Monday, April 27, 2009
Homo Iowan Wedding Day
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 8:44 AM
The state of Iowa began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples today. At least one gay couple has convinced a judge to waive the state's three-day waiting period—OMG! special rights! judicial tyranny!—so the state's first same-sex wedding will likely take place today.
Share via
1
Second gay wedding, thank you. One couple managed to get married in the 24 hours between the district court ruling and the stay of that ruling, three years ago. They are still together.
3
not enough gay marriage stuff on Slog today, please post at least 30 gay marriage related posts per day, you are slacking
4
@2: Mother nature provides lots of opportunities for a gay couple of either gender to push a baby carriage. Too bad your narrow mind can't accommodate love.
5
It's telling that there's so much gay marriage stuff on Slog and very little about this issue elsewhere. It's almost like the issue only exists on Slog. Weird.
8
Don't you girls even think of getting hitched without inviting me!
I haven't licked an Iowa doorknob in ages!
I haven't licked an Iowa doorknob in ages!
9
@7: Gay men can father children, and gay women can bear them. The only limitation is that both cannot be the biological parent of the child, and that is often true of straight couples as well. Anyway, adopting a child doesn't make that child any less yours.
But thanks for sharing your narrow-minded concerns.
But thanks for sharing your narrow-minded concerns.
10
I'm very happy for those Iowa couples and their families. I'll have been married five years this summer, and for all its ups and downs, it really is the most special commitment. Gay or straight, life is much better if you can go through it with someone on your side. I can't wait to see pictures of all the weddings!
11
9 your very welcome.
the cold hard fact is that a homosexual pair can never have a child together.
ever.
you can call it a marriage and you can buffalo society into smiling and saying "the emperor's new clothes are lovely! but you can't change the fact that all you have is two people of the same sex imitating an institution that is grounded in the physical and emotional biological pairing of a man and a woman and that imitation, at it's core, remains a freak show.
no, having children is not the defining characteristic of a marriage (that would be pairing a man and a woman) but it is an indication of what a mutated forced aberation same sex 'marriage' is.
the cold hard fact is that a homosexual pair can never have a child together.
ever.
you can call it a marriage and you can buffalo society into smiling and saying "the emperor's new clothes are lovely! but you can't change the fact that all you have is two people of the same sex imitating an institution that is grounded in the physical and emotional biological pairing of a man and a woman and that imitation, at it's core, remains a freak show.
no, having children is not the defining characteristic of a marriage (that would be pairing a man and a woman) but it is an indication of what a mutated forced aberation same sex 'marriage' is.
20
Okay, so homosexuality is a form of infertility—and an evolutionary advantageous form of infertility, since it was good for extended families to have one or two childless adults around to help care for kids whose parents had been picked off by disease or predators.
But that was then. Today, like other infertile folks, the homos do what we can—if we want children—to work around our infertility. We can adopt or, since we're not actually infertile, just disinclined to put our spunk where the eggs are (in the case of male homos), we can go the surrogacy route.
So?
But that was then. Today, like other infertile folks, the homos do what we can—if we want children—to work around our infertility. We can adopt or, since we're not actually infertile, just disinclined to put our spunk where the eggs are (in the case of male homos), we can go the surrogacy route.
So?
21
The only telling thing here is how selfish, narcissistic and vain gays and lesbians are. Leave it to them to still be driving through this issue when the world is going to hell in a handbasket, perhaps it's also very telling that on a day when this sort of thing comes into law in Iowa a pandemic comes out of nowhere to afflict the globe.
And two men can't reproduce by themselves neither can two women, that's basic knowledge.
And two men can't reproduce by themselves neither can two women, that's basic knowledge.
23
So... gay people have to use the same methods that straight people with infertility problems have to use: artificial insemination, in vitro, surrogacy... (gasp) ... ADOPTION...
In fact straight people have been doing all of the above longer than gay people. Maybe THAT explains the swine flu outbreak.
In fact straight people have been doing all of the above longer than gay people. Maybe THAT explains the swine flu outbreak.
25
@21. Yeah, 'cause refraining from driving through the gay marriage issue in Iowa would've instantly halted the swine flu thing in its tracks. There's a direct correlation between the two. I'm assuming that you in your infinite wisdom took the day off to attend to the needs of those afflicted, instead of 'selfishly' getting on with your life?
26
Loveschild you ignorant cunt.
So now you are saying the possible swine flu epidemic is due to Iowa giving gay marriage? So was 9/11 and Katrina punishment for the gays as well?
You claim two men/two women can't reproduce on their own... guess what? Numerous "straight" couple can't do it on their own either and require medical or surrogate help. Nothing wrong with that. And their is nothing wrong with a homosexual couple doing the same as well.
I again fear for the ignorance and hatred you teach your children.
So now you are saying the possible swine flu epidemic is due to Iowa giving gay marriage? So was 9/11 and Katrina punishment for the gays as well?
You claim two men/two women can't reproduce on their own... guess what? Numerous "straight" couple can't do it on their own either and require medical or surrogate help. Nothing wrong with that. And their is nothing wrong with a homosexual couple doing the same as well.
I again fear for the ignorance and hatred you teach your children.
27
@21 Did it ever occur to you that the pandemic may be your god's punishment for using his words to spew hatred? Seems to me that all of the places with confirmed cases of the flu, don't allow gay marriage. Either your God is telling you something or he's a lousy shot.
28
22 Says who Matt? You?
Marriage is an instrumental building block for society to exist, without it doesn't and the core of that social recognition lies at the ability to reproduce (hence the building of society part) and contribute future members for that society to exist. Even Dan recognizes that homosexuality is a form of infertility, that doesn't mean that there aren't other roles homosexuals like him can perform in society but being involved in marriage is not one of them no matter if your state allows you to adopt (which it shouldn't) you still are not able to reproduce with a person of your same gender therefor marriage is an institution in which you will not be able to perform properly, contribute and give back to a society that rewards you with certain protections and so forth.
PS. An earthquake just hit Mexico City, this world is coming to end is official.
Marriage is an instrumental building block for society to exist, without it doesn't and the core of that social recognition lies at the ability to reproduce (hence the building of society part) and contribute future members for that society to exist. Even Dan recognizes that homosexuality is a form of infertility, that doesn't mean that there aren't other roles homosexuals like him can perform in society but being involved in marriage is not one of them no matter if your state allows you to adopt (which it shouldn't) you still are not able to reproduce with a person of your same gender therefor marriage is an institution in which you will not be able to perform properly, contribute and give back to a society that rewards you with certain protections and so forth.
PS. An earthquake just hit Mexico City, this world is coming to end is official.
29
@ 28, remember - by this logic we would never allow sterile couples to marry, or elderly people (such as my 85-year-old great-grandfather, after he was left a widower, to a 64 year old woman), or any other het couple who had no interest in having children.
So, as long as that's the case, marriage has nothing to do with children. Case closed.
So, as long as that's the case, marriage has nothing to do with children. Case closed.
30
@28. Bullshit. Until there is a legal mandate requiring married hetero couples to reproduce (such a bill was last proposed by the Nazi party, incidentally), there should be no ban on same-sex marriage, as for straight couples marriage without kids and kids without marriage are perfectly accessible options.
31
Some heterosexual couples can't conceive because they have a problem.
What problem keeps homosexual couples from being able to conceive and have children?
What problem keeps homosexual couples from being able to conceive and have children?
32
@ 26, she is ignorant indeed, especially if she's also blaming an earthquake in Mexico (which doesn't, last time I checked, offer a lot of legal protection for gays, let alone recognize same-sex marriage) on this.
34
Your "85-year-old great-grandfather" and the "64 year old woman" are not mimicking what has been recognized throughout the ages as marriage. Man and woman were made for each other and are the sole contributors of nation building in terms of bringing and rearing the future generations. All states that want to exist have a vested interest in fomenting this even if the couple is too old they will still serve the role of providing an example for younger couples to follow. And no where this I blame the earthquake on nothing.
35
Why the quotes, LC? That was their age when they married, back in 1976. The rest of your post is incoherent. (Actually, putting those phrases in quotes is incoherent too.) Try that again.
36
"It's telling that there's so much gay marriage stuff on Slog and very little about this issue elsewhere. It's almost like the issue only exists on Slog. Weird. "
Maybe that should tell you something, Dan.
Maybe that should tell you something, Dan.
37
I love the argument that without the example of married heterosexuals—even elderly ones—young people would not practice heterosexuality. It's my favorite argument against same-sex marriage, bar none.
38
@34. 'they will still serve the role of providing an example for younger couples to follow'
An example of what? How to be heterosexual?
'Your "85-year-old great-grandfather" and the "64 year old woman" are not mimicking what has been recognized throughout the ages as marriage.'
You're right. They're not mimicking what was for centuries a BUSINESS CONTRACT intended for the acquisition of heirs and property and completely removed from the modern notion of romantic love. Marriage is not, whatever you may think, some vast unchanging monolith that has stood in intransient splendor since The Dawn of Time (which you no doubt believe was about 6000 years ago).
An example of what? How to be heterosexual?
'Your "85-year-old great-grandfather" and the "64 year old woman" are not mimicking what has been recognized throughout the ages as marriage.'
You're right. They're not mimicking what was for centuries a BUSINESS CONTRACT intended for the acquisition of heirs and property and completely removed from the modern notion of romantic love. Marriage is not, whatever you may think, some vast unchanging monolith that has stood in intransient splendor since The Dawn of Time (which you no doubt believe was about 6000 years ago).
39
37
You missed the point of the example, Dan.
Without the example of married heterosexuals—even elderly ones—young people would not practice marriage.
Young people (and not so young, sadly) need to be taught to be effective husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. Making babies is the easy part (for heterosexuals, at least) Raising them well is the part that society is doing so poorly at.
You missed the point of the example, Dan.
Without the example of married heterosexuals—even elderly ones—young people would not practice marriage.
Young people (and not so young, sadly) need to be taught to be effective husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. Making babies is the easy part (for heterosexuals, at least) Raising them well is the part that society is doing so poorly at.
41
@ 39, thanks for the translation. Now, are you saying that this means gays should not be allowed to marry, or were you simply cleaning up LC's horrendous diction?
42
I want to stab Loveschild and whoever wrote 11.
Note: I said WANT. I will not because I have a crippling fear of failure.
Why does the child of LOVE spew so much hate? I guess that's what children are for.
Also, somebody called gays and lezbos arrogant for pushing this issue through (might have been Loveschild, I get lost sometimes)...
Isn't it even MORE arrogant to think that you deserve better because you have babies from a dude who penetrated your vag? Babies are not blessing. Not on a large scale at least. Our world is overpopulated due to the breeders (not necessarily only heteros) which is going to end this world.
You know, I think Loveschild has convinced me to become an Abortionist. I will specialize in only that, and base my fee on clientele income. I will also continue to love women with my penis.
Note: I said WANT. I will not because I have a crippling fear of failure.
Why does the child of LOVE spew so much hate? I guess that's what children are for.
Also, somebody called gays and lezbos arrogant for pushing this issue through (might have been Loveschild, I get lost sometimes)...
Isn't it even MORE arrogant to think that you deserve better because you have babies from a dude who penetrated your vag? Babies are not blessing. Not on a large scale at least. Our world is overpopulated due to the breeders (not necessarily only heteros) which is going to end this world.
You know, I think Loveschild has convinced me to become an Abortionist. I will specialize in only that, and base my fee on clientele income. I will also continue to love women with my penis.
43
Even if you accept the premise that it is critical for young heteros to observe heterosexual married couples with or without children in order to have good marriages themselves...why is it such a terrible idea for young homos to have the same kind of example?
We all know that there are going to be gay couples in society no matter what the laws say. So...since these couples are going to exist, is it better for society to have UNSTABLE gay couples with no expectations about how they behave, or STABLE gay couples who are expected to be as boring and responsible as everyone else?
I would think that lawless, decadent, having-a-blast-at-the-orgy gay couples would be a far worse example for impressionable teens than the two guys mowing the lawn and watching the weather channel.
But then...those hum-drum, stable couples don't tend to inspire a surge of donations as an icon of menace....
We all know that there are going to be gay couples in society no matter what the laws say. So...since these couples are going to exist, is it better for society to have UNSTABLE gay couples with no expectations about how they behave, or STABLE gay couples who are expected to be as boring and responsible as everyone else?
I would think that lawless, decadent, having-a-blast-at-the-orgy gay couples would be a far worse example for impressionable teens than the two guys mowing the lawn and watching the weather channel.
But then...those hum-drum, stable couples don't tend to inspire a surge of donations as an icon of menace....
44
I also often wonder why no one discusses the fact that civil marriage (i.e. state only, no religious requirement) has only existed for about 500 years....it's not like humanity depended on civil marriage to procreate before it was invented, and yet that's what we're talking about here.
46
Comment registration is coming soon. But... you realize that even assholes will be able to register? Myself, for instance.
48
@39: I'm pretty sure Matt's great-grandfather and his wife weren't raising any kids, so how exactly are they setting an example for fathers and mothers? Also, as a young, heterosexual parent I am offended at the implication that I am somehow too dumb to figure out how to be a parent and partner and that somehow homosexual marriage will "confuse" me. My parents and my husband's parents taught us a lot (as parents usually do), but this issue has nothing to do with gender or sexuality. I think my married, heterosexual friend who was rescued from foster care by his two mothers learned how to be a good partner and parent just as well as I did.
Dan makes this point in a lot of his posts, but here it is again: Sexual orientation has no effect on your ability to be a good parent and partner and raise children who are loved and cared for. Heteros and homos are equally capable of being good or horrible parents. Anyone, gay or straight, who can't figure out how to respect, share and love a person the way you should in a marriage has some problems and homosexuals getting married is NOT one of them.
Dan makes this point in a lot of his posts, but here it is again: Sexual orientation has no effect on your ability to be a good parent and partner and raise children who are loved and cared for. Heteros and homos are equally capable of being good or horrible parents. Anyone, gay or straight, who can't figure out how to respect, share and love a person the way you should in a marriage has some problems and homosexuals getting married is NOT one of them.
50
@ 46, at least they'll have to stick to one name. And having had my other favorite blog (coloradopols.com) go through comment registration a few years ago, it really does chase a lot of trolls away. Not all, but a lot.
51
I agree, @48. The mechanics of reproduction are the easiest part, and every straight ditch-digger with the IQ of a rock will figure that part out. Remember "The Blue Lagoon?" The young do not need lessons on how to fuck or what genital goes where. They need to know how to be good to each other.
The complicated part comes in learning how to treat each other with gentle dedication, how to be giving and forgiving, how to yield without being exploited, how to make demands without being insufferable, how to apologize, how to comfort without having to be asked, how to put someone else first, etc. These are subtle lessons that take years and years of observation to learn. And this is what kids need to see. Gay people can be great examples to them, straight and gay alike. So can straight couples, elderly couples, infertile couples, etc.
And yet we see the fundamentalist right focus on the plodding mechanisms of sex, as if that's the clincher in showing people how to be good to each other. As if every hetero male and female human (or hamster) hasn't figured that out over, and over, and over throughout history regardless of what examples they've been shown.
The fundamentalist right has venerated the least important, hormone-based aspects of marriage and exalted them above the things that really matter, because that's the one part of it they can claim all to themselves.
The complicated part comes in learning how to treat each other with gentle dedication, how to be giving and forgiving, how to yield without being exploited, how to make demands without being insufferable, how to apologize, how to comfort without having to be asked, how to put someone else first, etc. These are subtle lessons that take years and years of observation to learn. And this is what kids need to see. Gay people can be great examples to them, straight and gay alike. So can straight couples, elderly couples, infertile couples, etc.
And yet we see the fundamentalist right focus on the plodding mechanisms of sex, as if that's the clincher in showing people how to be good to each other. As if every hetero male and female human (or hamster) hasn't figured that out over, and over, and over throughout history regardless of what examples they've been shown.
The fundamentalist right has venerated the least important, hormone-based aspects of marriage and exalted them above the things that really matter, because that's the one part of it they can claim all to themselves.
52
I'd like to share the story of a lesbian couple I met while meeting with my state senator to ask her support for same sex marriage: They've been together for over 20 years, and they were the first same sex couple to adopt in the state of Texas, only they couldn't adopt as a couple only one of them has custody, and a legal relationship to the children the other according to the state is a stranger. They adopted children with severe issues, b/c those were the only children the agency would allow them to adopt. Three children: one had AIDS from a transplant, and has passed away, the son has severe emotional issues and is currently in high school, he seems to be doing well. The third was put into state custody at the age of seven when it was discovered her, I'm assuming heterosexual, parents or guardians were abusing her. She was deaf, and they'd refrained from teaching her to speak or sign so she couldn't report the abuse or ask for help. She was adopted by the couple after that, to be clear. She is now 24, and currently living in a pychiatric hospital. They spent countless nights in hospitals between the three children, but only one has the right to make medical decisions, so that was an extremely difficult juggling act. This couple has proven themselves far more worthy of the right to marry than a majority of straight couples ever will. What was their choice? They choose to be loveing mothers to kids who need it most of all. They chose to be mothers, knowing that they would be doing in under the most difficult of circumstances. They chose to be a loving, commited couple. Let that sink in. I'll give you a moment. So to all the anti-same sex marriage folks, your abstract, black and white, rigid view of the world, has real consequences for real people.
53
oh and the State Senator, she couldn't give us her support. Her political reasoning: she wanted to keep the divorce rate down. She was for anything that would get the divorce rate down, and she didn't think allowing gays to marry would help that. Oh and she also has a picture of the ten commandments hanging in her office, I think we all see where her motivation is coming from.
54
48
It's the circle of life.
Stable married couple's contribution extends beyond getting their own children to the age of 18 and out the door. They are resources for their children as their children are themselves young parents. They are resources to their grand and great-grand children. The whole 'extended family' thing, which Hillary's village copies.
Man and Women marry, have kids (yes,yes,yes- not every hetero marriage produces kids and they still get to marry! get over it- those are the exceotions that prove the rule)raise the kids who in turn marry and keep it going. Parents become grandparents who ...
It is a chain stretching from the past into the future tying us tigether.
Because of it we think about tomorrow and what we will leave our kids. Because of it we are architects and builders and farmers and composers and not just pirates and plunderers.
When the family is sick it all breaks down. Kids don't get educated in life skills. They don't learn useful job skills and make stable families that continue the chain, they commit street crime and do drugs and father children they can not and will not parent who repreat the cycle in 12-14 short years. That is the society America is increasingly becoming. 75% out of wed lock births among blacks with the rest catching up fast and the "Every Child Deserves ...." show it, as does everything else around us in our society. Maybe Jen D is so smart to figure it out but lots and lots of Americans having kids are obviously not.
The 'family' is on life support.
Where does 'gay marriage' fit in?
It does not.
Homosexuality and homosexual marriage are fatuous indulgences that healthy societies can endure but that do not add to the circle of life.
Sure, not all hetero marriages work out and contribute to the 'circle'. There is always wastage and mishap. A healthy system can absorb the mistakes and give those kids good homes and chug along. But when the mishaps become the norm it breaks down.
At a time when the 'family' needs all the support it can get gay marriage would institutionalize a fatuous indulgence and proclaim it to be just as 'good' as real marriage.
It is not.
And this society can not afford the luxury of that mistake.
More...
It's the circle of life.
Stable married couple's contribution extends beyond getting their own children to the age of 18 and out the door. They are resources for their children as their children are themselves young parents. They are resources to their grand and great-grand children. The whole 'extended family' thing, which Hillary's village copies.
Man and Women marry, have kids (yes,yes,yes- not every hetero marriage produces kids and they still get to marry! get over it- those are the exceotions that prove the rule)raise the kids who in turn marry and keep it going. Parents become grandparents who ...
It is a chain stretching from the past into the future tying us tigether.
Because of it we think about tomorrow and what we will leave our kids. Because of it we are architects and builders and farmers and composers and not just pirates and plunderers.
When the family is sick it all breaks down. Kids don't get educated in life skills. They don't learn useful job skills and make stable families that continue the chain, they commit street crime and do drugs and father children they can not and will not parent who repreat the cycle in 12-14 short years. That is the society America is increasingly becoming. 75% out of wed lock births among blacks with the rest catching up fast and the "Every Child Deserves ...." show it, as does everything else around us in our society. Maybe Jen D is so smart to figure it out but lots and lots of Americans having kids are obviously not.
The 'family' is on life support.
Where does 'gay marriage' fit in?
It does not.
Homosexuality and homosexual marriage are fatuous indulgences that healthy societies can endure but that do not add to the circle of life.
Sure, not all hetero marriages work out and contribute to the 'circle'. There is always wastage and mishap. A healthy system can absorb the mistakes and give those kids good homes and chug along. But when the mishaps become the norm it breaks down.
At a time when the 'family' needs all the support it can get gay marriage would institutionalize a fatuous indulgence and proclaim it to be just as 'good' as real marriage.
It is not.
And this society can not afford the luxury of that mistake.
55
@54: Absolutely nothing in your comment proved that heterosexuals are somehow more capable or better at raising and setting good examples for their children. I see no proof (or even attempt to prove) that homosexuals can not be married or raise children effectively. The reason for that is that there is NOTHING inherent in heterosexuals that make them better or more capable parents, grandparents, or partners.
56
@54: Your argument, like so many others, makes assumptions based on nothing other than your own fear and lack of understanding of who homosexuals are. How sad you are. How fearful. The acceptance of someone different than you eludes you. You are shouting at the moon and the moon doesn't care. And neither do we.
57
@ 54. Yes, gay marriage will result in children becoming 'pirate and plunderers!' Your entire existence is a fatuous indulgence, you bollock-brained twat.
58
55
The reason for that is that there is SOMETHING inherent in homosexual behavior that make them incapable of being parents, grandparents.
The reason for that is that there is SOMETHING inherent in homosexual behavior that make them incapable of being parents, grandparents.
59
I can't believe you girls actually read all that.
It is a pretty day-
go outside and play in the sunshine
for crying out loud
It is a pretty day-
go outside and play in the sunshine
for crying out loud
60
@58: Really? My friends lesbian mothers were both parents and (as of last year) grandparents. They became parents the same way my HETEROsexual parents (also now grandparents) did: adopting a child in need of a loving family.
62
Don't even try to argue with loveschild. It all goes in one ear and out the other. She's had too much homophobic dogma hammered into her brain, probably while being beaten with a bible. She's immune to fact and logic; the only way to change her mind would be to argue our point while beating her with an even bigger bible. Since we can't do that online, all loveschild arguments go like this:
LC: Gays can't get married because they can't have children, which makes them a mockery of straight marriage
Other: But straight marriage isn't necessarily about children. Do straights have to have children to get married?
LC: No, they don't, but gay people can't have children, so they can't get married!
Other: But marriage isn't about children, you said so yourself
LC: Yeah, but gay people can't have children, so they shouldn't get married!
And on and on and on. Then there's the belief that gay marriage causes viral epidemics in Mexico. And earthquakes in Italy. And tsunamis in Indonesia. No folks, these aren't due to biological or geological phenomena; they're due to HOMOS! That's why they usually strike in areas that have nothing to do with gay issues:
GOD: God damn it! Iowa is allowing gay marriage?? You're going to fucking PAY for this, Mexico! And you too, the Philippines: you'd better hope I don't find any buttfucking in Greenland, or you're going under!
Also, I love all the posts about how Dan posts too much about gay issues. What's this? A gay-issue-oriented blogger posting about gay issues on his blog? What's the world coming to? What's next, is the "Dear Science" guy gonna talk about science all the time?
I wonder if whoever's making all those posts gets confused because his doctor keeps talking about health and medicine EVERY DAMN TIME he goes in for a checkup. And how come my dentist just won't shut up about teeth?
More...
LC: Gays can't get married because they can't have children, which makes them a mockery of straight marriage
Other: But straight marriage isn't necessarily about children. Do straights have to have children to get married?
LC: No, they don't, but gay people can't have children, so they can't get married!
Other: But marriage isn't about children, you said so yourself
LC: Yeah, but gay people can't have children, so they shouldn't get married!
And on and on and on. Then there's the belief that gay marriage causes viral epidemics in Mexico. And earthquakes in Italy. And tsunamis in Indonesia. No folks, these aren't due to biological or geological phenomena; they're due to HOMOS! That's why they usually strike in areas that have nothing to do with gay issues:
GOD: God damn it! Iowa is allowing gay marriage?? You're going to fucking PAY for this, Mexico! And you too, the Philippines: you'd better hope I don't find any buttfucking in Greenland, or you're going under!
Also, I love all the posts about how Dan posts too much about gay issues. What's this? A gay-issue-oriented blogger posting about gay issues on his blog? What's the world coming to? What's next, is the "Dear Science" guy gonna talk about science all the time?
I wonder if whoever's making all those posts gets confused because his doctor keeps talking about health and medicine EVERY DAMN TIME he goes in for a checkup. And how come my dentist just won't shut up about teeth?
63
Also, there's nothing biologically disadvantageous in the gay gene. There are such things as genes that do not directly increase one's own reproduction, but stick around nonetheless. This can be due to how the gene itself works (like gene coupling and gene linkage; the gay gene can be linked to some other advantageous gene, like a genetic immunity to Being Rick Santorum). It can also be due to the fact that a GENE can be selected for and passed on without the individual showing said gene's phenotype having lots of offspring. It's called "selfish gene theory" and one example is genes for altruistic behavior (which humans are supposed to exhibit, btw). It's like Dan's example: families with gay relatives have more "single" adults to help care for their children, giving their offspring a better chance of survival. So, families with a gay gene or two floating around are going to have more children, and every now and then one or two of them will be gay.
Or there are other possibilities; there could be sex-linked gene for a very strong sex drive (say, making women very, VERY attracted to the idea of sex with men). These women would have more children, and maybe a couple of the males would also have a desire to have sex with men. So the gene results in more procreation in females and is therefore advantageous, but also results in naturally homosexual males. Or vice versa for men and lesbian daughters.
And those are just a few theories off the top of my head; there are many more. So no, being gay is not a "choice," nor is it a biologically disadvantageous genetic disease.
Or there are other possibilities; there could be sex-linked gene for a very strong sex drive (say, making women very, VERY attracted to the idea of sex with men). These women would have more children, and maybe a couple of the males would also have a desire to have sex with men. So the gene results in more procreation in females and is therefore advantageous, but also results in naturally homosexual males. Or vice versa for men and lesbian daughters.
And those are just a few theories off the top of my head; there are many more. So no, being gay is not a "choice," nor is it a biologically disadvantageous genetic disease.
65
One more thing (sorry about the long-winded triple posts):
LOL at the people saying that gay marriage is a luxurious indulgence. Stop hiding behind destructive bigotry and "indulge," then :)
LOL at the people saying that gay marriage is a luxurious indulgence. Stop hiding behind destructive bigotry and "indulge," then :)
66
Not to mention children raised by same-sex parents thrive as well as children raises by heterosexual parents. Love, commitment and responsibleness are important, contents of knickers are not important. As a heterosexual mom of two, I have to agree.
>>Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63, 1025 -1042.
Reviews research on the personal and social development of children of gay or lesbian parents (CGLP). Beginning with estimates of the numbers of such children, sociocultural, theoretical, and legal reasons for attention to their development are then outlined. In this context, studies on sexual identity, personal development, and social relationships among these children are reviewed. Evidence does not show that the development of CGLP is compromised significantly relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in comparable situations. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
>>Perrin, E. C., & the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2002). Technical report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109, 341-344.
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
More...
>>Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63, 1025 -1042.
Reviews research on the personal and social development of children of gay or lesbian parents (CGLP). Beginning with estimates of the numbers of such children, sociocultural, theoretical, and legal reasons for attention to their development are then outlined. In this context, studies on sexual identity, personal development, and social relationships among these children are reviewed. Evidence does not show that the development of CGLP is compromised significantly relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in comparable situations. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
>>Perrin, E. C., & the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2002). Technical report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109, 341-344.
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
69
@ 54: Except gay marriage isn't the alternative to straight marriage, if anything, gay marriage promotes straight marriage.
Sexual orientation isn't affected by marriage laws, legally recognizing gay couples isn't going to make anyone else gay who wasn't already.
So when you're a little kid, and you're looking around your family, and you see married couples all around you, your Uncle Harry and Uncle Dan only contribute to the overall message that adults form committed and enduring relationships to each other, and that's the expected norm.
And, of course, some of these kids will grow up to be straight, and the relationships of all the married couples around them will help to provide a model of what is expected in their own marriage. And some of these kids will grow up to be gay, and they will be held to similar expectations.
Basically, the message becomes "Get married, stay married, and life is not a garden, so don't be a ho."
Sexual orientation isn't affected by marriage laws, legally recognizing gay couples isn't going to make anyone else gay who wasn't already.
So when you're a little kid, and you're looking around your family, and you see married couples all around you, your Uncle Harry and Uncle Dan only contribute to the overall message that adults form committed and enduring relationships to each other, and that's the expected norm.
And, of course, some of these kids will grow up to be straight, and the relationships of all the married couples around them will help to provide a model of what is expected in their own marriage. And some of these kids will grow up to be gay, and they will be held to similar expectations.
Basically, the message becomes "Get married, stay married, and life is not a garden, so don't be a ho."
70
54, Maybe it's time to stop blaming the gays for your "sick" family. If your marriage or family is troubled, you have no one else to blame but yourself. I know, its easier to blame others whom you don't like for your troubles, but really, it's time. Start taking responsibility for yourself and your family.
71
@54, there is no such thing as an exception that proves the rule. I wish people would stop using this stupid and illogical phrase.
@11 wrote: "but you can't change the fact that all you have is two people of the same sex imitating an institution that is grounded in the physical and emotional biological pairing of a man and a woman and that imitation, at it's core, remains a freak show."
I'm sure most of us can name heterosexual marriages where there is no longer any love, sex, or even compassion; how are these "marriages" less of a freak show than a stable same-sex relationship?
@11 wrote: "but you can't change the fact that all you have is two people of the same sex imitating an institution that is grounded in the physical and emotional biological pairing of a man and a woman and that imitation, at it's core, remains a freak show."
I'm sure most of us can name heterosexual marriages where there is no longer any love, sex, or even compassion; how are these "marriages" less of a freak show than a stable same-sex relationship?
72
I have an idea: How about the government, a secular institution, decides who can get legally married (straights and homos, by the look of things!); churches, inherently non-secular institutions, decide whom, out of the possible legal pool (of everyone!) they want to marry; and then the gays go get married in places that will marry them, and Loveschild doesn't get gay married since she clearly isn't interested.
And, maybe once all this happens, we can all STFU about gay marriage. Especially Loveschild, who is a stupid fucking cunt. Jesus would agree with me.
Oh, and @65 - Animal Collective? ZOMG!
And, maybe once all this happens, we can all STFU about gay marriage. Especially Loveschild, who is a stupid fucking cunt. Jesus would agree with me.
Oh, and @65 - Animal Collective? ZOMG!
73
Jocelyn @ 72,
You, Tony Campolo, and I are in agreement about having the government as a secular institution provide the licencing, identical legal representation and benefits to all couples. Leaving non-secular institutions to decide who's union they want to bless. I believe this is the system employed in the Netherlands.
PS I recommend Tony Campolo's books.
You, Tony Campolo, and I are in agreement about having the government as a secular institution provide the licencing, identical legal representation and benefits to all couples. Leaving non-secular institutions to decide who's union they want to bless. I believe this is the system employed in the Netherlands.
PS I recommend Tony Campolo's books.
74
Kim - He sounds interesting. I'll be sure to give him a read when I get a chance (probably August :-/).
Most Commented on Slog
-
WTF? by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
Is Your Teen Out of Control... And Smoking Hot? by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
The Cost (and Fear) of Dying by Anthony Hecht
-
The Democrats Have 60 Votes in the Senate for Health Care Reform by Jonathan Golob
-
Levi Johnston's Butt by David Schmader
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot For Twinks by Dan Savage
-
Real Salt Lake vs. Galaxy Open Thread by Christopher Frizzelle
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (74) RSS