…and this is a 
The “problem” is our existence
Category: Politics
Posted on: August 15, 2008 8:49 AM, by PZMinion
MAJeff here, getting all gay and stuff. It's been a pretty big year for LGBT folks in the U.S. A couple weeks ago, the state in which I live repealed a law enacted during the height of anti-miscegination activity, and is now allowing same-sex couples from anywhere to marry here. Prior to that, California joined us in offering full equality to same-sex couples. That victory may be short-lived, though. There is an effort underway to take away the right to marry. Folks here can help out by contributing to Equality California who are leading the NO ON 8 campaign.
I had to chuckle the other day when I came across this post at an LA Times blog about their meeting with the folks trying to make life worse for queer people:
The measure's supporters are generally careful to avoid appearing anti-gay, probably because they realize that, for all the voter split on same-sex marriage, Californians generally support gay rights. They professed in our meeting to have no ill will toward gay people...until the talk went deeper.
Wait, you mean they're lying when they say they have no problems with gay people? I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!
The LA Times writer continues:
one Prop. 8 supporter said, gay rights are not as important as children's rights, and it's obvious that same-sex couples who married would "recruit" their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers. Even editorial writers can be left momentarily speechless, and this was one of those moments
Ah, the recruitment line, code for "They're coming to rape your children."
The Times blogger is right: the anti-gay folks are careful to avoid showing their true colors; they work very hard to hide the anti-gay animus that drives them. But, lurking beneath the surface of their "We only want to protect marriage" lie is a deep and abiding hatred of queer folks and our communities. Their problem isn't that we want equal access to the same rights our heterosexual counterparts have. No, their problem is that we exist at all.
That was brought home pretty clearly in a recentletter-to-the-editor in the Boston Globe:
ENOUGH ALREADY with the Globe's gay agenda. How many front-page stories do we have to see to know that your agenda is to promote the gay/lesbian lifestyle? The July 21 article "Bloom's off the brick row house: Buyers picking modern high-rise over classic style" could and should have been written from the heterosexual perspective. What you're writing about is not a gay issue, it's a human issue, and casting the story in a manner to feature gays is inappropriate. It's time to straighten out, and I mean that in all senses of the word.
I have my own problems with such stories--namely that they continue to put forth an image of gay men as wealthier than the general public, when there's actually a wage-penalty attached to those of us who aren't hetero, and, regarding marriage issues, gay parents are getting by with fewer resources than their straight counterparts (that report is specifically for CA)--but that's not the point. The bigoted letter writer isn't concerned with accurate presentations, he's concerned that there are gay presentations at all. Housing issues may be universal, but the universal is particular--and it's straight.
I'm sure some folks will trot out the, "Just because I'm against gay marriage doesn't mean I'm anti-gay" or "just because I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle doesn't make me a bigot." Well, it does. What they're saying is that they want us gone. They want us to disappear. They want gay life to cease.
When folks come out and say they're opposed to discrimination against people but actively foster such discrimination, they're lying. They are pro-discrimination. That goes for John McCain, too, who recently said a pro-choice running mate would be acceptable, but not a pro-gay one. He has opposed every effort at including gay people in the institutions of American life. He may not be one of the crazy-ass-type fundies, but he's also no social moderate. He's just a "nicer" version of the "agents of intolerance" he "denounced" 8 years ago. His policy preferences on issues related to sexuality are very similar to those of Pat Robertson and John Hagee and Pope Nazinger.
McCain, Robertson, Hagge, Nazinger, McConnell.... These folks and the organizations they lead aren't just opponents of gay rights, but enemies of gay people. They are all pushing for a return of the institutional closet. They want us neither seen nor heard. And, as ACT-UP so accurately put it, Silence=Death. They may not always want individual gay people to die, but they want our communities to do so.
I take that back, by attempting to push us back into the closet, they do want us to die. There is no life in that miserable space.
Comments
Posted by: valdemar | August 15, 2008 9:08 AM
You're right - the real problem with 'gay rights' is that gays exist and want rights, in a free society. For bigots, many of them religious, this is too much. As a non-American who happens to like freedom (the real kind, for everyone) I hope you win the good fight.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 15, 2008 9:13 AM
The thing that always gets me is the use of the term, "the gay lifestyle". In my experience the friends, coworkers and acquaintances I have that are gay by no means live similar lifestyles.
But the bogyman is much easier to use to promote fear.
Posted by: Mike | August 15, 2008 9:17 AM
Can't disagree with this post at all. There is only one reason to oppose the recognition of a relationship between two people who openly profess their love to one another; bigotry.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | August 15, 2008 9:21 AM
Is this post an attempt to advance your gay agenda and recruit our children into the gay lifestyle? I knew it!!
Posted by: Sigmund | August 15, 2008 9:21 AM
I doubt that anyone sane seriously believes that gay people can make heterosexual people suddenly decide to become homosexual (which is how they argue against gay marriage or adoption). The underlying reason for their support is different, its a belief in a sort of Sodom and Gomorrah situation where allowing equality for homosexuals will result in a vengeful God laying waste to the land. This is the point they should be forced to confront when they manage to get themselves on TV. Do you seriously believe a supernatural being will destroy the earth if the law allows equal treatment.
Posted by: forksmuggler | August 15, 2008 9:22 AM
hear, hear!
Posted by: sjburnt | August 15, 2008 9:22 AM
It is just fear of the unknown, and fear of the 'other' tribe - even though there have always been homosexuals in 'our' tribe.
The same fear that leads to religion.
It is not that religious people are always bigots against gays; it is that both the religious and the anti-gay bigots are both deeply afraid of what they won't understand.
Talk about choosing a lifestyle!
Posted by: Arnaud | August 15, 2008 9:24 AM
But... but... how do you dare post about such a controversial topic while PZ's away?! They'll bomb his house, you know!
Posted by: Aaron | August 15, 2008 9:24 AM
Not to sound like a cliche, but... I'm not gay but I have gay friends.
I've got no problem with gays, lesbians, bisexuals, whatever your sexual preference. It really doesn't throw me off to see two guys kiss or be affectionate.
The whole anti-gay propaganda just REEKS of the anti-black propaganda our country saw back in the 60s. It's very annoying. Anti-gay group propaganda reminds me of the KKK's messages -- spouting hatred cast in the form of solidarity.
We're all humans. As Henry Rollins once said (paraphrased) "Straight or gay, guys are all into parking their pee-pee in tight warm places, and ejaculating like fucking GOD; We should be slapping each other on the back and celebrating this!"
Posted by: qbsmd | August 15, 2008 9:25 AM
I don't think that's a lie. And anyway, you can just ask "protect it from what?" and follow with "QED".
I would also be interested in seeing an explanation of why gay people want to get married. The institution of marriage looks to me like it's getting more irrelevant and broken all the time. Do you think marriage still has a place at all in the future?
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 9:25 AM
This blog post is pornographic.
Posted by: clinteas | August 15, 2008 9:26 AM
Ok,bigotry,yup,there is that.
"Gay rights".All for it.As I am for liberals rights,midgets rights,blacks rights.
Persecution complex tho? Probably comes with the whole scene,but one gets a bit tired of it,and frankly Id like to see less of the topic on Pharyngula.
Very sympathetic to the cause,please just not here.
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 9:26 AM
I'm against it! Not against same sex marriage exclusively, but against marriage as a whole. I think that it's overrated, and is unfair to unmarried couples. Are you better cuz you're married and we're not? Heck no! We're not scared of commitment, we're just... you know, not driven by religion. Because let's face it, there may be civil marriage but the origin of that union idea is religious. They just removed the spiritual bit. Frankly it just strikes me as an excuse for the bride to be treated like a princess for a day at a crazy price.
But gay people, um... Why do you wanna get divorced so much? I don't get it! (But I agree with the base - freedom to do anything all the way, baby.)
...I'd also start up on polygamy being illegal is idiotic but you know... I would type too much.
Posted by: Glenn | August 15, 2008 9:26 AM
Preach on, brother. I'm so sick of the pretense that equal rights for gays and lesbians is something over which reasonable, non-bigoted people can disagree. My partner and I have been together for 8+ years and I'll stack our relationship up against any straight marriage in terms of commitment, love and devotion, and if someone says nevertheless we aren't entitled to the same recognition, what other term is there for that than bigotry and hatred of gay people?
Posted by: Jams | August 15, 2008 9:27 AM
I think Barack Obama nails the problem right on the head.
"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." - Barack Obama
Sadly, he doesn't seem to be aware that he's part of that problem. It's a sad day when a fucking democrat can't bring themselves to say they're pro gay-marriage. I can only assume his more positive positions on gay rights are more a matter of pandering to pro-gay sentiment in the democratic party. Just another old-fashioned bigot.
re: "recruitment" arguments
You know, they may have a point. Like most heterosexual men, I was totally the gay before my mom and dad performed a little sex show for me. They really turned my head around.
Posted by: coathangrrr | August 15, 2008 9:27 AM
I doubt that anyone sane seriously believes that gay people can make heterosexual people suddenly decide to become homosexual (which is how they argue against gay marriage or adoption).
I think many do. A large portion of the Christian anti-gay community thinks that being gay is a sin that people can choose to embrace.
Posted by: S.Scott | August 15, 2008 9:28 AM
I love this gem from the SBC.net ... "There is no such thing as a homosexual person. We are all heterosexuals. Homosexuality is a description of a condition. It is not a description of the intrinsic nature of the person" (NARTH's Statement of Policy). Given his statement, then, men and women who consider themselves homosexual are really intrinsically heterosexual but they have a sexual identity problem and, as a result, might engage in homosexual behavior."
"I had no idea McCain was such a bigot. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Posted by: Andrew | August 15, 2008 9:28 AM
I was with you until "Pope Nazinger." (not once, but twice) Germany certainly committed crimes in the 40s, but having been a German in the 40s isn't a crime. You can disagree with someone (as I disagree with pretty much everything the pope has to say) without resorting to childish name calling.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 9:29 AM
Frankly I'd like to hear less about gay people existing.
Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | August 15, 2008 9:30 AM
I love the blatant stupidity of the "I'm opposed to giving gays any rights but I'm not a bigot" attitude. What part of denying a group of people the same rights and privileges as everyone else isn't bigoted?
If their concern is that treating homosexuals (not to mention bisexuals and transgendered people) like everyone else will lead to an increase in homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism, then, I admit, they may have a point. Many bigots argue that homosexuality is a "choice". The logical counter-argument is, "Who would willingly choose to subject themselves to so much hatred and discrimination?" What the bigots believe, though, is that greater tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality will lead to more homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism. They believe greater acceptance will make the "choice" more attractive. The reality, as any intelligent person knows, is that acceptance may lead to greater visibility, it may lead to more people coming out of the closet, but the actual numbers won't change.
Posted by: TX CHL Instructor | August 15, 2008 9:31 AM
I'm a Libertarian; I feel that unless I'm willing to allow other people the same basic rights and liberties that I want for myself, then I would be nothing more than a hypocrite. That's without regard to gender, sexual preference(s), race, skin color, politics, age, or other affinity group membership.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 9:32 AM
Pharyngula is not the place for this.
Take it somewhere where liberal politics is discussed.
It's not that I don't like gay people! I wish that discrimination against them would end. I just don't see why you have to discuss that discrimination!
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 9:33 AM
@Andrew: He was a Hitler Youth. Hello?
Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | August 15, 2008 9:33 AM
Grammar RWA said: Frankly I'd like to hear less about gay people existing.
Then go back into your closet.
Posted by: sleepercell | August 15, 2008 9:33 AM
i love this argument that gay/lesbian parent turn their children gay. It is funny because almost all homosexual children are born to straight parents. If anything gay/lesbian parents should be given more children because statistically those children are more likely to be straight.
If that was the true issue anyway. But the real issue is bigots and assholes trying to make life miserable for everyone else.
Posted by: llewelly | August 15, 2008 9:34 AM
Soon the black leather helicopters will arrive to abduct you ... better put on your aluminum foil deflector beanie, quick.Excellent article, MAJeff.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 15, 2008 9:34 AM
@Andrew: He was a Hitler Youth. Hello?
Maybe I should just go with what the late Paul Monette called him, "The Bishop of Hate."
Posted by: Janine ID | August 15, 2008 9:36 AM
Andrew, in case you have not noticed, there is always a lot of name calling. But the calling of names does not take away the truth about the current and previous popes' extremely anti-LGBT policies. Care to talk about "The Culture Of Death"? I detect name calling there.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 9:36 AM
Spot on! That's why we should leave it up to the states to decide whether gay persons deserve the right to get married.
Overturn Loving v. Virginia! Damned activist judges.
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 9:37 AM
@MAJeff #27: More fitting. Frankly I have a problem with "Nazinger". It's too close to "Mazinger" and Mazinger kicked serious ass.
Posted by: Glenn | August 15, 2008 9:37 AM
I would also be interested in seeing an explanation of why gay people want to get married.
I'll give you just one of many reasons. I'm on my partner's health insurance, but because I'm a DP, not a spouse, the contribution that his work makes to covering my health insurance is treated as income and is taxed. We pay about an additional $1200 a year because of that. And unfortunately because that's a federal law, it won't change for a long long time (because of DOMA -- thanks, Bill Clinton!).
More important, of course, is that our government is telling us that our relationship, and by extension the two of us, are second-class.
And just a note to Michelle above... I actually agree that we should just get rid of marriage altogether, at least in terms of giving married couples any government benefits or other advantages (hey, you want to get married in church, be my guest). That was the debate for years in the LGBT community -- why should we join this patriarchal, broken institution? But let's face it -- marriage isn't going anywhere, and as long as it does exist, then it's intolerable to be denied access to that institution and its benefits (no matter how flawed otherwise) solely because my partner and I each have a penis. (can I say penis on this blog?)
Posted by: TX CHL Instructor | August 15, 2008 9:37 AM
"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." - Barack Obama
Barack Obama's one and only concern is getting elected, without regard to who he has to throw under the bus in the process. This statement is just an appeal to moderate conservatives, and may or may not have anything at all to do with what he actually believes -- which appears to change from moment to moment.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 9:38 AM
Frankly, I am against gay marriage... and straight marriage and any form of marriage at all. I think people get married to try to recruit children into their married lifestyle.
Posted by: Janine ID | August 15, 2008 9:38 AM
Grammar RWA, you have repeated yourself already in such a short time. If you do not like the topic, do not click onto this subject again. It will solve your problem as well as mine.
Posted by: A Modest Proposal | August 15, 2008 9:41 AM
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Given that rationality is the greatest treasure of our society, that science is our most powerful tool for understanding the world, and that liberal democracy is our greatest guarantor of freedom and happiness, we urge that all who are dedicated to upholding and defending these ideals join together, in the formation of an organisation whose primary goal will be their promotion. This organisation will be well served by following the principles it is sworn to defend:
1) Equality; That all are born equal, and respect is merited only by achievements.
2) Morality; That the highest goal is the net increase of utility, but that we must never give up our humanity to achieve this.
3) Individuality; We must always be who we are, and allow others to be who they are.
4) Rationality; We must always base our actions and thoughts on the evidence before us and the application of reason, and change our conclusions if the evidence insists that we must.
5) Community; We must always defend those who cannot defend themselves, and allow the weak equal voice with the strong.
6) Freedom; We must always defend both the freedom from suffering, and the freedom to say what must be said, do what must be done, and strive for greater happiness, insofar as this does not interfere with the freedom of others.
We provide these principles as a basis for discussion, in the hope that from this tiny seed, a great tree will grow. Only by recognising what makes us great, and each doing our own part, in our own way, for the enhancement of all, can we protect what we hold dear. Our ancestors fought with shield and sword; we shall be a shield for what we love, and in this fight we will remember that the pen is mightier than the sword. This is not a call for unity, for unity is the aim of tyranny and repression; this is a call for each to do what seems right to them.
"Free men pull in all directions. It's the only way to get anywhere."
- Terry Pratchett
Posted by: wazza | August 15, 2008 9:44 AM
GrammarRWA says we should take this somewhere where liberal politics are discussed... obviously not a regular reader, or someone who's EVER LOOKED AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE
Word, MAJeff. I don't care who you tap, so long as you're a good person.
Of course, the problem with that is that some people talk about homosexuality as if it were a bad thing...
Posted by: llewelly | August 15, 2008 9:45 AM
clinteas, human rights has always been an approved topic on pharyngula. MAJeff has made it a little more common. Gay marriage is a normal part of liberalism (or at least it should be), thus, MAJeff's article is entirely appropriate. The site's motto, after all, is 'biological ejaculations from a godless liberal'.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 15, 2008 9:45 AM
Yes the best thing to do when being discriminated against is to ignore it and it will go away.
Brilliant!
Posted by: Janine ID | August 15, 2008 9:46 AM
MAJeff, I think in order to quell Grammar RWA's concerns about GLBT topics, you and me and everybody else who every brought up the subject of their own homosexuality better not mention it again. I am so sure that PZ will be blindsided by the fact that he allowed a gay man to post on this topic. You were just so closeted.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 15, 2008 9:46 AM
I'll just give you my personal real life concrete example :
10 years ago I was sent by my company -a large multinational- to the USA as an expatriate.
I had been living with my partner -who is from Malaysia- for 6 years already. My company promissed they'd do everything to try to get him a visa.
After almost two years of trial and error, I had to return to Europe because it was impossible to get him a visa, we weren't married an that's all that mattered for the US imigration.
My parents were in the exact same situation 25 years ago. My dad was sent to the USA as an expatriate, and his spouse my mom automatically got a Visa.
Do you think it's fair ?
Posted by: Niobe | August 15, 2008 9:46 AM
@Michelle: "but the origin of that union idea is religious"
BZZZTTTTT WRONG
That is bullshit. People have been coupling with ceremonious rituals since the advent of time. Since all life events are co-opted and intertwined with a pervasive religion, this one got tied in too. Religion always claims exclusive rights to public domain issues (morality, anyone?) it has no business claiming. Marriage included.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 15, 2008 9:46 AM
folks, Grammar RWA is parodying the folks saying, "enough with the gays already." (At least based on grammar rwa's history, that's my assumption)
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 9:47 AM
I really don't know what Obama actually believes (and what he will do if elected), that's why I'm having a real hard time supporting the man. But the alternative is just unthinkable.
Posted by: amphiox | August 15, 2008 9:47 AM
Why do gay people what to get married? I think it is because it is a symbol. As someone said in a previous threat, marriage is a three-way contract, between the two individuals AND society. Marriage is society's way of recognizing a sexual union.
It implies not mere tolerance, not even just acceptance, but approval. "This union is a good thing, and we recognize it as such, and name it thus."
And that is what sticks in the anti-gay marriage folks' craw. It IS pure bigotry, dressed up in excuses.
And just what version of "traditional" marriage are they trying to protect? The one from the 1950s, where the woman is the junior partner to the breadwinning male? The ones from ancient times, when women were property and every man married as many as he could afford to support? (one for the poor, a handful for the rich, and hundreds to thousands for the big kahuna in charge?) The one from the dawn of agriculture, where the whole and only point was the churn out as many farm hands as possible so that enough food was grown for everyone could get fed? The serial monogamy pattern of the hunter-gatherers, where a couple stayed together for the conception, birth, and raising of a child to the age of self-ambulation, about 5-6 years, after which they either separated to find another partner or had another child?
Posted by: Mike G | August 15, 2008 9:48 AM
Perhaps a slight change of tactic in the pro-homosexual community is necessary.
Instead of calling for gay rights, we should instead be promoting 'human rights for homosexuals', I bet it would make denying rights such as marriage a hell of a lot harder.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 9:49 AM
Jeez, you liberals sure turn on the hate spigot quickly.
I just think our good friend clinteas should be heard loud and clear:
I know, right?! It's got to be a persecution complex because there's no more persecution against gay people today. I just don't see why we have to keep talking about this graphic sexual content in public. Can't you at least keep it on gay blogs?
Posted by: BaldApe | August 15, 2008 9:49 AM
[Morbo voice]Your victory will always be incomplete! You may cause others to accept your existence, your lifestyle, your agenda, but you cannot achieve total victory. I refuse to turn gay!!!![/Morbo voice]
Seriously, though,
qbsmd said:
So if marriage is so 20th century, isn't it past time to drag our society into the 20th century? That's why "civil unions" (which I previously supported as an alternative) are unacceptable. As long as there is any difference in the treatment of individuals by society, there is a lack of equality.
The more rational solution would be to do what Italy does. Let the legal aspects of marriage be controlled by the state, and the imaginary (oops, sorry "spiritual") aspects by the churches. If a particular religion does not believe in marriages between two people of the same sex, or between divorced people, they don't have to do it, but the legal protection remains equal.
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 9:50 AM
@Niobe: Yea... They have. Ceremonious rituals for the spirits or the Mother or whatever was their beliefs at the time. Geeze.
Posted by: debaser | August 15, 2008 9:50 AM
Yeah I can't believe some of you people. The comment section of a post on homosexual issues is NO PLACE to make comments about homosexual issues. I don't have anything against it, but how about this thrad gets moved to a separate-but-equal comment section in the back of the forums somewhere. That way I can look at only the strait posts on this issue, as god intended.
Posted by: Janine ID | August 15, 2008 9:52 AM
Michelle, I just want to point out that negentropyeater's story is hardly an isolated incident. Many partner's have been turned away from hospitals when blood relatives and married partner would be allowed in. Also, there is the lack of benefits the married partners take for granted that BLBT couples usually do not get.
It is about not having the same rights as heterosexual people.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 9:52 AM
Zomg. You outed me!
To those who worried: I am a gay man, neither closeted nor self-loathing. There is one less bigot in this thread than you had thought. But more than zero.
Posted by: llewelly | August 15, 2008 9:53 AM
The burden of bearing a massive penisPenis Evolution
Was that fun, or what?
and many more.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 9:54 AM
Also where is the outcry for the rights of the polygamists?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 15, 2008 9:54 AM
Humm. Maybe.
My brain was severely damaged reading ray comfort this morning so it is hard for me to tell.
if so, my bad
Posted by: Jason Failes | August 15, 2008 9:55 AM
"it's obvious that same-sex couples who married would "recruit" their children toward homosexuality"
Whenever I see the word "obvious", it's almost certain that something completely counter to reality will follow.
Has the definition of "obvious" changed or is there some kind of spell-check mix-up with "oblivious" as in:
You would have to be completely oblivious to believe that same-sex couples who married would "recruit" their children towards homosexuality.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 9:56 AM
This is not unlike Poe's Law, I'm afraid. But with less comedy and more tragedy.
Posted by: Arnaud | August 15, 2008 9:57 AM
Anyway, early christian communities were very much like later monastic communities: their members didn't marry or have sex. They were expecting the Second Coming in their lifetime and didn't see a point in having children. It's only when it became apparent that the return of Jeebus was slightly delayed that they had to find an accommodation.
And yeah, Poe on GrammarRWA!
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | August 15, 2008 9:57 AM
I think Grammar RWA is being sarcastic and mocking some of the commenters he disagrees with by pretending to echo their opinions/positions. The joke is getting a little tired though, IMO.
Posted by: Janine ID | August 15, 2008 9:57 AM
Grammar RWA, you are correct. I should have spent more time jumping all over clinteas.
But please refrain from playing these little games, sometimes I have a difficult time telling the truthful statements from a smartass statement. (And this is coming from a self professed smartass.)
Posted by: PaulB | August 15, 2008 9:58 AM
"Homer's Nestor was not well skilled in ordering an army when he advised the Greeks to rank tribe and tribe. He should have joined lovers and their beloved. For men of the same tribe, little value one another when dangers press; but a band cemented by friendship and grounded upon love, is never to be broken." Plutarch
Posted by: Rebecca Watson | August 15, 2008 9:58 AM
Jeff, I can't wait for PZ to come back and find out you gayed up his site. And on another note, will I see you at the next Seekrit Gay Mafia meeting? We're ratifying the final Agenda.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 15, 2008 9:59 AM
Amphiox,
it's not because it's a symbol. I don't give a shit about symbols. It's because there are today concrete rights exclusively assocated with it.
I don't give a shit if you call it "marriage" or "bashibouzouk", just let me get the same rights with my life long partner as if I had married a woman.
Read my post #40 for an example of such a "right" that I couldn't get and how it impacted my life.
Posted by: True Bob | August 15, 2008 9:59 AM
Nice post, big gay MAJeff. I might know gay people, but I don't KNOW if I know - it's not a topic I bring up. The people I believe to be straight are generally already married to members of the other gender. Otherwise, it isn't my business.
Benefits to marriage are numerous, for those who do not know. First is a tax break, then there are things like rights of survivors, rights of visitation in hospitals, prisons, etc. Without these things, the state gets involved, and you know how they'll fark things up.
Last, my take on the "choice" issue. I ask those who assert that, how they chose between taking Mike or Brenda to the prom. Or ask them to imagine change their choice from being a leg man to a breast man. Instant cognitive dissonance.
Obligatory married guy joke: Are you sure you want marriage? You know about the sex life diminishing, right?
Posted by: Pablo | August 15, 2008 9:59 AM
When this topic comes up, I like to ask anti-gay marriagers how it feels to be using the same arguments against gay marriage that were used to oppose interracial marriages in the past?
As you note, it was the exact same crap. In particular, "protecting" marriage against abnormalty.
You can go and find quotes against interracial marriages from the past (from judges even) that are basically the same as what we hear now replacing "homosexual"for "interracial").
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 10:00 AM
@Janine ID: And that's outrageous. Just because you decided not to go through a silly ritual/legal ceremony... Suddenly it classifies your relationship as second-class, not serious... It's ridiculous. Marriage is discriminator to unmarried people.
Here's what I think: down with marriage. If you're a couple (no matter the genders), you should have the same rights as a married couple. Anything else is just discrimination. What's the difference between a non-married couple and one that is married? None beyond the paper and the money they wasted getting the paper.
Posted by: Janine ID | August 15, 2008 10:01 AM
Posted by: gdlchmst
Also where is the outcry for the rights of the polygamists?
I have not problem with polygamy as long as it is not based on the old patriarch model. But sadly, in most polygamist marriages, the women are the junior partners.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 15, 2008 10:02 AM
Janine a smartass? never
Posted by: MyaR | August 15, 2008 10:04 AM
My best friend and his partner of 15 years* got married a couple of weeks ago when they were in California. (They happened to be at the courthouse because they needed to find a public restroom, then just said, "Hey, why not?" Well, they had talked about it before, and they did their serious commitment ceremony several years ago.) And now NY has to recognize their marriage, which is awesome.
* Which makes them unusual for pretty much any type of relationship. They met when they were 23 & 25 and have been together since.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 15, 2008 10:06 AM
And on another note, will I see you at the next Seekrit Gay Mafia meeting? We're ratifying the final Agenda.
I can cater. Tomatoes have started coming in!!!!!!!
Is there a pub coming up? Calendar says so.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 15, 2008 10:06 AM
Liberal politics has always been and will continue to be a topic on this blog.
Go to the Log Cabin society if you want to talk conservative politics and gay issues.
Ratzi was a Hitler Youth.
Posted by: Alejandro | August 15, 2008 10:06 AM
Excellent post
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 15, 2008 10:07 AM
Michelle,
Wrong, read my post #40.
How does a nation control for instance immigraton rights for the partner, if there is no legal document that attests that this partnershp exists and is a bit more solid than just (a person + a person who don't know each other and are trying to make a financial deal) ?
Posted by: Bobber | August 15, 2008 10:08 AM
An excellent post. I lived in Massachusetts during the effort to have gay marriage recognized, and I well remember the hate-filled and fear-driven garbage being thrown out by the opponents of equal rights for homosexuals, and the predictions of dire consequences for "normal" marriages and the doom of civil society.
Funny how the world did not end. The worst fear of the opponents of equal rights for homosexuals is one they won't often voice: that there ARE no negative consequences when human rights are respected, that society does NOT come crashing down when we include more segments of the public body in the circle of full citizenship. What the hate-mongers feared most came to pass: gay marriages are now recgonized as equal to all other marriages in Massachusetts, and NOTHING BAD HAPPENED AT ALL. Which means their worldview, predicated as it is on the fear of incurring the wrath of their oppressive overdeity, is wrong - and that they are on the losing side of history.
Keep the torch lit, MAJeff. Any significant change requires a catalyst. Whether the cause be rationalism, equal rights, or peace, only those who speak will be heard!
Posted by: Randy | August 15, 2008 10:08 AM
MAJeff,
Now I have a picture of "recruiting into the gay lifestyle" of a cross between the Army recruiter who led me to believe some wildly inaccurate things about the US Army and the NFL Draft. Is that how it's done?
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 10:09 AM
I apologize to anyone who felt that I wasted some of their time. By playing as one of those who are uncomfortable with gay people, I hoped to make them look so ridiculous that they'd think twice about posting here. I have no idea whether it worked to any degree.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 10:09 AM
Polygamy is based on a patriarchal society because our society is based on a patriarchal society. The problem lies not with polygamy but with the societal traditions.
Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 10:09 AM
MAJeff: I agree. Nothing to add, really.
By the way, this is interesting:
http://atheism.about.com/od/benedictxvi/i/RatzingerNazi.htm
One issue that it raises is his problematic claim that a mindless adherence to the Vatican's authority is a defense against fascism. I was disappointed when the public debate surrounding Hitler's Pope turned into an argument about that pope's personal relationship with Hitler rather than a discussion about the book's description of how he was behind significant transformations within the Church itself that brought it even closer (in more than one sense) to authoritarian regimes. Anyway, just an aside. Not trying to derail the thread from its important topic.
(Grammar RWA - From your comments on previous threads, I had always assumed you were a woman. That's a compliment.:))
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 15, 2008 10:11 AM
Related to negentropyeater's comments on immigration.
I have a dear, dear friend who would, I am guessing, fly to California to marry his partner in a heartbeat (I should try to convince them to come to MA). They've exchanged rings, share property, have been making a life together for several years.
The problem is that they can't get married because his partner is married to a woman. It's a shame marriage, entered and maintained so she can stay in the country. The license counts. The relationship doesn't.
Posted by: Muffin | August 15, 2008 10:11 AM
@Andrew - as a German (and a bisexual), I fully support the "Pope Nazinger" moniker, myself. It's not about the fact that he's German and was born before 1945; it's that he was a) a Hitler youth and b) - worse - that he continues to hold opinions any nazi would've been proud of. It's not even limited to LGBT folks (he's also caused controversies with his remarks about judaism, for example), although of course, LGBT-bashing is pretty much the most accepted form of ${FOOBAR}ism in the western world today, so this is what he's most open about.
Don't let the fact that he's got a funny hat and gilded robes blind you. He's still just a hateful old man.
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 10:13 AM
@negentropyeater: Require a legal document for immigration if you like, but between two citizens I don't see why they would require a paper.
Just because one isn't married doesn't mean the relationship isn't solid. And frankly what's that with getting people in because you're married with them? What does that mean, that single people can't get into a country? They just have to come in like single people do.
Posted by: BaldApe | August 15, 2008 10:14 AM
Nope, it still pretty much means "things I claim to be true without thinking about it."
It is a pretty major red flag, like "studies show" and the word Darwinism when used on the left side of the Pond.
Posted by: JoshS | August 15, 2008 10:14 AM
Great post Jeff. Coincidentally, I just wrote a short piece on what I think the real objection to gay marriage is (in brief, an objection to losing privileged social status). I'd like you to see it, but I don't want to text-dump on this thread. I'm assuming you can see my email address as a moderator? If so, please email me. If not, is there another way I can get a hold of you directly?
Posted by: zer0 | August 15, 2008 10:15 AM
The world would be a wonderful place, if the greatest crime despised by society was standing in the way of another person's happiness. I only hope that within my lifetime this becomes a non-issue, and gays and lesbians are allowed to freely pursue happiness in every corner of the world.
Posted by: Carlie |