As I mentioned in the Morning News, last night’s Hardball featured a gay-marriage discussion between Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage (the group behind the shamelessly fear-mongering “Gathering Storm” ad) and Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, and here it is:
First impressions: Maggie Gallagher is more eloquent than I imagined, and Joe Solmonese was less eloquent than I wanted.
A key point left unaddressed is brought up by Gallagher’s repetition of the idea that “redefining marriage will change marriage forever.” This is true, and pretending it isn’t is unwise. The question is whether this disruption to the existing idea of marriage is threatening enough to deny equal rights to an entire class of citizens, and the answer is unequivocally no.
Yes, granting marriage rights to same-sex couples will “change marriage forever,” just like the civil rights movement changed public transportation forever, and the suffrage movement changed democracy forever. This is called progress, and protecting the (unfair) world that the marriage-is-only-between-a-man-and-a-woman folks have grown accustomed is in no way so pressing a concern it mandates denying equal rights to an entire group of Americans. (In other words: wrapping her brain around the new realities of 21st-century life is Ms. Gallagher’s job; it is not the government’s job to perpetuate injustice just to keep her and her ilk comfortable.)
In the same way that you’re able to suck cock. Sure.
lovely debate here. overdue.
@4: Double-edged sword you have there: there are many churches and priesthoods accepting gays as just one of the flock now. Religious persecution cutting both ways: all parishioners should be able to marry. My religion says any of the flock can get married (though doesn’t support polymory). If marriage for all isn’t made legal, are they felons? What now?
@201, et al. Children aren’t at issue: plenty of kids, and plenty of parents, are gay. Lesbian eggs are just as fertile as Bisexual eggs and hetero eggs. Some dads and moms came out after having a ‘straight’ marriage. Some used adoption. Some use donors. I know I’m dangerously making a generalization here, but I find gay parents to be better parents (as an outside observer) than straights. I think perhaps because they know they are being judged/watched by so many, or because they have pioneering spirit, and so they put the required work into the marriage/parenting.
@69: you think sperm has FEELINGS and can discern the sight of various bodily orafices? …and you want me to take your debate seriously??
The last 2 paragraphs of David’s article are so full of win.
The pro-marriage-amendment folks are just anti-marriage in my book. I’m not sure why they are so anti-marriage when so many religions and societies recommend it. Marriage is between you, your god, and your officiant anyway; The government aspect is just a paper filed somewhere and a few *cough*thousand*cough* dollars off your tax bill.
In any case: It sure must be disconcerting and terrifying to be so incredibly insecure in your sexuality AND your religion to need TV ‘pundits’, or worse, government rulebooks, to back up what you “believe” or “know” to be right. Posting here, or hiring lobbyists or watching debates doesn’t strengthen your faith or secure your sexuality. You do.
Some governments do make a business of ruling people’s lives, I know (We tend to have wars in those nations). Funny thing is, most of the laws in the USA, especially the constitutional ones, are about letting people choose their own happiness, believe their own morals, learn as much as they like, be the people they want to be, say whatever they like. It’s liberty, and we all can agree I hope, that we all love the liberty of this nation. The laws here are for granting rights and freedoms, not about taking any away. [doubters: The one amendment you can name that took away rights, was repealed.]
It’s the same annoying thing that gives of freedom of press and speech (that allows idiots to say stupid or wrong things), but the annoyances are tolerable because they are FAIR for ALL. Even kindergarteners know fair is good.
. In that same way I can laugh off/ignore anyone accusing me of ‘being’ a sexuality I’m not; I can laugh off those that aren’t of my religion, or those that try and define my ‘race’ for me …or my marriage rights. I’m secure in my relationship to God, I’m secure in who I am and secure in my heritage too. No law needs to tell me I’m right. No law is needed for truth. And anti-mariage people: there’s no need to force those who are ‘wrong’ to convert. Regardless of how much I might want to be a missionary, forcing what your religion offers, in this nation, wouldn’t be freedom. Leading by example is more important in most religions anyway. Besides, it’s survival of the fittest, and I’m not the one terrified by uncomprehension. My faith isn’t shaky. I’m calm, confident and cool. Try it sometime.
Or you can keep wasting copious amounts of time on the slog/reading the stranger with all the gays (and scatlovers and radical muslims and…), and be happy and warm in that cozy little anonymous internet closet.
It still doesn’t lead to Narnia though…
@202
You are correct. A person’s fecundity has nothing to do with their sexual orientation or parenting skills.
My post @201 was in response to The Troll With A Thousand Names (TWATN) pointing out, yet again, that gays can reproduce; my (admittedly sarcastic) point being “So what?”
Mother nature appears to want to have her gays and apparently makes that happen one way or another, genetically or otherwise.
The TWATNs among us seem to want to have it both ways: “You fags can’t reproduce! But you just won’t go away!! Dammit!”
The next point will be “Obviously you’re RECRUITING the CHIDRENS!!!” except, again, the percentage of gays remains constant throughout history regardless of whether the times are oppressive (Germany 1942–Iraq right now–Kent) or tolerant (my house).
In a better reality, the TWATN representing throughout this thread would accept that gay people always have and always will exist (regardless of how/why and in consistent percentages), get over it and move on. But apparently it’s more fun to hate/oppress/kill the “boogeymen.”
Good Lord, reading posts 202 and 203 made it worth catching up on this whole entire discussion….. Wow, great posts – thank you!
Kim, I hope you’re feeling better today, and I wish both you and Loveschild and any other Slog Christians a happy and peaceful Easter Sunday… Also, Kim, thank you especially for all the good research you posted. I did not know about the work of Evelyn Hooker, I’m abashed to admit… Thanks so much for making me aware of her and that lone, first courageous young man with the fantastically great name of ‘Sam From’……. Just, wow….
Finally, to the face-mask-jester anonymous-multi-poster: Do you consciously try to make your posts look like sideways cock-n-balls? ‘Cause, if you do, that’s pretty cool performance art, man… And, if you don’t … well then, I need a date, I guess………
There’s quite a bit of research going on right now that in families with homosexual males, FEMALES TEND TO BE MORE FERTILE.
In other words, the same genetics that make women reproduce more (more offspring) contribute to the occasional homosexual man (often fewer or no offspring). However, the reproductive gains still beat out the reproductive losses, leading to an overall increase in fertility.
The world of genetics is filled with lots of similar stories (sickle cell anemia and malaria, cystic fibrosis and cholera, etc. etc.) where something that seems like a genetic dead-end turns out to be an advantage.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/11/homose…
merry,
Happy Easter to you as well. I read an interview of Dr. Hooker and apparently it was Sammy who asked her to study him. She quoted him as saying, “We have let you see us as we are, and now it is your scientific duty to make a study of people like us.” Unfortunately, Sam From died in a car accident before her research was published.
@4, 14, 20, 28, 73, 103, 103, 128, 130, 141, 170, 173
Charlene – you have some heavy, serious personal issues to work out. The church won’t help you, and lashing out at us, your gay brothers and sisters whom you now renounce, isn’t going to help you either. I hope you find your way to a capable, objective, non-judgmental, non-christian, non-gay counselor so you can try to get your life back. You are in a very sad and lonely place.
Kim in Portland – I read every word of every one of your posts, and I learned a lot. Thank you for sharing what you found. Happy Easter.
Riz – those are excellent questions that I would love to hear answered by those who desperately insist that the purpose of marriage is to produce children. You are a rare commenter, but when you do speak up you are always eloquent and get straight to the heart of the matter. Thank you for that.
204
What percent of the current population is gay?
What was the percentage in colonial America?
In Middle Ages Europe?
In Classical Greece?
Etc
Etc
Q-How do you know?
What percent of the current population is left-handed?
What was the percentage in colonial America?
In Middle Ages Europe?
In Classical Greece?
Etc
Etc
Q – How do you know?
A – You don’t. Maybe left-handedness is spreading over the world and we’d better protect the children from this dangerous lifestyle choice.
Go back to sleep Yeek.
Dan L claims that there is/has been a constant percentage of the population that is gay.
Jen @ 208,
Happy Easter.
Seriously. Quit arguing with them. They’ve lost. Soon enough they will know that they have lost and will be miserable for the rest of their lives knowing that the great cause that they were devoted to failed and their position is now considered shameful. This is not an open question any longer.
Yeek @ 210 for the win.
@111,
You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding. I’m on record as saying I believe the extended family is better than the nuclear model. Ideally, children should be exposed to female and male role models from different generations. However, a male-female couple is not necessary for that. Single parents and same-sex couples can provide male and female role models through the extended family, friends, etc.
I did not say that teaching that children need male and female role models is bigotry. I said that your constant insistence that heterosexual couples are superior is bigotry. And for the record, I’m a STRAIGHT female.
Sure, if all couples were homosexual, the birth rate would go down (but not disappear, as people would still have planned pregnancies…but unplanned pregnancies would virtually disappear). However, this argument is meaningless because 1. At least 96% of humans are still born heterosexual and 2. You could argue that if everyone were male, the species could not continue. I don’t hear you argue that all males should do all they can to become female to continue the species!
My argument in #84 was that it is healthier for people to be who they really are in the world (as long as it isn’y something harmful). I believe that it is healthier to be a Barney Frank than a Larry Craig, more healthy to be Alek Wek than Michael Jackson.
I don’t see anything wrong with having black skin (in fact I would bet you that my husband is far darker than you) and I don’t see anything wrong with same-sex preference in sex.
In my opinion, there is no logical reason to oppose same sex marriage, thus my opinion that opposition to it is caused by bigotry. So far, no one has been able to convince me otherwise.
Although it is a separate issue, I believe that polygamy should be decriminalized in cases where everyone involved was in consent. Where polygamy is committed to perpetrate a fraud, that is a different matter.
For example, in that Muslim country I lived in, polygamy was common, but only one wife could be included on your social insurance account.
Although I don’t like the idea of polygamy, I can’t see any benefit in prosecuting people who entered into the situation voluntarily.
@Ed 213,
You are right. I post not for those who keep repeating the same tired, disproven lines again and again, but for those who are on the fence. And I think there are those who generally support gay rights, but aren’t yet convinced on the marriage issue. My posts are for aimed at them.
In rhetoric, it is said that people have different opinions because of different experiences, beliefs, and information. We can try to provide accurate information to those who are getting distorted information elsewhere. We can share our experiences to help others understand. Beliefs – these are hard to change, but mine have changed since I was a child and others’ will too, as experience and information challenge some of the negative beliefs that are forced down our throats as children.
@111, OOPS, thought my post was #84, but it was #85.
Although I agree with #84.