http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/11/03/a-recommended-reading Comments On: A Recommended Reading by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 21 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Tue, 21 May 2013 05:15:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
"And your smug
pious
self-righteous
assertion

...

The Moral Arc does not bend toward Perversion"

You don't get to use the first and then claim "moral" supremacy. Perversion is you, and you're going away.

Posted by goodbye, scum]]> Tue, 06 Nov 2012 07:45:33 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 21:02:17 -0800 The Stranger Please explain how secularism can be religious. And while you're at it, explain how water can be dry.
@69: It does indeed work both ways. Government can encourage the masses to accept people different from them, or incite xenophobia and oppress minorities. Which are you trying to do, I wonder?
Also, the entirety of the evidence ACTUALLY DOES say that "homosexual pairings are Just As Good as Traditional Heterosexual Marriage". So it is, in fact, factually true. But what do you care about facts when you've got The Truth?
Posted by venomlash]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:33:32 -0800 The Stranger
You pretend society only has one dimension: tradition vs tolerance. This is not useful thinking. Society can be tolerant to interracial and same sex marriage AND intolerant of BS marriages and lack of commitment and irresponsible parenting. A more intelligent, nonbiased approach would be to recognize that long term, stable relationships have value, and encourage such things: work to create social pressure to raise children in such relationships, ENCOURAGE GAYS AND LESBIANS TO MARRY, and then to MAKE GAY AND STRAIGHT MARRIAGES MEAN SOMETHING. End easy divorce; increase tax benefits; get rid of Britney Spears and Kardashian spectacles. If your agenda is about more long term relationships then do something serious about forwarding that agenda. If you're just here to speciously propose that gays getting fair treatment makes heteros become irresponsible, we all know you're just searching for a slightly more socially acceptable way to say you don't like gay people.
Posted by yonush18]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:44:42 -0800 The Stranger
Thank you for the video, and that unpleasant but necessary reminder of why even Mitt Romney is better than Rick Santorum.

You could hear the disgust in Frothy's voice when he said that, without the possibility of reproduction, sex was "about nothing but pleasure!" He went on to say that "these are important public policy issues." He wants sex only within marriage, he wants the states to have the right to criminalize contraception, he wants gay sex recriminalized.

If Romey wins, I'll spend the next four years (maybe the next eight years) replaying the Santorum video you linked to, and telling myself, "Well, it could have been worse."
Posted by Clayton]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:19:11 -0800 The Stranger
you assume a great deal.

asserting that homosexual pairings are Just As Good as Traditional Heterosexual Marriage is factually false and children should not be taught lies.

the success of the nazi movement, especially and including the brainwashing of german children through the Nazi Youth, made it difficult for Jews to impart their values to their children.

see how that works?
Posted by kissing Slog's ass won't make you happy]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:14:00 -0800 The Stranger
the quotation is from a supreme court decision.


Posted by you should have known that.]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:06:48 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:51:28 -0800 The Stranger Any secular philosophy is by definition non-religious. Dan's religious beliefs are not being brought into play here.
Again: how are you being imposed on by gay people getting married? Again: how are you NOT imposing on gay people by preventing them from getting married? Again: what rights is Dan trying to deny to others?
Posted by venomlash]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:59:09 -0800 The Stranger What I find facinating is how the arguments against gay marriage so perfectly mirror those used against interracial marriage. It was believed that when white women (and the concern was almost always about 'protecting women') had the chance to marry other races then there would never be a same-race marriage again. Our children would become "confused" because if there wouldn't be strict definitions of black, white or latino anymore. God is clearly against interacial marriages in the OT, and how could we ignore god's word? And above all, it just seems so "icky" to some and how could we force such a thing on them?
These arguments have failed before and they will fail again. The generations who held onto segregation are on the path to extinction (although are clearly still present and trying to make more new converts) and the anti-gay crowd will be taking the same path before long.
Posted by MarquisDesMoines]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:26:38 -0800 The Stranger Posted by agony]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:18:09 -0800 The Stranger
ah junior, you have stumbled upon the point-
we are not debating theology.
we are discussing social policy.
it doesn't really matter what danny believes.
or what maggie believes.
or who is right about the bible.

all that matters is that danny can't force the rest of us to conform to his religious beliefs.

and the opinion of supreme court justices are very pertinent to that discussion.
Posted by insults are a poor substitute for reason]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:01:46 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:44:30 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:22:07 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Backyard Bombardier]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:12:29 -0800 The Stranger
You can listen to what Senator Frothy thinks about birth control here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBTLnO7FQ…
Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:01:07 -0800 The Stranger
We used that reading at my wedding 1.5 years ago, based on that slog entry. Thankfully, we live in MD, so we hope to be an equality marriage state soon!
Posted by aw]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:27:45 -0800 The Stranger
Are you trying to say, though, that the gay rights movement fueled the change in straight relationships? Because that's my point - they were both caused by a new freedom in general in personal lives. Sex is part of it, but not all of it - married women working and having their own bank accounts is also part, as is desegregation. There's been a huge wave of social change in the last fifty years, and gay rights are just part of it.
Posted by agony]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:19:49 -0800 The Stranger Posted by venomlash]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:13:05 -0800 The Stranger
It is more accurate to say that sex fulfils a range of roles across reproduction, pair bonding, and sometimes just plain fun and games.

Those who oppose marriage equality on the basis that homosexual sex cannot be reproductive don't even buy the argument that the only valid purpose of sex is reproduction. If they did - if their concern was really about preserving the sacred status of reproductive sex - then they'd be fighting to ensure that no one got married who did not have both the capacity and the intent to reproduce.

They aren't. They don't give a fuck about what straight people do in the bedroom. They themselves engage in non-reproductive sex. They are simply bigots who will use any argument to protect their bigotry.

And while you claim to not be opposed to marriage equality, you do seem to spend an awful lot of time defending the arguments of those who are.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:05:56 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:00:16 -0800 The Stranger ----------------------

Yes, I think that's a fair stating of the case, from the conservative side, at least. From the liberal side, the argument would be that it's not about sex at all, or only peripherally, and is instead about relationships and civil rights.

Was there anyone who attacked Sandra Fluke who was not also opposed to gay marriage?
_________________________

I've run into many who *claim* that they are not, that it was all about having to pay for someone else's lifestyle choices. Once you start asking them to defend their arguments, though, it tends to all dissolve into a muddle of lightly disguised "Other people are having more fun than I am; I don't like it and want it to stop."
Posted by agony]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 09:24:44 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Justice Hugo Black]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 09:07:48 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 09:02:01 -0800 The Stranger
If I had to put a name to it, I'd call it a growing cultural awareness that there are many acceptable ways to live, that rigidity for the sake of rigidity serves no purpose. Rules that we all see DO serve a purpose, we all generally follow, even though no one is strictly enforcing them - you don't see hordes of people driving on the left, just because they want that freedom, for example. There aren't enough traffic cops to enforce that rule, if people decided they didn't want to follow it - we all just do, because it works. Rules of sexual regulation are going the way of the sumptuary laws in Medieval Europe - once people don't want to follow a rule like that, it's gone, and can't be called back.
Posted by agony]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:01:21 -0800 The Stranger