Slog Comments
Gays in Maine Buying Up All the Wedding Rings, Catching All the Bouquets, Sexing In All the Honeymoon Suites
1
Well obviously they were forced to watch homos hold hands. Also office talk of "did you see that fabulous wedding?!"
2
It's a negative impact when your lifelong bigotry, which has always been seen as just dandy by society at large, suddenly becomes not okay, and makes you a target of scorn. The bitter taste of losing isn't very positive, either.
9
To paraphrase Louis CK, they're mad because they had to "talk to [their] ugly child for fucking five minutes" about gay people.
10
Because they can't get anyone to marry them, straight or in-the-closet gay. And it's Just. So. Not. Fair.
::listens to the stomping of angry feet::
::listens to the stomping of angry feet::
11
I imagine waking up to find yourself on the obviously losing side of history would be a pretty negative feeling.
15
There's a certain erosion of quality of life when you sit in the dark corner of your own small world, stewing in your hatred and bigotry, pondering all the horrible, awful things that are surely occurring (the flamboyance! the fabulosity! the fucking!) that really have nothing to do with you, but that you just know are wrong, because Jesus.
17
They keep crawling out from under their beds! And they're in the kitchen, eating my wife's jam!!! Why doesn't Mr. Maulding do something before it's too late!!?
18
@9, exactly. Now they have to explain to their kids why they should still be little bigots even though society is increasingly accepting of marriage equality.
20
No doubt the other 22% are sitting in jail cells. The Gay Mafia targeted them, set up the sting, planted "evidence", kidnapped a few people, did some hair, smeared a reputation or two, glitter bombed a cocktail lounge, and WHAM-BAM those 22% now find themselves in jail under trumped up charges of just wanting to protect marriage.
23
There have been some severe impacts in Maine.
Everyone in the lobster and fishing industry has been given invites as their fellow crew members got gay married, and you can only go to clambake weddings so often before all the days just start running together.
Also, there is a severe shortage of mimosas.
Everyone in the lobster and fishing industry has been given invites as their fellow crew members got gay married, and you can only go to clambake weddings so often before all the days just start running together.
Also, there is a severe shortage of mimosas.
24
21, Dan Savage on polygamy :
I have the same reaction to legalizing marriage for gays as I do for polygamists. What’s the big deal? Legalize it. It’s kind of like arguing against giving women the vote because then women will want to enter the work force. (Horrors!)
Bottom line: Grown ups should be allowed to marry whoever (whomever?) they want. http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/03/05-1…
26
@24 Thanks for that. @21 brought out my "super-confused" face since I was pretty sure, but had no immediate proof, that Dan had no problem with consensual polygamy.
28
@21 @24, Dan has de-evolved (devolved?) on this.
In his 2012 dinner debate with NOM's Brian Brown, Savage was strongly *against* polygamy citing reasons such as destabilization of society and sexism (males get multiple females leaving some males frustrated, females in unequal roles).
But this Big Love picture is archaic. Today it equally could go the other way with poly relationships and all even out in the long run.
Dan should re-evolve on this, his 2006 piece was rational.
I can understand how he has to be careful not to undermine same-sex marriage movement and being pro polygamy might do more harm than good, but at least he could say "no opinion" on it.
In his 2012 dinner debate with NOM's Brian Brown, Savage was strongly *against* polygamy citing reasons such as destabilization of society and sexism (males get multiple females leaving some males frustrated, females in unequal roles).
But this Big Love picture is archaic. Today it equally could go the other way with poly relationships and all even out in the long run.
Dan should re-evolve on this, his 2006 piece was rational.
I can understand how he has to be careful not to undermine same-sex marriage movement and being pro polygamy might do more harm than good, but at least he could say "no opinion" on it.
29
Just realized @24 you gave a wrong link, NOT by Dan but by Josh Feit.
So I guess dan never devolved. Still, he could evolve, right?
So I guess dan never devolved. Still, he could evolve, right?
32
28, I believe Dan was speaking to the way fundamentalist Mormons treat polygamy were the women get no choice in the matter.
33
The problem with polygamy is that whenever it is practiced on a large scale, it eventually ends with twelve year olds girls being handed out to old men to rape at their leisure, while the other "wives" do the housework.
Not that this will, or always happens, but the reluctance of society to approve of polygamy is basically because the above mentioned scenario happened, and continues to happen, a lot.
But I can see no intrinsic problem regarding people marrying how ever many people they want, as long as they can avoid the above scenarios, and everything is above board: no welfare cheating like the polygamist sect Mormons.
Not that this will, or always happens, but the reluctance of society to approve of polygamy is basically because the above mentioned scenario happened, and continues to happen, a lot.
But I can see no intrinsic problem regarding people marrying how ever many people they want, as long as they can avoid the above scenarios, and everything is above board: no welfare cheating like the polygamist sect Mormons.
35
@28 in that debate, Dan said polygamy would have to be evaluated on its own merits in response to Brown's slippery slope argument. Dan listed a couple of things that might weigh against polygamy, as you listed, but I didn't get the sense that he was set against it. Just that it had negatives that gay marriage did not, and thus the slippery slope was a logical fallacy.
39
Just as how, to Sir John Middleton, the increase by two to the number of inhabitants of London was something, so to the 22% any reduction in the number of people who can be oppressed for no just cause is equally something.
41
@32: More like the traditional way that polygamy has worked throughout the world, across all of history.
Which has typically been that the rich and powerful got lots of wives as a show of how rich and powerful they are, with few other considerations for the people that those wives are.
And while I'd *like* to believe that wealthy actresses would collect many husbands just the same as their male counterparts, I seriously doubt that would play out that way for various reasons.
Which has typically been that the rich and powerful got lots of wives as a show of how rich and powerful they are, with few other considerations for the people that those wives are.
And while I'd *like* to believe that wealthy actresses would collect many husbands just the same as their male counterparts, I seriously doubt that would play out that way for various reasons.
42
22% of those polled in Maine either had to realize that they were on the losing side of history or had to realize that they (and their antiquated notions of propriety) would be dead soon.
Comments (42) RSS