Skip to main content

Debate on gay marriage

With New York state's same-sex marriage vote likely to come any day (or hour) now, President Obama is strongly hinting that he'll soon have a brand-new position on the issue to share with the country. "He’s very clear about the fact that his position is evolving," White House press secretary Jay Carney said yesterday. That's a call-back to an unsatisfactory old line the president once used when he wanted to assure the LGBT community that he's secretly on their side.

[. . .]

But if marriage equality happens in New York, legislatively and not through the courts, it will have passed with Republican support. Which will be embarrassing for the White House. (They're New York Republicans, yes, but Staten Island Republicans can go toe-to-toe with the Iowa GOP any day of the week.) With the president still "officially " opposing gay marriage, he won't be able to celebrate the victory -- or criticize the failure, if the New York state Senate acts like the New York state Senate and the talks collapse at the last possible moment.

If it does pass, though, Obama will have a very nice opportunity for a fabulous coming out party. (Alex Parene, “Barack Obama should come out for gay marriage already,” Salon, 21 June 2011)

- - - - - - - - -

@sethew

1.) I do think THIS GROUP of polls that came out recently reflect bias on the part of the people constructing them; polls are only as useful as the questions they ask and the methodology supported.

If indeed Americans are now solidly pro-gay marriage, than MY OPINION should not be getting people riled out -- all you'd need is an easy-peasy ballot issue and hurrah, gay marriage for all. Clearly it is more complex than that.

We do have rights and they are ENUMERATED in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and nowhere do they address marriage (or homosexuality). They are about the right of free speech, free assembly, the right to own firearms and the right to own property and so forth. Gays already have ALL THOSE RIGHTS (and had them long before women or blacks did!).

Laws about marriage reflect our customs and traditions, and go back to antiquity. If laws about same sex marriage are "wrong" than laws about incest marriage and bestiality and polygamy are also "wrong" because those all reflect morals and social mores in our culture. (Of course Salonistas are madly in love with incest and polygamy, so that' may not make much of difference.)

Marriage is one of those "not mentioned" things that are left to the states to manage, so I don't expect a nationwide referendum on gay marriage. I have stated that I will accept the results of any state that lets VOTERS decide this issue, if they go for legalizing gay marriage.

I wouldn't agree with it, of course, but in a DEMOCRACY that's how you change MAJOR LAWS; not JUST by legislative or judicial fiat. You can't just rewrite culture and society on a WHIM. In this case, legislatures are acting KNOWING they are going against the wishes of their constituents. (In some cases, we have proof that special interest groups are BLACKMAILING representatives.)

I disagree that the "vast majority of Americans" are lefty liberals, and while the population tends to concentrate around big cities, it is definitely NOT hard left or even "left of center". Every Californian is OBVIOUSLY not a lefty, or Prop 8 would not have passed handily (same percentage as Obama received!).

Our political system is set up to have one half of Congress represent the states equally (Senate) and one half represent population (House), and yes I think that is fair IF THOSE POLITICIANS follow the will of the people and do not substitute their own beliefs, especially if they are being coerced or blackmailed.

2. I never said that gay couples were violent or abused children. Gay marriage is bad for society because it redefines real marriage, into just a sort of loose partnership based on sex, and takes away the male/female aspect of it which is essential to REAL reproduction (not the turkey baster or the paid surrogate type).

Nobody remotely suggests taking away the right of gay people to cohabitate with anyone they wish to. But we cannot EVER call that a marriage, because it does not meet the definition of marriage.

We can't stop people from committing incest either, or living in polyamorous groups, or having sex with animals. But we don't have to label those things "marriage" and we don't.

3.) YES. Having gay marriage totally changes my marriage from a REAL MARRIAGE to a "gay partnership with Partner A and Partner B". I don't want that, and I will fight to keep it from happening.

If gay marriage passes in your state, then THERE ARE NO MORE WIVES OR HUSBANDS, just Partners A, B (and likely C, D, E and F, etc.). They have already changed all kinds of documents at the Federal level to include this, using Partner A and B. Marriage licenses in some states already have gotten rid of Wife and Husband. Judge Vaughn Walker stated in his opinion that "men and women are entirely interchangeable, and have no unique differences", hence marriage can be between ANY two people.

I do not consider this a "trivial discomfort" but a huge intrusion into my marriage, which ultimately will debase and devalue marriage for my children and grandchildren.

4.) No, marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, and should not be changed to accommodate other people on lefty political agendas. If we "celebrate" enough, we will soon have incest marriages and polygamy; good reason enough NOT to change the definition of marriage.

Divorce has it's own problems, but banning divorce isn't even on the table (if anything, divorce laws are becoming more LIBERAL), and anyhow, most societies have legal divorce. Only Catholics don't accept modern divorce law (in theory). That's a dumb point.

5.) A Salonista is NOT merely one who posts here. It is someone who is hogtied by lefty ideology and can't think for themselves -- someone who hates America, hates families, hates heterosexuality and generally signs on for a very extremist agenda that is opposed to everything most normal Americans hold dear. So it does not apply to me; I'm just a talky visitor (Laurel1962)

- - - - -

@Fightthetheocracy: I want to know...

Canada is about to legalize polygamy.

The Netherlands has already legalized "triad marriage" (polygamy).

Switzerland is about to legalize incest.

This is not an empty argument; these are facts. The war to destroy marriage and family and society is very real, and fighting to keep traditional marriage is being on the front lines.

You don't get to decide what HARMS ME or my family. I feel gay marriage causes me direct personal harm; I explained why. That the lawyer for Prop 8 did a poor job doesn't mean that the rest of us don't know we are being had, or that a lefty political agenda is driving this thing. (Laurel1962)

- - - - -

I dont even know where to start....

*Being gay is natural and inborn. You should be proud and happy to be a free gay American man.* -Laurie1962

Ok...so do you think that beastiality, incest, and polygamy are natural and inborn too? Because you also said that they are on the same "spectrum of sexuality" and a natural consequence of my marriage. You think Im natural and should be free to be me - so should those who want to sleep with dogs and relatives be allowed to do the same as long as they only live together and never want to get *married*?

Honestly, does this even make sense to you?

I ask again - what need is being fulfilled in you by being here? (Doc1976)

- - - - -

@Doc1976: I am not full of hate

I like and even love many gay and lesbian people. My kids are not gay, but if they were I would love them! (My grandkids are too young to know either way.)

I've seen all kinds of crazy stuff on Salon, so I see it as a forum for ANYTHING -- they publish stuff by anti-semites and Neo-Nazis! anything I would write is tame, tame, tame by comparison.

Also I think it is public service to tell blinder-wearing clueless lefties the TRUTH about what MOST AMERICANS think, because they are truly in the dark.

I resent your saying that I EVER said I hated ANYONE because that is NOT TRUE.

I am sure you are a nice person, and so is your boyfriend. However, you can't be married, not in the eyes of most people. Not while DOMA stands.

You might adopt, but you will NEVER EVER have children, because men cannot get pregnant and give birth. You need a woman for that, my friend, and you don't have a woman in that so-called "marriage".

Would having a child, knowing that child would NEVER HAVE A REAL MOTHER, be the right thing to do? Or just a selfish act by two men who care more about political correctness than a child's wellbeing?

I never said "you were dogs" and I would fight for your right to live freely and openly with your boyfriend, however you see fit.

What I said was that legalizing gay marriage is just like legalizing polygamy and incest, and that it is a path to destroying marriage, and EVENTUALLY even things like bestiality.

You can live anyway you choose, but you can't ever be married, because you are two men -- and you can't ever have children, because men are NOT CROSS FERTILE WITH EACH OTHER.

You are probably nice guys, but honestly: time to come down to earth.

- - - - -

Still havent answered the question, Laurie...

Do you tell your gay friends and family members that they are among the same variants as incest and polygamy? No, really - I want to know....do you? And if the answer is no, why not?

My marriage to my husband is recognized in my state - it is a state's issue, right? You do know that we live in a Constitutional Republic, don't you? Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.

No matter what you say, please go to bed tonight knowing we have a marriage license. And that we are going to have children. We are right here on earth living a life that you abhor - and there is nothing you can do about it. And if one of your grandchildren turn out to be gay, I really hope you keep your online identity anonymous - you have no idea the damage you would cause them. (Doc1976)

@laurel1962

Personally, I am for gay marriage / polygamy / incest MOSTLY ONLY because of the bedrock who's for it -- the Salonistas, that you mock. THERE IS a huge ridiculousness about them, in that they ecstatically, enthusedly triumph things they would actuallly prefer ... that they cannot ALLOW themselves to know too much about, because their gleeful, righteous triumphing depends on a certain image they have of ALL groups / ideas the rightwing, conservatives have traditionally disparaged. For them, the disparaged must not only be discrimated upon but in actuality be very good and worthy, so to make rightwingers that much more awful in their perpetrations. But these same ridiculous Salonistas ARE NOT FOR making use of these whatever groups as poison cointainers into which they'll project unwanted aspects of themselves -- for the purposes of annihilating them -- something the far more horrid rightwing does and will continue to do. They do not see squarely, but the overall impulse of lefties is towards love while the overall impulse of the right is to hate.

Gay marriage is supported by lefties; if is legalized it will communicate a leftist victory (though if with [the efforts of] Obama, I'll present soon a caveat): it won't help tear apart what is most worthy about marriage because it will mostly communicate that leftist understandings of everything -- which includes an understanding of marriage as, not duty, and even chastisement, self-sacrifice, but as of companionship and love and self-fulfillment still rule.

Because of liberal support, I am for gay marriage, and yet in truth I think being gay is not biological but a defense mechanism; it is an understandable, necessary psychic "adaptation," when presented with intolerable, overwhelming stimuli: the overwhelming, smarming, incestual mother. To avoid being sucked into her, women in general are written off as sexual companions.

"...the overwhelming, smarming, incestual mother..."

Wow. I mean it. Wow.

A claim completely, totally discredited about 40+ years ago in informed circles. Which hasn't been taught by anyone anywhere in the mainstream in at least three decades. A psychoanalytic theory with no evidence to support it. None. Yet here it comes again, exhumed, dusted off and regurgitated like forty-year-old vomit. (robwriter)

Being gay is a defense mechanism?

From a smothering mother?

People still buy that Viennese voodoo (thank you Mr. Nabokov)?

Homosexual behavior is rampant in the animal world (as are all kinds of "deviant" behaviors), and if you've spent any time at all in the outdoors, you'll know that smothering mothers are NOT rampant in nature.

So how does one account for gays who have no mother at all? Or mothers who aren't smothering? Who have fathers who are not absent?

How does one account for gay identical twins - clones - raised apart by different parents?

Sorry, Freud and his followers should have been literary critics and left psychology to the scientists. (heller88)

- - - - -

@Patrick McEvoy-Halston

Buddy -- I can't make head of tails out of that post. I can't even tell if you are for or against what I said, or arguing for tolerance, or what.

The whole bit about the "incestuous mother" though-- that's crazy talk. I know a lot of gay men (I don't even know HOW it applies to lesbians!) and they have perfectly nice, decent, loving moms.

Homosexuality is an inborn trait, like blue eyes or the ability to wiggle your ears. It is neither good nor bad; just a normal human form of sexual behavior. In any human sub-group, there will ALWAYS be 1-2% or so that will be homosexual.

All that stuff about bad mothers and smothering is pretty much totally debunked, and years ago.

The only remotely understandable thing I got out of your post is that yes, liberals see this as a HUGE political victory and that's why they are working so hard for it -- they have utterly given up on fighting for the wars to end, or for Gitmo to close or for heath care. This seems like an "easy victory" and yes, they see marriage as "romantic self-fulfillment" entirely without real obligation, fidelity, sacrifice or dedication, so is cheap and easy to extend it to anyone who claims to want it. (Laurie1962)

@laurel1962

Re: “This seems like an "easy victory" and yes, they see marriage as "romantic self-fulfillment" entirely without real obligation, fidelity, sacrifice or dedication, so is cheap and easy to extend it to anyone who claims to want it.”

Obligation, fidelity, sacrifice comes VERY, VERY easy to us. It is for many of us an instant way to feel somewhat good as a person. Suffer through a depression, throw yourself into whatever war, define yourself mostly as someone "owing," and you're the Greatest Generation, who deprived themselves so that -- ostensibly -- others might benefit. To really believe we deserve happiness -- to do as the flappers and hippie boomers did and make life seem mostly about possibility -- is the much, much harder part. Whenever we evolve and get there, voices like yours soon enough begin to takeover and all we hear of is people's punishment-worthy, bloated vanity.

It is with fidelity to purer causes -- self-sacrifice, etc. -- that you begin to get such things as anti-semitism, that is, the public "mounting" of groups into which to project THEIR OWN unwanted aspects -- their vanity, materialism, spoiledness, etc. The Germans began to feel the need to become the self-sacrificing, selfless, personality-less Volk, and so the Jews (and others) had to become vain, self-serving public parasites. What moves an anti-semite, I judge, is not entirely absent from you.

- - - - -

@dickdworkin: excellent point and thanks for bringing it up

There are plenty of OLDER children in foster care in the US who DESPERATELY need permanent homes. Unfortunately, many of these children are not technically "free" to be adopted (because they have living parents who have not relinquished parental rights) and mostly because they are older, black, mixed race or have mental/physical handicaps.

People are not lined up to adopt such kids, not even gay couples. Most people want to adopt HEALTHY WHITE INFANTS.

HEALTHY WHITE INFANTS are in very, very short supply. Almost none are available through traditional adoption; most people who do adopt healthy white infants either go through the gray (or black) markets, pay a butt load of money for the kid OR they go overseas for an expensive foreign adoption.

Foreign kids are pretty much "priced" by skin pigmentation, with Russian/Ukrainian kids being the most expensive ("white") and the prices goes down to Asian kids, then hispanic kids, then at the bottom, black kids (African). It's disgusting and yes, it is racist, but that's what people want and how their adult needs have distorted the world adoption market.

Basically the most "desirable" kids go to the wealthiest couples, but introducing gay couples to the mix has complicated stuff. Now there is more competition for the most desirable children, and many gay couples are VERY affluent, two income partnerships. They are basically EDGING OUT traditional families to take adoptable infants -- who are in VERY short supply -- and denying those children a home with a mother and a father.

The only thing protecting these children or giving them a chance are laws favoring married straight couples. However, with legal gay marriage, adoption agencies are FORCED BY LAW to give babies and toddlers (who have the best shot at having a mother and father in a traditional marriage parent them) to gay and lesbian couples.

Naturally gays and lesbians cannot have children by ordinary means (lesbians always have the turkey baster, but many are too old even for that) so they by DEFINITION are going to make up a disproportionate number of potential adoptive parents.

Look at Doc1976: he had a marriage ceremony with his boyfriend, now he wants to ADOPT. He is a DOCTOR with plenty of money to buy any kind of adoptive infant. Would you want to be an ordinary middle class married straight couple trying to compete with Doc for ONE OF THE VERY FEW INFANTS UP FOR ADOPTION? OR compete on the foreign market with him, when he has a huge income to travel or hire legal assistance?

If you mean "older hard to place children", I know a few older gay couples who are indeed raising such children. But YOUNG gay couples refuse to consider this -- they want WHAT STRAIGHT PEOPLE HAVE, which is a perfect tiny adorable infant. And they often have the means to edge out ordinary middle class straight couples in the competitive adoption market.

If we want to talk about assisted fertility -- donor eggs, donor sperm, surrogates -- that is a problem too. There are countless celebrities who are at this moment openly abusing fertility technologies designed for infertile STRAIGHT couples so they can have a "gayby".

Most of these gay and lesbian celebs are not remotely infertile; they are young and healthy. They just can't come to terms with being in a non-procreative partnership and want "what straight people have", which is an infant.

Most are so cruel and selfish that they do not consider the needs of the child FIRST: that a child above ALL OTHER THINGS needs a mother AND a father, if not his biological parents, then a substitute set of male and female. Anything else is not going to be the same, and the child will have a serious deficit in his/her life. (Laurel1962)

- - - - -

@Laurel1962

Re: Most are so cruel and selfish that they do not consider the needs of the child FIRST: that a child above ALL OTHER THINGS needs a mother AND a father, if not his biological parents, then a substitute set of male and female. Anything else is not going to be the same, and the child will have a serious deficit in his/her life.

First off, people who are eager-ready to scold people for their selfishness are no doubt way worse than couples who'd marry primarily for their self-pleasure: when they have kids, be sure they'll communicate to them mostly that what they are is primarily sinful and selfish, from the start denying their parents the love and admiration they deserve for commiting themselves so selflessly to them. Anyone who rants against selfishness is someone who "learned" early that their own rightful claims were somehow rotten, suspect, owing to them amounting to love toward something other than their immature parents. When they rant they imagine their own parents approving them for defining themselves as willing to give the whole of themselves up to satisfy other people's (their parents') needs. They have their own self-soothing in mind; they are being selfish.

Secondly, I agree that children really need both men and women in their lives, and I really like that the current understanding of marriage communicates this need. However, as important as this need is, it is rather more important that they grow up in a loving family, and it is far more important that marriage communicate THIS. As is, traditional marriage doesn't: the barbaric couple that'll spend most of their parenthood either abandoning their children or using them, looks more worthy, more essential, more right, than the liberal gay couple, committed to human rights, who'll find ways to be mostly kind and attendent to their children. Because of this "crime," marriage does need a good turn of being imagined as something other than man / woman inextricably bound: it may be ground for making the quality of the care the foremost "concern," essential pre-requisite for subsequent legitimization.

- - - - -

Patrick

Loud & clear. (g50)

- - - - -

Apocalypse Cow

It's time for another special edition of cow talk, ladies and gents and ... er.. Laurie.

Apocalypse Cow. We believe this is an allusion to the Bayeux Tapestry, a 50 cm by 70 m embroidered cloth which explains the events leading up to the 1066 Norman invasion of England.

We would welcome any enlightenment on this subject from that master of lighten himself...@Patrick McEvoy-Halston! Bravo, sir. Tis a sore deed that you do so deededly. Also. Well done.

Other Worthy Moo Outs:

@Doc1976...many sincere moos of happiness and congratulations to you and your husband. If you ever tire of saving lives, there may be a big future in flagging waiting for ya. A worthy aspiration on this thread.

@sienar and @orange swan... valiantly guarding the Normandy invasion from revision and moo(t) interpretations. Also, the Constimootion and Canada, too.

@jtanneru... for not invading Normandy, (a trick learned from cow class) and reminding us that a person's a person no matter how Ralph.

@Balaamsass... for the cool moo tunes, and @David Ehrenstein & @G50 for persistence in the face of moo poo.

And, of course, also @bigguns ... our own cow talk sponsor!

And now we return to the regular insanity portion of the Salonistas. (steppedonapoptop)

Link: Barack Obama should come out for gay marriage already (Salon)


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

"Life" as political analogy, coming to you via Breitbart News

Immediately after seeing the film, I worked over whether or not the movie works as something the alt-right would produce to alienate us from the left. Mostly the film does work this way  -- as a sort of, de facto, Breitbart production -- I decided, though it's not entirely slam-dunk. There is no disparagement evident for the crew of the space station being a multicultural mix, for instance. Race is not invisible in the film; it feels conspicuous at times, like when the Japanese crew member is shown looking at his black wife on video conference; but the film maker, wherever he was actually raised, seems like someone who was a longtime habitat of a multicultural milieu, some place like London, and likes things that way. But the film cannot convince only as macabre relating to our current fascination with the possibility of life on Mars -- what it no doubt pretends to be doing -- because the idea of “threat” does not permeate this interest at all, whereas it absolutely saturates our …