Vermont passes gay-marriage bill

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

day 3:

my wife left me this morning, citing the growing legalization of gay marriage. why didn't i listen to people who said it would erode the institution!?!?

"What? Did your life pass before your eyes? Cuppa tea, cuppa tea, almost got shagged, cuppa tea..."

 Almost...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2074301/Woman-with-objects-fetish-marries-Eiffel-Tower.html

Wow! A Miss USA challenging the status quo and speaking for herself? Queen Perez Hilton was a judge, so she lost.

I disagree with Miss California, but I applaud her balls. To participate in a pageant that is all about being a conformist erotic robot just to challenge it? It reminds me all the times I threatened to enter my pasty ass to a Hawaiian Tropic bikini contest.

Interestingly, as the video points out, she gave the same responses almost verbatim as Obama.

Curious, as the Reagen-era Miss USA pageant entry forms were slanted to the right, with smiley faces next to the "right" (nudge, nudge) answer to hot topic questions. Hilton says the ideal Miss USA should be middle of the road and try to please everyone. Don't know how different that would have made her answer...

I agree with this- I never watch these things but it kind of sucks when the next girl gets "what's cuter- puppies or kitties" and you get something controversial...

My my, what a lot of self-congratulation!  So much certainty that this new and revolutionary idea -- a concept with which none of your heroes from Jesus to JFK to Bill Clinton or even Obama have agreed -- was something no other thoughtful, humanistic soul over several millenia, was evolved enough to conceive.  Quite extraordinary, really.  You'd have thunk that some intellectual -- some philosopher perhaps -- somewhere along the path of history's vast backlog of Big Ideas, might have posited the societal correction of including same sex couples to the institution of marriage. 

But nope.  That didn't happen.  It required the Brave New Minds of this generation to see The Light. 

Only now, all of a sudden, supporters of same sex marriage move in solidarity opposing the moronic, backward types who dare to endorse an antiquated view that marriage should remain as one man and one woman.   

What lofty climes of lovingness there must be up there with Perez Hilton and his fair-minded, anti-slavery, pro-same sex marriage, open-minded army of thinkers.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

 Riiiiight on, Jamie.  That's exactly my point and kudos to you for discerning it.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

i wonder what harmless, progressive idea i'll be dragging my heels about when i'm old. 3-d tattoos? cars that can give exquisite head? headjacks? crotch attachments so that you can swap out your gender like legos? i can't wait to find out what natual step in societal evolution i'll get to be horribly out of touch on, since it happens to every generation.

PS:
 

Do you mean to say that you agree with the cartoonist's parallel between opposition to interracial marriage and opposition to gay marriage?  In your mind, is it a given that holding my view is equally reprehensible as the first frame of the cartoon? 

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

1. yes

2. almost yes-- you seem to have a problem with it for somewhat religious reasons, which i respect a lot more than some asshole who just doesn't like the idea of dudes touchin peepees. i mean i still disagree with people who don't want gay marriage because they think it violates god's law, but at least that's based on a strong conviction of SOME kind.

it's a 100% harmless move that allows equal rights to a minority. the parallels literally could not be more stark

I don't know why you would feel my resistance to same sex marriage is for "somewhat religious reasons", Nefud.  I don't even have a religion affiliation, have not been in any house of worship since the age of 10, outside of doing so for someone else's wedding (not my own), bar mitzvah or for historical-artistic reasons while on vacations.

But fine.  So much for disclosures.  It is true that the notion of one-man-one-woman has its roots in Jewish civilization and that prior to that time, multiple marriage partners, marrying within one's family and homosexuality were encouraged by other religious backgrounds.  I don't think it would be fair to label same sex marraige proponents as following a Babylonian religious rationale though.

It still seems to me a blithe assertion that changing the long held societal definition is "100% harmless."  It seems to me that comes without a lot of thought on some the possible outcomes.  More on that later, if you're interested in considering possibilities, but they do not include how Nefud and wife's relationship would be altered, a red herring oft lobbed.  By the time we've lived through a few generations of this change, likely neither of us will be around to continue this discussion.

I'd just like you to give the majority of Americans who believe as I do -- plus the majority of the world's historical figures who have ALWAYS believed --  the benefit of a doubt that perhaps we too may not be the moral equivalent of a 1960s racist spouting off against mixed race marriages.  For the record, I have never objected to mixed race coupling even back in the 1960s when I lived in Detroit, where there were many opportunities for mixed race dating. Draw your own assumptions here too.

See, the feature of the debate that gets to me most -- the sense of moral superiority not only toward those who resist this alteration of the institution of marriage but the belief that your stance is morally superior to virtually everyone who ever lived before.  It seems to me that the stance of those who would open their arms to a greater inclusion of what defines a marriage do so from compassion and not from any particular wisdom.  I see that as folly disguised as a cavalier attempt to show how open-minded one can be. 

Who ends up the biggest potential losers in this arrangement?  The children of any same-sex marriage.  Your plan guarantees that from day one, they will be denied a Mother and a Father.  You may argue, what's the diff?  They'll have two dads.  Or two moms.  That's two parents.  As if there is not something particularly different in the makeup of a man or a woman that is valuable to a child. 

Susan

PS  I don't think there are significant numbers of heterosexuals opposing same sex marriage who do so because they don't like the idea of "some asshole who just doesn't like the idea of dudes touchin peepees."  

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Susan,

 [quote]Who ends up the biggest potential losers in this arrangement?  The children of any same-sex marriage.  Your plan guarantees that from day one, they will be denied a Mother and a Father.  You may argue, what's the diff?  They'll have two dads.  Or two moms.  That's two parents.  As if there is not something particularly different in the makeup of a man or a woman that is valuable to a child. [/quote]

A few questions:

 Are you making gay couples have kids?  Many will want to, but gay marriage rights are also for the old biddies and coggers who would like to live out their sunset years in dignity.

 Where do you think gay couples who have children get their kids? Sure some will go IVF or surrogate pregnancy, but not all.  Please try to convince me that the recently adopted kid of my gay neighbors is worse off in a loving stable home than bouncing around the foster care system. Or that the kids of a het. divorce who do have a mom and a dad (plus one) are now lacking something compared with het. divorces without remarriage? 

I think its also important to remember that  these legal definitions of marriage are not just about parenting, but about everything from inheritance to hospital visitation to taxes and creditors and debt.

 I acknowledge this is kind of splitting hairs and avoiding the real issue you raised- is a homosexual couple automatically inferior to a heterosexual couple in terms of parenting?  Are kids going to be scarred or developmentally traumatized in some way?  Will they have problems forming relationships as adults?  I certainly don't know of any data suggesting any of this. My question is- why are we holding them to a different standard than heterosexual parents?  It takes a lot for the state to take a child away from his or her family.  Do you believe that any possible harm from living in the same house with two loving same-sex adults is equal to or greater than the catastrophic neglect, sexual, or physical abuse that causes the state to intervene?  If not, what standard do you suggest for the government to adopt to take away kids from heterosexual parents that would equal the harm you see happening from homosexual parenting?  I'm really curious about this.

you run with a fundmentally more intelligent crowd than i get to, hands down.

the idea that kids should be exposed to both a male and female presence in the household is far and away the most salient point from the anti-gay marriage side i've ever heard. So, congratulations! :) however, it's still a bit spurious as we don't mandate other forms of diversity from parents. also, i don't subscribe to the idea that marriage is merely a vehicle for producing offspring, so it seems pretty unfair to people who don't want children and are merely interested in bettering themselves by committing to their partner long term (and want some tax breaks, etc)

i still don't see how you think we'll have horses eating each other in the streets in a few generations if homos are allowed hospital visitation rights

Okay, guys, I have a very long answer to your questions.  But I'm not sure you really want to hear it.  I won't post the whole loooooong thing if this is mostly an in jest discussion.

You know brevity is not my strong suit.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin