Newly Married Straight Couple Invites Gay Couples to Have First Dance at Wedding Reception to Protest Marriage Inequality


THANK YOU, Meg and Joe!

We are winning and there is nothing all the Brian Brown's of the world can do about it.
How stylish.

and hip.....

Is a homosexual 'marriage' Just As Good for society as a heterosexual marriage?
Lovely! :)
@2 - Yes.
@2 - Good question! Yes. Thanks for asking.
@2 Your Screenname, Thanks! I mean, it must be hard to realize that in 20 years your thinking will be considered so hateful and irrelevant as to be fringe.

At least you're accepting it with dignity and grace.
Earlier this month, I attended the wedding of friends who included a statement about marriage equality in their ceremony. Both of these lovely people have quite conservative families, but nobody seemed to bat an eye.

Yes, we're winning and it's definitely a good sign of beliefs changing for the better, but am I the only one who finds this patronizing?
I wish more people were this patronizing.
Thanks, Gang!

So, if homo 'marriages' are Just As Good
then we could substitute a Just As Good homo 'marriage'
for each and every hetero marriage and society would be no worse off.


Cause that's what Just As Good means.

So, could we?

If we substitute a Just As Good homo 'marriage'
for each and every hetero marriage
will society be the same?

Before you answer
ask Japan and Europe
about the economic and demographic consequences
of falling birthrates.....
The song choice is perfect. It should be the theme song for the marriage equality fight.

I just don't see that happening, guy! sorry!

like in state referendums, Right?

where people vote and all.

how many of those have the Gentle Folk won?

remind us.....

You know, President Romney will fight for an amendment to the US Constitution to ban homosexual 'marriage'. (just like 30 states already have)

#28 is Great!

and your dog in this fight is Obama?

the Fierce Advocate in Chief?


Wouldn't it be nice if we were older
Then we wouldn't have to wait so long
And wouldn't it be nice to live together
In the kind of world where we belong

Damn tears.

@14 - Past performance is not a guarantee of future success, or whatever. Sooner or later, you're going to have to find another line. As soon as you lose one popular vote, there goes your perfect record, and you can't come back from that kind of loss, buddy.
So, what state was the wedding in?
@18 Indiana.
@11 - So you believe half of society will turn gay somehow once marriage is legal for gay people? Is that what happened in Iowa and all of the other places where gay people can get married? Did marriage equality make straight people suddenly stop having babies? And really, zero population growth would probably be a good thing, don't you think?
@11 By your logic, if being male is just as good as being female, then we could substitue a male for every female and society would be just as well off. Since this is not the case, either being a male is not just as good as being a female, or you are an idiot.
@2: Yup.
@22: On the head.
So, if homo 'marriages' are Just As Good
then we could substitute a Just As Good homo 'marriage'
for each and every hetero marriage and society would be no worse off.
Is being a novelist just as good as being a doctor? If so, we could have every doctor quit medicine to dedicate herself to writing novels.

Cause that's what Just As Good means.
So far, your qualifications for making semantic arguments are . . . questionable.
If we substitute a Just As Good homo 'marriage' for each and every hetero marriage
will society be the same?
Don't know why such a thing would happen, but even if we grant your ludicrous and inapt scenario the credence you seem to think it deserves, we have no reason to assume that no one who married a member of the same sex would necessarily cease all heterosexual activity.

But since homosexuality occurs at essentially the same rate in all cultures, there's no reason to believe that any acceptance or recognition is likely to increase the rate at which it occurs (since proscription, including the more militant modes of such you see in Saudi Arabia and Iran, does not reduce its occurrence).


if only.

but, wow- you really hammer home our point.

kids need a dad AND a mom.

because two male or two female parents are NOT Just As Good as a mom and a dad.


not. really.

but dream on.......

homosexual doesn't mean what you seem tho think it does.....
sorry gang-

changing the rules of the game because you'll lose doesn't work....

but thanks for your comments reaffirming that homo 'marriage' is not Just As Good as Marriage.
@25 - No you make our points for us! Ha! Equivocation is fun!
I love John Green's books! I didn't know he had a tumblr!
@27 - Feel free to offer your definition. The one(s) I'm using: As applied to acts or behavior, it is sexual activity of any kind with a member of one's own sex--which is not exclusive to those who are "homosexual" as applied to persons (ask just about any former theater major). "Homosexual" as applied to persons generally means one who experiences erotic attraction and/or romantic love primarily or exclusively for members of one's own sex. Even these individuals, however, will often have had some heterosexual contact on the way to discovering that this is the baseline of his or her proclivity.
Me too. I adore John Green and all his books. After I read "The Fault in Our Stars" I wanted it for our book club but the whiners complained because it was still in hardcover, so I suggested his "Looking for Alaska." I was surprised they agreed, but they all loved it so much they then went out and bought all his books, including "The Fault in Our Stars." For awhile, we were just a John Green book club and now we are definitely a John Green fan club. Wait til I tell them he has great friends, too.




aw, gnarly!

Actually you make a good point.

The one about homosexual behavior being chosen.

Danny asserts that homosexuality is innate.
("I know it's disgusting but I can't help myself!!")
Of course you and we all know that people who claim to "be" homosexual have had lots of heterosex also.

Innate traits don't come and go.
Negroes don't go through a Chinese phase while they are in college....

Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, is a choice.

A choice the rest of society is under no compunction to recognize or subsidize...
A charming gesture, but I cannot help recalling Miss Gaunt's Calvinitst view of people being filled with a false sense of salvation so that, when they died, the surprise would be all the nastier. We are going to lose this one and really should have lost ages ago if the issue weren't such a huge cash cow. Our only hope has been that this would prove to be a tortoise and hare situation, but the big red sweep upcoming will just let the hare pull this one out of the fire. They tried to bungle this one, but even Mr Erica or Mrs Ank (assuming neither of them plays bridge) would make a grand slam holding a hand with all thirteen trumps.

I suppose I must be in Tiresias mode.

gosh, a thousand apologies- we lost you in all the mayhem.

decades of studies show that children raised by married heterosexual parents do much much better than children raised under other circumstances.

now, before you start grunting and squealing;

>the study that Al Frankum claims includes homosexuals does not,
ALL of the two parent families it surveyed were heterosexuals.

the lesbian study Danny trots out every couple of weeks
had a very small self selected grossly unrepresentative sample
used very subjective homoliberal criteria for childrearing 'success'
most of the lesbian couplets had 'divorced' before the kids got out of middle school.

again, please accept our apologies.....


apology accepted!
@42 - You are win.
You cannot ethically deprive someone of rights they deserve because of what other people MIGHT do.

- You can't keep women from voting because you are afraid women might decide they could live on their own and abandon their families (some women did)
- You can't keep schools segregated because you are concerned about violence and disruption if you integrate (all these things happened).
- You can't keep a same-sex couple from marrying because you are afraid heterosexual people might decide to stop procreating (a few probably will).

There is a reason that statues of Justice are blindfolded: Justice does NOT CARE how the rest of society will react if someone is treated fairly. Justice has always been about what individuals deserve, never about what the majority fears or wants.
Actually you make a good point.
I generally do. But it's clearly not the point you think I'm making.
The one about homosexual behavior being chosen.
All behavior is chosen. Given that homosexual orientation differs from homosexual behavior, however . . .
Danny asserts that homosexuality is innate.
Homosexuality is innate so far as we are talking about a proclivity to be primarily or solely attracted to or capable of falling in love with members of one's own sex. From there, one can certainly choose to engage in or not engage in homosexual behavior. That is, the "choices" the homosexual faces are either celibacy or engagement in sexual activity with individuals with whom one cannot possibly experience romantic or erotic satisfaction.

I realize that might not sound so bad to someone living in his mom's basement, but from here, it sounds like a pretty lousy way to fly.
("I know it's disgusting but I can't help myself!!")
I can't recall having heard any of my many, many gay friends and colleagues suggest that they find the sexual activity they enjoy disgusting; nor have I ever conflated the notion of orientation being innate (after all, MOST of my orientations are innate; I don't "choose" to not like olives, for instance, though I make choices according to that preference as to whether or not I will eat them in any given situation; I don't "choose" to prefer Lawrence to Hardy, Faulkner to Hemingway, or Sleepytime Gorilla Museum to the Eagles, but I can choose whether or not to spend my book money according to those proclivities).
Of course you and we all know that people who claim to "be" homosexual have had lots of heterosex also.
Not at all surprising, given that it's the norm. I'm left-handed, but there are a LOT of things I had to learn how to do right-handed, simply because so many of our everyday tools and disciplines are designed for right-handed people. While I can use right-handed scissors or box right-handed, though, I'm not inclined to suggest that there oughtn't be left-handed scissors, or that aspiring boxers oughtn't be able to learn from an experienced instructor to fight southpaw.
Innate traits don't come and go.
Traits are distinct from behaviors, though one's behavior bears some relation to one's traits.
Negroes don't go through a Chinese phase while they are in college....
I suppose that depends on whether we're talking about race or culture.
Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, is a choice.
Again, yes. And again, homosexual orientation does not appear to be. Just like living in your mom's basement is a choice, but being too illiterate and socially dysfunctional to survive outside of it is not.
Please don't feed the troll....
OutInBumF @ 46- generally you're right about not feeding trolls, but sometimes it is worth responding, for three reasons-
1) It asserts to the opposition that crap will be challenged. They can post what they like, but it won't necessarily go unremarked.
2) It provides an alternative viewpoint for the undecideds out there. When there actually IS a controversy, it's good to teach it.
3) It also provides a resource for those on the same side as the responder, when the response is reasoned and well expressed. A good, succinct argument can be borrowed for use in later exchanges elsewhere.

In the case of 'alwaysadifferentusername' above- I've seen them before on this site, so reason 1 doesn't really apply.
Reason 2 might, but given the overall nature of the site there probably aren't many 'undecideds' on this matter.
That leaves reason 3- and for me at least that validates thelyamhound's posts. I've differentiated between traits and behaviour before in such discussions; but their 'lefthandedness' analogy is one I hadn't previously thought of because I'm righthanded and sometimes dreadfully dextrocentric...
I've also used thelyamhound's example of not liking a particular foodstuff as an example of an innate trait (lentils, in my case; I LOVE olives), but had managed to miss demonstrating how that innate trait in me affected my behaviour in relation to that foodstuff. I can eat lentils, but I don't like it and so avoid it. Similarly, a gay woman can have sex with a man, but won't like it and will avoid it.

So- Thank you, thelyamhound, for your posts. I fear that you won't get through to 'alwaysadifferentusername' at all, but you will get- and have got- through to other readers.
Trolls aside, this continues a trend of winning. America is changing, and as the large group of conservatives die off, a new generation and new thinking takes over. The younger you are, the less intimidated you are by the GLBTQ people and culture. In the meantime, the arrogant trolls will walk the earth.
You cannot ethically deprive someone of rights they deserve because of what other people MIGHT do.

- You can't keep poly folk from from marrying the people they love because you are afraid we will run out of women (marry all you want- we'll make more....).
@49 - Far as I'm concerned, let those poly people marry. I've already got the woman I want, and I doubt any mulleted tool could compete for anyone worth my time anyway.

You also ignore that polygamy--let alone mere polyamory--includes both polyandry and polygyny, meaning that legally recognizing plural marriage/polygamy could take men off the market as easily as it could women. I think people get confused on the issue because the LDS model is the only First World example of plural marriage at hand.

That said, polygamy is not the issue under discussion. It isn't just unnecessary to take into account every group that might be interested in legal recognition of a right or rite when lobbying for a specific group; it is, in fact, cumbersome and fundamentally counterintuitive to do so. This is why we oughtn't to fault the civil rights movement of the '60s for failing to adequately account for gays. Fact is, there are advantages to keeping a mission statement nice and specific.
We ignore nothing, dear.

We are mocking Danny's stated position on polygamy.

The issue is Marriage Equality. And Hypocrisy.

When those who claim the moral high ground discriminate against others of the same plight it leaves an off odor.....