Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, September 1, 2009
Homo Gay Marriage Comes to Vermont
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:56 AM
"You are uncharacteristically behind the news cycle," writes Clayton. "It’s 10:38 a.m. in Seattle. Vermont has—for the first time—been performing same-sex marriages, and it has been doing it for nearly 14 hours, and you haven’t said or written the first word about it."
We have independent confirmation of Clayton's Slog tip...
Ben & Jerry’s is temporarily renaming popular “Chubby Hubby” ice cream “Hubby Hubby” beginning today to celebrate the start of legalized gay marriage in its home state of Vermont. “The legalization of marriage for gay and lesbian couples in Vermont is certainly a step in the right direction, and something worth celebrating with peace, love—and plenty of ice cream,” Ben & Jerry’s CEO Walt Freese said in announcing the sugary switch... [A] wedding-themed Ben & Jerry’s truck will hand out free “Hubby Hubby” across Vermont today. Scheduled stops include the Vermont Capitol, where lawmakers passed a gay-marriage law that takes effect today.
3
@ 1, I hope Savage isn't such a food nazi that he'd object to people eating this (or like this) on special occasions.
4
I hate Ben & Jerry's, but I support this move in principle.
If, on the other hand, they showed their support for equality by making ice cream products that didn't suck...
If, on the other hand, they showed their support for equality by making ice cream products that didn't suck...
5
@1: I seriously thought you were making that shit up, so I had to second-check it.... There were additional comments about vanilla cream.
Dear Gawd, that just screams for butt-sex jokes. How long until someone takes offense and cries foul?
Dear Gawd, that just screams for butt-sex jokes. How long until someone takes offense and cries foul?
6
I don't mind the ice cream but the names are always embarrassingly terrible. It's like the ice-cream version of the Fur Bikini Fantasy Cover.
7
It's a temporary renaming of Chubby Hubby, a flavor which has been around for decades. They changed the name to be clever, not the ingredients.
Which again raises the question: What the fuck is up with heteros' and their obsession with buttsex?
Which again raises the question: What the fuck is up with heteros' and their obsession with buttsex?
11
See, they just do it.
You whine about why you can't, that it's too hard, that you might upset some imaginary power base.
They just do it.
Which, quite frankly, is what I've been saying all along - just DO IT. Stop whining, and just DO IT.
You whine about why you can't, that it's too hard, that you might upset some imaginary power base.
They just do it.
Which, quite frankly, is what I've been saying all along - just DO IT. Stop whining, and just DO IT.
12
I would guess the lesbians are probably gonna eat more ice cream than the gay men. Maybe they could have temporarily renamed one to cater to them, you know... marketing and all...
Oh, and @7, heteros who are secure with their sexuality aren't obsessed with gay buttsex. It's the closet cases who are terrified of their own desires who are obsessed.
Oh, and @7, heteros who are secure with their sexuality aren't obsessed with gay buttsex. It's the closet cases who are terrified of their own desires who are obsessed.
13
If the R-71 gets on the ballot, you folks in Washington need to get Ben & Jerry's to send you cases of Hubby Hubby to hand out at gay rights rallies. Drive around with an ice cream truck campaigning to pass "the everything but marriage law".
15
@12: That's a splendid idea for a Slog survey.
What Ben and Jerry flavor would best recognize the other half of gay marriage, i.e. women marrying women?
What Ben and Jerry flavor would best recognize the other half of gay marriage, i.e. women marrying women?
17
Good for Ben & Jerry's. That's a nice way to be supportive of the state and local community.
I'm a guy who's been married to my wife for 6 years now, and I've loved every minute of it. I always say "I'm pro-marriage." Gay marriage = more marriage, so it's just fine in my book!
I'm a guy who's been married to my wife for 6 years now, and I've loved every minute of it. I always say "I'm pro-marriage." Gay marriage = more marriage, so it's just fine in my book!
18
@13 Winning the war for equality while losing the war on body fat? Dan's head might explode :) Besides, the western half of the state will be too cold for ice cream in two weeks anyway.
21
@18, the best time to eat ice cream is when it's snowing outside. That's what us flyover -landers do.
And Vermont, Iowa proudly welcomes you to the marriage club.
And Vermont, Iowa proudly welcomes you to the marriage club.
25
@14 For me, it's easily their best flavor. To each his/her own.
Now if I could just find some. I haven't seen any in any stores around here in almost a year, not that I'm constantly searching.
Now if I could just find some. I haven't seen any in any stores around here in almost a year, not that I'm constantly searching.
27
One more reason besides the calories to avoid that diabetes inducing junk. I wonder if stores outside of VT will have the gall to sell this. Just imagine a kid going for some ice cream and having to see this. Hubby hubby? Way to place parents between a rock and a hard place trying to explain this one Ben & Jerry's. I swear, and then some gay lobby groups will have us believe that they're not into indoctrination, yeah right.
28
@27-My kid would have no problem at all with seeing hubby hubby ice cream, and nor would her (opposite gender never married) parents have a problem explaining it to her.
What we have trouble explaining is why our gay friends are technically married even though they have weddings. It's hard for a kid to deal with how fucking unjust the world is.
What we have trouble explaining is why our gay friends are technically married even though they have weddings. It's hard for a kid to deal with how fucking unjust the world is.
29
I just read an article in the Portland, ME paper about how Vermont isn't seeing as much demand for same sex marriage licenses as they thought they would (and, consequentially, they aren't projecting as much in the way of tourism dollars as they thought). Partially because they're not the first state so there's not as much pent up demand. We'll see how it goes though, now that it's official...
30
There is a line between innocence and ignorance. Most children will focus on the fact that the carton holds ice cream, and nothing else, their innocence is left intact. They can freely enjoy the ice cream with the funny Seuss-like name. Those intelligent enough to grasp the meaning behind the carton, have already been saved from ignorance. It's a win-win, LC.
31
@ 27 - Ah, so now we see what's behind Loveschild's consternation over homosexuality: she'd like to be able to avoid the inconvenience of having to tell her kids that there are gay people in the world.
32
@31:
So you don't think that an ice cream flavor acknowledging the existence of gay marriage rises to the level of "indoctrination?" I know lots of kids who became deadheads after eating Cherry Garcia.
So you don't think that an ice cream flavor acknowledging the existence of gay marriage rises to the level of "indoctrination?" I know lots of kids who became deadheads after eating Cherry Garcia.
33
29 The article you link to exposes the truth that some loud elements who think that they speak on behalf of all gays don't want us to know about. I think that is has nothing to do with other states performing gay marriages since the same thing is happening on places like MA. It might have to do more with the fact that in reality most gays are not really interested in emulating heterosexuals and enter into marriage. Which makes sense, cause the needs between an opposite sex couple and the family they procreate differ from that of those gays who form couples. But we have been forced feed the myth that gay marriage is what most gays want, and that anything else is discriminatory, BS, we all know that's not true.
34
@29 is correct.
My relatives in Vermont think this is pretty much a non issue.
They're way more concerned about other things.
My relatives in Vermont think this is pretty much a non issue.
They're way more concerned about other things.
35
@33- It doesn't matter if one gay couple wants to marry or one million. Denying gay people marriage rights is immoral.
36
Looks like Loveschild doubled up on her Evil suppositories today! The needs of any couple/partnership/marriage/civil union are at the same time very specific to the couple and very general in terms of the roll their larger community/society plays in the relationship. To do a disservice to either part of those needs (the specific or the general) is to do a disservice to all of those needs of every relationship.
38
Lay off Loveschild -- she's just pissed 'cause now she's got to find something else to shove in her hate hole to keep the bad feelings stifled while she sits on the couch letting Oprah tell her what to think.
40
Loveschild - did you even read the article? Sheesh. (1) Vermont is not the first state to legalize gay marriage, so the gay couples that were chomping at the bit to get married probably have already gone to MA or IA. (2) The article was mainly framed as a comparison to 2000, when Vermont was the first state to offer civil unions, and they experienced a flood of gay couples coming into the state. (3) The data to date is only for people who applied for licenses in advance of the Sept 1 official start date. Now that things are "official" there could be an uptick.
42
40, Loveschild read? And have to deal with facts!?! How dare you! You know she can't deal with views other than her own, especially if she is confronted by them on an ice cream tub. No thank you! She's quite happy with the delusional stuff she makes up in her mind.
There, there. It's okay LC. Just keep sitting cross legged in the corner, hands strapped across your chest, rocking rhythmically, frantically, desperately chanting, "If I don't believe in gays, they don't exist!" If you keep wishing hard enough, Jesus will make the big bad scary gay people go away, but until he does, it's okay for you to sleep with your nightlight and crucifix.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYR3dorsh…
There, there. It's okay LC. Just keep sitting cross legged in the corner, hands strapped across your chest, rocking rhythmically, frantically, desperately chanting, "If I don't believe in gays, they don't exist!" If you keep wishing hard enough, Jesus will make the big bad scary gay people go away, but until he does, it's okay for you to sleep with your nightlight and crucifix.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYR3dorsh…
43
33- 'an opposite sex couple and the family they procreate'
You say this as if the latter activity is inevitable.
You say this as if the latter activity is inevitable.
44
Rob @ 42 - LC has good reason to fear gays, because she knows there are external gay forces recruiting people, all the time.
For me, it was ABBA and Dancing Queen. If I'm not mistaken, a whole generation almost turned gay because of them.
As you can see, we gays will sneak up and "get cha" when you least expect it. LOL
For me, it was ABBA and Dancing Queen. If I'm not mistaken, a whole generation almost turned gay because of them.
As you can see, we gays will sneak up and "get cha" when you least expect it. LOL
45
This is for Lovechild, and anyone else worried about the difficulties of explaining a Hubby Hubby ice cream carton to a child.
My parnter's nieces had no problem with the two of us living together, loving each other, or even giving each other an occasional kiss in their presence. However, they were very troubled by the knowledge that we weren't married. They wanted us to be married, just like their parents. So my partner and I had a commitment ceremony with 90 guests, about a third of whom were under the age of 21, and those nieces got to see us get married with their very own eyes.
For our honeymoon, we went to Canada and made it legal.
The kids are happy. We're happy. Seems like a win-win.
My parnter's nieces had no problem with the two of us living together, loving each other, or even giving each other an occasional kiss in their presence. However, they were very troubled by the knowledge that we weren't married. They wanted us to be married, just like their parents. So my partner and I had a commitment ceremony with 90 guests, about a third of whom were under the age of 21, and those nieces got to see us get married with their very own eyes.
For our honeymoon, we went to Canada and made it legal.
The kids are happy. We're happy. Seems like a win-win.
46
45 If you want to engage with your partner in whatever activities you want to, that's fine, this is a free country. If you want to celebrate with your nieces a same sex ceremony, that's fine also, again this is a free country. If you want to go to Canada, God forsaken Spain or wherever else gay marriages are legal, that's fine also, you're a free man, free to move as you like and far be it from me or anyone else to restrict your movement. The problem starts when you try to infringe on the rights of parents and go over our authority. Forcing those of us who do not want to hold a conversation with our underage kids about the health risks of homosexual behavior to have it, when you inject (bombard us with) homosexuality on all aspects of our daily life, even in food. Shouldn't those of us who don't agree with homosexuality have a right to keep our children from those who want to indoctrinate them in it? Or do your freedoms also have to infringe on my rights as a parent? Be honest not with me but with yourself. Think it thru Clayton.
In God's Love.
In God's Love.
47
43 Are you a real doctor or do you play one on teeve cus it seems to me that it should be basic knowledge for any doctor to know that when male and female copulate they procreate, there may be cases of infertility but those are the exemptions not rule, and even in such cases there's always the possibility of reversing it because nature is what sets the rule in the end. No two men can procreate between themselves, doesn't happen in this Earth, maybe in your dreams but not in the real world. In God's Love.
48
40 " Vermont is not the first state to legalize gay marriage, so the gay couples that were chomping at the bit to get married probably have already gone to MA or IA." 1) Where did I implied that VT is the first state to do gay marriages? 2) You made precisely my point, look at the dwindling numbers of gay marriages that are now performed in MA and other states where gay marriage has been forced into law "official". 3) Talk to someone that identifies as gay (not Savage or boytoy Holden) who doesn't fall in the affluent and white category and ask them if gay marriage is something they need in their lives. You might learn somethin new for a change. In God's Love.
49
43 - Yes, I'm perfectly aware that biological reproduction between two people of the same sex is not possible. My point was simply that it is illogical to oppose same-sex marriage on the basis that the people involved can't reproduce, whilst granting marriage rights to these 'exceptional' straight couples who are infertile (not to mention those who don't want children even though they may be capable of producing them).
50
It's very simple Dr James, we as a nation (as any other) have a vested interests in incentivicing thru recognition those in society who contribute and produce, hence government issuing marriage licences. Even when say an elderly opposite sex couple who can no longer reproduce decides to tie the knot the government should recognize it because they are not deviating from the pairings that contribute new members to our society. In other words those elderly couples or those who are infertile (at the moment of marriage) provide examples to others (especially the young) of parings that are beneficial and that contribute to the growth (in term of new citizens) to our nation. No nation can exist with a low birth rate (I know we're not there yet but why even legally recognize behaviors that could contribute to such?) or where a family structure is not well encouraged and valued by its government, it's a recipe for anarchy and destruction of said nation. The burden then falls on gays who want to redefine marriage to show to the government and to society what they bring to the table? why should we as a society and as a nation would benefit from legally recognizing such unions, since being fruitful (contributing new persons) is something that they're not equipped to do? I think these are pretty logical, responsible and needed questions that need to be ask by our society before we plunge into allowing gay marriages. I wont even go into the details of the health risks that they do contribute (from gay sexual activity) since you as a doctor should already know. Have a blessed day, in God's Love.
51
@Loveschild:
Isn't denying the very existence of homosexuality to those entrusted to you with their education and upbringing a little close to indoctrination?
Isn't denying the very existence of homosexuality to those entrusted to you with their education and upbringing a little close to indoctrination?
52
@ Loveschild, again:
A loving couple is a great example to the younger generation, point finale. Furthermore, a loving couple raising children well is a better example. I am a straight girl raised by opposite sex parents. But they got divorced, and it effed me all kinds of up. My friend Julianne has two wonderful, caring, wise lesbian moms who have been together for over 30 years. She is much more well adjusted than I.
The truth is simple, but I can see why you don't want to acknowledge it. People like you hate homosexuals, for some deep religious or personal reason. If gays can marry they will be more out in the open than they are now. Our society will be beginning to except what you hate. Your hatred will become wrong, just like those who hate Blacks are wrong. (They were always wrong, but sadly it is only recently that this has become the general opinion.) Its hard to be wrong, isn't it? Much easier to charge blindly ahead and teach your children the hate you hold so that at least, you are guaranteed some supporters.
God, I need some icecream now.
A loving couple is a great example to the younger generation, point finale. Furthermore, a loving couple raising children well is a better example. I am a straight girl raised by opposite sex parents. But they got divorced, and it effed me all kinds of up. My friend Julianne has two wonderful, caring, wise lesbian moms who have been together for over 30 years. She is much more well adjusted than I.
The truth is simple, but I can see why you don't want to acknowledge it. People like you hate homosexuals, for some deep religious or personal reason. If gays can marry they will be more out in the open than they are now. Our society will be beginning to except what you hate. Your hatred will become wrong, just like those who hate Blacks are wrong. (They were always wrong, but sadly it is only recently that this has become the general opinion.) Its hard to be wrong, isn't it? Much easier to charge blindly ahead and teach your children the hate you hold so that at least, you are guaranteed some supporters.
God, I need some icecream now.
53
http://www.magazine.ayurvediccure.com/he…
52 Is that hate or science? Seems more like the latter to me.
54
52 What about this one? Yes it appears on a religious website but the research done is secular and scientific.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/article…
http://www.catholiceducation.org/article…
55
52 Even homosexual groups admit it:
http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.cfm?…
But medical research is something to be discarded when it shows contrary results to your beliefs, those researches and homosexual groups must have "hate" in their hearts for homosexuals also, if one is to follow your reasoning. To quote Savage himself, "any effort to assess the health consequences of" homosexuality "= hate." To people like you. So an honest questioning on what science says and what's evident from nature will be viewed by you as hatred, which is quite the opposite of what i feel in my heart for those struggling with homosexuality. Open your heart and consider what science, nature and common sense is showing you in regards to this topic. In God's Love.
http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.cfm?…
But medical research is something to be discarded when it shows contrary results to your beliefs, those researches and homosexual groups must have "hate" in their hearts for homosexuals also, if one is to follow your reasoning. To quote Savage himself, "any effort to assess the health consequences of" homosexuality "= hate." To people like you. So an honest questioning on what science says and what's evident from nature will be viewed by you as hatred, which is quite the opposite of what i feel in my heart for those struggling with homosexuality. Open your heart and consider what science, nature and common sense is showing you in regards to this topic. In God's Love.
56
Yes! LC is alive and well. What would we do without our daily dose of laughter. Your priceless, LC and hilarious as always. Same routine, but with more articulate writers or an improved use of copy and paste skills. Anyway, I love you LC, you make life more interesting.
Now, if only Mr. Poe would return .....
57
Umm Rob at # 42: did you read any of the books recommended to you on obesity? Just wondering if you have checked out the facts about the social determinants of health.......
58
@ LC the government doesn't have an incentive actually for us to have children. Otherwise Tricare (my military run health insurance) wouldn't cover and ENCOURAGE birthcontrol usage for everything from the Pill to an IUD or Tubal Ligation. Should I not get married because I have an IUD?
2) Marriage has been changing definitions since the beginning of time. Just a hundred years ago people married mostly to improve their social and economic standings, before then it was about cementing social and political ties or even just about having a partner to create a larger workforce for the farm. But as we have all become more affluent and less subsistence based we've begun marrying for love - why else would you tell your kids that when a man and woman love each other very much they get married and have a baby?
Under your logic (see above) people marry exclusively to have babies, so does that mean you don't love your husband? He's just a big penis and sperm sack that you get babies from? I hope that's what you tell your kids when they ask you why you married your husband.
2) Marriage has been changing definitions since the beginning of time. Just a hundred years ago people married mostly to improve their social and economic standings, before then it was about cementing social and political ties or even just about having a partner to create a larger workforce for the farm. But as we have all become more affluent and less subsistence based we've begun marrying for love - why else would you tell your kids that when a man and woman love each other very much they get married and have a baby?
Under your logic (see above) people marry exclusively to have babies, so does that mean you don't love your husband? He's just a big penis and sperm sack that you get babies from? I hope that's what you tell your kids when they ask you why you married your husband.
59
@56
"Mr. Poe"? Was there a male version of Loveschild on Slog at some point? I truly missed a lot by coming here late.. Oh please, do come back, Sir!
"Mr. Poe"? Was there a male version of Loveschild on Slog at some point? I truly missed a lot by coming here late.. Oh please, do come back, Sir!
61
50- 'not deviating from the pairings that contribute new members to our society.'
Yeah, see, the thing is that they are. An elderly or chronically infertile couple are no more likely to contribute new members to our society than a same sex couple are. In fact, a younger same sex couple are actually more likely to contribute new members to our society than an elderly straight one; through surrogacy or sperm/egg donation they could create a new child that wouldn't otherwise have existed, and unlike the elderly heterosexuals, will be around to raise it. So how are gay couples who don't reproduce any less contributory than straight ones who don't either, if the end result is exactly the same - a childfree marriage? You say that gay couples deviate from the model of a reproductive pairing simply by merit of their gender, but elderly couples deviate just as much by merit of their age.
Yeah, see, the thing is that they are. An elderly or chronically infertile couple are no more likely to contribute new members to our society than a same sex couple are. In fact, a younger same sex couple are actually more likely to contribute new members to our society than an elderly straight one; through surrogacy or sperm/egg donation they could create a new child that wouldn't otherwise have existed, and unlike the elderly heterosexuals, will be around to raise it. So how are gay couples who don't reproduce any less contributory than straight ones who don't either, if the end result is exactly the same - a childfree marriage? You say that gay couples deviate from the model of a reproductive pairing simply by merit of their gender, but elderly couples deviate just as much by merit of their age.
62
"sperm/egg"
61 Male/Female. You're correct in that elderly couples are less likely to reproduce but they do benefit society because they then become role models for the young to follow. They do not deviate from the male/female = sperm/egg pairings that make human life possible. Plus they also serve as examples of how couples can grow old and raise the family they produce. And in these times of so many disruption of the family the last thing that we as a society need is to legitimize thru our government (by way of providing marriage licences) is homosexual parings that don't contribute to population growth but further erode our sustainability as a nation. You still have not explained to me what would recognizing homosexual pairings at a national level bring to the table, to our collective health and empowerment as a nation. I'm guessin its because you recognize than other than to themselves there isn't that much they contribute.
61 Male/Female. You're correct in that elderly couples are less likely to reproduce but they do benefit society because they then become role models for the young to follow. They do not deviate from the male/female = sperm/egg pairings that make human life possible. Plus they also serve as examples of how couples can grow old and raise the family they produce. And in these times of so many disruption of the family the last thing that we as a society need is to legitimize thru our government (by way of providing marriage licences) is homosexual parings that don't contribute to population growth but further erode our sustainability as a nation. You still have not explained to me what would recognizing homosexual pairings at a national level bring to the table, to our collective health and empowerment as a nation. I'm guessin its because you recognize than other than to themselves there isn't that much they contribute.
63
@ Loveschild
If you want to engage with your partner in whatever activities you want to, that's fine, this is a free country. If you want to celebrate with your nieces an opposite-sex ceremony, that's fine also, again this is a free country. If you want to go to Saudi Arabia, God forsaken Turkey or wherever else straight marriages are legal, that's fine also, you're a free woman, free to move as you like and far be it from me or anyone else to restrict your movement. The problem starts when you try to infringe on the rights of parents and go over our authority. Forcing those of us who do not want to hold a conversation with our underage kids about the health and pregnancy risks of heterosexual behavior to have it, when you inject (bombard us with) heterosexuality on all aspects of our daily life, even in food. Why should I have to explain to my child what a 'hubby' is or why on tv there are so many people married to opposite gendered people? Shouldn't those of us who don't agree with heterosexuality have a right to keep our children from those who want to indoctrinate them in it? Or do your freedoms also have to infringe on my rights as a parent? Be honest not with me but with yourself. Think it thru.
In God's Love.
If you want to engage with your partner in whatever activities you want to, that's fine, this is a free country. If you want to celebrate with your nieces an opposite-sex ceremony, that's fine also, again this is a free country. If you want to go to Saudi Arabia, God forsaken Turkey or wherever else straight marriages are legal, that's fine also, you're a free woman, free to move as you like and far be it from me or anyone else to restrict your movement. The problem starts when you try to infringe on the rights of parents and go over our authority. Forcing those of us who do not want to hold a conversation with our underage kids about the health and pregnancy risks of heterosexual behavior to have it, when you inject (bombard us with) heterosexuality on all aspects of our daily life, even in food. Why should I have to explain to my child what a 'hubby' is or why on tv there are so many people married to opposite gendered people? Shouldn't those of us who don't agree with heterosexuality have a right to keep our children from those who want to indoctrinate them in it? Or do your freedoms also have to infringe on my rights as a parent? Be honest not with me but with yourself. Think it thru.
In God's Love.
64
@Loveschild
additionally, there's a perfect example of how a homosexual pairing can contribute to population growth as the originator of this thread. why can't adopted children of gay parents have the same protections against familial instability that adopted children of straight parents do?
additionally, there's a perfect example of how a homosexual pairing can contribute to population growth as the originator of this thread. why can't adopted children of gay parents have the same protections against familial instability that adopted children of straight parents do?
65
@62 - You have 305 million people. You do not need 'population growth'. You're the most powerful nation on earth. You don't need 'collective empowerment'.
'Plus they also serve as examples of how couples can grow old and raise the family they produce.'
Gay couples do this.
'so many disruption of the family'
I assume from your borderline nonsensical argument that you're referring to divorce rates and single parenthood? That would be the creation of straight people, then. Gays aren't responsible for the straight population's failure to sustain their family units.
'You still have not explained to me what would recognizing homosexual pairings at a national level bring to the table, to our collective health and empowerment as a nation. I'm guessin its because you recognize than other than to themselves there isn't that much they contribute. '
Well actually, it's because I don't believe marriage to be some sort of mercenary transaction between the couple and the state which rewards people for becoming breeding machines for the nation, as you appear to do. I think marriage, gay or straight, benefits the couple in the stability that it provides and the rights it bestows. Is this such a problem for you? Does every gay couple in America have to pass some kind of 'contribution' test before they can have their relationship legally recognized, whilst any old straight couple, no matter how dysfunctional, are afforded a parcel of rights on the off chance that they might one day reproduce, or at the very least share the same genital configurations of people who do reproduce? Actually, while we're on the subject, why does your entire defintion of providing a contribution boil down to reproduction? I happen to believe that a childless gay or straight couple that advances medical knowledge/does volunteer work/enriches their partner's lives by sustaining a good relationship contributes far more to society than a hypothetical woman or man who sits on their arse all day, occasionally stirring to pop out a few more kids that they can't support and don't necessarily love very much.
More...
'Plus they also serve as examples of how couples can grow old and raise the family they produce.'
Gay couples do this.
'so many disruption of the family'
I assume from your borderline nonsensical argument that you're referring to divorce rates and single parenthood? That would be the creation of straight people, then. Gays aren't responsible for the straight population's failure to sustain their family units.
'You still have not explained to me what would recognizing homosexual pairings at a national level bring to the table, to our collective health and empowerment as a nation. I'm guessin its because you recognize than other than to themselves there isn't that much they contribute. '
Well actually, it's because I don't believe marriage to be some sort of mercenary transaction between the couple and the state which rewards people for becoming breeding machines for the nation, as you appear to do. I think marriage, gay or straight, benefits the couple in the stability that it provides and the rights it bestows. Is this such a problem for you? Does every gay couple in America have to pass some kind of 'contribution' test before they can have their relationship legally recognized, whilst any old straight couple, no matter how dysfunctional, are afforded a parcel of rights on the off chance that they might one day reproduce, or at the very least share the same genital configurations of people who do reproduce? Actually, while we're on the subject, why does your entire defintion of providing a contribution boil down to reproduction? I happen to believe that a childless gay or straight couple that advances medical knowledge/does volunteer work/enriches their partner's lives by sustaining a good relationship contributes far more to society than a hypothetical woman or man who sits on their arse all day, occasionally stirring to pop out a few more kids that they can't support and don't necessarily love very much.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Republicans Put Gay Marriage on the Ballot at Their Own Risk by Goldy
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (65) RSS