Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Notice how bitter the opponents are looking?
ATTENTION LOVESCHILD: Nobody is fooled by your shtick, so coming in here to say she was harassed or cajoled and forced into bowing to the "gay agenda" is worthless. You are, quite frankly, not a black straight female. You are the "opposite", being a white non-straight male. Your constant belittling of minorities and women and the religious is tired, annoying, regressive and TERRIBLY FUNNY.
Yes, you are a dude.
And almost everyone knows it.
Anyway, @ 1 is right - this is why we're winning, and it's why all the anti-marriage laws and amendments around the country will eventually be overturned.
Kathleen Parker's evolution on this issue is great, but it doesn't say much for the Pulitzer Prize that it can be awarded to someone with such simplistic views.
My brother is much like this. He's been generally supportive mostly, but 5 years ago he would definitely opposed gay marriage. After numerous discussions about it, he's come around, and now supports it. He's not a homophobic ass. He just didn't really understand the ramifications of it before, and what it means to me.
well,
because....
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
we first endure, then pity, then embrace
It's nice that this woman has come around, but my comment was more about this attitude in general. Open homophobia (ala Loveschild) I can deal with, it doesn't enrage me, it just makes me sad. It's this polite-on-the-outside-skeeved-on-the-inside kind of attitude that sends me through the roof, especially when the offending comment involves a hairdresser. Yeah, honery, every single gay man on the planet is like your hairdresser. Sheesh!!
When it comes to homophobia, it's just like racism - it comes in many manifestations. You have hopeless hardcore haters, akin to KKK members on the racism scale; you have more reflexive types who just think that's icky and sinful, but won't support any kind of violence; then you have people like this, who never really disliked gays, or even really liked the Jack McFarland types but had absorbed a lifetime of anti-gay stereotypes and never really though about how someone becomes gay in the first place, or whether they have any right to enjoy and celebrate their relationships like everyone else. We need to work on bringing these people around, not condemning them for "being two-faced." They aren't "two-faced," they just have some old prejudices to overcome. You can help.
Exposure to Savage Blog has opened my eyes a bit... more open minded time spent with lesbian cousin and her partner, choosing to visit an openly gay male hairdresser, becoming a lot more tolerant... not things I would have expected from myself.
To the point.. had a political phone survey last night that asked about gay marriage and adoption, and I didn't hesitate at all before supporting both.
The world can change, one redneck (me) at a time.
This is why I get so excited about gay teenagers coming out and asserting their rights. My stepmom had huge issues a few years ago when my adult sister came out as bisexual (she was told she wasn't welcome in the house), but now that her beloved grandson has grown into a clearly gay teenager, she says nothing. Because it's so obvious that he's always been this way, and she feels protective of him. Both she and my dad have finally, finally come around, because of that one kid who loves them but refuses to hide who he is.
"come around" = too polite to say anything but dies a little inside each day
they're not j-j-j-just b-b-b-bigots!
they're the m-m-m-most entrenched b-b-b-bigots!!
I don't want to play for the other team, but don't see the need to cheer against them.
I wonder if marriage-supporting Kathleen Parker - who's all about the kids - has had the realization that Irena talks about - the damage that's being/been done to gay kids.
you are such an angel.
obviously there is no god otherwise she would have given you a womb...
Good riddance. Hard traditionalists don't need treasonous traitors like Kathleen Parker. I predict she'll start writing for Daily Kos and appear in Michael Moore movies.
ROTFLMAO!!!
@10: Yes, just like how black people must be evil because it took a lot of time for some ignorant white people to get used to them.
@36:
Press 'X' to get joke.
since her "babies" have come along, she's dropped it all in favor of an all-inclusive, "life is short and everybody has the right to be themselves and be as happy as they can be" attitude. it's pretty rad.
@32, My response to the question "Which one is the real dad?" is "We both are!". If they persist "Which one is the biological dad?" our response is "We don't know - it could be either one of us. But it really isn't that important, is it?"
In a moment of weakness, my husband did once tell someone who asked "Where's her mom?" that "Her mom died; she played World of Warcraft for 48 hours straight and had a fatal heart attack."
@41 The story your husband told about "the mom" made me laugh. Thanks for sharing.
Keep your hate to yourself. Intolerance of intolerance is the only acceptable form of intolerance.
Name some of these "primordial human functions and institutions bestowed on us from a Higher Entity".
You realize that marriage predates not only Judaism and Christianity, but most likely every religion in the world? Chances are that early humans were mating for life before it even occurred to them to worship nature spirits or what-have-you.
Marriage is a human institution. If you read the Old Testament, you'll see that God makes no claim to inventing it; when he came to Abram and Sarai, they were already an old married couple. And as we've explained to your ignorant ass several times, marriage has been defined and re-defined many times over the ages, and society has benefited from it.
Finally: if heterosexuality is the intended purpose of sexual desire, why does God make so many people who are only attracted to their own gender?
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth
@46: We all are gonna to have to face death at some point, we're not immortal, there's only One who possess that quality. So my life and existence as yours and everyone else's who is alive is on the way out. That's a fact of life. However the morals, ethics, and spiritual values we pass on to next generation serve as a foundation for those who come after us and they themselves carry on towards a more fruitful life thanks to that. Homosexuality doesn't allow that to happen, as a dead end behavior it disrupts and terminates that circle of life, acknowledging that is not intolerance, we all have functions specifically designed for us during our short stay in this world. Those who chose a path that's not compatible with what allows for human existence can also play an important positive roles if they wish to do so, but throwing a wrench on the basic human genesis is not one of them.
You may well have the glamour of Hollywood and the academic intellectuals behind you, but the truth of the day to day family life, the future represented by continuity and future generations is and will always be on the side of those of us who can love without rejecting the truth and preserving what allows us to physically be here in the first place. Long after Hollywood's fascination with homosexuality fades away as all banalities do, the family and the timeless institutions that both promote, and secure it will stand the test of time, and those of us who have not yielded to the vicious slander and intimidation will be proven right.
Lord Krishna?
The Rainbow Serpent?
Thor?
Zeus was OK with homosexuality, as I recall.
For all of the past 6 000 years!
With regard to religion, it has absolutely no place in discussions of politics or public policy. You cannot make your religion the basis of anyone else's life. There is nowhere else for discussion on that point to go.
With regard to reproduction, the fact that a sperm and an egg are required for humans to reproduce has no relationship to marriage. Marriage is a primarily civil contract, not a religious one (although some marriages are also religious), and it is not based upon the presumption or requirement of procreation. Furthermore, many same-sex couples do raise children, whether biological adopted. The fact that 2 men or 2 women cannot create children from the union of their genitalia is not a convincing argument for restricting marriage to such couples; we do not, after all, prevent sterile or intentionally childless male-female couples from marrying. Finally, because I know you're going to bust out the "social experiment" crap, we have decades of evidence on same-sex marriages and same-sex parents, none of which supports your claims about the unsuitability of same-sex couples to raise children or the negative effects of same-sex marriage.
@52: We are all most likely descended from many, many same-gender couples throughout time. I kid you not, Loveschild.
Oh LC, you're a paradox machine. Doctor Who would appreciate you. He wouldn't be down with the whole hatey bigoty thing though.
Marriage is a primarily civil contract?!
What?!
But what about the Faggots who can't Marry The Person They LOVE....?
Marriage is cupid and rainbows and unicorns.
and pink ponies.
Did you know Abraham wasn't just Sarah's husband, he was her uncle? And if God could enable Sarah to get pregnant at the ripe old age of 65, whose to say he won't come down and enable a gay couple to procreate? of course He might then tell them they have to take the child to a mountaintop and chop its head off, so its kind of a mixed bag.
If using the Bible to defend modern conventions like what we call "marriage" wasn't so hurtful, it'd be laughable.
@61: I do mean certain eukaryotes, but I think you mean prokaryotes; archaea and eubacteria are prokaryotic and protists, fungi, plants, and animals are eukaryotic.
Plenty of simpler eukaryotic forms (like slugs) are hermaphroditic and therefore all of the same gender. Predecessors to us humans certainly passed through a stage of hermaphroditic reproduction somewhere in the Paleozoic. Therefore, Loveschild is the descendant of two same-gender water critters.
Is there ever "bad bacon"?
Wrap your head around that philosophical puzzle.
(I'm gonna go slit my wrists nao for breaking my own commitment and sinking so, so low.)
do you know the timeless story of "when keeping it real goes wrong"? you're not really making any compelling arguments here, just doing a fine donkey impression.
Well, there's been a baby mouse made from two eggs. It grew and made babies on it's own, so successful as biology has it. It's only a matter of time until we can do it in people too. Science is beautiful.
Tradition can be lovely, and is safer; but not all humans want to be safe, and we need those that step off the diving board too.
No one (yet) may have been born directly as a result of a same-sex union, but uncountable numbers of our ancestors have lived to adulthood as a direct result of their gay uncle or aunt devoting their time and energy to supporting *them*, instead of establishing a family of their own. Also, it's been suggested that gayness in one gender may be a spin-off of increased reproductive fitness in the other gender - ie, a family line that produces gay boys may have daughters who give birth to more children, and vice versa.
In summary: We're only just starting to understand the way the world works. Stay tuned, if you can manage an open mind.
The only thing one could do, then, to "upset nature's perfect balance," is to try to force people to deny who they are.
On top of that, this is all just dumb. Millenials don't even really care about homosexuality; this issue has a shelf-life of 10, maybe 15 years at maximum. Unless Millenials suddenly change their minds and start hating gays (which I think even LC would probably have to concede is very unlikely), by the time our children's children are born, they're pretty much going to think it's ridiculous people ever debated this at all.
There's a real lesson to be learned here, that patience, tolerance and rational, reasoned dialogue very often wins. Hysterical tea-bagger types only appeal to the desperate.
Someone might like to try mentioning that she might want to look into how babies are born, too. You know, they aren't conceived when a priest says "I now pronounce you X." She might take a look around her at marriages that are not "about children."
No, they weren't once "about children." They were about property rights. Human beings being property--children, women. So maybe it might interest her to understand that women have fundamentally changed marriage into ALMOST a private agreement between two individuals--not about fucking, not about placenta, not about diapers, not about sexual exclusivity rights. Uh-uh. Not anymore.
And that's because of the people who have ALWAYS made those agreements without the help of any sort of officials, clergy or bureaucrats. It didn't just spontaneously happen the moment someone in a suit signed a paper and put it on the tv news. But the fact that some of these couples can get SUPREMELY fucked with by these bureaucrats and clergy (well, don't we ALL get fucked by clergy and bureaucrats?) is what's at issue. It's simply unamercian, Republicans. You don't want people to think you're (snicker) UNPATRIOTIC do you?