Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, April 14, 2010
Homo / Media
Pulitzer Prize Winning Homophobe
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:36 AM
This letter just arrived...
I'm not sure if you've written about something like this before—I guess you probably have, though. Consider Kathleen Parker, the right wing columnist who recently won the Pulitzer prize. She's been an opponent of gay marriage, and in one of her articles, she says:I figure I'm a fairly typical middle-of-the-road heterosexual married woman when I say: I love gays and, well, the whole gay thing. I love all my gay friends and relatives, not to mention my hairdresser; I love what gays do to urban neighborhoods; I love gay humor, gay style and whatshisname in My Best Friend's Wedding.I was what we used to call a "fag hag" when you could still use the term affectionately without fear of offending—before most of today's gays were out of diapers (changed most likely by a mom or a dad, not by Heather's two mommies or Douggie's two daddies). Thanks to my very best friendship with my gay first cousin, I've had many a gay time as a token belle in the heart of San Francisco's Castro district.
In other words, no one who knows me would call me a homophobe. Nevertheless, I do not worship gayness, and I'm certain that society needn't be restructured in order to accommodate even my loveliest gay friends.
I think this is more repulsive than people like Pat Robertson, who are at least consistent in their bigotry. People like Kathleen want's all the 'benefits' of having gay friends, but still keeps on to her heterosexism. But my question is, why do gay people put up with people like this? Why exactly is her "gay cousin" even talking to her? When those in the LGBT community should send a clear message to same-sex marriage opponents in their lives that they are heterosexists and that we don't like them. Otherwise people like Kathleen think that gay marriage is a trivial issue for gays and lesbians.
Keep up the good work.
V.
We put up with "people like this"—we hang out with them, drag them around the Castro, cut their hair, etc.—because exposure to us, to our families, to our neighborhoods, and to our lives can turn "people like this," well-intentioned people who don't want to think of themselves as haters, into people like this:
Columbus, Ohio: Ms. Parker, congratulations on the Pulitzer. I have to agree with the other posters who say they don't always agree with you, but always enjoy reading your thought-provoking columns. I remember several columns you wrote in the 2003-2004 timeframe where you said you love gays, gay humor, your gay hairdresser, gay cousin, gay neighbors, etc., but felt that allowing gay marriage would result in lawsuits against churches and was against the natural order because male/male and female/female orders don't match nature's intentions.Do you still feel this way or have your feelings evolved over time? I find it hard to say that the relationships of the gay people in my life are not as worthy of legal recognition.
Kathleen Parker: Well, it sounds pretty goofy the way you've summarized, but I'll try to answer honestly. I have not favored same-sex marriage, but the reasons are complex. I care only about what kind of society we provide children; adults are on their own. But I have softened my views, partly as a result of studying this issue and having many long, open talks with my gay friends and family. For me, it has never been about rights for adults, but about the meaning and purpose of marriage as it benefits society and children. Given that perspective, however, I don't see how we can say that one child's family is more important or better than another's. I think David Brooks may be right that same-sex marriage is a conservative position. I think this is possibly breaking news.
Thanks to the gay friends and family members who were willing to put up with Parker's bullshit disconnect—she loved gay people and gay culture, but didn't think our relationships should be recognized or our families protected—Parker has come around. Parker supports marriage equality now because gay people were willing to put up with her. (That splat you just heard is Maggie Gallagher is shitting her pants.) If any of Kathleen Parker's gay friends or family members should happen to read this: thanks, you guys—thanks for not giving up on Kathleen, thanks for chipping away at her homophobia, thanks for the progress you helped to make.
2
When you have someone like 2004-era Parker, who genuinely isn't a frothing, raging homophobe but still opposes same-sex marriage, the issue really is ignorance rather than hatred. Those are the people it's worth reaching out to, because odds are, they *will* come around.
3
I'll get this out of the way...
ATTENTION LOVESCHILD: Nobody is fooled by your shtick, so coming in here to say she was harassed or cajoled and forced into bowing to the "gay agenda" is worthless. You are, quite frankly, not a black straight female. You are the "opposite", being a white non-straight male. Your constant belittling of minorities and women and the religious is tired, annoying, regressive and TERRIBLY FUNNY.
Yes, you are a dude.
And almost everyone knows it.
ATTENTION LOVESCHILD: Nobody is fooled by your shtick, so coming in here to say she was harassed or cajoled and forced into bowing to the "gay agenda" is worthless. You are, quite frankly, not a black straight female. You are the "opposite", being a white non-straight male. Your constant belittling of minorities and women and the religious is tired, annoying, regressive and TERRIBLY FUNNY.
Yes, you are a dude.
And almost everyone knows it.
4
I agree with V, this is truly, truly offensive. Give me an anti-gay-rights conservative who is honest about his opinions and treats me with respect over this two-faced bitch anytime.
5
@ 4, can you read at all?
Anyway, @ 1 is right - this is why we're winning, and it's why all the anti-marriage laws and amendments around the country will eventually be overturned.
Anyway, @ 1 is right - this is why we're winning, and it's why all the anti-marriage laws and amendments around the country will eventually be overturned.
8
Nice response, Dan.
Kathleen Parker's evolution on this issue is great, but it doesn't say much for the Pulitzer Prize that it can be awarded to someone with such simplistic views.
Kathleen Parker's evolution on this issue is great, but it doesn't say much for the Pulitzer Prize that it can be awarded to someone with such simplistic views.
9
Dan is right.
My brother is much like this. He's been generally supportive mostly, but 5 years ago he would definitely opposed gay marriage. After numerous discussions about it, he's come around, and now supports it. He's not a homophobic ass. He just didn't really understand the ramifications of it before, and what it means to me.
My brother is much like this. He's been generally supportive mostly, but 5 years ago he would definitely opposed gay marriage. After numerous discussions about it, he's come around, and now supports it. He's not a homophobic ass. He just didn't really understand the ramifications of it before, and what it means to me.
10
—because exposure to us,
well,
because....
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
we first endure, then pity, then embrace
well,
because....
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
we first endure, then pity, then embrace
11
Matt, I will confess to the common SLOG comments sin of posting a comment before reading the whole post.
It's nice that this woman has come around, but my comment was more about this attitude in general. Open homophobia (ala Loveschild) I can deal with, it doesn't enrage me, it just makes me sad. It's this polite-on-the-outside-skeeved-on-the-inside kind of attitude that sends me through the roof, especially when the offending comment involves a hairdresser. Yeah, honery, every single gay man on the planet is like your hairdresser. Sheesh!!
It's nice that this woman has come around, but my comment was more about this attitude in general. Open homophobia (ala Loveschild) I can deal with, it doesn't enrage me, it just makes me sad. It's this polite-on-the-outside-skeeved-on-the-inside kind of attitude that sends me through the roof, especially when the offending comment involves a hairdresser. Yeah, honery, every single gay man on the planet is like your hairdresser. Sheesh!!
12
You have a point, Chris, but I hope you see that you're getting pissed at potential allies, and your anger will do nothing to bring them around.
When it comes to homophobia, it's just like racism - it comes in many manifestations. You have hopeless hardcore haters, akin to KKK members on the racism scale; you have more reflexive types who just think that's icky and sinful, but won't support any kind of violence; then you have people like this, who never really disliked gays, or even really liked the Jack McFarland types but had absorbed a lifetime of anti-gay stereotypes and never really though about how someone becomes gay in the first place, or whether they have any right to enjoy and celebrate their relationships like everyone else. We need to work on bringing these people around, not condemning them for "being two-faced." They aren't "two-faced," they just have some old prejudices to overcome. You can help.
When it comes to homophobia, it's just like racism - it comes in many manifestations. You have hopeless hardcore haters, akin to KKK members on the racism scale; you have more reflexive types who just think that's icky and sinful, but won't support any kind of violence; then you have people like this, who never really disliked gays, or even really liked the Jack McFarland types but had absorbed a lifetime of anti-gay stereotypes and never really though about how someone becomes gay in the first place, or whether they have any right to enjoy and celebrate their relationships like everyone else. We need to work on bringing these people around, not condemning them for "being two-faced." They aren't "two-faced," they just have some old prejudices to overcome. You can help.
13
I am a straight, late 40's self identified redneck male. A few years ago, I was more homophobic, would not have been supportive of gay marriage, and definitely would have been opposed to gay adoptive parents.
Exposure to Savage Blog has opened my eyes a bit... more open minded time spent with lesbian cousin and her partner, choosing to visit an openly gay male hairdresser, becoming a lot more tolerant... not things I would have expected from myself.
To the point.. had a political phone survey last night that asked about gay marriage and adoption, and I didn't hesitate at all before supporting both.
The world can change, one redneck (me) at a time.
Exposure to Savage Blog has opened my eyes a bit... more open minded time spent with lesbian cousin and her partner, choosing to visit an openly gay male hairdresser, becoming a lot more tolerant... not things I would have expected from myself.
To the point.. had a political phone survey last night that asked about gay marriage and adoption, and I didn't hesitate at all before supporting both.
The world can change, one redneck (me) at a time.
14
Ignorance and hatred stride hand in hand. Exposure will teach all but the most entrenched bigots like Alleged @10 and Loveschild to be at the very least tolerant. As frustrating as the polite but skeeved position may be, it's a step in the direction to tolerant and supportive. We can't shun those who who feel gay marriage is wrong but are willing to rationally discuss the subject with an open mind.
16
Two of the most counter productive and damaging terms ever coined are "Same Sex Marriage" and "Gay Marriage". I understand why bigots and haters use those terms. I don't understand why people who think Civil Equality is important do. "Same Sex Marriage" and "Gay Marriage" are not "Marriage" (notice the other words they explain things). Is it any wonder Ms Parker and others do not want those two marriages allowed. They are indeed ONLY FOR Same Sex people or Gay citizens. No Man or Woman is going to get a "Same Sex Marriage" certificate. In fact there is no such document.
I think it's time to take control of the debate and use the term "Marriage", but that's just me, I sort of like control...I'm seeing a professional about it.
I think it's time to take control of the debate and use the term "Marriage", but that's just me, I sort of like control...I'm seeing a professional about it.
17
"I do not worship gayness" -- No, she just fetishizes it. Still, nice that she came around. Better late than never.
18
I'm amazed at the thinking: gays are adults and therefore "on their own", while children are put into an entirely different category of people who deserve protection. Like gay children do not exist -- gays somehow hatch, fully formed, at the age of 18. Or like straight kids don't have gay family members whose lived directly impact them. Gay marriage benefits gay adults, gay kids, families... why is that so hard to understand?
This is why I get so excited about gay teenagers coming out and asserting their rights. My stepmom had huge issues a few years ago when my adult sister came out as bisexual (she was told she wasn't welcome in the house), but now that her beloved grandson has grown into a clearly gay teenager, she says nothing. Because it's so obvious that he's always been this way, and she feels protective of him. Both she and my dad have finally, finally come around, because of that one kid who loves them but refuses to hide who he is.
This is why I get so excited about gay teenagers coming out and asserting their rights. My stepmom had huge issues a few years ago when my adult sister came out as bisexual (she was told she wasn't welcome in the house), but now that her beloved grandson has grown into a clearly gay teenager, she says nothing. Because it's so obvious that he's always been this way, and she feels protective of him. Both she and my dad have finally, finally come around, because of that one kid who loves them but refuses to hide who he is.
20
What a cute story, and a good reminder that me when my (bio) family is annoying the heck outta me with their hetrosexist assumptions... good timing.
21
Thanks Dan! Love this! Unchallenged opinions will rarely change. Hetero people often get over their upbringing-ingrained homophobia best by being exposed to homosexual people. It's the same with just about every other prejudice.
22
My grandmother kicked my uncle out of the house when he came out at 18. The past Pride week in NYC, she, in her 85 year old glory, stood next to him in a purple wig and danced her granny heart out. People can change.
24
I'm glad some other people have more patience and perseverance than I do. As far as I'm concerned, life's too short to suffer phony "friends".
25
It may be the sympathetic pregnancy hormones inhaled from my wife talking, but this made me choke up a little this morning. I know David Brooks is right: protecting families regardless of composition is a conservative issue, protecting legal rights regardless of social status is a conservative issue, keeping the government out of people's personal lives is a conservative issue. I don't know who these faux-conservative fucks masquerading as Republicans are.
27
@ 15 assume you are talking about your closet...
I don't want to play for the other team, but don't see the need to cheer against them.
I don't want to play for the other team, but don't see the need to cheer against them.
30
Chris in Vancovuer WA, it's totally understandable to feel angry and betrayed when you discover a friend is really a frenemy in need of a lot of work - only 24 hours in a day.
I wonder if marriage-supporting Kathleen Parker - who's all about the kids - has had the realization that Irena talks about - the damage that's being/been done to gay kids.
I wonder if marriage-supporting Kathleen Parker - who's all about the kids - has had the realization that Irena talks about - the damage that's being/been done to gay kids.
32
I agree that it's important that we not give up on those like Kathleen Parker; however, at the same time, my family is not a zoo exhibit for uneducated straight people to stare at, marvel at, or study with curiosity. I do get a little tired of people asking, "Which one is the real dad?" (Neither, we kidnapped them.) or "How much did twins cost you?" (Thankfully, it was a buy one get one special.) or "Are you giving mom the day off?" (No, she's in prison.) or "Where's mom?" (Probably out smoking meth and prostituting herself in a trailer park.)
34
I would imagine there's a pretty large section of the "anti gay marriage" population who have those views simply because the idea of a child being raised by two dads or two mums makes them nervous, and they wonder whether this will end up hurting the child through the intolerance they encounter. These are the people who may change their opinions based on exposure and familiarity. The following appeared in a pamphlet: “Above all, we are opposed to______, because we fear that it may ruin the home. The institution of home and family would disintegrate.” You may think it was referring to gay marriage; it was, in fact, from 1893, and was part of the movement against giving women the vote. I think, for a lot of people, change is scary, and some people who initially opposed gay marriage may change their minds as they see more and more children raised (well) by gay parents.
35
Nice to see a story about people changing their views because of others who are patient, compassionate, communicative, and accepting. This kind of narrative is usually too nuanced and real to fit into a headline, usually it's just good v. evil, us v. them. Thanks for posting this.
37
Kathleen Parker is a RINO like Andrew Sullivan, David Frum, and Christopher Buckley. I knew she was off the reservation when she made the ridiculous statement that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president, and this endorsement of homosexuality is another step backwards.
Good riddance. Hard traditionalists don't need treasonous traitors like Kathleen Parker. I predict she'll start writing for Daily Kos and appear in Michael Moore movies.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Good riddance. Hard traditionalists don't need treasonous traitors like Kathleen Parker. I predict she'll start writing for Daily Kos and appear in Michael Moore movies.
ROTFLMAO!!!
38
Good to see things like this happening.
@10: Yes, just like how black people must be evil because it took a lot of time for some ignorant white people to get used to them.
@36:
Press 'X' to get joke.
@10: Yes, just like how black people must be evil because it took a lot of time for some ignorant white people to get used to them.
@36:
Press 'X' to get joke.
40
my mother has softened considerably on this issue since becoming a grandparent. she was never hateful in the first place, but made no effort to conceal her confusion/revulsion about the sex part of being gay.
since her "babies" have come along, she's dropped it all in favor of an all-inclusive, "life is short and everybody has the right to be themselves and be as happy as they can be" attitude. it's pretty rad.
since her "babies" have come along, she's dropped it all in favor of an all-inclusive, "life is short and everybody has the right to be themselves and be as happy as they can be" attitude. it's pretty rad.
41
When people move in the right direction, they should be applauded, not vilified, even if they haven't yet gotten all the way to the destination. I was very pleased to see this statement from Ms. Parker.
@32, My response to the question "Which one is the real dad?" is "We both are!". If they persist "Which one is the biological dad?" our response is "We don't know - it could be either one of us. But it really isn't that important, is it?"
In a moment of weakness, my husband did once tell someone who asked "Where's her mom?" that "Her mom died; she played World of Warcraft for 48 hours straight and had a fatal heart attack."
@32, My response to the question "Which one is the real dad?" is "We both are!". If they persist "Which one is the biological dad?" our response is "We don't know - it could be either one of us. But it really isn't that important, is it?"
In a moment of weakness, my husband did once tell someone who asked "Where's her mom?" that "Her mom died; she played World of Warcraft for 48 hours straight and had a fatal heart attack."
42
@22 That is awesome how your grandmother became so accepting of your uncle.
@41 The story your husband told about "the mom" made me laugh. Thanks for sharing.
@41 The story your husband told about "the mom" made me laugh. Thanks for sharing.
43
So Ms Parker welcomed gay people in her life, she befriended them, she enjoyed activities with them but because she believed (as most Americans do) that principal institutions tailored for a basic function in society should not be redefined for homosexuals or any other group, like those who advocate for plural marriages, she was considered a homophobe. The tolerance.
44
@LC, You're fighting a losing battle. As ignorance of ways of life outside your heteronormative box recedes, tolerance will spread, and the queer community will win its right to marriage equality and will enjoy greater equality and tolerance in the community at large. Modern marriage is not tailored to any particular function in society other than an expression of love between consenting adults. It is no longer about transferring property and creating heirs. If you want to make marriage about making babies, you and your partner can do that, but you have no right to dictate that to all of society. You and your medieval concepts are on the way out.
45
@44: Tolerance is not synonymous with recklessness. Acceptance is a good quality, one that we as humans with a higher cognitive and spiritual intellect than animals should always cultivate. Part of that is recognizing that there are primordial human functions and institutions bestowed on us from a Higher Entity that should not be played or experimented with because in doing so we're repudiating life and expressing a desire to destroy humanity. I can love thru God's all-encompassing love (and I do) lesbians and homosexuals and still acknowledge that there are certain principles that cannot be watered-down and are best when channeled for their intended purposes in humanity.
46
@LC, your wrong, your world is on the way out. State after state is giving people their rights. Your god has no place in the governing of the nation, not all of us hold your beliefs, separation of church and state and all. You may not write religion into law. Don't force your medieval concepts on all us living in the 21st century.
Keep your hate to yourself. Intolerance of intolerance is the only acceptable form of intolerance.
Keep your hate to yourself. Intolerance of intolerance is the only acceptable form of intolerance.
47
@45:
Name some of these "primordial human functions and institutions bestowed on us from a Higher Entity".
You realize that marriage predates not only Judaism and Christianity, but most likely every religion in the world? Chances are that early humans were mating for life before it even occurred to them to worship nature spirits or what-have-you.
Marriage is a human institution. If you read the Old Testament, you'll see that God makes no claim to inventing it; when he came to Abram and Sarai, they were already an old married couple. And as we've explained to your ignorant ass several times, marriage has been defined and re-defined many times over the ages, and society has benefited from it.
Finally: if heterosexuality is the intended purpose of sexual desire, why does God make so many people who are only attracted to their own gender?
Name some of these "primordial human functions and institutions bestowed on us from a Higher Entity".
You realize that marriage predates not only Judaism and Christianity, but most likely every religion in the world? Chances are that early humans were mating for life before it even occurred to them to worship nature spirits or what-have-you.
Marriage is a human institution. If you read the Old Testament, you'll see that God makes no claim to inventing it; when he came to Abram and Sarai, they were already an old married couple. And as we've explained to your ignorant ass several times, marriage has been defined and re-defined many times over the ages, and society has benefited from it.
Finally: if heterosexuality is the intended purpose of sexual desire, why does God make so many people who are only attracted to their own gender?
48
@47, Don't you know? God doesn't make them that way, they're made sick in the head somehow and need healing. Homosexuality is a disease.
49
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth
50
Alleged Sure, in the Abrahamic tradition. But the US lives by laws written by humans, not god, and to mix the two is unconstitutional.
51
"your world is on the way out."
@46: We all are gonna to have to face death at some point, we're not immortal, there's only One who possess that quality. So my life and existence as yours and everyone else's who is alive is on the way out. That's a fact of life. However the morals, ethics, and spiritual values we pass on to next generation serve as a foundation for those who come after us and they themselves carry on towards a more fruitful life thanks to that. Homosexuality doesn't allow that to happen, as a dead end behavior it disrupts and terminates that circle of life, acknowledging that is not intolerance, we all have functions specifically designed for us during our short stay in this world. Those who chose a path that's not compatible with what allows for human existence can also play an important positive roles if they wish to do so, but throwing a wrench on the basic human genesis is not one of them.
You may well have the glamour of Hollywood and the academic intellectuals behind you, but the truth of the day to day family life, the future represented by continuity and future generations is and will always be on the side of those of us who can love without rejecting the truth and preserving what allows us to physically be here in the first place. Long after Hollywood's fascination with homosexuality fades away as all banalities do, the family and the timeless institutions that both promote, and secure it will stand the test of time, and those of us who have not yielded to the vicious slander and intimidation will be proven right.
@46: We all are gonna to have to face death at some point, we're not immortal, there's only One who possess that quality. So my life and existence as yours and everyone else's who is alive is on the way out. That's a fact of life. However the morals, ethics, and spiritual values we pass on to next generation serve as a foundation for those who come after us and they themselves carry on towards a more fruitful life thanks to that. Homosexuality doesn't allow that to happen, as a dead end behavior it disrupts and terminates that circle of life, acknowledging that is not intolerance, we all have functions specifically designed for us during our short stay in this world. Those who chose a path that's not compatible with what allows for human existence can also play an important positive roles if they wish to do so, but throwing a wrench on the basic human genesis is not one of them.
You may well have the glamour of Hollywood and the academic intellectuals behind you, but the truth of the day to day family life, the future represented by continuity and future generations is and will always be on the side of those of us who can love without rejecting the truth and preserving what allows us to physically be here in the first place. Long after Hollywood's fascination with homosexuality fades away as all banalities do, the family and the timeless institutions that both promote, and secure it will stand the test of time, and those of us who have not yielded to the vicious slander and intimidation will be proven right.
53
Watch and see, LC, you're on the out and out. We socialist homo-libertine nazis have values too, and as more and more people find that tolerance is a better way of life, these values will spread. Already states are giving people their rights. Hate is losing.
54
Sorry, Loveschild. You can believe whatever you want, but you can't force your religion on anyone else.
55
"We all are gonna to have to face death at some point, we're not immortal, there's only One who possess that quality."
Lord Krishna?
The Rainbow Serpent?
Thor?
Zeus was OK with homosexuality, as I recall.
Lord Krishna?
The Rainbow Serpent?
Thor?
Zeus was OK with homosexuality, as I recall.
56
It's more than religion Dingo, it's about existence and nature's prefect balance. Take a look in how this world and the universe functions. For life to happen you need contrasts.
57
LC, Nature's perfect balance is not legal precedent. Besides, if you want to talk about nature's perfect balance, you'll find that your pair opposites don't figure in so perfectly. Look at how this world works and how the universe functions and you will find an infinitely greater degree of mutability and fluidity than you allow for.
59
Loveschild, nobody disputes that among humans you need a sperm and an egg for reproduction. Nobody. So your continually bringing it up is pointless. But on one hand you seem utterly unable to see that that isn't the point, and on the other you insist on constantly bringing your alleged religion into the discussion.
With regard to religion, it has absolutely no place in discussions of politics or public policy. You cannot make your religion the basis of anyone else's life. There is nowhere else for discussion on that point to go.
With regard to reproduction, the fact that a sperm and an egg are required for humans to reproduce has no relationship to marriage. Marriage is a primarily civil contract, not a religious one (although some marriages are also religious), and it is not based upon the presumption or requirement of procreation. Furthermore, many same-sex couples do raise children, whether biological adopted. The fact that 2 men or 2 women cannot create children from the union of their genitalia is not a convincing argument for restricting marriage to such couples; we do not, after all, prevent sterile or intentionally childless male-female couples from marrying. Finally, because I know you're going to bust out the "social experiment" crap, we have decades of evidence on same-sex marriages and same-sex parents, none of which supports your claims about the unsuitability of same-sex couples to raise children or the negative effects of same-sex marriage.
With regard to religion, it has absolutely no place in discussions of politics or public policy. You cannot make your religion the basis of anyone else's life. There is nowhere else for discussion on that point to go.
With regard to reproduction, the fact that a sperm and an egg are required for humans to reproduce has no relationship to marriage. Marriage is a primarily civil contract, not a religious one (although some marriages are also religious), and it is not based upon the presumption or requirement of procreation. Furthermore, many same-sex couples do raise children, whether biological adopted. The fact that 2 men or 2 women cannot create children from the union of their genitalia is not a convincing argument for restricting marriage to such couples; we do not, after all, prevent sterile or intentionally childless male-female couples from marrying. Finally, because I know you're going to bust out the "social experiment" crap, we have decades of evidence on same-sex marriages and same-sex parents, none of which supports your claims about the unsuitability of same-sex couples to raise children or the negative effects of same-sex marriage.
60
@51: Even if you stick within the Abrahamic religions, the seraphim and other celestial beings are immortal. Way to make a prize fool of yourself, Loveschild.
@52: We are all most likely descended from many, many same-gender couples throughout time. I kid you not, Loveschild.
@52: We are all most likely descended from many, many same-gender couples throughout time. I kid you not, Loveschild.
61
@60, You're talking eukaryotes, right? But are they even gendered? Not that it will make any difference to LC, seeing as LC believes that humans are held to higher spiritual standards than other animals. Strangely this is at odds with the belief that we must follow natural law.
Oh LC, you're a paradox machine. Doctor Who would appreciate you. He wouldn't be down with the whole hatey bigoty thing though.
Oh LC, you're a paradox machine. Doctor Who would appreciate you. He wouldn't be down with the whole hatey bigoty thing though.
62
59
Marriage is a primarily civil contract?!
What?!
But what about the Faggots who can't Marry The Person They LOVE....?
Marriage is cupid and rainbows and unicorns.
and pink ponies.
Marriage is a primarily civil contract?!
What?!
But what about the Faggots who can't Marry The Person They LOVE....?
Marriage is cupid and rainbows and unicorns.
and pink ponies.
63
Im sorry--Ive read the Old Testament cover to cover (more than once) and I dont remember seeing any part that said marriage was between one man and one woman. In fact, all of the big players had multiple wives, concubines, etc. before Sarah begat Isaac, Abraham famously knocked up his slave Hagar, who gave birth to Ishmael.
Did you know Abraham wasn't just Sarah's husband, he was her uncle? And if God could enable Sarah to get pregnant at the ripe old age of 65, whose to say he won't come down and enable a gay couple to procreate? of course He might then tell them they have to take the child to a mountaintop and chop its head off, so its kind of a mixed bag.
If using the Bible to defend modern conventions like what we call "marriage" wasn't so hurtful, it'd be laughable.
Did you know Abraham wasn't just Sarah's husband, he was her uncle? And if God could enable Sarah to get pregnant at the ripe old age of 65, whose to say he won't come down and enable a gay couple to procreate? of course He might then tell them they have to take the child to a mountaintop and chop its head off, so its kind of a mixed bag.
If using the Bible to defend modern conventions like what we call "marriage" wasn't so hurtful, it'd be laughable.
64
@62: Unless you are Ziggy Marley, love and religion are not the same thing. You're really reaching on this one, Alleged.
@61: I do mean certain eukaryotes, but I think you mean prokaryotes; archaea and eubacteria are prokaryotic and protists, fungi, plants, and animals are eukaryotic.
Plenty of simpler eukaryotic forms (like slugs) are hermaphroditic and therefore all of the same gender. Predecessors to us humans certainly passed through a stage of hermaphroditic reproduction somewhere in the Paleozoic. Therefore, Loveschild is the descendant of two same-gender water critters.
@61: I do mean certain eukaryotes, but I think you mean prokaryotes; archaea and eubacteria are prokaryotic and protists, fungi, plants, and animals are eukaryotic.
Plenty of simpler eukaryotic forms (like slugs) are hermaphroditic and therefore all of the same gender. Predecessors to us humans certainly passed through a stage of hermaphroditic reproduction somewhere in the Paleozoic. Therefore, Loveschild is the descendant of two same-gender water critters.
66
@3. That is, lightly put, "p0wntership" over Mr. Loveschicks. Oh yes, I did just go there as your lemming follower. Because bacons are better than childs.
Is there ever "bad bacon"?
Is there ever "bad bacon"?
67
Awwwwh shit, I just betrayed my own commitment by choosing to respond directly to Loatheschilds when I said that I would no longer deign myself to that level, but pumpkin, but per @56, nature itself is a human construct.
Wrap your head around that philosophical puzzle.
(I'm gonna go slit my wrists nao for breaking my own commitment and sinking so, so low.)
Wrap your head around that philosophical puzzle.
(I'm gonna go slit my wrists nao for breaking my own commitment and sinking so, so low.)
68
@62, etc
do you know the timeless story of "when keeping it real goes wrong"? you're not really making any compelling arguments here, just doing a fine donkey impression.
do you know the timeless story of "when keeping it real goes wrong"? you're not really making any compelling arguments here, just doing a fine donkey impression.
69
@61 From a nonlinear, non-subjective perspective Loveschild is a big ball of wibbly, wobbly, hatey bigoty bits.
71
@70 Who's Davros then? One of the unregistered trolls, possibly, although some of them remind me more of Nyder, the really creepy guy from Genesis of the Daleks. To me he was much scarier than Davros.
72
@52
Well, there's been a baby mouse made from two eggs. It grew and made babies on it's own, so successful as biology has it. It's only a matter of time until we can do it in people too. Science is beautiful.
Tradition can be lovely, and is safer; but not all humans want to be safe, and we need those that step off the diving board too.
Well, there's been a baby mouse made from two eggs. It grew and made babies on it's own, so successful as biology has it. It's only a matter of time until we can do it in people too. Science is beautiful.
Tradition can be lovely, and is safer; but not all humans want to be safe, and we need those that step off the diving board too.
73
In response to 52:
No one (yet) may have been born directly as a result of a same-sex union, but uncountable numbers of our ancestors have lived to adulthood as a direct result of their gay uncle or aunt devoting their time and energy to supporting *them*, instead of establishing a family of their own. Also, it's been suggested that gayness in one gender may be a spin-off of increased reproductive fitness in the other gender - ie, a family line that produces gay boys may have daughters who give birth to more children, and vice versa.
In summary: We're only just starting to understand the way the world works. Stay tuned, if you can manage an open mind.
No one (yet) may have been born directly as a result of a same-sex union, but uncountable numbers of our ancestors have lived to adulthood as a direct result of their gay uncle or aunt devoting their time and energy to supporting *them*, instead of establishing a family of their own. Also, it's been suggested that gayness in one gender may be a spin-off of increased reproductive fitness in the other gender - ie, a family line that produces gay boys may have daughters who give birth to more children, and vice versa.
In summary: We're only just starting to understand the way the world works. Stay tuned, if you can manage an open mind.
74
@61: Yeah, and LC fails to realize also that nature has provided for homosexuality - sometimes homosexuality is part-and-parcel with the "balance."
The only thing one could do, then, to "upset nature's perfect balance," is to try to force people to deny who they are.
On top of that, this is all just dumb. Millenials don't even really care about homosexuality; this issue has a shelf-life of 10, maybe 15 years at maximum. Unless Millenials suddenly change their minds and start hating gays (which I think even LC would probably have to concede is very unlikely), by the time our children's children are born, they're pretty much going to think it's ridiculous people ever debated this at all.
The only thing one could do, then, to "upset nature's perfect balance," is to try to force people to deny who they are.
On top of that, this is all just dumb. Millenials don't even really care about homosexuality; this issue has a shelf-life of 10, maybe 15 years at maximum. Unless Millenials suddenly change their minds and start hating gays (which I think even LC would probably have to concede is very unlikely), by the time our children's children are born, they're pretty much going to think it's ridiculous people ever debated this at all.
75
I have a lot of respect for this woman's gay friends and family members who stuck by her. I'm not sure I would have; they are certainly more tolerant than I feel like I could be if I was in their shoes.
There's a real lesson to be learned here, that patience, tolerance and rational, reasoned dialogue very often wins. Hysterical tea-bagger types only appeal to the desperate.
There's a real lesson to be learned here, that patience, tolerance and rational, reasoned dialogue very often wins. Hysterical tea-bagger types only appeal to the desperate.
76
It's surprising--almost every time--but when you see that light come on in someone else's eyes, you remember that, well, we don't know stuff until someone shows us.
Someone might like to try mentioning that she might want to look into how babies are born, too. You know, they aren't conceived when a priest says "I now pronounce you X." She might take a look around her at marriages that are not "about children."
No, they weren't once "about children." They were about property rights. Human beings being property--children, women. So maybe it might interest her to understand that women have fundamentally changed marriage into ALMOST a private agreement between two individuals--not about fucking, not about placenta, not about diapers, not about sexual exclusivity rights. Uh-uh. Not anymore.
And that's because of the people who have ALWAYS made those agreements without the help of any sort of officials, clergy or bureaucrats. It didn't just spontaneously happen the moment someone in a suit signed a paper and put it on the tv news. But the fact that some of these couples can get SUPREMELY fucked with by these bureaucrats and clergy (well, don't we ALL get fucked by clergy and bureaucrats?) is what's at issue. It's simply unamercian, Republicans. You don't want people to think you're (snicker) UNPATRIOTIC do you?
Someone might like to try mentioning that she might want to look into how babies are born, too. You know, they aren't conceived when a priest says "I now pronounce you X." She might take a look around her at marriages that are not "about children."
No, they weren't once "about children." They were about property rights. Human beings being property--children, women. So maybe it might interest her to understand that women have fundamentally changed marriage into ALMOST a private agreement between two individuals--not about fucking, not about placenta, not about diapers, not about sexual exclusivity rights. Uh-uh. Not anymore.
And that's because of the people who have ALWAYS made those agreements without the help of any sort of officials, clergy or bureaucrats. It didn't just spontaneously happen the moment someone in a suit signed a paper and put it on the tv news. But the fact that some of these couples can get SUPREMELY fucked with by these bureaucrats and clergy (well, don't we ALL get fucked by clergy and bureaucrats?) is what's at issue. It's simply unamercian, Republicans. You don't want people to think you're (snicker) UNPATRIOTIC do you?
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 (76) RSS