scoring points in the tedious "culture wars" that act as a soporific in today's political debate.

Yo. Ob. Sv. Virgil K. Saari

Posted by: Virgil K. Saari at August 5, 2003 05:29 AM

I agree with most of what you say in this post. Specifically, I wholeheartedly agree that carrying on a polyamourous relationship falls into the category of behaviors that, while stupid, nonetheless should not be prohibited by government.

However, as has already been stated, the problem is that traditional marriage is granted special status by our government and institutions, and there are people who want to see these extended to plural marriage, etc.

As for me, I suspect that a better option would be to curtail the special status granted to traditional marriage. I believe the institution of marriage as it is is strong enough to thrive without special status.

However, I suspect that this would be politically impossible. However, attempting to extend the special status to new kinds of marriage would only further complicate our legal code and make things worse. This tends to put me on the so-called "conservative" side of this argument, even though in actuality I'm on the libertarian side.

To what extent is polyamory illegal? For practical purposes it is not. Some of your posts suggest you fear it will be made so, and that is not the case. The issue is over extending the special status granted to marriage to these nontraditional relationships.

I may post about this.

Posted by: Mike Smith at August 5, 2003 05:50 AM

Believe it or not, the version of Webster's New World Dictionary that I have in front of me right now doesn't even have the word "polyamory" listed, perhaps more evidence of the dreaded lib'ral media censoring information inconsistent with its free love worldview.

Posted by: Steve Smith at August 5, 2003 06:56 AM

"Not every bad thing should be illegal."

Words to live by.

Posted by: Van der Leun at August 5, 2003 08:01 AM

What blows my mind is the way people forget that "slippery slope" is not an argument, but a failure of argument. They teach you not to make slippery slope arguments in logic classes, and yet, people continue to hold them up as valid arguments that need to be refuted.

Posted by: Court at August 5, 2003 09:03 AM

Inasmuch as marriage bestows economic privilidges in the realm of taxation and insurance (at minimum), it IS the state's business. Why should I, a single, non-parent subsidize, through the government and private businesses, 'perks' for an apparently expanding group of people in various living arrangements? I have no problem subsidizing parents while they have children in the home, but I'm not real thrilled with any expansion of 'rights' that will ultimately cost ME money. Marry 10 people if you want, but don't ask MY employer to fund spousal insurance benefits, and don't expect my tax dollars to subsidize your lifestyle.

Posted by: Ellie at August 5, 2003 09:27 AM

There's a slippery slope here that we are overlooking.

Today it's polyamory...tomorrow it's gay polyamory!

We have to nip this one in the bud! :)

Posted by: Joe Schmoe at August 5, 2003 09:51 AM

I have posted here what I humbly consider a valid libertarian argument against extending marriage benfits to group marriages.

It can be summarized this way:

(1) It is fundamentally libertarian to desire the legal code to be simple and concise

(2) Legal sanction of polygamy as a form of legal marriage would require a more complex, lengthier legal code

(3) Therefore, advocating that polygamy be granted the same legal status as traditional marriage is anti-libertarian. A true libertarian would advocate stripping traditional marriage of much of its legal benefits before advocating extending the same legal benefits to polygamy

Posted by: Mike Smith at August 5, 2003 10:09 AM

The word "polyamory" has never been formed on my keyboard before either, and I feel all dirty now that it has. I honestly never heard of the word until Stanley Kurtz started using it, and its not surprising that its not in some dictionaries. The concept itself scarcely makes sense. If he's merely talking about not being monogamous then that ecompasses a whole slew of behaviors that are already perfectly acceptable under the law: good old-fashioned adultery, open relationships, couples who "swing" etc. I find it hard to believe that a significant number of people in these situations would want to go through the hassle of making the commitment to marry all of the other individuals involved. Smaller and smaller numbers of people even want to marry one person, (of course that situation could be rectified by allowing for gay marriage, which would result primarily in a lot of marriages of stable, committed Lesbians and gay men already in long-term, monogamous relationships and who desperately want to get married) so I don't see why all of a sudden everyone would want to marry 2 or 3 people.

Consider what seems to be the most common "polyamorous" (ugh) arrangement, (other than cheating husbands, who I really don't think are going to start telling their wives "Honey, why don't we all just get married?") that of a heterosexual couple who sometimes brings a 2nd woman into the mix for added "spice" etc. This third person is most often just thought of as a sexual plaything and is periodically replaced. How many such couples would really want to bring the second female into a marriage?

I think what hes really talking about is plain, old-fashioned polygamy, which is really of interest only to small minority Religious groups in this country: Mormons, and Muslims. They could rightly ask: If the state is sanctioning everyone else's religious or non-religious conception of marriage why won't they sanction my religious conception of marriage? Frankly, they'd have a point, and I don't think polygamy would lead to the end of civilization either.

-Eric Deamer

Posted by: Click Here for the Young Curmudgeon Blog at August 5, 2003 12:18 PM

I have a hard time distinguishing polygamy and polyamory slavery and cults. Imagine if a cult leader decided to have his entire fellowship "marry," or decided his female "followers" were now his legal wives.

This is less a problem of contract law (as Mike Smith cleverly addresses above), as one of slavery. Perhaps this is a slippery slope argument, but I believe prostitution is a form of slavery too, not the 1960s idea of sexual freedom, so I don't have a problem seeing multi-party marriage as the same.

Posted by: Hovig John Heghinian at August 5, 2003 01:18 PM

I agree enthusiastically with you, Mr. Totten, that "not every bad thing is or should be an illegal thing" -- and being a Calvinist I probably considered a great many more things to be "bad things" than you do!

As some of your correspondents have already suggested, polyamory is not, de facto, illegal in America (or Canada), and sexual practice is not really what is at issue in the current political debate. What is at issue is a change in the state's responsibilities.

From your argument above it almost seems as if you would simply have all family law scrapped, but I would be surprised if that were your actual position. Your support for the recognition of gay marriages in law suggests otherwise.

What do you think are the state's responsibilities towards people in relationships of emotional, economic, and ethical inter-dependency?

Posted by: Gideon Strauss at August 5, 2003 01:39 PM

This is stupid. Actually, marriage is a bit stupid. Not yours or mine, those are beautiful things that we cherish. But the institution, as a state and church sanctioned thing is stupid.

Why should the state sanction or not sanction what is essentially a religious rite? We don’t have government rules on circumcision or baptism. So why marriage?

If it is because, as some here stated, marriage has special legal trappings... then why not simply end all this rigmarole and codify a special partner rule that effects every and all social groups equally?

Each person should be able to link themselves to any one person of their choice. The linkages could be the right not to testify, the right to share health care benefits, pension inheritance, etc. It could be a parent, a sibling, or a person unrelated by blood, such as a best friend, a gay lover, or a spouse. And all other commingling would be voluntary and unrecognized (via such special privileges) by the state, but not illegal.

And the issue of religious sanction should be left to the various established churches and to the individual. The state should not force a church to accept the term and symbolism of “marriage” with these unions. Nor should the state accept any special status from the Church sanction of civil unions, except to recognize the Church sanctioned unions as the equivalent of the civil unions.

This solves the issue of Utah polygamists and "gay marriages". It also helps those who are neither gay, nor prolific, and who simply are lonely spinsters and other socially ignored sub-sets. It is humane and fair and challenges no one’s religious faith.

Posted by: sblafren at August 5, 2003 02:22 PM

As lots of people here demonstrate, once you start picking at marriage the logic of it needing or deserving a special legal status quickly unravels.

But as common sense demonstrates, you don't need that special status to have a three-way. From the state's point of view, the special status of marriage as opposed to any other form of human relationship is to make any number of other things (health insurance, inheritance laws, etc.) less complex and more predictable. The sexual aspect of it is the least to the state-- you can nail your schnauzer if you want for all the state cares, what the state's concerned about is that your schnauzer can't sell your house while you're in a nursing home.

This is to me the rather unbeautiful but eminently sensible reason why marriage shouldn't stop at man-woman but should stop at two. All those non-sexual things would get too complex; society has shaped a whole lot of other stuff to fit the basic two people joined together paradigm. That other stuff is not messed up if the two people both have dicks. It does get messy if there are twelve of them.

Posted by: Mike G at August 5, 2003 05:44 PM

Legally, there is the reason of COMPELLING INTEREST that can apply in a multitude of situations.

What happens inside the household is not some sacred place in which no law can touch. If I have consent with someone about a medical practice, cops will still knock down my doors if he doesn't have a medical license.

We already have mandatory education laws for the compelling interest that children will not be educated to function in a society. Wasn't it also by law that marrying couples had to get a BLOOD TEST? Now, isn't this an 'invasion of privacy'? The State saw there was a compelling interest to do such test for diseases, for unions that may produce children dead on arrival, and so on.

Andrew Sullivan is not an intellectual. He doesn't even understand his own Catholicism or the law itself. He is a pundit. Why people take Sullivan seriously I cannot imagine. There is nothing wrong with being a pundit. But the weakness of the pundit is that they are always talking, everyday, whereas the intellectual thinks more then he talks.

Michael, ask any lawyer or judge about whether the law can use 'compelling interest' to legislate such things as 'polyamory'. They will all say 'yes'.

Posted by: Jonathan at August 5, 2003 08:07 PM

American Integrity.

To nonchalantly view our basic morals being taken apart bit by bit without standing against it is both self-destructive and foolish.

Although my answer is simple; THE answer should be obviously common sensical. If the state can give the thumbs up for racial quotas, then the state should be given the same right to officially oppose polyamory, gay marriage, or whatever else might negatively affect our children and communities, and their futures.

And yes, I agree that there should be more focus on television, alcohol, divorce, religion, tobacco, stereotyping, and other things that negatively affect the child's future.

It is the State's responsibility and our government's responsibility to protect the integrity of our country, preventing future clashes, fighting, and separation.

At least, this is how I see it...

Posted by: Gaijin at August 6, 2003 05:49 AM

I have no problem with the idea of three (or more) people living together under one roof as Spouse(s) and Spouse(s).

The problem comes when the state starts compelling other people to act in certain ways with regards to the marriage.

I suspect that, like with gay marriage, the core issue isn't that people want to get married in the eyes of God (that's fairly easy to pull off). It's that they want to get married in the eyes of the state.

And when the state has to start dealing with insurance hassles, pension hassles, inheritance hassles, court testimony hassles, and so on... Well, it'll be a wrench.

Posted by: Jaybird at August 6, 2003 07:11 AM

Michael, I'm not willing to support anyone's 40 wives and 200 children--therefore, I'm against multi wives---too much like the muslim way--women are bred like cattle for the purpose of providing lots of suicide bombers--Arafat wants each woman to have 12 kids and give him a few to gutblow. No bloody way. If you want to wreck the social security system start giving survivor benefits to one man's 40 wives and 200 children. How soon before you advocate marrying your sister or your pet goat?

Posted by: Kat at August 6, 2003 07:21 AM

Good luck, Mr. Totten, with hosting a civil dialogue in your comments. I would have imagined that supporters of heterosexual monogamous marriage would also be practitioners of moderate speech, but I guess that just isn't so.

Posted by: Gideon Strauss at August 6, 2003 08:45 AM


Complaining that Sullivan is "only a pundit" is ridiculous. But creating a false dichotomy between pundit and intellectual is a howler. We all know that Andrew thinks a lot about these issues because he writes a lot about them.

And you don’t count Andrew as an intellectual? He attended Oxford, won a Harnkness fellowship to Harvard, wee he earned a PHD in political science, and even taught for a few semesters. And he has been invited to speak at Harvard, Yale, Boston University, Boston College, Northwestern, the University of Washington in Seattle, the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Emory, the University of Michigan, the University of Texas at Austin, Oxford University, and Milton Academy.

Meanwhile he worked at the New York Times and the New Republic, earning several awards as a reforming and pioneering editor. Oh, and today he just runs a blog with possibly the highest readership of educated and successful people. Yeah, what a lump.

Posted by: sblafren at August 6, 2003 09:00 AM

Kat, Jaybird, et al.

None of you appear to have an argument if my “plan” were accepted… that is allow as many sexual partners and cohabitations as anyone desires, with any consenting adult in private. But honor only one state sanctioned “partnership” with any one person an individual chooses, be they a relative, a friend, a colleague, or a lover. Meanwhile the religious sanction of any such partnership or any cohabitation is of no concern of the state. “Compelling interest” of the state, aside from the tax issues and legal hassles which would be removed under the above plan, there is none.

Posted by: sblafren at August 6, 2003 09:03 AM

sblafren, we do that now.
I can have a friend move in with my spouse and I and we can have ourselves a nice little triangle. The state would only recognize the one relationship, but I could be married in the eyes of God to as many people as I want.

The problem is not the issue of can we pull polyamory off if the state only recognized one of the unions. The problem is the "what happens when" issue of 3 or 4 or more people who all want the state to recognize all of them together.

Posted by: Jaybird at August 6, 2003 11:06 AM

And, interestingly enough, that guy in Utah who is married to multiple women has done his legal homework and divorced (in name) all but one of his wives. The people who keep trying to prosecute him are upset because neither he nor his wives consider themselves divorced in anything but the legal sense.

Now, if all he was doing was leaving his house and going to another house and having sex with a woman who was not his wife, the state would not care unless his wife brought divorce charges against him.

They are going against him NOT because he is committing adultery, but because he considers himself married to these other women and they consider themselves married to him despite the fact that he has legal divorces.

This is more evidence that the state should NOT be involved in the whole "recognizing marriage" thing than evidence that they should, though.

Posted by: Jaybird at August 6, 2003 11:10 AM

Kurtz' slippery-slope argument doesn't hold water--by the same logical approach, marriage between heterosexual adults should be banned, because it could lead to homosexual marriages (actually a much more logically plausible concern than Kurtz').

Those who think that homosexuality is a disease or a sin would be advised to come out and say so, instead of hiding behind such ludicrous paper-thin arguments.

The state has the obligation to intervene in the lives of families when the well-being of children is seriously jeapordized (and yes, I don't think you should have the right to refuse an appendectomy for your five-year-old). The only argument from the child-welfare point of view that could be made against homosexual marriage is that having homosexual parents is a serious threat to children, and since there is a howling absence of evidence (hell, kids of gay parents aren't even especially predisposed to turn out gay), there's no argument.

Communities generally do better when two-parent families are more prevalent and permanent. This is true regardless of the chromosonal disposition of the parents. I've never heard any information at all of people trying to create three-parent families, probably because three-person relationships (at least those that are entered into voluntarily) fail quickly and spectacularly. So in absence of demand, I daresay that the supply will not be created, even were two-person marriages no longer restricted to a mixed set.

Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at August 6, 2003 04:42 PM

Oh, and Kat, you're a racist idiot and you clearly have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at August 6, 2003 04:45 PM

Chris, I'm not going to get into name calling, but is anyone who disagrees with you a racist? Two year olds have that mentality--called the me me syndrome.

Decades of research shows that children need both a mother and a father in order to develop properly. The Institute for American Values, for example, has published credible data suggesting that children are at risk for emotional dysfunction, poor performance in school, and other social maladies when they are denied life in a loving home with both a mother and a father present.

In addition, newer research—even from pro-homosexual researchers—is providing evidence that children brought up in same-sex households are at risk for emotional problems and confusion over their proper gender roles.

The most quoted research to date on this topic comes from two pro-homosexual researchers, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz who examined 21 psychological studies between 1981-98 on children brought up in lesbian households. They noted that prior researchers had deliberately minimized the differences in these children compared to children from heterosexual homes because they feared being accused of "homophobia."

Biblarz and Stacey are pleased with the differences. Children in same-sex homes are more likely to experiment with homosexuality and are more flexible in their views of gender roles. Boys are more feminine and girls are more masculine. Most parents would not consider these positive effects, but these researchers do.

What isn´t discussed by these pro-homosexual researchers is how sexualized and unstable a typical same-sex household is. Researcher M. Pollak (Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times) has noted that few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, "with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

In addition, a study published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been verbally abused by their partners; and 31% had been victims of physical abuse. A study published in Nursing Research found that lesbians were three times as likely as heterosexual women to abuse alcohol and suffer from other compulsive behaviors, including problems with food, codependency, sex, and money.

Homosexuals also have a significantly reduced life span because of their behaviors. A Canadian study published in International Journal of Epidemiology found that if a young man began practicing homosexuality or bisexual behaviors at age twenty, he would have his life cut short by eight to twenty years compared to heterosexual men.

This is but a brief overview of the devastating consequences of homosexual behaviors—and how these behaviors will affect children. Our culture must not condemn children to live in such horrific conditions—in homes where violence and drug abuse are prevalent; and where children will be exposed to multiple sex partners and the devastating results of sexually transmitted diseases. We lament the fact that millions of children in Africa are AIDS orphans. Why would we deliberately place children into male homosexual homes where it is likely that both "parents" will eventually die of AIDS or anal cancer?

Posted by: Kat at August 6, 2003 07:44 PM

Chris, I'm not going to get into name calling, but is anyone who disagrees with you a racist?

Um, no... someone who rants about "the Muslim way" of having 40 wives (when the Qu'ran clearly advises against taking more than 4 wives) is a racist... at least, that's Chris's assertion, though I would more likely refer to you more generally as an ignorant bigot because Islam is not a race.

In addition, newer research—even from pro-homosexual researchers—is providing evidence that children brought up in same-sex households are at risk for emotional problems and confusion over their proper gender roles.

Gender roles are largely artificial social constructions and vary from culture to culture. America is a poly-cultural society and therefore the idea that there are such things as "proper gender roles" in this society is questionable at best.

Researcher M. Pollak (Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times) has noted that few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, "with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

Well, gee... you think this might be in part because, um, the state doesn't sanction same sex-unions? The stress of societal dissaproval is an undermining factor in any relationship, Kat. Perhaps if the state would recognize committed homosexual relationships as legitimate, we would see more of them lasting longer.

A study published in Nursing Research found that lesbians were three times as likely as heterosexual women to abuse alcohol and suffer from other compulsive behaviors, including problems with food, codependency, sex, and money.

Yes, and young black men are statistically more likely than white men to end up in jail. Inherent characteristic of African-Americans, or systemic societal problem?

This is but a brief overview of the devastating consequences of homosexual behaviors

Bullshit. These studies are bullshit because in this society there is no such thing as a control group and therefore there can be no objective study of "homosexual behavior" and its consequences. If the Regan administration hadn't prevented AIDS research in the '80s, if homosexuality didn't carry the social stigma that it does, if there weren't such widespread homophobia and fear leading ultimately to silence surrounding the critical issues surrounding the homosexual population of this country, these problems would be drastically reduced and might even disappear altogether.

But so long as we prevent this equality from becoming a reality by excluding and stigmatizing gays, well, we may never know.

Oh, and the AIDS epidemic in Africa has very little to do with homosexuality but rather with the social taboos surrounding birth control, sexual assault and rape, women's sexual health and women's rights in general. Regulation doesn't solve these problems Kat. Lifting the fog of ignorance does. AIDS doesn't happen because of homosexuality, it happens because people like you seek to push these issues under the rug rather than addressing them directly.

Posted by: grs at August 6, 2003 11:12 PM

My, my, what a good Liberal--you play the victimology game so well. You never blame the perpetrators--alwys blame society or someone else.

For, truth be told, homosexuality is not user-friendly.

Clinical psychologist Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality cites statistics that reveal "gay" sex to be a dangerously self-destructive addiction. It is "often tied to promiscuity and unsafe sex practices," including sadomasochism, anonymous and group sex.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, homosexual men are a thousand times more likely to contract AIDS than the general heterosexual population. The Medical Clinics of North America reported in 1986 that almost 80 percent of homosexual men have had at least one sexually transmitted disease.

In the 1999 report, "Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality," the Medical Institute for Sexual Health found that both "gays" and lesbians have steeper rates of alcohol, drug and tobacco abuse than heterosexuals. "Gay" men tend to have multiple sexual partners – some as many as 100 annually. And percentage-wise, there is more mental abuse and physical violence among homosexuals than in the general population.

University of California, San Francisco researchers report in their Urban Men's Health Study that attempted suicide rates among "gay" and bisexual men are three times higher than that of heterosexuals.

Anti-"gay" pressure is not a factor, says psychologist William Maier, Psy.D. The studies were conducted in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco "where homosexuality is not only condoned but widely endorsed and promoted," he says.

A large Dutch survey supports the UCSF data. The Sandfort (2001) study found that homosexual men and women are in greater jeopardy for psychiatric disorders, even though social acceptance is exceptionally high in the Netherlands.
Blame me all you want, but ultimately it is your choice to butt in or butt out.

Posted by: Kat at August 7, 2003 06:23 AM

from where im sitting it looks to me like you are the perpetrator of gross deviance here kat. the responsibility and blame for such is being quite rightfully placed directly on you. you can squirm around with your eugenics reminiscent pseudo-science, but deep down what you are saying is simply dehumanizing. i hope some day people like you are as marginalized as you should be now.

Posted by: Balagan at August 7, 2003 08:47 AM

My, my, what a good Liberal

blink haven't been called that in a while...

[bullshit figures from blindly trusted "scientists"]

Okay, you're clearly an idiot and don't understand science for shit. You can't do studies like this and come out with reliable results because there is no control group! Gay society in our culture is not healthy, you are absolutely right. It is seriously ill, and the reasons for its illness are manifold. OF COURSE homosexual men are more likely to contract STDs than heterosexual men. Heterosexual men are allowed to get married! Your repetition of figures that you have already cited will do nothing to further convince anyone... and some psychologist's assertion that anti-gay pressure can't possibly be a factor because the studies were conducted in SanFran(!!!) serve only to illustrate the abysmally low doctoral stanards in the academic world. The impact of systemic societal stigmatization, oppression, violence toward, and discrimination against any cultural group do not magically disappear in the Castro and anyone who has done a 4th grade level science project should realize that.

Posted by: grs at August 7, 2003 08:52 AM

Well, I simply can't normalize deviant behaviour and you will argue against any study unless it is one homosexuals have paid for like Kinsey's. We could say pedophiles have to abduct kids because we don't accept their behaviour. Therefore, it is my fault for marginalizing this segment of society. If we just allowed them to screw kids at will, they wouldn't have to resort to murder. Yeah, right.
Let homos do whatever they want, but not at my expense. Don't tell me my opinion is unacceptable because I don't happen to buy into this homosexual agenda. Kids are first and foremost on my agenda and too many homos get their jollies hurting kids. To normalize homosexuality is to make it easier for homosexual predators to hunt and we know homosexuals commit an astonishing rate of all pedophilia crimes--1-3% of society commits 30-50% of the pedophilia. Go figure.

Posted by: Kat at August 7, 2003 09:12 AM

I notice you don't even bother giving a source for that figure of yours.

Men who molest boys are generally not homosexual... they don't engage in consensual relations with adult men... they are attracted to boys largely because of the feminine characteristics of prepubescents. Of course, plenty of studies have been conducted for the sole purpose of proving the point that you are so desperate to make. To that end, they define all adult male molestation of male children as molestations committed by homosexuals, which is a definition that most experts reject.

You accuse me of rejecting out-of-hand any study not conducted or paid for by the homosexual establishment... who's paying for the studies that you cite? Whose agenda are they pushing? Looks like you got a log in your eye there...

As for your slippery slope argument about opening the door to justifying pedophelia... one important word: consent. Rape is never justified. Can a child really consent to sex? Do most pedophiles care? Pedophelia does direct demonstrable harm to the individuals involved and to society at large to which homosexuality simply cannot be shown as analogous. We're not opening any doors here except to your own ignorant paranoia.

Posted by: grs at August 7, 2003 09:43 AM

You doth protest too much.

"Does homosexuality equal pedophiles and beastilists?"

Yes. The queers say so themselves:

"The Great "Gay" Racket [Free Republic]". See the following replies:

Reply number 167:

** "Homosexuals are the only self-identified group in the world to openly advocate pedophilia. Can you find me 12 publications from any other self-identifying group that supports pedophilia?

Gay Community News, Vol 4, #5, June 1982, asked; "How do you go about beating Anti-Pedophile attitudes"?

Gay magazine "Outrage" carried articles relating to Pedophilia in two thirds of its publications between April 1983 and July 1984.

The Journal of Homosexuality, 1987 published an article called; "Pedophilia and the Gay movement" detailing Homosexual efforts to end oppression of Pedophiles.

Gay Rights Group COC (Holland) in 1980 adopted the position that the Liberation of Pedophilia must be viewed as a Gay issue.

Gay Magazine "Outrage" Australia, May 1984 declared its editorial position on Pedophilia as "One of defence of the Civil Liberties of Pedophiles and alleged Pedophiles, and of the Right of Pedophiles to make their case in the Gay media".

The Gay Manifesto, London 1989 Calls for recognition of "Inter-generational" sex .

The Gay "Relationships" book by Charles Silverstein "Man to Man" says "Man/Boy love experiences (pedophilia) occurs too frequently to be ignored". He devoted a chapter to; "Love between the generations".

Lesbian book "Saphistry" says; "Lesbians feel it is not uncommon for an affectionate relationship between a child and an adult, since sexual desire can exist in children as well as adults"

"Sex between men and boys is the foundation of homosexuality." - 1992 editorial in The Sentinel, San Francisco's major pro-gay publication

Homosexual leaders blatantly voice tolerance for child sex abuse. A prominent gay magazine, Out, quoted Damien Martin, the head of New York’s homosexual Harvey Milk High School, as saying, "No kid has ever been hurt by [oral sex]" in September, 1994 on page 73.

The leading gay publication, The Advocate, in an article titled Getting Over It pondered on May 5, 1992 about how many boys "would have missed out on a valuable, liberating experience—one that initiated them into their sexuality—if it weren’t for so-called molestation?"

The nation’s largest gay publicist, Alyson Publications of Boston, which distributes Daddy’s Roommate and other homosexual books for kids, published Paedophilia: The Radical Case, hundreds of pages of why and how seven year old boys should be brought to climax. Another Alyson book, The Age Taboo on page 144 insists: "Boy-lovers... are not child molesters. The child abusers are... parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody." " **

Posted by: Kat at August 7, 2003 09:52 AM

Kat, others have done a fine job challenging the research you've cited. On that score I would simply add that if you're concerned about the statistical impermanence of homosexual relationships, you should be comparing their duration to heterosexual relationships that do not result in marriage. Actually, you should be comparing them to heterosexual relationships that do not result in marriage and are consistently denounced from those on high as sinful and corrupt, except (perhaps with the exception of interracial relationships in some parts of the country) that doesn't really happen too much to straight folk.

To get back to my original objection to your post, I was intemperate.

...too much like the muslim way--women are bred like cattle for the purpose of providing lots of suicide bombers--Arafat wants each woman to have 12 kids and give him a few to gutblow.

What I should have said was that this post was racist, idiotic and clearly ignorant. Perhaps it's not a good measure of the poster.

No bloody way. If you want to wreck the social security system start giving survivor benefits to one man's 40 wives and 200 children. How soon before you advocate marrying your sister or your pet goat?

Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at August 7, 2003 09:55 AM

So do you agree with women being chattel--like cows in a bull's stable? That's one reason for my strongly opposing polygamy. {Yasser Arafat himself who is immensely popular among his followers regularly urges Palestinians to procreate abundantly so as to be able to donate more offspring to his intifada martyr brigade. As he stated to the residents of a West Bank refugee camp, "I call upon each and every one of you to bring into this world at least twelve children and give me ten of them in order to continue the [jihad]." } Then there is this guy whose dream is to have 100 kids--once the wives can't produce he sends them out to pasture by saying I divorce you 3 times. And he marries some 10 year old.

Posted by: Kat at August 7, 2003 10:12 AM

okay, you've GOT to be kidding on so many levels...

First of all, you ask me to take seriously an article which begins with a statement of loathing toward homosexuals. Yeah, real objective.

Beyond that, I see you're only capable of cut-and-pasting sources from anti-gay sites. I can't find any reference to them anywhere than from people pushing the anti-gay agenda. Do your own fucking research, dimwit, and give us some way of independantly verifying your claims and viewing whatever quotes might be legitemate in their original context.

And finally Yasser fucking Arafat?? He's not even a religious Muslim! He's a terrorist who is advocating excessive childbearing for the purposes of creating more suicide bombers and outbreeding the Jews for anti-semitic and political motives! You are only further illustrating your ignorance Kat. I would suggest you quit while your head is still located somewhere below your intestine.

Posted by: grs at August 7, 2003 10:29 AM

You mean until I agree with you that homosexuality is hunky dory and that polygamy is the cat's ass? Sorry, I have a mind of my own. I gave you all the publications--you do your own research--I'm not your bum buddy. Besides, that stuff is likely more what you read than I do--I only read it to get what the homo agenda of the day is and how you are trying hard to homosexualize America. I'm not keen on your school agenda--that making preschoolers sing hey hey I am gay and it's OK would make me sue any school which did that to my kid. I still believe in teaching the Biblical take on homosexuality? Am I allowed? Is your way the only way? Be gay but don't tell me I have to think it's normal--and leave the little boys alone.

Posted by: Kat at August 7, 2003 10:36 AM

Bum buddy? What does that even mean? If it means what I think it means, how can a woman have a bum buddy?

Oh, I see...

You think I'm a gay man advocating not only homosexual equality, but pedophelia, polyamory, polygamy (which is different from polyamory), multiculturalist education, and the destruction of religion. I see. Well...


I see that this is really not worth my time. Thank you, it's been fun.

Posted by: grs at August 7, 2003 10:59 AM

"cites statistics that reveal "gay" sex to be a dangerously self-destructive addiction. It is "often tied to promiscuity and unsafe sex practices," including sadomasochism, anonymous and group sex."

Heterosexual men and women can have sexual addictions too, and many gay men are monogamous. And lesbian couples tend to be much more monogamous than het couples. And where did you get the idea that S&M is inherently "unsafe"? Most S&Mers are much more conscious about their sexual activities than "vanilla" people - they talk through everything and are more aware of physiology than your average vanilla couple who never have to think about what they're doing. And a lot of S&M does not involve exchanging bodily fluids.

Again, no reason group sex is inherently unsafe. What's unsafe is not taking appropriate precautions to prevent disease or pregnancy (if not desired), and that's not limited to gay men.

i.e. you have no idea what you're talking about.

Posted by: Yehudit at August 7, 2003 07:57 PM

Of course I can' speak from experience, but I can read. I'm not real keen to try fisting or eating someone's poop or drinking their urine.

The major surveys on homosexual behavior are summarized below. Two things stand out 1) homosexuals behave similarly world-over, and 2) as Harvard Medical Professor, Dr. William Haseltine,33 noted in 1993, the "changes in sexual behavior that have been reported to have occurred in some groups have proved, for the most part, to be transient. For example, bath houses and sex clubs in many cities have either reopened or were never closed."

Homosexual Activities (in %)

US16 US13 US US18 Denmark20 US19 London27 Sydney/London26 Canada25
1940s1977 83/84 1983 1984 1983 1985 1991
ever ever ever in yr in yr in mo in mo last 6mo
oral/penile 83 99 100/99 99 86 67
anal/penile 68 91 93/98 95 92 95 100
oral/anal 59 83 92/92 63 69 89 55/65
urine sex 10 23 29/
fisting/toys 22 41/47 34
fecal sex-eating 4 8
enemas 11 11
torture sex 22 37 37
public/orgy sex 61 76 88
sex with minors 37 23 24/

ORAL SEX Homosexuals fellate almost all of their sexual contacts (and ingest semen from about half of these). Semen contains many of the germs carried in the blood. Because of this, gays who practice oral sex verge on consuming raw human blood, with all its medical risks. Since the penis often has tiny lesions (and often will have been in unsanitary places such as a rectum), individuals so involved may become infected with hepatitis A or gonorrhea (and even HIV and hepatitis B). Since many contacts occur between strangers (70% of gays estimated that they had had sex only once with over half of their partners17,27), and gays average somewhere between 106 and 1105 different partners/year, the potential for infection is considerable.

RECTAL SEX Surveys indicate that about 90% of gays have engaged in rectal intercourse, and about two-thirds do it regularly. In a 6-month long study of daily sexual diaries,3 gays averaged 110 sex partners and 68 rectal encounters a year.

Rectal sex is dangerous. During rectal intercourse the rectum becomes a mixing bowl for 1) saliva and its germs and/or an artificial lubricant, 2) the recipient's own feces, 3) whatever germs, infections or substances the penis has on it, and 4) the seminal fluid of the inserter. Since sperm readily penetrate the rectal wall (which is only one cell thick) causing immunologic damage, and tearing or bruising of the anal wall is very common during anal/penile sex, these substances gain almost direct access to the blood stream. Unlike heterosexual intercourse (in which sperm cannot penetrate the multilayered vagina and no feces are present),7 rectal intercourse is probably the most sexually efficient way to spread hepatitis B, HIV syphilis and a host of other blood-borne diseases.

Tearing or ripping of the anal wall is especially likely with "fisting," where the hand and arm is inserted into the rectum. It is also common when "toys" are employed (homosexual lingo for objects which are inserted into the rectum--bottles, carrots, even gerbils8). The risk of contamination and/or having to wear a colostomy bag from such "sport" is very real. Fisting was apparently so rare in Kinsey's time that he didn't think to talk about it. By 1977, well over a third of gays admitted to doing it. The rectum was not designed to accommodate the fist, and those who do so can find themselves consigned to diapers for life.

FECAL SEX About 80% of gays (see Table) admit to licking and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners and thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study,5 70% of the gays had engaged in this activity--half regularly over 6 months. Result? --the "annual incidence of hepatitis A in...homosexual men was 22 percent, whereas no heterosexual men acquired hepatitis A." In 1992,26 it was noted that the proportion of London gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not declined since 1984.

While the body has defenses against fecal germs, exposure to the fecal discharge of dozens of strangers each year is extremely unhealthy. Ingestion of human waste is the major route of contracting hepatitis A and the enteric parasites collectively known as the Gay Bowel Syndrome. Consumption of feces has also been implicated in the transmission of typhoid fever,9 herpes, and cancer.27 About 10% of gays have eaten or played with [e.g., enemas, wallowing in feces]. The San Francisco Department of Public Health saw 75,000 patients per year, of whom 70 to 80 per cent are homosexual men....An average of 10 per cent of all patients and asymptomatic contacts reported...because of positive fecal samples or cultures for amoeba, giardia, and shigella infections were employed as food handlers in public establishments; almost 5 per cent of those with hepatitis A were similarly employed."10 In 1976, a rare airborne scarlet fever broke out among gays and just missed sweeping through San Francisco.10 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that 29% of the hepatitis A cases in Denver, 66% in New York, 50% in San Francisco, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal and 26% in Melbourne in the first six months of 1991 were among gays.11 A 1982 study "suggested that some transmission from the homosexual group to the general population may have occurred."12

URINE SEX About 10% of Kinsey's gays reported having engaged in "golden showers" [drinking or being splashed with urine]. In the largest survey of gays ever conducted,13 23% admitted to urine-sex. In the largest random survey of gays,6 29% reported urine-sex. In a San Francisco study of 655 gays,14 only 24% claimed to have been monogamous in the past year. Of these monogamous gays, 5% drank urine, 7% practiced "fisting," 33% ingested feces via anal/oral contact, 53% swallowed semen, and 59% received semen in their rectum during the previous month.


SADOMASOCHISM as the Table indicates, a large minority of gays engage in torture for sexual fun. Sex with minors 25% of white gays17 admitted to sex with boys 16 or younger as adults. In a 9-state study,30 33% of the 181 male, and 22% of the 18 female teachers caught molesting students did so homosexually (though less than 3% of men and 2% of women engage in homosexuality31). Depending on the study, the percent of gays reporting sex in public restrooms ranged from 14%16 to 41%13 to 66%,6 9%16, 60%13 and 67%5 reported sex in gay baths; 64%16 and 90%18 said that they used illegal drugs.

Fear of AIDS may have reduced the volume of gay sex partners, but the numbers are prodigious by any standard. Morin15 reported that 824 gays had lowered their sex-rate from 70 different partners/yr. in 1982 to 50/yr. by 1984. McKusick14 reported declines from 76/yr. to 47/yr. in 1985. In Spain32 the average was 42/yr. in 1989.

Medical Consequences of Homosexual Sex

Death and disease accompany promiscuous and unsanitary sexual activity. 70%25 to 78%x,13 of gays reported having had a sexually transmitted disease. The proportion with intestinal parasites (worms, flukes, amoeba) ranged from 25%18 to 39%19 to 59%.20 As of 1992, 83% of U.S. AIDS in whites had occurred in gays.21 The Seattle sexual diary study3? reported that gays had, on a yearly average:

1. fellated 108 men and swallowed semen from 48;
2. exchanged saliva with 96;
3. experienced 68 penile penetrations of the anus; and
4. ingested fecal material from 19.

No wonder 10% came down with hepatitis B and 7% contracted hepatitis A during the 6-month study.

Effects on the Lifespan

Smokers and drug addicts don't live as long as non-smokers or non-addicts, so we consider smoking and narcotics abuse harmful. The typical life-span of homosexuals suggests that their activities are more destructive than smoking and as dangerous as drugs.

Obituaries numbering 6,516 from 16 U.S. homosexual journals over the past 12 years were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers.23 The obituaries from the regular newspapers were similar to U.S. averages for longevity; the medium age of death of married men was 75, and 80% of them died old (age 65 or older). For unmarried or divorced men the median age of death was 57, and 32% of them died old. Married women averaged age 79 at death; 85% died old. Unmarried and divorced women averaged age 71, and 60% of them died old.

The median age of death for homosexuals, however, was virtually the same nationwide--and, overall, less than 2% survived to old age. If AIDS was the cause of death, the median age was 39. For the 829 gays who died of something other than AIDS, the median age of death was 42, and 9% died old. The 163 lesbians had a median age of death of 44, and 20% died old.

Two and eight-tenths percent (2.8%) of gays died violently. They were 116 times more apt to be murdered; 24 times more apt to commit suicide; and had a traffic-accident death-rate 18 times the rate of comparably-aged white males. Heart attacks, cancer and liver failure were exceptionally common. Twenty percent of lesbians died of murder, suicide, or accident--a rate 487 times higher than that of white females aged 25-44. The age distribution of samples of homosexuals in the scientific literature from 1989 to 1992 suggests a similarly shortened life-span.

The Gay Legacy

Homosexuals rode into the dawn of sexual freedom and returned with a plague that gives every indication of destroying most of them. Those who treat AIDS patients are at great risk, not only from HIV infection, which as of 1992 involved over 100 health care workers,21 but also from TB and new strains of other diseases.24 Those who are housed with AIDS patients are also at risk.24 Those who are housed with AIDS patients are also at risk.24 Dr. Max Essex, chair of the Harvard AIDS Institute, warned congress in 1992 that "AIDS has already led to other kinds of dangerous epidemics...If AIDS is not eliminated, other new lethal microbes will emerge, and neither safe sex nor drug free practices will prevent them."28 At least 8, and perhaps as many as 30 29 patients had been infected with HIV by health care workers as of 1992.

The Biological Swapmeet

The typical sexual practices of homosexuals are a medical horror story --imagine exchanging saliva, feces, semen and/or blood with dozens of different men each year. Imagine drinking urine, ingesting feces and experiencing rectal trauma on a regular basis. Often these encounters occur while the participants are drunk, high, and/or in an orgy setting. Further, many of them occur in extremely unsanitary places (bathrooms, dirty peep shows), or, because homosexuals travel so frequently, in other parts of the world.

Every year, a quarter or more of homosexuals visit another country.20 Fresh American germs get taken to Europe, Africa and Asia. And fresh pathogens from these continents come here. Foreign homosexuals regularly visit the U.S. and participate in this biological swapmeet.

The Pattern of Infection

Unfortunately the danger of these exchanges does not merely affect homosexuals. Travelers carried so many tropical diseases to New York City that it had to institute a tropical disease center, and gays carried HIV from New York City to the rest of the world.27 Most of the 6,349 Americans who got AIDS from contaminated blood as of 1992, received it from homosexuals and most of the women in California who got AIDS through heterosexual activity got it from men who engaged in homosexual behavior.23 The rare form of airborne scarlet fever that stalked San Francisco in 1976 also started among homosexuals.10

Genuine Compassion

Society is legitimately concerned with health risks-- they impact our taxes and everyone's chances of illness and injury. Because we care about them, smokers are discouraged from smoking by higher insurance premiums, taxes on cigarettes and bans against smoking in public. These social pressures cause many to quit. They likewise encourage non-smokers to stay non-smokers.

Homosexuals are sexually troubled people engaging in dangerous activities. Because we care about them and those tempted to join them, it is important that we neither encourage nor legitimize such a destructive lifestyle.


1. Karlen A. SEXUALITY And HOMOSEXUALITY. NY Norton, 1971.

2. Pines B. BACK TO BASICS. NY Morrow, 1982, p. 211.

3. Weinberg G. SOCIETY AND THE HEALTHY HOMOSEXUAL. NY St. Martin's, 1972, preface.

4. Amici curiae brief, in Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986.

5. Corey L. & Holmes, K.K. Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men. "New England Journal of Medicine," 1980302435- 38.

6. Cameron P et al Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease. "Nebraska Medical Journal," 198570292-99; Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order "Psychological Reports," 1989, 64, 1167-79.

7. Manligit, G.W. et al Chronic immune stimulation by sperm alloan- tigens. "Journal of the American Medical Association," 1984251 237-38.

8. Cecil Adams, "The Straight Dope," THE READER (Chicago, 3/28/86) [Adams writes authoritatively on counter-culture material, his column is carried in many alternative newspapers across the U.S. and Canada].

9. Dritz, S. & Braff. Sexually transmitted typhoid fever. "New England Journal of Medicine," 19772961359-60.

10. Dritz, S. Medical aspects of homosexuality. "New England Journal of Medicine," 1980302463-4.

11. CDC Hepatitis A among homosexual men --United States, Canada, and Australia. MMWR 199241155-64.

12. Christenson B. et al. An epidemic outbreak of hepatitis A among homosexual men in Stockholm, "American Journal of Epidemiology," 1982115599-607.

13. Jay, K. & Young, A. THE GAY REPORT. NY Summit, 1979.

14. McKusick, L. et al AIDS and sexual behaviors reported by gay men in San Francisco, "American Journal of Public Health," 1985 75493- 96.

15. USA Today 11/21/84.

16. Gebhard, P. & Johnson, A. THE KINSEY DATA. NY Saunders, 1979.

17. Bell, A. & Weinberg, M. HOMOSEXUALITIES. NY Simon & Schuster, 1978.

18. Jaffee, H. et al. National case-control study of Kaposi's sarcoma. "Annals Of Internal Medicine," 198399145-51.

19. Quinn, T. C. et al. The polymicrobial origin of intestinal infection in homosexual men. "New England Journal of Medicine," 1983309576-82.

20. Biggar, R. J. Low T-lymphocyte ratios in homosexual men. "Journal Of The American Medical Association," 19842511441-46; "Wall Street Journal," 7/18/91, B1.


22. Chu, S. et al. AIDS in bisexual men in the U.S. "American Journal Of Public Health," 199282220-24.

23. Cameron, P., Playfair, W. & Wellum, S. The lifespan of homo- sexuals. Paper presented at Eastern Psychological Association Convention, April 17, 1993.

24. Dooley, W.W. et al. Nosocomial transmission of tuberculosis in a hospital unit for HIV-invected patients. "Journal of the American Medical Association," 19922672632-35.

25. Schechter, M.T. et al. Changes in sexual behavior and fear of AIDS. "Lancet," 198411293.

26. Elford, J. et al. Kaposi's sarcoma and insertive rimming. "Lancet," 1992339938.

27. Beral, V. et al. Risk of Kaposi's sarcoma and sexual practices associated with faecal contact in homosexual or bisexual men with AIDS. "Lancet," 1992339632-35.

28. Testimony before House Health & Environment Subcommittee, 2/24/92.

29. Ciesielski, C. et al. Transmission of human immunodeficiency virus in a dental practice. "Annals of Internal Medicine, 1992116 798-80; CDC Announcement Houston Post, 8/7/92.

30. Rubin, S. "Sex Education Teachers Who Sexually Abuse Students." 24th International Congress on Psychology, Sydney, Australia, August 1988.

31. Cameron, P. & Cameron, K. Prevalence of homosexuality. "Psychology Reports," 1993, in press; Melbye, M. & Biggar, R.J. Interactions between persons at risk for AIDS and the general population in Denmark. "American Journal of Epidemiology," 1992135593-602.

32. Rodriguez-Pichardo, A. et al. Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual males in Seville, Spain, "Geniourin Medicina," 1990 66;423-427.

33. AIDS Prognosis, Washington Times, 2/13/93, C1

Posted by: Kat at August 7, 2003 09:03 PM


"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere

Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com

News Feeds


Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button


Tip Jar


Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn