Monday, May 4, 2009
Homo Today's First Gay Marriage Post
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Last week the AP reported that gay marriage—opposition to gay marriage—was increasingly a liability for the GOP.
Gay marriage legalization in several states and the public's growing acceptance of same-sex unions have Democrats sensing political opportunity and some Republicans re-evaluating their party's hard-line opposition to an issue that long has rallied its base.... Polls show younger Americans are far are more tolerant on the issue than are older generations. For now at least, the public is much more focused on the troubled economy and two wars than on social issues.
A majority of Americans, according to a Quinnipiac University poll, say they oppose same-sex marriage "by a 55-38 percent margin," but a wider margin—57-38 percent—support civil unions and "marriage-like rights" for same-sex couples. (That number includes, ironically, Miss California and the Barack Obama.) Okay, a few things: when Howard Dean ran for president way, way, way back in 2004, his reluctant support for civil unions—Dean basically ran around saying "Hey, my state supreme court made me do it," while cashing checks from from grateful gay and lesbian Democrats—Dean's role in granting marriage-like rights to same-sex couples was seen as a huge liability. Things have changed fast—and civil unions have emerged as the compromise position on marriage equality because we've been pressing for marriage.
One of the chief reasons why more and more Americans support the rights of same-sex couples? More Americans know gay and lesbian people. Not only are more—I'm tempted to write "most"—gays and lesbians out to their families and friends now, but the (ugh) "gayby boom" has introduced gay and lesbian parents—people raising children, which is what we're told the institution of marriage is all about—to people who may not have gay or lesbian family members or friends. People who don't know and perhaps don't like gay people are having to set aside their prejudices long enough to at least be polite to same-sex couples whose children go to school with their children. I don't think that same-sex couples should have children to advance our cause politically—I don't know of any same-sex couples who have done that—but the numbers of gay couples with children out there is a game changer, as they say. It's hard to maintain that families headed up by same-sex couples are a threat to your family when you're scheduling playdates for your kids with the same-sex parents of your child's best friend from school.
And getting back to the GOP's opposition to same-sex marriage...
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani was a last-minute no-show at the wedding of his former roommates—a gay couple—yesterday. It was a disappointment for Queens car dealer Howard Koeppel and his longtime lover, Mark Hsiao... The couple famously let the ex-mayor crash at their luxury $2.37 million three-bedroom Manhattan apartment while he was going through a nasty divorce with Donna Hanover in 2001. Later, Giuliani married the "other woman," Judith Nathan.
Aggressive opposition to same-sex marriage—even when the particular couple getting married are good friends—is the price of admission to the GOP these days. But Giuliani, like the rest of the GOP, is painting himself into a corner. Americans are increasingly more tolerant and supportive of same-sex couples; civil unions for now, but the way things are trending the whole country will one day go the way of Vermont, which enacted civil unions and then, several years later, approved full marriage rights for same-sex couples. Giuliani's disloyalty to his friends—his gay friends—is a short term investment that will cost him over the long run. It's not just that voters will see his actions as anti-gay—which they are—but that they will see his actions as mean-spirited, disloyal, and craven. In other words, they'll see them as highly revealing of Rudy's true character.
Share via
1
Even aside from the larger issue here, it breaks my heart that someone would do that to their friend.
2
Could someone please tell my christian republican family that knowing and loving someone who is gay is supposed to change their minds?
3
If Giuliani's pals won't even call him out on his hypocrisy, who will? Here's what his (Republican) buddy said about Giuliani skipping his marriage:
He is a traditional Catholic. Those teachings say marriage should be between a man and a woman.The last time I checked, "traditional" Catholic teachings say marriage should be between a man and a woman, not one man and three different wives, as practiced by Giuliani.
4
I agree, Dan. I think the gays having kids is a game changer. My bro works at a whoopdeedoo private school where one family didn't want their child playing with a child of two men. That opened up an important dialogue.
And what the hell, 9iu11ani? As if we needed any more proof of your idiocy.
And what the hell, 9iu11ani? As if we needed any more proof of your idiocy.
5
I'm not sure I totally buy the logic that "we argued for marriage, so we got civil unions as a compromise." That sort of implies that if we argued for civil unions, we'd get something less than that as the compromise (or, we must argue marriage in order to get at least civil unions). I'm not sure I think that arguing for marriage is any more effective at getting civil unions than arguing for civil unions would be (but, obviously, if you want to have "marriage", you have to argue for it, so why not start now?).
BTW, Giuliani is despicable. Is he planning on running for governor next year or something?
BTW, Giuliani is despicable. Is he planning on running for governor next year or something?
6
a haiku
for Gay Marriage:
Deviance- a monster of such frightful face,
as to be hated needs but to be seen;
but seen too oft,
familiar with her face,
we first endure,
then tolerate,
then embrace.
for Gay Marriage:
Deviance- a monster of such frightful face,
as to be hated needs but to be seen;
but seen too oft,
familiar with her face,
we first endure,
then tolerate,
then embrace.
7
Notice to all friends of Rudolph Giuliani: Dump him as a friend immediately. He will fuck you over as soon as it's politically expedient for him. We'll talk about your questionable judgment in being friends with that asshole in the first place at a later time.
That is all.
That is all.
8
@ 5, my conservative and somewhat homophobic father in law voted for civil unions here in Colorado in 2006. There are those willing to give separate-but-equal a chance, and since time can be of the essence (e.g., hospital visits) it's something people like my father in law are willing to compromise on.
I don't think anyone would be seeking civil unions if it weren't for the question of gay marriage.
I don't think anyone would be seeking civil unions if it weren't for the question of gay marriage.
11
It may be true that the under 40 demo supports gay marriage. But the under 40 demo doesn't vote nearly as much as the over 50 demo. So I wouldn't be expecting a huge wave of gay marriage laws passing in the next year. So it's a matter of time and we'll get there, but, for now, opposing gay marriage works very well for politicians in huge swaths of the country.
It's too bad that many more young people don't vote. Even on college campuses they don't-- which is why the state gets away with huge tuition increases year after year.
It's too bad that many more young people don't vote. Even on college campuses they don't-- which is why the state gets away with huge tuition increases year after year.
12
Let's just hope that this tectonic shift in the electorate quickly begins to alter the positions of the Democratic leadership. While I'm not expecting a pro gay marriage constitutional amendment, seeing a repeal of DOMA would be nice.
The main thing though is that Obama be able to appoint pro gay marriage judges (also known as pro civil rights judges) without concern for the potential backlash.
The main thing though is that Obama be able to appoint pro gay marriage judges (also known as pro civil rights judges) without concern for the potential backlash.
13
@2 I can't speak for everybone's situation, but I have a lot of conservative Christian family members, and *some* of them have come around over the years and disposed of their bigotry as a result of knowing and befriending gays and lesbians. People can and do change, so don't give up!
14
Woo hoo! Koeppel and Hsiao's wedding announcement was in the NYT this weekend. It was nice and not at all sticky sweet.
There's even embedded video of the happy August-December couple:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/fashio…
There's even embedded video of the happy August-December couple:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/fashio…
15
Is anyone else bothered by the term "lover"? I find that the words "partner" and "lover" are only used for gay couples. If it were a man and a woman they were talking about they would have said "boyfriend," a word which I think has a much less negative connotation.
16
@5:
Demanding one thing and accepting something less than that is a pretty standard tactic. When you push the argument out toward one edge or another, anything that keeps to the perceptively safer middle ground becomes seen as a more sensible, more reasonable option.
Not that GLBT's themselves are necessarily "accepting" of the lesser civil union over marriage, but for many who may otherwise be uncomfortable with supporting full marriage rights for gays, the idea of civil unions could be seen as either "the lesser of two evils", or, simply as a reasonable compromise which they can support without being put into the position of feeling like they have to accept something "out on the edge" as it were.
Demanding one thing and accepting something less than that is a pretty standard tactic. When you push the argument out toward one edge or another, anything that keeps to the perceptively safer middle ground becomes seen as a more sensible, more reasonable option.
Not that GLBT's themselves are necessarily "accepting" of the lesser civil union over marriage, but for many who may otherwise be uncomfortable with supporting full marriage rights for gays, the idea of civil unions could be seen as either "the lesser of two evils", or, simply as a reasonable compromise which they can support without being put into the position of feeling like they have to accept something "out on the edge" as it were.
17
We'll get there.
As for Giuliani, it seems most people right left and center for the most part recognize him as the total ass that he is.
As for Giuliani, it seems most people right left and center for the most part recognize him as the total ass that he is.
19
That's really sad that Giuliani missed their wedding. I'm guessing Giuliani didn't miss it because he caught the swine flu?
21
Giulliani is such an opportunistic liar. Nothing he ever does could shock me. It always pissed me off that he got some sort of political clout for 9/11 when he did exactly the same thing as thousands of other New Yorkers. He is the type of man who will say whatever he thinks will get him the farthest politically. I can't believe he managed to find one wife, never mind three.
22
Tolerance does not equate disregard for the instituions that make our society function properly. There seems to be a reluctance on the part of some that you can be in favor of the protection of traditional marriage (as most americans are) and also harbor no ill feelings for lesbians and gays.
Most people don't want to be in the bedrooms of gays and can careless about what they do in their privacy but redifining an instituion like marriage to accomodate them is forcing something upon the public when they have not been allowed (by some radical groups and individuals) to voice their opinions and have a saying on the outcome.
Most people don't want to be in the bedrooms of gays and can careless about what they do in their privacy but redifining an instituion like marriage to accomodate them is forcing something upon the public when they have not been allowed (by some radical groups and individuals) to voice their opinions and have a saying on the outcome.
23
Comte, good points. But, there's also the argument (which I don't necessarily believe either) that if you asked for civil unions instead of marriage, it would be easier to get civil unions, since asking for marriage might alienate some of the "sanctity of marriage" folks (who might think I don't want them to have civil unions because then they'll just want marriage).
Anyways, I'm not sure which view is the most accurate... There's a reason why I'm not a strategist on this issue -- I find it pretty difficult to predict what the anti-gay marriage people will and will not do or think, since their position is so far outside the boundaries of logic.
Anyways, I'm not sure which view is the most accurate... There's a reason why I'm not a strategist on this issue -- I find it pretty difficult to predict what the anti-gay marriage people will and will not do or think, since their position is so far outside the boundaries of logic.
24
@2, I suspect that the percentage of family members that come around to accepting gays from extremely conservative families is low, but there are a few. The effect is much different on more moderate families.
Before I came out, pretty much all of my family was fairly middle-of-the-road, politically. None of them had ever given gay rights issues much thought at all. Since I came out, my parents (mother in particular) have become crusaders for GLBT rights issues. My brother, who used to lean slightly-republican, has over time become a fairly consistent moderate democrat. Virtually all of my relatives, near and far, are firmly pro-gay-marriage now. My stodgy old grandma even voted for an openly gay mayoral candidate.
I'm sure some of them might have approved of gay marriage regardless. But not all of them. Me being out to them has definitely changed minds among many of my relatives.
Before I came out, pretty much all of my family was fairly middle-of-the-road, politically. None of them had ever given gay rights issues much thought at all. Since I came out, my parents (mother in particular) have become crusaders for GLBT rights issues. My brother, who used to lean slightly-republican, has over time become a fairly consistent moderate democrat. Virtually all of my relatives, near and far, are firmly pro-gay-marriage now. My stodgy old grandma even voted for an openly gay mayoral candidate.
I'm sure some of them might have approved of gay marriage regardless. But not all of them. Me being out to them has definitely changed minds among many of my relatives.
25
@22: Kinda like the abolition of slavery, desegregation of schools, suffrage for blacks and women were all forced on the people by the radicals, despite the voting public being mostly against all of these?
PS: I think many in the pre-Civil War South would argue that slavery was way more important of an institution than marriage, seeing as slaves were a central and intrinsic part of the economy. So, three points here: just because a certain society at some point in history has defined something one way does not make it valid or correct and since when is marriage something that makes our society function properly? Is Rudy Giuliani your example of this? Or Mel Gibson? Or the millions of families where domestic abuse is the norm? There is exactly ZERO basis for saying that heterosexual marriage is anything more than a simple contract (which is violated regularly) that makes things like property ownership, inheritance and child rearing easier. Since so many "Christians" like Mr. Giulliani, don't even see marriage as something sacred how dare they try and push their outdated and not actually respected religious practices on the general public.
PS: I think many in the pre-Civil War South would argue that slavery was way more important of an institution than marriage, seeing as slaves were a central and intrinsic part of the economy. So, three points here: just because a certain society at some point in history has defined something one way does not make it valid or correct and since when is marriage something that makes our society function properly? Is Rudy Giuliani your example of this? Or Mel Gibson? Or the millions of families where domestic abuse is the norm? There is exactly ZERO basis for saying that heterosexual marriage is anything more than a simple contract (which is violated regularly) that makes things like property ownership, inheritance and child rearing easier. Since so many "Christians" like Mr. Giulliani, don't even see marriage as something sacred how dare they try and push their outdated and not actually respected religious practices on the general public.
26
Loveschild @22.
(1) There is no indication that the institution of marriage will not function properly if gays are allowed equal access to the institution. Society has not broken down in Canada or other western nations that allow gay marriage. Society has not broken down in Massachusetts (although I grant it is a little early to know if society will collapse in Iowa, Vermont, and Connecticut). This argument is specious.
(2) You are clinging to old polls. Most current polls do NOT indicate most Americans favor protecting traditional marriage. Please stop lying about polls.
(3) It is an oxymoron to say that you oppose gay-marriage, but hold no ill feelings towards gays. If you don't want me to have the same rights as you, just say so. Stop claiming not to hold ill feelings towards me. The old "love the sinner, hate the sin" memme is nothing but sugar-coated bigotry. If you choose to be a bigot, just own it and stop hiding it.
(1) There is no indication that the institution of marriage will not function properly if gays are allowed equal access to the institution. Society has not broken down in Canada or other western nations that allow gay marriage. Society has not broken down in Massachusetts (although I grant it is a little early to know if society will collapse in Iowa, Vermont, and Connecticut). This argument is specious.
(2) You are clinging to old polls. Most current polls do NOT indicate most Americans favor protecting traditional marriage. Please stop lying about polls.
(3) It is an oxymoron to say that you oppose gay-marriage, but hold no ill feelings towards gays. If you don't want me to have the same rights as you, just say so. Stop claiming not to hold ill feelings towards me. The old "love the sinner, hate the sin" memme is nothing but sugar-coated bigotry. If you choose to be a bigot, just own it and stop hiding it.
27
The problem, LC, is that being gay or lesbian is much more meaningful that being what goes on in the bedroom. Gays and lesbians wouldn't want marriage if that's all it was.
28
25 Marriage has not been defined, it has existed from time immemorial as such because it has been the vehicle through which groups and communities have recognized couplings that have kept them in existence (through the renewal of their population, gay marriage is an invention of these times.
Granted that many have perverted this as those you have mentioned but that doesn't take away the fundamental purpose for marriage and the intrinsic good that it does for society to not temper with it. At its core it has nothing to do with any organized religion but with humanity itself.
Granted that many have perverted this as those you have mentioned but that doesn't take away the fundamental purpose for marriage and the intrinsic good that it does for society to not temper with it. At its core it has nothing to do with any organized religion but with humanity itself.
29
@4) I had never seen 9iu11ani before, I love that!
@Dan) Good post. And I think you're completely right.
@Dan) Good post. And I think you're completely right.
30
Dan,
All right. So, some believe that for the GOP not to support gay marriage is a political liability. But Pres. Obama and many Democrats still define marriage as between "a man and a woman". Why is there barely any mention of it as a liability to the Democrats? After all they are in power. Are you going to wait that long (4 years? 8 years?) before they change their mind to accomodate gay marriage?
All right. So, some believe that for the GOP not to support gay marriage is a political liability. But Pres. Obama and many Democrats still define marriage as between "a man and a woman". Why is there barely any mention of it as a liability to the Democrats? After all they are in power. Are you going to wait that long (4 years? 8 years?) before they change their mind to accomodate gay marriage?
31
Is it still necessary to bring up the history of marriage? The fact that marriage has not, in fact existed since "time immemorial" and that it is taken many, many different forms throughout human history (arranged marriage, love marriage, marriage for solidifying the power of ruling families, etc.)? Still? Really?
Marriage is not, and has never been a static institution. It has adapted with the times. Do you just keep forgetting this counterargument, or are you really that dumb?
Marriage is not, and has never been a static institution. It has adapted with the times. Do you just keep forgetting this counterargument, or are you really that dumb?
32
@26: let's not forget that since legalizing same-sex marriage, Spanish sports have never won more. They won Euro 2008 after decades of being chokers, and Nadal became the top-ranked tennis player in the world.
34
26 I favor civil unions, I favor visitation rights , inheritance rights and all other benefits that a couple should have for lesbians and gays alike.
How does that make me hate gays like so many here believe?
I do however also believe that heterosexual and homosexual couplings have a different set of needs due to their particular difference.
Homosexuals are the first to say that they're different, so I don't understand the refusal to see that those set of rules that govern us have to reflect those differences. Not to enshrine discrimination as some say but to preserve it.
Homosexual couplings live a different reality and have other needs different from heterosexual couples, it would serve no purpose nor good to conflate the two just to please extremist sides to give a romanticized appearance of equanimity that doesn't take into account our inherent differences and needs.
In reality it would end up doing more harm than good for gays and straights alike.
How does that make me hate gays like so many here believe?
I do however also believe that heterosexual and homosexual couplings have a different set of needs due to their particular difference.
Homosexuals are the first to say that they're different, so I don't understand the refusal to see that those set of rules that govern us have to reflect those differences. Not to enshrine discrimination as some say but to preserve it.
Homosexual couplings live a different reality and have other needs different from heterosexual couples, it would serve no purpose nor good to conflate the two just to please extremist sides to give a romanticized appearance of equanimity that doesn't take into account our inherent differences and needs.
In reality it would end up doing more harm than good for gays and straights alike.
35
If it was an either-or choice, I'd rather see civil unions in all 50 states than same-sex marriage in just a few.
36
Loveschild... what exactly are the differences between gays and straights that need to be reflected in the "set of rules that govern us"? Why is it, exactly, that gay marriage/civil unions and straight marriage need to be different? And how should they be different?
I know, I know, troll-feeding, but, sometimes I can't help myself. I am weak, mea culpa.
I know, I know, troll-feeding, but, sometimes I can't help myself. I am weak, mea culpa.
37
Lack of character seems to be a trait of Republicans. I noticed Jeb on the news this weekend. I would fully expect him to back track on his meddling in the life of Terry Schiavo.
38
How do gay couples have different needs? The sex that they have is a little different, but that only creates "different needs" when it comes to sex toys (and even then, not really). Other than the bedroom, however, there is no difference (and the bedroom is a VERY NEGLIGIBLE difference that should not influence our laws).
A gay couple relates to each other the same way as any straight couple. They have the same priorities. They even have children, something that you think doesn't count because they don't have them with each other. They do, however RAISE children with each other, which is the important part. Even you can't deny that. They aquire, own, share, and pass on property the same way (at least, they would if they had the legal right to). The statement that their reality and needs are different than those of heterosexuals is complete bullshit.
And even if you want to so generously allow them things like visitation rights, etc, it is still homophobic to deny them full marriage rights. For one thing, the idea that homosexual marriage would soil the institution of marriage is VERY homophobic, and you're a damned liar for pretending otherwise. Showing that our country will not coddle such homophobia is the reason that granting gays full marital recognition is so important. So really, people like you are the best reason we have for pushing pro-gay-marriage legislation. Congrats!
Also, gays are NOT the first to say that they're different. Homophobes are the ones that continue to single out gays as alien, unnatural, unequal, immoral, and "different." Gays have done nothing but argue that they do not have any differences other than their benign sexual preferences.
What is this, opposite day?
A gay couple relates to each other the same way as any straight couple. They have the same priorities. They even have children, something that you think doesn't count because they don't have them with each other. They do, however RAISE children with each other, which is the important part. Even you can't deny that. They aquire, own, share, and pass on property the same way (at least, they would if they had the legal right to). The statement that their reality and needs are different than those of heterosexuals is complete bullshit.
And even if you want to so generously allow them things like visitation rights, etc, it is still homophobic to deny them full marriage rights. For one thing, the idea that homosexual marriage would soil the institution of marriage is VERY homophobic, and you're a damned liar for pretending otherwise. Showing that our country will not coddle such homophobia is the reason that granting gays full marital recognition is so important. So really, people like you are the best reason we have for pushing pro-gay-marriage legislation. Congrats!
Also, gays are NOT the first to say that they're different. Homophobes are the ones that continue to single out gays as alien, unnatural, unequal, immoral, and "different." Gays have done nothing but argue that they do not have any differences other than their benign sexual preferences.
What is this, opposite day?
40
@34: What differences? Let's take a look at the typical relationships of the two groups:
1) Both groups can either choose to be monogamous or have many partners. Neither group is more or less capable of fidelity, faithfulness, love.
2) Both groups can have children and raise them to adulthood. Parental ability is NOT linked to a sexuality and a child's sexual identity is independent of his or her parent(s').
3)Both of these groups live all over the country in rural areas, in urban areas. They come from every socio-economic background, they come from every race, they come from every religious background (regardless of how much said background tries to deny it).
Is this huge, insane difference you are talking about the sex? Should there be "pee pee in vagina marriage" and "pee pee no vagina marriage" and "vagina no pee pee marriage"? Because I can find no other reasonable difference that would account for this desire you have to segregate a minority group.
1) Both groups can either choose to be monogamous or have many partners. Neither group is more or less capable of fidelity, faithfulness, love.
2) Both groups can have children and raise them to adulthood. Parental ability is NOT linked to a sexuality and a child's sexual identity is independent of his or her parent(s').
3)Both of these groups live all over the country in rural areas, in urban areas. They come from every socio-economic background, they come from every race, they come from every religious background (regardless of how much said background tries to deny it).
Is this huge, insane difference you are talking about the sex? Should there be "pee pee in vagina marriage" and "pee pee no vagina marriage" and "vagina no pee pee marriage"? Because I can find no other reasonable difference that would account for this desire you have to segregate a minority group.
42
I'm so disappointed that LC doesn't have an avatar.
I love Julie & Eugene's. That's exactly how I pictured her....
I love Julie & Eugene's. That's exactly how I pictured her....
43
It's that type of dismissive attitude (name calling) of anyone who knows differently that doesn't allow for this issue to be resolved in an amicable manner. People who disagree with you are not trolls, if you believe they're then you are the one with the problem because that would make most americans trolls.
We are different and if are unwilling to recognize this then we will never be able to move forward on this no matter how many politicians you bribe or how many ideological courts side with you an imposed on the people it will be short lived. I'm not a lesbian but I know that two women cannot procreate they need a sperm donor and solely one egg from one of them. That doesn't make them able to procreate does it? They can rear the child yes but so can any single parent and biologicaly that is the situation in any same sex coupling who are raising children that were conceived through artificial insemination. Only one of them is really the biological parent and laws should protect both the biological parent and child but to create or invent some law so that the other member of the same sex coupling can feel not left out is just that an invention and nothing more.
Same as with singles who can adopt children they do not need to be married to do so.
Given their sexual orientation and experiences gay men are know to have a different view (as Mr Savage advocates) when it comes to monogamy and commitment. They are more oriented to open relationships and plural experimentation.
There are also different health concerns that impact more directly gays than straights as this shows:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/ar…
All this needs to be taken into account. And like I previously commented it by no way means that gays should be discriminated but what it does mean is that their difference needs to recognized and provided with what they really need and not what it's pc.
If most gay groups recognized this and secured the american people that they would not try to sneakily intrude on an institution like marriage there would be no attempts at repealing domestic partnerships since there wouldn't be any perceived threat by the public.
I have never understood why if the olive branch is extended why do some refuse to grab it.
More...
We are different and if are unwilling to recognize this then we will never be able to move forward on this no matter how many politicians you bribe or how many ideological courts side with you an imposed on the people it will be short lived. I'm not a lesbian but I know that two women cannot procreate they need a sperm donor and solely one egg from one of them. That doesn't make them able to procreate does it? They can rear the child yes but so can any single parent and biologicaly that is the situation in any same sex coupling who are raising children that were conceived through artificial insemination. Only one of them is really the biological parent and laws should protect both the biological parent and child but to create or invent some law so that the other member of the same sex coupling can feel not left out is just that an invention and nothing more.
Same as with singles who can adopt children they do not need to be married to do so.
Given their sexual orientation and experiences gay men are know to have a different view (as Mr Savage advocates) when it comes to monogamy and commitment. They are more oriented to open relationships and plural experimentation.
There are also different health concerns that impact more directly gays than straights as this shows:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/ar…
All this needs to be taken into account. And like I previously commented it by no way means that gays should be discriminated but what it does mean is that their difference needs to recognized and provided with what they really need and not what it's pc.
If most gay groups recognized this and secured the american people that they would not try to sneakily intrude on an institution like marriage there would be no attempts at repealing domestic partnerships since there wouldn't be any perceived threat by the public.
I have never understood why if the olive branch is extended why do some refuse to grab it.
44
@43: I am not biologically related to either of my parents, seeing as my daddy's sperm and my mommy's egg just couldn't get it together. Should only one of their parental rights be protected? Should neither, seeing as they are biologically defective?
Also: "Given their sexual orientation and experiences gay men are know to have a different view (as Mr Savage advocates) when it comes to monogamy and commitment." Really? I know a lot of heterosexuals who don't believe in monogamy. I also know a lot of homosexuals who do. I guess if we are making sweeping generalizations it would be ok if I mentioned that blacks (due to their experiences, of course) also have different views on monogamy and commitment. I mean, for every one successful couple there are a hundred broken families. At least, that's what rap songs and the studies I look at (since I'm looking for proof that blacks cannot be successfully monogamous) say.
"I have never understood why if the olive branch is extended why do some refuse to grab it." What olive branch? Oh, here little homos, you can have the scraps we straights don't really want. How come blacks, women and other minority groups never settled for that? Or is separate, but equal ok when you really dislike the other group?
Also: "Given their sexual orientation and experiences gay men are know to have a different view (as Mr Savage advocates) when it comes to monogamy and commitment." Really? I know a lot of heterosexuals who don't believe in monogamy. I also know a lot of homosexuals who do. I guess if we are making sweeping generalizations it would be ok if I mentioned that blacks (due to their experiences, of course) also have different views on monogamy and commitment. I mean, for every one successful couple there are a hundred broken families. At least, that's what rap songs and the studies I look at (since I'm looking for proof that blacks cannot be successfully monogamous) say.
"I have never understood why if the olive branch is extended why do some refuse to grab it." What olive branch? Oh, here little homos, you can have the scraps we straights don't really want. How come blacks, women and other minority groups never settled for that? Or is separate, but equal ok when you really dislike the other group?
45
for once, LC is right: most Americans are trolls.
Also, Dan says this is the first GM post, so when do we get the subsequent GM posts?
Also, Dan says this is the first GM post, so when do we get the subsequent GM posts?
46
@43 "no matter how many politicians you bribe or how many ideological courts side with you an(sic) imposed on the people it will be short lived." You started that little diatribe with the phrase "It's that type of dismissive attitude (name calling) of anyone who knows differently that doesn't allow for this issue to be resolved in an amicable manner." Cognitive dissonance much?
@36 - I know what you mean. I've sworn up and down that I'm not going to respond to her anymore, but I can't seem to help myself either. At any rate, it does help in sharpening my arguments...
@36 - I know what you mean. I've sworn up and down that I'm not going to respond to her anymore, but I can't seem to help myself either. At any rate, it does help in sharpening my arguments...
47
Loveschild - you are not a troll because you disagree with us. You are a troll because your arguments make no sense and are rarely logically presented.
Anyways, you did not answer all of the question. You said that the differences that need to be taken into account are
(1) Only one person can be the biological parent of any child that may be produced [not sure why this matters since in plenty of marriages only one person is the biological parent]
(2) They are more receptive to open relationships [not sure if this is true, or how it matters since many heterosexuals are either unfaithful or are also receptive to open marriages]
(3) Health concerns [not sure what health has to do with marriage]
So, you say "all of this has to be taken into account. But, relevancy of these factors aside, my question is how. How would you propose that these things be taken into account? What should be different about gay and straight unions?
There are differences between gays and straights (e.g., it is obviously a fact that only one person in the couple can be the biological parent of a child). But that doesn't mean that there are differences that should be reflected in the legal definition of marriage. There also may be differences between a Catholic's conception of marriage and and atheist's. Between a Middle Eastern immigrant's and a NYC power couple. Between an elderly couple re-marrying and 18 year olds marrying because of a pregnancy. Between a couple that does not intend to have children and one that does.
Under the law they are all equal, but each couple can choose to create the marriage that they feel is best suited to their beliefs, lifestyle, and needs.
Anyways, you did not answer all of the question. You said that the differences that need to be taken into account are
(1) Only one person can be the biological parent of any child that may be produced [not sure why this matters since in plenty of marriages only one person is the biological parent]
(2) They are more receptive to open relationships [not sure if this is true, or how it matters since many heterosexuals are either unfaithful or are also receptive to open marriages]
(3) Health concerns [not sure what health has to do with marriage]
So, you say "all of this has to be taken into account. But, relevancy of these factors aside, my question is how. How would you propose that these things be taken into account? What should be different about gay and straight unions?
There are differences between gays and straights (e.g., it is obviously a fact that only one person in the couple can be the biological parent of a child). But that doesn't mean that there are differences that should be reflected in the legal definition of marriage. There also may be differences between a Catholic's conception of marriage and and atheist's. Between a Middle Eastern immigrant's and a NYC power couple. Between an elderly couple re-marrying and 18 year olds marrying because of a pregnancy. Between a couple that does not intend to have children and one that does.
Under the law they are all equal, but each couple can choose to create the marriage that they feel is best suited to their beliefs, lifestyle, and needs.
48
Um, loveschild, the fact that someone in Argentina is thinking about beginning a study to figure out whether or not gays might engage in high-risk behavior is not conclusive evidence that they do. Just thought you should know.
But let's pretend for the sake of argument that they do. How is this a reason to deny gays their rights? Should straights who engage in risky behavior be denied marriages? If I work on boats in stormy conditions, should I be banned from getting married and forced to settle for a "civil union"?
Also, as a "religious" person, you of all people should agree that it is how you raise a child that's important, not how you conceive it. But you don't, apparently. So stop calling yourself "pro-family," because you think that sperm and egg is all there is to a family. Yes, it is still procreation if a lesbian couple has a sperm donor. One of them still gets pregnant and has the child. The two of them still raise the child together. Who cares where the sperm comes from? There's not some magical sperm-based bond that makes child-rearing more viable. They have a kid, they raise a kid, and that's all that matters to anyone who doesn't have some weird obsession with sperm.
And I think it's absolutely sick when you imply that adoption is less valid than biological-reproduction-using-only-the-gametes-of-the-married-couple. Absolutely sick. Adopting a child is as good as having one, as far as sane people are concerned. Same with every other form of aquiring a child. It doesn't matter whose sperm and whose egg formed the child; it matters how lovingly it is raised. That's why children with abusive biological parents don't magically turn out healthy, and children with devoted adoptive parents (even GAAAYYYY adoptive parents) turn out fine. If you have some hangup that these healthy children's healthy parents don't happen to BOTH be their BIOLOGICAL prents as well, then that's your problem, and should remain so.
I also think it's pathetic that you keep backpedaling on this marriage-is-about-children thing whenever it's convenient. You say that straight people who can't have children can get married, but gay people can't get married because they can't have children. Make up your mind; either marriage is about children and so only pregnant people can get married (and only to their impregnator; lover, rapist or otherwise), or it's not. You can't say that marriage is about children for gays (so they can't do it), but about love for everyone else.
And I'm still waiting to hear about any real differences between gays and straights. There are as many sexual differences within the gay and straight communities as between them.
More...
But let's pretend for the sake of argument that they do. How is this a reason to deny gays their rights? Should straights who engage in risky behavior be denied marriages? If I work on boats in stormy conditions, should I be banned from getting married and forced to settle for a "civil union"?
Also, as a "religious" person, you of all people should agree that it is how you raise a child that's important, not how you conceive it. But you don't, apparently. So stop calling yourself "pro-family," because you think that sperm and egg is all there is to a family. Yes, it is still procreation if a lesbian couple has a sperm donor. One of them still gets pregnant and has the child. The two of them still raise the child together. Who cares where the sperm comes from? There's not some magical sperm-based bond that makes child-rearing more viable. They have a kid, they raise a kid, and that's all that matters to anyone who doesn't have some weird obsession with sperm.
And I think it's absolutely sick when you imply that adoption is less valid than biological-reproduction-using-only-the-gametes-of-the-married-couple. Absolutely sick. Adopting a child is as good as having one, as far as sane people are concerned. Same with every other form of aquiring a child. It doesn't matter whose sperm and whose egg formed the child; it matters how lovingly it is raised. That's why children with abusive biological parents don't magically turn out healthy, and children with devoted adoptive parents (even GAAAYYYY adoptive parents) turn out fine. If you have some hangup that these healthy children's healthy parents don't happen to BOTH be their BIOLOGICAL prents as well, then that's your problem, and should remain so.
I also think it's pathetic that you keep backpedaling on this marriage-is-about-children thing whenever it's convenient. You say that straight people who can't have children can get married, but gay people can't get married because they can't have children. Make up your mind; either marriage is about children and so only pregnant people can get married (and only to their impregnator; lover, rapist or otherwise), or it's not. You can't say that marriage is about children for gays (so they can't do it), but about love for everyone else.
And I'm still waiting to hear about any real differences between gays and straights. There are as many sexual differences within the gay and straight communities as between them.
50
Oh, almost forgot...@ 15: I don't like "lover" or "partner" either. Maybe I'm just new to all this, but I call my boyfriend "my boyfriend."
51
LC @ 43 said:
Interesting that you use the word "knows" rather than "thinks." You've been presented, over and over and over, with the FACT that marriage is not what you say it is. You only THINK that's what it is. It is my side that KNOWS.
You're right; it is that type of dismissive attitude (in your case, ignoring facts and logical arguments) that doesn't allow for this issue to be resolved in an amicable manner. What WILL resolve it is that attitudes are fast changing, as evidenced by recent polls. You and your close-minded ilk are already in the minority; open-minded marriage equality opponents (those who are simply traditionalist and not against gay rights) are coming around and soon a plurality of Americans will support marriage equality. The trend is undeniable.
It's that type of dismissive attitude (name calling) of anyone who knows differently that doesn't allow for this issue to be resolved in an amicable manner.
Interesting that you use the word "knows" rather than "thinks." You've been presented, over and over and over, with the FACT that marriage is not what you say it is. You only THINK that's what it is. It is my side that KNOWS.
You're right; it is that type of dismissive attitude (in your case, ignoring facts and logical arguments) that doesn't allow for this issue to be resolved in an amicable manner. What WILL resolve it is that attitudes are fast changing, as evidenced by recent polls. You and your close-minded ilk are already in the minority; open-minded marriage equality opponents (those who are simply traditionalist and not against gay rights) are coming around and soon a plurality of Americans will support marriage equality. The trend is undeniable.
52
Perhaps, the olive branch is refused is because of comments like these.
"If the National Organization for Marriage wants to make the comments of a gossip columnist and a beauty queen the subject of a national debate, then it should answer for the bizarre and troubling remarks of its most prominent board member - best-selling science fiction writer Orson Scott Card.
"The NOM has argued that it is not a homophobic organization, but Card's remarks suggest otherwise. Card, who represents the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the board and received an effusive welcome last week from NOM president Maggie Gallagher, supports criminalizing sex between same-sex adults:
Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books...to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens.
"Card has also advocated overthrowing the government if same-sex marriage is permitted:
How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.
"If the National Organization for Marriage wants to make the comments of a gossip columnist and a beauty queen the subject of a national debate, then it should answer for the bizarre and troubling remarks of its most prominent board member - best-selling science fiction writer Orson Scott Card.
"The NOM has argued that it is not a homophobic organization, but Card's remarks suggest otherwise. Card, who represents the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the board and received an effusive welcome last week from NOM president Maggie Gallagher, supports criminalizing sex between same-sex adults:
Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books...to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens.
"Card has also advocated overthrowing the government if same-sex marriage is permitted:
How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.
53
rewind:
Forgot the links for # 52.
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypoc…
http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices…
http://www.bilerico.com/2009/05/nom_boar…
Forgot the links for # 52.
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypoc…
http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices…
http://www.bilerico.com/2009/05/nom_boar…
54
Kim & Julie & Matt & Bonefish - you guys totally rock. Thanks for saying all the things I always want to say, but so much more eloquently than I could. And I genuinely thank LC most of all, because her circular logic, blatant homophobia, and consistently un-christian comportment only serve to do our work for us. She makes it so easy; just let her talk. The more people who read her hateful ignorant posts, the more support we will have. She is the epitome of homophobia, which of course indicates a deep self-loathing, the self-hate of the closeted. I feel sorry for her.
57
@52
Wow, that's kooky!
Where could one possibly get the idea to criminalize homosexual behavior?
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Lev 20:13)
ouch
Wow, that's kooky!
Where could one possibly get the idea to criminalize homosexual behavior?
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Lev 20:13)
ouch
58
There will be a place for Loveschild similar to Hayden Lake, Idaho where she can go to live and socialize with people that subscribe to her beliefs. It is all just a matter of time. Or maybe, just maybe, like the majority of the population in the years to come, she will come around on the issue and realize that the religious institutions have capitalized on her subconscious hatred (though you deny it) in order to keep religion relevant in the 21st century. It takes lots of dollars to pay salaries and build churches and it is no coincidence that the anti-gay ones; Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, and many televangelists rely on big wads of tax-free cash from people like you to keep them going. You see it is a terrible and vicious cycle and you are part of it. Sadly, the lives of gay and lesbian families, including their children, are caught in the middle of your modern day crusade.
59
I in no way nor any reasonable person I know of support criminalizing sex between same sex adults. But there is no Constitutional basis for the courts to overrule the will of the people as they're trying to do in Cali nor trying to equate gay marriage with slavery as some veiled racist here are doing. Slavery violated a fundamental right which is not being the property of another human being, something that's totally different from the gay marriage ideology. Nobody is being persecuted or hounded along state lines in this country for being gay or lesbian. All citizens in this country are protected under the fourteen amendment of the United States Constitution, equal protection however does not entitle the granting of special benefits.
60
I'm ready for a new Supreme Court so we can get this out of the hands of state voters and courts. Ohio will be years from sanctioning gay marriage, and I'm tired of losing gay friends and neighbors who are parents to Canada and more-progressive states.
61
I know this idea has been aired before, but I'm actually becoming convinced that Loveschild is a fabrication. "She" used to be reasonably coherent and have decent grammar and spelling, but that is no longer true. The arguments, while wrapped in stereotypical holier-than-thou smugness, were at least presented in a consistent "this is what I believe" fashion from one post to the next, but they have lately gotten more erratic, shrill, and lacking in internal logic.
Things have been deteriorating for awhile now, but posts 22 (first paragraph), 43 (first two sentences of paragraph 2) and #59 ("some veiled racist," "fourteen amendment") make me think that the sociology major who thought up this experiment has decided that the character "Loveschild" needs to undergo a rapid & noticeable mental breakdown, perhaps so "she" can disappear from the forum and leave her creator time to put all the results together for their senior thesis by the time school ends. Or perhaps it's a joint project and another student (with worse spelling & grammar) has taken over the job of writing "her" posts, without sufficiently studying the previous author's style.
I apologize if I'm off the mark with this, but seriously, this is what it's started to look like. LC, if you're real (or even if you're not), maybe you should consider typing more slowly and proofreading your posts.
Things have been deteriorating for awhile now, but posts 22 (first paragraph), 43 (first two sentences of paragraph 2) and #59 ("some veiled racist," "fourteen amendment") make me think that the sociology major who thought up this experiment has decided that the character "Loveschild" needs to undergo a rapid & noticeable mental breakdown, perhaps so "she" can disappear from the forum and leave her creator time to put all the results together for their senior thesis by the time school ends. Or perhaps it's a joint project and another student (with worse spelling & grammar) has taken over the job of writing "her" posts, without sufficiently studying the previous author's style.
I apologize if I'm off the mark with this, but seriously, this is what it's started to look like. LC, if you're real (or even if you're not), maybe you should consider typing more slowly and proofreading your posts.
63
@61 - I actually assumed, for a time, that Loveschild was an invention of the Stranger staff, given the hits/comments she generated. My best guess now is that she is a non-native English speaker, who is black (she has strongly inferred that she is black, but the non-native English speaker is just a guess based on language/grammar usage). Maybe an immigrant from the Caribbean?
Loveschild, that's another reason people call you a troll. If your comments are so far off that we doubt your actual existence, you might be a troll.
Loveschild, that's another reason people call you a troll. If your comments are so far off that we doubt your actual existence, you might be a troll.
64
LC, that's just it. First, owning slaves WAS a right - it was right there in the Constitution. It didn't come out until the 13th Amendment.
As far as "overruling the will of the people," well, unless you're claiming some expertise in the state constitution of California, I'd say you're on shaky ground making a proclamation of that sort. I don't know what basis their constitution might give for challenging a popular Proposition, but I don't think that it's like my home state where such things actually amend the constitution; therefore opening the way for changes to be made.
@ 57, we've ripped the Bible and other religious texts out of our government. It's called separation of church and state.
As far as "overruling the will of the people," well, unless you're claiming some expertise in the state constitution of California, I'd say you're on shaky ground making a proclamation of that sort. I don't know what basis their constitution might give for challenging a popular Proposition, but I don't think that it's like my home state where such things actually amend the constitution; therefore opening the way for changes to be made.
@ 57, we've ripped the Bible and other religious texts out of our government. It's called separation of church and state.
65
@ 63, I think LC is American. She calls Texas her home state. I think she's just a victim of limited education.
66
According to her picture, marriage should be between one man and one... um... octopus? What the hell is that thing?
67
Also, I love the declaration that there's no Constitutional basis for overruling the will of the people, when the entire reason for the Constitution's existence is to make sure that the "will of the people" can never be used to strip a minority group from their rights. She's basically saying that there's no Constitutional basis for equal treatment under the law. What a scholar!
68
I have a feeling that Rudy's friends are tiresome chandelier-and-jewelry queens who, after a few martinis, will bitch too you about how today's gays are too pushy.
69
Oops. Evidently, today's gays also don't know the difference between "too" and "to". Sorry about that.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church by Dan Savage
-
Straight Up by Dan Savage
-
Neologism Needed by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Cheat Sheet by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Toilet Brush Off by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
Tea Party Crowd Believes That Only Good Spellers Should Vote by Dan Savage
-
How's That Hopey, Changey Stuff Working Out For Childhood Obesity? by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
The Green Police Super Bowl Commercial by Charles Mudede
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (71) RSS