Slog
News & ArtsMonday, April 20, 2009
Homo He's Actually an Opportunistic Bigot
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:00 AM
Rudy Giulliani intends to campaign against same-sex marriage if he jumps into the NY governor's race next year. Rudy's gay BFFs—the male couple he lived with while he was divorcing his second wife—insist that Rudy has nothing against gay people. It's just that the former mayor of New York—who's on his third wife now (eww)—is a "traditional Catholic." Yeah, one of those traditional Catholics with three marriages and God alone knows—or cares—how many adulterous encounters under his belt.
Rudy rightly notes that "Democrats, including President Obama and Hillary Clinton, have essentially the same position I have, which is let's have civil unions." To which I say, yeah, let's have civil unions. They're a slippery slope we can believe in.
1
We realize it is way over your maturity level to understand but some people oppose homosexual marriage because they think it is poor public policy.
It is nothing against homosexuals, and yes, such people do have gay friends.
But go ahead, pitch a whiny screetching hissy pissy bitch tantrum over the possibility that anyone might not agree with you 100%.
Be sure to call them hypocritical homophobic haters.
It is nothing against homosexuals, and yes, such people do have gay friends.
But go ahead, pitch a whiny screetching hissy pissy bitch tantrum over the possibility that anyone might not agree with you 100%.
Be sure to call them hypocritical homophobic haters.
3
@1 Poor public policy? What is it exactly about justice and fairness that is poor public policy?
Because, I can't think of anything.
Because, I can't think of anything.
4
For a Republican Giulliani is very progressive on gay issues. But only supporting gays 90% is not enough for Dan.
These useful allies are labeled BIGOTS and thrown out on the trash heap with Obama and everyone else, which is everyone else, who is not pure enough to suit Dan.
The world is a lonely place when you only have one issue and anyone who does not totally agree with you is unworthy of consideration.
These useful allies are labeled BIGOTS and thrown out on the trash heap with Obama and everyone else, which is everyone else, who is not pure enough to suit Dan.
The world is a lonely place when you only have one issue and anyone who does not totally agree with you is unworthy of consideration.
5
I love when people use terms like "poor public policy" to try to makes themselves sound smart, and then don't explain their rationale.
Just why would gay marriage be "poor public policy"?
Just why would gay marriage be "poor public policy"?
6
1 probably thinks that if we allow gay marriage, everyone will be marrying their roommates/friends/neighbors/random strangers to soak up the free health care and delicious tax breaks (they don't call it a marriage penalty for nothing). If this were actually the case, why don't we see widespread HETEROSEXUAL abuse of the marital system. I mean, a gay and lesbian couple could get together, pair off for the benefits, and continue living just the way they were. Young single people with jobs that don't offer health coverage, or no job at all, could just get hitched to someone with benefits with the understanding that it's just a marriage of the most extreme convenience. State laws are set up such that even where it is cheap and easy to get a divorce, you might lose your shirt if you get hitched to the wrong wagon. There's plenty of disincentives for abuse that affect EVERYONE.
7
Dan I hope you find a way to address the conflict of interest between Cinemark and your appearance at the This American Life event.
I realize this is not YOUR show, but I am going to continue to honor the boycott of the bigot run theater that will be airing this performance.
Please do something...
http://www.cinemark.com/advance_tickets.…
http://nomilkforcinemark.com/
This conflict makes it difficult to take too strong a position about Guiliani's opportunism.
I realize this is not YOUR show, but I am going to continue to honor the boycott of the bigot run theater that will be airing this performance.
Please do something...
http://www.cinemark.com/advance_tickets.…
http://nomilkforcinemark.com/
This conflict makes it difficult to take too strong a position about Guiliani's opportunism.
11
Rudy's opposition to gay marriage is actually better for our cause than if he supported it, since it highlights the hipocrisy of aldulterous heterosexuals who abuse the "sanctity of marriage"
12
ok girls,
for the 100th time but this will have to be the cliff notes version.
Man marries woman; they (usually) have kids. (yes, we know not all hetero couples do and old infertile couples marry blah blah but hetero marriage = kids is a pretty safe bet)
They are committed to each other and the kids and stay married and raise emotionally healthy kids who grow up to repeat the process. The "family" is the building block of society. it produces and raises functional adults (better than any other structure) It provides a saftey net for extended family members (most government social programs exist to take up that slack created by the breakdown of the family, including extended family)
Society has a HUGE and VITAL interest in promoting and fostering this ideal.
Family benefits were designed to help families that are sacrificing and more vulnerable during these child rearing years (added expense, often >esp in the good old days< only one breadwinner)because society recognized that families that bear and raise children perform a critical service for society.
This ideal family structure takes a lot of support (when we follow our animal instincts we tend not to stick artound to raise kids)
It needs to be protected from a host of pathogens: extramarital sex (of all flavors and varieties), divorce, pornography, prostitution, drug abuse, etc etc.
Where does homosexual marriage fit in?
It doesn't.
There can only be one "ideal" and it is a tough sell as it is and if we throw lots of competing models out there then you muddy your message.
If we extend benefits to any grouping that wants to call itself a family then the pool of availible funds won't be enough to help where it is really needed. (If you want to suggest that 'family benefits' should only be extended to families with minor children I would not argue with that)
No one has anything against homosexuals, but society has no interest in promoting or subsidizing homosexual behavior or relationships. sorry.
If that is where you find 'Love' and happiness more power to you.
But don't try to force society to say that what you have is as good as the "ideal" and don't force society to pay you for doing it.
Notice that "Love' has nothing to do with it.
As Dan noted when he got a license to marry some lesbo friend, the government doesn't care if you love your spouse or stay in love or fall out of love. It only requires you to care for and support and not abuse the members of your family.
It has nothing to do with religion, either.
More...
for the 100th time but this will have to be the cliff notes version.
Man marries woman; they (usually) have kids. (yes, we know not all hetero couples do and old infertile couples marry blah blah but hetero marriage = kids is a pretty safe bet)
They are committed to each other and the kids and stay married and raise emotionally healthy kids who grow up to repeat the process. The "family" is the building block of society. it produces and raises functional adults (better than any other structure) It provides a saftey net for extended family members (most government social programs exist to take up that slack created by the breakdown of the family, including extended family)
Society has a HUGE and VITAL interest in promoting and fostering this ideal.
Family benefits were designed to help families that are sacrificing and more vulnerable during these child rearing years (added expense, often >esp in the good old days< only one breadwinner)because society recognized that families that bear and raise children perform a critical service for society.
This ideal family structure takes a lot of support (when we follow our animal instincts we tend not to stick artound to raise kids)
It needs to be protected from a host of pathogens: extramarital sex (of all flavors and varieties), divorce, pornography, prostitution, drug abuse, etc etc.
Where does homosexual marriage fit in?
It doesn't.
There can only be one "ideal" and it is a tough sell as it is and if we throw lots of competing models out there then you muddy your message.
If we extend benefits to any grouping that wants to call itself a family then the pool of availible funds won't be enough to help where it is really needed. (If you want to suggest that 'family benefits' should only be extended to families with minor children I would not argue with that)
No one has anything against homosexuals, but society has no interest in promoting or subsidizing homosexual behavior or relationships. sorry.
If that is where you find 'Love' and happiness more power to you.
But don't try to force society to say that what you have is as good as the "ideal" and don't force society to pay you for doing it.
Notice that "Love' has nothing to do with it.
As Dan noted when he got a license to marry some lesbo friend, the government doesn't care if you love your spouse or stay in love or fall out of love. It only requires you to care for and support and not abuse the members of your family.
It has nothing to do with religion, either.
13
#12 - Starts with "Ok girls" and is signed by "let the insults begin"
I think the front of the bus is the ideal and it should be saved for the whitest of the white people because even if the back is just as acceptable as the front, we all know the front is better and we ought to just keep it that way because then we know - for sure - where the right people are located.
It's not a big deal. Really...if I say its ok, then it is ok. Yeah, there are reasons to believe that it is impossible to uphold separate but equal accommodations, but that's not the point.
This is called reasonable supremacy. Don't look beneath the sheet. I don't. I just know I am right and that is good enough.
I think the front of the bus is the ideal and it should be saved for the whitest of the white people because even if the back is just as acceptable as the front, we all know the front is better and we ought to just keep it that way because then we know - for sure - where the right people are located.
It's not a big deal. Really...if I say its ok, then it is ok. Yeah, there are reasons to believe that it is impossible to uphold separate but equal accommodations, but that's not the point.
This is called reasonable supremacy. Don't look beneath the sheet. I don't. I just know I am right and that is good enough.
14
@ 12, marriage notions change. They are changing now and no longer fit the ideals you describe - if, in fact, they ever did.
19
Ah 12, gay people pay into "the pool of benefits" too. You want to take gay people's money to support your lifestyle, yet you want to deny them equal treatment.
20
Norms change, but often for the worse.
Out-of-Wedlock birthrates are increasing. Do we throw up our hands and accept it as the new reality or do we educate people to their options and responsibilities and improve behavior?
Divorce rates are high.
Do we accept that or, again, educate about responsibilities and choices and improve the situation?
Just because things are the way they are (or are becoming) doesn't mean that is the way they should be or that we have to accept them.
We can fight moral decay and try to improve society.
A wise man once said:
Some see things as they are and shrug, 'why not';
I see things as they can and should be and say 'straighten up!'.
Out-of-Wedlock birthrates are increasing. Do we throw up our hands and accept it as the new reality or do we educate people to their options and responsibilities and improve behavior?
Divorce rates are high.
Do we accept that or, again, educate about responsibilities and choices and improve the situation?
Just because things are the way they are (or are becoming) doesn't mean that is the way they should be or that we have to accept them.
We can fight moral decay and try to improve society.
A wise man once said:
Some see things as they are and shrug, 'why not';
I see things as they can and should be and say 'straighten up!'.
21
19
Heteros who never have children also pay into the pool. Responsible people recognize that all society benefits when children are (well) raised and gladly helps support the education and care for children even if they are not their own.
As Joe Biden said recently:
"Don't be an unpatriotic selfish prick, Rob, you disgusting pervert...pay up and shut up!" or something like that.
Heteros who never have children also pay into the pool. Responsible people recognize that all society benefits when children are (well) raised and gladly helps support the education and care for children even if they are not their own.
As Joe Biden said recently:
"Don't be an unpatriotic selfish prick, Rob, you disgusting pervert...pay up and shut up!" or something like that.
22
#20 and that's why i say that things took a wrong turn in 1919 when women were allowed to vote.
We need to fight the decay of women thinking that they have a reasonable claim to full participation in society. First they got the vote...then the pill...then jobs...now they technically don't need men. It's decay I tell you.
Ignore enlightenment. Deny history. Stand your ground against all odds and against reason and against clear evidence that persuades reconsideration of supremacist thought.
We don't have to have open minds. It is a choice.
We need to fight the decay of women thinking that they have a reasonable claim to full participation in society. First they got the vote...then the pill...then jobs...now they technically don't need men. It's decay I tell you.
Ignore enlightenment. Deny history. Stand your ground against all odds and against reason and against clear evidence that persuades reconsideration of supremacist thought.
We don't have to have open minds. It is a choice.
23
Someone should ask him at every conceivable opportunity, "what is the Catholic position on divorce?"
Because, you know, you can have your sins -- like balling your girlfriend in your special command post that was supposed to be set up for 9/11 operations -- forgiven. But divorce is ongoing. You don't get forgiveness for something you're doing RIGHT THIS MINUTE.
In other words, and for a thousand other reasons besides, GET STUFFED, RUDY.
Because, you know, you can have your sins -- like balling your girlfriend in your special command post that was supposed to be set up for 9/11 operations -- forgiven. But divorce is ongoing. You don't get forgiveness for something you're doing RIGHT THIS MINUTE.
In other words, and for a thousand other reasons besides, GET STUFFED, RUDY.
24
@12--- so where do all the gay folks come from if your concept of hetero marriage produces what society needs?
Are those hetero folks doing something wrong to make the gay folks.
Are those hetero folks doing something wrong to make the gay folks.
25
@12...please provide some evidence that allowing same-sex unions (of any flavor) or providing partner benefits without formal unions increases costs such as health coverage. Since a very large number of employers offer benefits without formal unions, surely you have some evidence of this societal burden outside of your musings.
26
I'm not sure if you are making a joke.
If people previously not covered for benefits become covered it will increase the costs. Unless you know a place where health insurance and other benefits are free.
Employeers already extending such benefits are diluting the amount of support they could offer child rearing families.
If people previously not covered for benefits become covered it will increase the costs. Unless you know a place where health insurance and other benefits are free.
Employeers already extending such benefits are diluting the amount of support they could offer child rearing families.
29
20, how is allowing gay marriage "moral decay"?
The way things should be is people should not worry about gay people getting married. If you think that Adam and Steve getting married is going to hurt your own marriage, then maybe you should work on your marriage, rather than denying it to others. Your marital problems are not being caused by gay marriage.
The way things should be is people should not worry about gay people getting married. If you think that Adam and Steve getting married is going to hurt your own marriage, then maybe you should work on your marriage, rather than denying it to others. Your marital problems are not being caused by gay marriage.
30
28
As I said, if someone wants to advance the proposition that 'family benefits' only go to childrearing families I think it would have a lot of merit.
As I said, if someone wants to advance the proposition that 'family benefits' only go to childrearing families I think it would have a lot of merit.
33
While I know that Giulliani is nothing more than an opportunistic pig that engaged in the most brutal forms of racism and racial profiling while he was the mayor of New York, he's got a point in this because support of civil unions not for gay marriage has been the platform of the Democratic party and its the only position our President supports since he outright rejects the dismantling on the meaning of traditional marriage. That's why I cannot understand why the governor (PATERSON) is going against his party's platform, in doing so he's only opening the door to pigs like Giulliani who wish to take his job.
35
@ 20, correlation is not causation. I'd bet that out of wedlock child birth (which is a result of heterosexual activity, not gay sex) has more to do with the increase of abstinence-only sex ed. There's no conclusive proof either way, but at least my supposition is based on related activities.
37
@12
>>No one has anything against homosexuals
Bullshit. Even you must know better than that.
>> It needs to be protected from a host of pathogens: extramarital sex (of all flavors and varieties), divorce, pornography,
Right. Just the other day I read about a powerful group of politicians who wanted to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to make extramarital sex, divorce, and pornography illegal. Clearly no one is obsessively focusing on gay people above all other threats to marriage out of some deep-seated hostility cloaked as concern for the family.
>> (If you want to suggest that 'family benefits' should only be extended to families with minor children I would not argue with that)
That's nice of you. So gay people with kids can get benefits? Just like married and unmarried straight couples with kids? But of course straight couples without kids still get to get married, and gay couples without kids can't, right?
>>society has no interest in promoting or subsidizing homosexual behavior or relationships
Promoting: do you really believe that there will be fewer gay relationships if gay marriage remains banned? It seems that since there are going to be gay relationships in society no matter what we do, stable gay relationships would be better for society than unstable ones. It seems ridiculous to me that there are thousands of people out there who will change their minds and "turn gay" the moment gay marriage becomes legal.
Subsidizing: somehow I get the sense that it isn't about the money for you. If homosexual couples were given marriage licenses with hospital visitation and inheritance rights but without any tax breaks (in other words, NO financial cost to society) you'd probably still be against them - is that correct? Probably because you think kids somehow understand these legal concepts and would be thrown into a tailspin of sexual confusion because some poor old queer gets to see his dying partner in the hospital when the family doesn't want him there?
>> It has nothing to do with religion, either.
No, it's always been about the 'ick' factor. You guys don't want to stop gay relationships. You just want to keep them from being respectable.
More...
@12
>>No one has anything against homosexuals
Bullshit. Even you must know better than that.
>> It needs to be protected from a host of pathogens: extramarital sex (of all flavors and varieties), divorce, pornography,
Right. Just the other day I read about a powerful group of politicians who wanted to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to make extramarital sex, divorce, and pornography illegal. Clearly no one is obsessively focusing on gay people above all other threats to marriage out of some deep-seated hostility cloaked as concern for the family.
>> (If you want to suggest that 'family benefits' should only be extended to families with minor children I would not argue with that)
That's nice of you. So gay people with kids can get benefits? Just like married and unmarried straight couples with kids? But of course straight couples without kids still get to get married, and gay couples without kids can't, right?
>>society has no interest in promoting or subsidizing homosexual behavior or relationships
Promoting: do you really believe that there will be fewer gay relationships if gay marriage remains banned? It seems that since there are going to be gay relationships in society no matter what we do, stable gay relationships would be better for society than unstable ones. It seems ridiculous to me that there are thousands of people out there who will change their minds and "turn gay" the moment gay marriage becomes legal.
Subsidizing: somehow I get the sense that it isn't about the money for you. If homosexual couples were given marriage licenses with hospital visitation and inheritance rights but without any tax breaks (in other words, NO financial cost to society) you'd probably still be against them - is that correct? Probably because you think kids somehow understand these legal concepts and would be thrown into a tailspin of sexual confusion because some poor old queer gets to see his dying partner in the hospital when the family doesn't want him there?
>> It has nothing to do with religion, either.
No, it's always been about the 'ick' factor. You guys don't want to stop gay relationships. You just want to keep them from being respectable.
46
40, So are you saying that adopted children are less human, less deserving in some way, or only the children of gay couples?
48
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ht_…
Cheney's Daughter Gives Birth to Son
Vice President's Lesbian Daughter Welcomes Samuel David Cheney
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=…
Cheney's Daughter Gives Birth to Son
Vice President's Lesbian Daughter Welcomes Samuel David Cheney
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=…
52
Oh nameless troll @ 50 and elsewhere,
Marriage is not about children.
Repeat after me: marriage is not about children.
Proof? Childless couples get married all the time.
Proof? Couples that can't "have" children adopt all the time.
These things are not legal barriers to their getting married. Hell, I can't think of any churches that deny these couples marriage based on their own theologies. They must not believe it's "about the children" either.
Keep up this meme if you want. It's only your own credibility that suffers.
Marriage is not about children.
Repeat after me: marriage is not about children.
Proof? Childless couples get married all the time.
Proof? Couples that can't "have" children adopt all the time.
These things are not legal barriers to their getting married. Hell, I can't think of any churches that deny these couples marriage based on their own theologies. They must not believe it's "about the children" either.
Keep up this meme if you want. It's only your own credibility that suffers.
56
50, And again I'll ask, are adopted children less human, or deserving in some way? Or do you feel only the children of gay people are less? Having children has nothing to do with whether a couple can get married. You brought it up, but faced with the flaws in your argument, you start trolling with evasive non-answers.
58
At any rate, Rudy will turn his back on his gay pals who stood by him during his horrendous divorce. The linked article mentions that he promised to marry them himself if gay marriage ever became legal in New York State.
He'll never do it. They're smart to go to Connecticut and take care of it themselves.
Chalk it up to once-solid friendship obliterated by politics and a cynical, empty gesture towards a religion that Giuliani no longer seems to believe.
He'll never do it. They're smart to go to Connecticut and take care of it themselves.
Chalk it up to once-solid friendship obliterated by politics and a cynical, empty gesture towards a religion that Giuliani no longer seems to believe.
61
Paterson's approval rating at just 19%:
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009…
While Paterson neglects his duties as governor, predators like Giulliani will start to make their kill. It is highly harmful for the governor to have opened this can of worms which will only serve to drive him out of office.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009…
While Paterson neglects his duties as governor, predators like Giulliani will start to make their kill. It is highly harmful for the governor to have opened this can of worms which will only serve to drive him out of office.
63
@1'-This is just like those whiners in the 60s that didn't understand that the buses will run a bit faster if we all know which people are going to sit in the back. Honestly, some people are soooo childish.
64
Yes, Patterson's approval rating is down, but not primarily because he supports civil unions.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009…
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009…
65
#12's mother takes it up the ass regulary. She can't get enough - likes it even better than pussy sex. That's why it was so surprising when she got pregnant with 12. She tried to get an abortion, but couldn't, so she ended up raising 12 alone. That's hardly ideal, is it? Especially since she was hooked on crack and started pimping 12 out for fixes. (12's a real whore.)
66
Or maybe He does vomit. I wouldn't blame Him.
God alone knows—and is capable of not vomiting when He thinks about—how many adulterous encounters under his belt.
Or maybe He does vomit. I wouldn't blame Him.
67
Hysteria about changing social order...hmmm...where have I heard the ranting and raving of the fearful supremacists before?
I think there used to be some really odd ideas about women that are laughable today.
Some people are so stupid and scared that they would rather cling to idiotic ideas than admit they are wrong. Expanding our ideas aobut people that already exit in society has never been a bad idea. Clinging to fear and irrational loathing for no gain whatsoever has always failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hyst…
Death rattles...oh noes!!!
I think there used to be some really odd ideas about women that are laughable today.
Some people are so stupid and scared that they would rather cling to idiotic ideas than admit they are wrong. Expanding our ideas aobut people that already exit in society has never been a bad idea. Clinging to fear and irrational loathing for no gain whatsoever has always failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hyst…
Death rattles...oh noes!!!
70
Sock Puppet Guy @12, 21, etc: I find it hilarious that you sign one of your comments "my argument is flawless," when the last time you advanced this argument, one of its pillars was that we were facing an imminent population crisis - meaning a lack of population. Do you still claim that we need to discourage gay marriage in order to maintain our dangerously low population? Or have you actually modified your argument (flawless though it be) to discard that obviously ridiculous component?
71
It's nothing but a flatout lie to say that bringing this up and trying to introduce a gay marriage bill has not hurt the governor even more because it has gotten him detractors even in his own party. He has been pummeled in public opinion polls over his handling of the state’s fiscal crisis as it is. And both the public and elected officials seeing that currently the measure does not have enough support in the State Senate, which Democrats seized last fall and control by a thin margin, 32 to 30, will come to the conclusion (and rightfully so) that he's an incompetent governor who's not even able to prioritize in what he truly needs to take involvement and spend his energy. It truly is a shame because he was a figure that made history and inspired all people of color but he has chosen to take another path.
73
@1 These people may have gay acquaintances, but I bet the gays in question don't like them much. Especially when someone just arbitrarily decides (and how is it NOT arbitrary?) that gay marriage is "poor public policy."
@4 A republican who is good for separate but equal rights for gays is not an ally, any more than someone good for separate but equal rights for non-whites was ever an ally.
@12 It has EVERYTHING to do with religion.
a) Who has decided that marriage has to do with children? Turner v. Safley set the precedent that that's bullshit. Marriage has to do with providing legal rights to those you trust (not already of relations).
b) Who has decided that children are best served by living with heterosexual parents? The American Anthropological Association has come to the conclusion that there is no significant difference in quality of parenting between families headed by same-sex adults or different-sex adults. The religious community likes to assume this is the case based on how they interpret scripture, but a good many of us think that theory based on observed evidence may trump mismanaged selections from archaic texts.
It's already been discussed on SLOG the degree to which some folk cannot grok the nature of human society, that we are not all ideal families made of picture-perfect ideal children, that some biological fathers and mothers are not fit to raise who they bore, and that others are, and society should provide as many opportunities as possible, even if not quite storybook perfect, to allow kids to get out of our foster care system (or of orphanages).
But I'm pretty sure kids are an excuse, because it's more politically correct than saying you don't like dem dere fags and just wish they'd swim back to Africa where they belong.
More...
@4 A republican who is good for separate but equal rights for gays is not an ally, any more than someone good for separate but equal rights for non-whites was ever an ally.
@12 It has EVERYTHING to do with religion.
a) Who has decided that marriage has to do with children? Turner v. Safley set the precedent that that's bullshit. Marriage has to do with providing legal rights to those you trust (not already of relations).
b) Who has decided that children are best served by living with heterosexual parents? The American Anthropological Association has come to the conclusion that there is no significant difference in quality of parenting between families headed by same-sex adults or different-sex adults. The religious community likes to assume this is the case based on how they interpret scripture, but a good many of us think that theory based on observed evidence may trump mismanaged selections from archaic texts.
It's already been discussed on SLOG the degree to which some folk cannot grok the nature of human society, that we are not all ideal families made of picture-perfect ideal children, that some biological fathers and mothers are not fit to raise who they bore, and that others are, and society should provide as many opportunities as possible, even if not quite storybook perfect, to allow kids to get out of our foster care system (or of orphanages).
But I'm pretty sure kids are an excuse, because it's more politically correct than saying you don't like dem dere fags and just wish they'd swim back to Africa where they belong.
74
Claiming that same-sex marriage should be prohibited because same-sex couples can't physically procreate is idiotic. Heterosexual couples who are infertile, who have undergone sterilization, who are asexual, or who have no desire for children are still allowed to get married in our society. Claiming in turn that you support stripping such childless heterosexual couples of marriage benefits is facetious. You know it's never going to happen; it's a ludicrous argument. It's just a handy crutch to support your bigotry.
Moreover, news flash: our society has a desperate need for adoptive parents for all the kids the heteros can't take care of - thus same-sex adoptive parents would fill a pressing societal need. Are you really going to throw all the foster kids who need a home under the bus, just to pursue your own agenda? Come on. American society has a vested interest in creating more stable families who wish to adopt - and yes, that includes same-sex families.
Moreover, news flash: our society has a desperate need for adoptive parents for all the kids the heteros can't take care of - thus same-sex adoptive parents would fill a pressing societal need. Are you really going to throw all the foster kids who need a home under the bus, just to pursue your own agenda? Come on. American society has a vested interest in creating more stable families who wish to adopt - and yes, that includes same-sex families.
76
Giulliani being opportunistic?! Impossible! After all, he only said the words nine-eleven every five seconds during his campaign for president. Mr. G has proven time and again that he will do or say anything so long as it promotes himself.
77
@Loveschild: You're so right, as always. It is such a disappointment that the first black and first blind governor of NY is attempting to promote Civil Rights in his state (which, by the way, was also on his predecessor Client 9's agenda as well). It truly is letting down the huge majority of people in this state that he is trying to advance justice, what a poor example he's setting.
78
@75 In my case, I was disseminating ammunition to the rest of the front line as much as whacking the mole. (Did I get 'im?)
And the Africa comment I just couldn't resist.
And the Africa comment I just couldn't resist.
79
77 Are you Matt? You can scream it from the top of the highest mountain nearest to you but it doesn't make it true, gay marriage is not a Civil Right.
Skin color and ethnicity cannot be hidden and cannot be compared to with choosing to engage in sexual practices like sodomy.
All other BS comments about comparing gays with people of African ancestry and going back to Africa, I just have one recommendation for you all, just join you nearest KKK chapter and get it over with. Not only do you hate people of African ancestry but you try every way that you can think of to take away their gains, achievements and uniqueness and make it your own.
Well I've got some news to all you gay KKK types, It ain't gonna happen.
Skin color and ethnicity cannot be hidden and cannot be compared to with choosing to engage in sexual practices like sodomy.
All other BS comments about comparing gays with people of African ancestry and going back to Africa, I just have one recommendation for you all, just join you nearest KKK chapter and get it over with. Not only do you hate people of African ancestry but you try every way that you can think of to take away their gains, achievements and uniqueness and make it your own.
Well I've got some news to all you gay KKK types, It ain't gonna happen.
80
LOL Loveschild, that wasn't me. But deny the parallels between African American Civil Rights and Gay Rights all you want - keep bringing up discredited arguments like "blacks can't hide who they are" (or at least explain how "passing" fits in with that statement) - keep claiming gay is a choice that a person can make - and call your opponents klansmen since you can't answer any of this - but ain't none of it's true. Deep down in your core, you know that.
81
The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences".[80] The American Psychological Association has stated that "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people". It stated that, for most people, sexual orientation is determined at an early age.[81] The American Psychiatric Association has stated that, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse".[63]
63.^ a b American Psychiatric Association (May 2000).
80.^ "Sexual Orientation and Adolescents", American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Report, http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi…, retrieved on 2007-02-23
81.^ "Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality", American Psychological Association, http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/ar…, retrieved on 2009-02-03
The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences".[80] The American Psychological Association has stated that "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people". It stated that, for most people, sexual orientation is determined at an early age.[81] The American Psychiatric Association has stated that, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse".[63]
63.^ a b American Psychiatric Association (May 2000).
80.^ "Sexual Orientation and Adolescents", American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Report, http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi…, retrieved on 2007-02-23
81.^ "Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality", American Psychological Association, http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/ar…, retrieved on 2009-02-03
82
81 Still up in your horse with your nose pointing up?
Look, if you want to cite pseudo psychological 'studies' (who by the way arr mostly done by homosexual psychologist themselves) that have at it but the fact remains that engaging in sexual conduct is not the same as race. People cannot discriminate against someone who engages in sexual acts with another person of their same sex in the same way that people discriminate against someone because of their race. Unless they go out of their way and tell others they engage in homosexual practices nobody can know it. Everyone who sees a black person knows they're black. Gay marriage has never been and it will never be a Civil Right.
Look, if you want to cite pseudo psychological 'studies' (who by the way arr mostly done by homosexual psychologist themselves) that have at it but the fact remains that engaging in sexual conduct is not the same as race. People cannot discriminate against someone who engages in sexual acts with another person of their same sex in the same way that people discriminate against someone because of their race. Unless they go out of their way and tell others they engage in homosexual practices nobody can know it. Everyone who sees a black person knows they're black. Gay marriage has never been and it will never be a Civil Right.
83
Loveschild,
It sad how nasty you become when your angry.
Be sure you tell your childs pediatrician that you think he/he is pseudo psychological homosexual or a pseudo psychological homosexual enabler next time you see them. And, apply that title to your general practioner as well, because according to you the American Medical Association is full of a bunch of pesudo psycholgical homosexuals. That also goes for Social Workers and Psychiatrists. They all disagree with you. Your argument that it is purely choice fails.
You can talk yourself in to a corner, but separate will never be equal. You know its true. If separate was equal your life wouldn't exist as it does. (And I would be fighting for you.) Your correct this isn't THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, but it still is a civil rights movement. I bet you didn't even know that Coretta Scott King was awarded the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) Flag Bearer Award on April 29, 2000. She was awarded it (along with Steven Cozzo and Senator Edward Kennedy) for her contributions "to the safety and/or equality of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people and their families and friends." I could argue that Coretta Scott King had as much of an understanding of Civil Rights as you do.
It sad how nasty you become when your angry.
Be sure you tell your childs pediatrician that you think he/he is pseudo psychological homosexual or a pseudo psychological homosexual enabler next time you see them. And, apply that title to your general practioner as well, because according to you the American Medical Association is full of a bunch of pesudo psycholgical homosexuals. That also goes for Social Workers and Psychiatrists. They all disagree with you. Your argument that it is purely choice fails.
You can talk yourself in to a corner, but separate will never be equal. You know its true. If separate was equal your life wouldn't exist as it does. (And I would be fighting for you.) Your correct this isn't THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, but it still is a civil rights movement. I bet you didn't even know that Coretta Scott King was awarded the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) Flag Bearer Award on April 29, 2000. She was awarded it (along with Steven Cozzo and Senator Edward Kennedy) for her contributions "to the safety and/or equality of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people and their families and friends." I could argue that Coretta Scott King had as much of an understanding of Civil Rights as you do.
84
@82 said:
"People cannot discriminate against someone who engages in sexual acts with another person of their same sex in the same way that people discriminate against someone because of their race. Unless they go out of their way and tell others they engage in homosexual practices nobody can know it."
Great, then that's the solution. Same sex couples asking to be married should simply say nothing of their sex lives and they'd have no problem receiving permission under present marriage laws.
If you can't see it you can't discriminate against it---
"People cannot discriminate against someone who engages in sexual acts with another person of their same sex in the same way that people discriminate against someone because of their race. Unless they go out of their way and tell others they engage in homosexual practices nobody can know it."
Great, then that's the solution. Same sex couples asking to be married should simply say nothing of their sex lives and they'd have no problem receiving permission under present marriage laws.
If you can't see it you can't discriminate against it---
85
@12, etc
we're done here. you've been playing this game for about 6 months. you win. you are totally right. everyone here is convinced. and the best part is, no one figured out who you really were. your secret identity remained just that. why don't you take a few weeks off and let some other fine fellow parrot unoffensive, morally upright, rational close-mindedness with a persecution complex crib-noted equally from the Discovery Institute and the Savage Nation. we don't think you're a coward at all of anything, we're all really happy for you and your cause.
wait.. what was your cause again?
moral salvation?
"you can't always get what you want"-y self-fulfilling prophecies?
old-timey, science-based racism, just without the race card?
equality? I certainly doubt it.
taking part in a movement in just a teeny way that will make your dying years less tormented in the "why, oh why's"? "why did I pick the wrong side?" or alternately: "why didn't I do more to deny gays the right to marry?"... either way, in the end your screwed. in the end you're either going to wind up saying I told you so when the world crumbles under sin, or you'll have to slaugh off and say if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, which I don't think you have the balls to do. but what you aren't doing is accomplishing anything here outside of waisting our (and presumably your) time.
we're done here. you've been playing this game for about 6 months. you win. you are totally right. everyone here is convinced. and the best part is, no one figured out who you really were. your secret identity remained just that. why don't you take a few weeks off and let some other fine fellow parrot unoffensive, morally upright, rational close-mindedness with a persecution complex crib-noted equally from the Discovery Institute and the Savage Nation. we don't think you're a coward at all of anything, we're all really happy for you and your cause.
wait.. what was your cause again?
moral salvation?
"you can't always get what you want"-y self-fulfilling prophecies?
old-timey, science-based racism, just without the race card?
equality? I certainly doubt it.
taking part in a movement in just a teeny way that will make your dying years less tormented in the "why, oh why's"? "why did I pick the wrong side?" or alternately: "why didn't I do more to deny gays the right to marry?"... either way, in the end your screwed. in the end you're either going to wind up saying I told you so when the world crumbles under sin, or you'll have to slaugh off and say if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, which I don't think you have the balls to do. but what you aren't doing is accomplishing anything here outside of waisting our (and presumably your) time.
86
Thanks, Heather @17,
I especially liked the point that
"These arrangements [living together out of wedlock] require types of legal recognition that used to be reserved for marriage. When individuals take on caregiving tasks for each other that would otherwise have to be provided at public expense, they need the legal rights to follow through, such as making hospital decisions or receiving inheritance rights. And if they walk away from a relationship in which they took on such responsibilities, they should not be allowed to abandon the obligations they incurred just because they lack a marriage license. "
I especially liked the point that
"These arrangements [living together out of wedlock] require types of legal recognition that used to be reserved for marriage. When individuals take on caregiving tasks for each other that would otherwise have to be provided at public expense, they need the legal rights to follow through, such as making hospital decisions or receiving inheritance rights. And if they walk away from a relationship in which they took on such responsibilities, they should not be allowed to abandon the obligations they incurred just because they lack a marriage license. "
87
@79: No, I'm not Matt, I'm Jen. Nice to meet you. I'm from NYC, not Denver. So, two quick points: 1) Interracial marriage is and was always a CHOICE and can irrefutably be proven to be and many "CHRISTIANS" believed it was against nature and the will of God for races to intermingle. 2) Mildred Loving herself said: "Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about."
So my question, Loveschild, is this: does Mildred Loving also hate black people? Or is she just maybe a little more knowledgeable than you when it comes to questions of marriage equality (seeing as her court case changed history and the definition of marriage and all)?
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about."
So my question, Loveschild, is this: does Mildred Loving also hate black people? Or is she just maybe a little more knowledgeable than you when it comes to questions of marriage equality (seeing as her court case changed history and the definition of marriage and all)?
88
87 Like wise Jen, I apologize for having though you were Matt but your comment seemed identical to his usual posts.
As for for interracial marriage, I know that the only thing interracial marriage and homosexual marriage have in common is the word marriage trying to fuse one with the other is a huge mistake. Your argument that providing safeguards for what our society has recognized as marriage for thousands of years is somehow discriminatory or equal to anti miscegenation laws in the past cannot hold up water because in the case of the former the repealing of such laws did not changed the definition of marriage. It only serve to connect and eliminate the divide of the sexes (man and woman) which has been essential and the basic requirement of marriage throughout all civilizations. The anti miscegenation laws were against nature (the union of man and woman) and therefor their purpose was one that could not be sustain either by religion or the law of man since it went against nature itself. Putting safeguards to preserve this institution of marriage and making sure that its acknowledge by society as the union of one man and one woman will be in line with the same tradition that did away with the unnatural anti miscegenation laws and preserve the purpose of marriage. Mrs Loving's own live (her children and grandchildren) are the best testimony of the need to preserve the purpose of marriage in our society and how unnatural anti miscegenation laws where, the same is not true for gay marriage which cannot bear any fruits (therefor it cannot be natural) as all relations between a man a woman (who have that capacity) of any race can.
As for for interracial marriage, I know that the only thing interracial marriage and homosexual marriage have in common is the word marriage trying to fuse one with the other is a huge mistake. Your argument that providing safeguards for what our society has recognized as marriage for thousands of years is somehow discriminatory or equal to anti miscegenation laws in the past cannot hold up water because in the case of the former the repealing of such laws did not changed the definition of marriage. It only serve to connect and eliminate the divide of the sexes (man and woman) which has been essential and the basic requirement of marriage throughout all civilizations. The anti miscegenation laws were against nature (the union of man and woman) and therefor their purpose was one that could not be sustain either by religion or the law of man since it went against nature itself. Putting safeguards to preserve this institution of marriage and making sure that its acknowledge by society as the union of one man and one woman will be in line with the same tradition that did away with the unnatural anti miscegenation laws and preserve the purpose of marriage. Mrs Loving's own live (her children and grandchildren) are the best testimony of the need to preserve the purpose of marriage in our society and how unnatural anti miscegenation laws where, the same is not true for gay marriage which cannot bear any fruits (therefor it cannot be natural) as all relations between a man a woman (who have that capacity) of any race can.
89
Loveschild @82: "Unless they go out of their way and tell others they engage in homosexual practices nobody can know it. Everyone who sees a black person knows they're black. Gay marriage has never been and it will never be a Civil Right. "
By your logic it would be okay for us to legislate that Christians can't marry one another. After all, unless a Christian goes out of his way and tells others he engages in Christian practices, nobody can know it. Christian marriage, therefore, has never been and will never be a Civil Right.
By your logic it would be okay for us to legislate that Christians can't marry one another. After all, unless a Christian goes out of his way and tells others he engages in Christian practices, nobody can know it. Christian marriage, therefore, has never been and will never be a Civil Right.
90
@88: First, I think you are ignoring (purposefully or no) history when you say the two are not connected: "Christian" leaders were at the forefront of the anti-interracial marriage charge using much the same language you just used, "it's unnatural, it goes against God's plan, etc" and it is very much a CHOICE that a mixed race couple marry. Heck, my super Catholic great grandma didn't even think my Italian father and Irish mother marrying was natural and she was definitely against them adopting (all with good, faithful, old school religious catechism backing her up, I'd add). I would think if Civil Rights leaders such as Loving, Coretta King and the leaders of the NAACP all see the parallel (after living through the original), you might be a little hesitant to say you know better.
Also, I've gotta say I'm a teensey bit confused by what you mean by this: "Your argument that providing safeguards for what our society has recognized as marriage for thousands of years". Which "society" are you speaking of and for that matter which definition of marriage? Even the Bible is unclear as to what the "correct" form of marriage is and religious recognition for "marriages" is even spottier. As to your assertion that we somehow need to hold "one man, one woman" sacred because of the unique ability to have children, I've got some news that may shock you: Adoption and invitro are pretty common ways heterosexuals become parents too (my own parents are a good example of the former), which would also not be "natural" in your definition. Additionally plenty of heteros choose not to be parents at all, yet they get married too.
Also, I've gotta say I'm a teensey bit confused by what you mean by this: "Your argument that providing safeguards for what our society has recognized as marriage for thousands of years". Which "society" are you speaking of and for that matter which definition of marriage? Even the Bible is unclear as to what the "correct" form of marriage is and religious recognition for "marriages" is even spottier. As to your assertion that we somehow need to hold "one man, one woman" sacred because of the unique ability to have children, I've got some news that may shock you: Adoption and invitro are pretty common ways heterosexuals become parents too (my own parents are a good example of the former), which would also not be "natural" in your definition. Additionally plenty of heteros choose not to be parents at all, yet they get married too.
91
Was it Hitler who said "If you repeat a lie often enough, the people will believe it."
Some say it was Goebbels.
(I think this is the diametric opposite of a reducto ad Hitlerum argument.)
Some say it was Goebbels.
(I think this is the diametric opposite of a reducto ad Hitlerum argument.)
93
90 By your post I'm guessing you have no personal relation with no one who was involved in the Civil Rights movement (just like most here), otherwise you wouldn't make such an ignorant comment. Let met inform you that I have never had or known of anyone who has come to me or to any of my family members or friends and make the same comparisons you're making here in anonymity. And I know why that is, because it's total BS and as such no one in their right mind would attempt to say that sort of insulting ignorant thing in front of any African american because they know damn well they would either loose their teeth in the process (at least) or get the schooling of their lives in a matter of seconds (at beast), all the people you have mentioned in your attempt to besmirch black history by trying to compare it with the attempts on the part of some (not all) homosexuals at destroying both black and white families were people of true justice, honorable persons who in their kindness would not oppose the protections against violence, job discrimination and yes acceptable forms of civil partnerships (which I was all in favor for until recently) for self identified lesbians and gays, that did not meant that they did and are not opposed to the dismantling of the institution of marriage out of a capricious, narcissistic and selfish hissy fit by some gay lobby groups who seek to brainwash and be the front voice of all self identified homosexuals.
Mrs Loving's opinions while respectable were just that her opinion and in no way reflect the sentiment of the majority of those involved in the Civil Rights movement, the leaders of the NAACP (as you falsely stated) or the black church as you erroneously suggested. In regards to Mrs Coretta the same things goes, she was a believer as many in protections against violence, job discrimination and some sort of legal civic recognitions (I would not make the leap to marriage as you have), but let me remind you that Dr King would never be in support of the type of leap your side is trying to implement on this nation, and their kids specially their daughter who now heads the same church her father once did is a very vocal champion on the issue of protecting the institution of marriage. That does not mean that they do not recognize that some rights should be recognized for gays and lesbians it just means that it cannot be compared to the immoral (both religious because racism is not justified in any scripture) and unnatural laws that were used to keep black people down. Hijacking black history to impose on the nation something that goes against the core values of the African american community will serve you no purpose.
More...
Mrs Loving's opinions while respectable were just that her opinion and in no way reflect the sentiment of the majority of those involved in the Civil Rights movement, the leaders of the NAACP (as you falsely stated) or the black church as you erroneously suggested. In regards to Mrs Coretta the same things goes, she was a believer as many in protections against violence, job discrimination and some sort of legal civic recognitions (I would not make the leap to marriage as you have), but let me remind you that Dr King would never be in support of the type of leap your side is trying to implement on this nation, and their kids specially their daughter who now heads the same church her father once did is a very vocal champion on the issue of protecting the institution of marriage. That does not mean that they do not recognize that some rights should be recognized for gays and lesbians it just means that it cannot be compared to the immoral (both religious because racism is not justified in any scripture) and unnatural laws that were used to keep black people down. Hijacking black history to impose on the nation something that goes against the core values of the African american community will serve you no purpose.
94
I have 2 honest questions:
It seems that same sex relationships have all the rights of "marriage" without the pitfall of having to go through a "divorce" if things don't work out. Seems like at the moment that's a better situation than marriage...
Also, is there another major issue after the marriage thing, or is the gay rights movement pretty much mission accomplished after that?
It seems that same sex relationships have all the rights of "marriage" without the pitfall of having to go through a "divorce" if things don't work out. Seems like at the moment that's a better situation than marriage...
Also, is there another major issue after the marriage thing, or is the gay rights movement pretty much mission accomplished after that?
95
@93: Wow, so now there's threats of violence? Awesome. And I grew up (and still live) in the South Bronx and you can damn well believe I have voiced my opinions to and been agreed with by many many right thinking African Americans.
You can try and claim that being Black somehow makes you more able to decide who deserves rights and who does not, but here's the deal darling: That is the same argument that Whites made when they were trying to keep blacks down. You know who first suggested enslaving Africans: A monk. You know who supported and preached for slavery throughout and even after the Civil War: Christian churches. You can be any color of the rainbow you want to be and still know NOTHING about the meaning of Civil Rights and truth and justice.
Oh, and before you go calling me a liar again:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state…
http://www.diversityinc.com/public/2905.…
http://www.topix.com/afam/2009/02/the-na…
Your argument makes you sound like the pigs in Animal Farm: "Everyone should be equal, but we should be more equal than others".
You can try and claim that being Black somehow makes you more able to decide who deserves rights and who does not, but here's the deal darling: That is the same argument that Whites made when they were trying to keep blacks down. You know who first suggested enslaving Africans: A monk. You know who supported and preached for slavery throughout and even after the Civil War: Christian churches. You can be any color of the rainbow you want to be and still know NOTHING about the meaning of Civil Rights and truth and justice.
Oh, and before you go calling me a liar again:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state…
http://www.diversityinc.com/public/2905.…
http://www.topix.com/afam/2009/02/the-na…
Your argument makes you sound like the pigs in Animal Farm: "Everyone should be equal, but we should be more equal than others".
96
Forgot the Coretta Scott King ones:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004…
And, as for his daughter, I guess Dr. Kings dream was: "One day his little children would be able to not be judged by the color of their skin, but judge everyone around them instead".
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004…
And, as for his daughter, I guess Dr. Kings dream was: "One day his little children would be able to not be judged by the color of their skin, but judge everyone around them instead".
97
How Liberals and Gay Rights Activists Have Hijacked the Legacy of Martin Luther King Jr:
http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com/view.…
Selma to San Francisco?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=…
http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com/view.…
Selma to San Francisco?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=…
98
@97: All your articles prove is that there are some blacks out there who have no problem perpetrating inequality on others.
PS: I'm sure a 5 year old girl is WAY more aware of her father's personal philosophy on homosexual marriage than her mother. Or, you know, her two older siblings.
PPS: She also doesn't seem to have any problem ignoring her mother's particular feelings or last wishes either.
Again, where are the ACTUAL Civil Rights leaders? Oh...wait, they are all on MY side!
PS: I'm sure a 5 year old girl is WAY more aware of her father's personal philosophy on homosexual marriage than her mother. Or, you know, her two older siblings.
PPS: She also doesn't seem to have any problem ignoring her mother's particular feelings or last wishes either.
Again, where are the ACTUAL Civil Rights leaders? Oh...wait, they are all on MY side!
99
@94: To answer your questions: 1)Legal marriage comes with roughly 1200 or so benefits granted by the state and the federal government. Even when states grant Civil Unions these benefits are not conferred on the couple, so legal marriage is the only way to achieve these benefits. Here is a partial listing: http://people.howstuffworks.com/marriage…. So, no, "Civil Unions" are not even close to equal to legal marriage and are not a "better option" for anyone. If they were you would see a lot of straight people getting them and saving "trouble" too.
2) (This one is simply my personal stance). Equality is not something where we can ever just say "mission accomplished" and we're done. There will always be a need to break down barriers and to fight to make sure that what is law and what is fact match up. If you look at things like women in the workplace you can see that decades after the major feminist movement they are STILL consistently making less, consistently passed over and glass ceilings may have gotten higher, but they are still there. Racism, too, is not a thing of the past, but an ever evolving organism that has perhaps become less overt, but is still a huge problem.
2) (This one is simply my personal stance). Equality is not something where we can ever just say "mission accomplished" and we're done. There will always be a need to break down barriers and to fight to make sure that what is law and what is fact match up. If you look at things like women in the workplace you can see that decades after the major feminist movement they are STILL consistently making less, consistently passed over and glass ceilings may have gotten higher, but they are still there. Racism, too, is not a thing of the past, but an ever evolving organism that has perhaps become less overt, but is still a huge problem.
100
#12, I can get married, have a couple of kids, and then go to the state to ask that my marriage be terminated. I don't need to offer any reason. As long as I pay child support, the state won't give a rat's ass if I ever see my kids again.
Therefore, it's easy to conclude that the state already doesn't give a shit about marriage as the nice, warm, fuzzy nest within which children are raised.
Here's one of those defenders of traditional marriage making a similar point:
"In one sense, the government has already removed itself from the marriage business by ceasing to enforce the most basic features of the current “default” marriage contract: stability and sexual fidelity. The no-fault divorce revolution makes marriage less than an ordinary contract. In most contracts, the person who breaches must make some kind of compensation to those who relied on his performance of the contract. Only in marriage does the law permit people to dissolve the contract for any reason or no reason and never even offer an account of themselves."
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewar…
Therefore, it's easy to conclude that the state already doesn't give a shit about marriage as the nice, warm, fuzzy nest within which children are raised.
Here's one of those defenders of traditional marriage making a similar point:
"In one sense, the government has already removed itself from the marriage business by ceasing to enforce the most basic features of the current “default” marriage contract: stability and sexual fidelity. The no-fault divorce revolution makes marriage less than an ordinary contract. In most contracts, the person who breaches must make some kind of compensation to those who relied on his performance of the contract. Only in marriage does the law permit people to dissolve the contract for any reason or no reason and never even offer an account of themselves."
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewar…
101
Jen D,
Thank you for your links. The African American members of my multiracial family also agree that there are legitimate parallels between the two movements. Here is a link about a civil disobedience protest from May 2000, participants included Arun Gandhi, Yolanda King, Dr. James Lawson, Dr. Robert Graetz, Congressman John Lewis, Dr. Rodney Powell, Dr. Gloria Johnson-Powel and Rev. Mel White. Apparently they see the similarites and agree that separate is not equal when it comes to civil rights.
www.soulforce.org/article/406
Thank you for your links. The African American members of my multiracial family also agree that there are legitimate parallels between the two movements. Here is a link about a civil disobedience protest from May 2000, participants included Arun Gandhi, Yolanda King, Dr. James Lawson, Dr. Robert Graetz, Congressman John Lewis, Dr. Rodney Powell, Dr. Gloria Johnson-Powel and Rev. Mel White. Apparently they see the similarites and agree that separate is not equal when it comes to civil rights.
www.soulforce.org/article/406
102
98 99 "Racism, too, is not a thing of the past, but an ever evolving organism that has perhaps become less overt, but is still a huge problem"
How ironic (and painful) that you can make this statement and still post what you have. Racism is still present you got that one right just look in the mirror. I just pray that one day you will see how insulting and racist your attempts at comparing African American history and struggles with your personal wants is. Besmirch away Jen. Perhaps one day I will get to hear someone like you who's insensitive and out of their mind enough to utter your sentiments and then I can assure you they'll hear me good and be set straight. I'll be praying for you in the meantime.
How ironic (and painful) that you can make this statement and still post what you have. Racism is still present you got that one right just look in the mirror. I just pray that one day you will see how insulting and racist your attempts at comparing African American history and struggles with your personal wants is. Besmirch away Jen. Perhaps one day I will get to hear someone like you who's insensitive and out of their mind enough to utter your sentiments and then I can assure you they'll hear me good and be set straight. I'll be praying for you in the meantime.
104
@Loveschild: Please save your "prayers". The God I worship is not bigoted or hateful and if your image of God proves correct I will happily take my place with Satan.
105
Welcome to the club, Jen. Loveschild sure is touchy about being wrong on the Civil Rights/Gay Rights comparisons, and resorts to anger and threats because reason doesn't support her stance that they're not the same.
107
Wait, Loveschild, you forgot to say "don't compare you sin with my skin!"
It rhymes, it's simplistic, AND it fits on a bumper sticker.
It rhymes, it's simplistic, AND it fits on a bumper sticker.
109
Damn, I had hoped that loveschild was not a troll. She's provided me with such entertainment and fiery-blood-letting. Thanks, L, for that. Straw is a rare commodity on the internet. Goodbye.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (110) RSS