Consequences of Gay Marriage

from GraphJam

Universal Healthcare = Universal Divorce

"Obama gave me healthcare and now I'm leaving your ass!"

I really have to wonder about the state of other people's marriages. I also really have to wonder if some people just don't realize how much of themselves they reveal when they predict/complain about certain things.





Take, for example, The Playful Walrus' latest screed on same sex marriage and healthcare reform:

Advocates for neutering state marriage licensing have argued that it is
necessary so someone can be added to their same-sex partner's health insurance
and for hospital visitation.

However, it is now being established by federal
legislation that 1. the federal government can dictate the smalled details of
health care, and 2. everyone will have health insurance.

So now a neutered
marriage license is not necessary to obtain those things health insurance or
hospital visitation.

Of course, there will now be less incentive for people
in general to marry or work out conflicts and stay married, or care about
keeping their jobs, for that matter.

The government continues to become a
parent/spouse/pastor, to the detriment of the family.

Now I have to wonder, is The Playful Walrus fully aware that his wife is only sticking around for the health care and is now free to run!, run like the wind!, or is this just a vague suspicion in the back of his mind?

Not a Family

bigotry, gay, marriage, traditional, same sex,
"Traditional marriage" advocates keep running into the same problem: how to define "family/marriage" in a way that excludes gays, but doesn't piss off childless heteros, like me. See, you don't want to get into the issue of "well, families only include children", because then you have to field questions like, "okay then, should we test people's fertility before allowing them to marry? what about older married couples in which the wife is menopausal and can no longer have children- should we force them to divorce? not allow older people to marry at all?"

Eventually, if you start arguing that family=children, but don't exclude infertile or deliberately childless hetero marriages, you have to admit that you just don't like gay people. Thusly:

The family is not easy to define, but I define it as group that includes dependents, children.

So, my family is not a family, as it does not include children. However, looking at the above, we could easily define a gay commune that includes children as a family.

Ah well, it's not like clear thinking is a desirable trait amongst bigots. Oh, Opine Editorials, you never fail to amuse.

An Affront to Democracy

fail, democracy, free speech, same sex, marriage, gay, traditional, mccain,

Good Sense Politics is deeply concerned about the state of democracy. Yes, democracy itself. Apparently, if Cindy McCain supports same sex marriage, democracy just disappears. Possibly leaving a hole in the very fabric of space time itself, though (s)he didn't specify.

Cindy and Meghan McCain have been published in ads supporting the overthrow of California's democratically approved proposition 8. Not only is this an affront on traditional marriage, but on the very foundations of democracy and free speech.

Apparently, rich people supporting same sex marriage will . . . um, yeah, I dunno. I mean, if challenging established laws is an affront to democracy, well, then . . . it's not actually democracy. That's how democracy works. The people have the right to change existing laws. That is, in fact, the very basis of democracy.

As for free speech, I'm not sure how the McCains' use of their right to free speech is an affront to free speech. I keep rereading the First Amendment, and there's nothing in there about it being limited to speech that agrees with anyone in particular. So, fail and fail.

Does anyone get the impression that most of the people bleating about protecting democracy and free speech don't actually like democracy and free speech?

The Kids Are Alright

children, gay, marriage, traditional, same sex,
For all the traditional marriage advocates' hysterical shrieking about The Children, it turns out the children of gay couples end up the same as the children of hetero couples. Much ado about nothing, as usual.

In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents. They show no increased incidence of psychiatric disorders, are just as popular at school and have just as many friends. While girls raised by lesbian mothers seem slightly more likely to have more sexual partners, and boys slightly more likely to have fewer, than those raised by heterosexual mothers, neither sex is more likely to suffer from gender confusion nor to identify themselves as gay.

Reality: infinity, Traditional Marriage Advocates: 0

Reaping What Others Sow

hatred, bigotry, traditional, marriage, gay, same sex, dna, ufi,

Since the beginning, traditional marriage advocates have claimed that preventing gays from marrying has nothing to do with bigotry against gays. "We like the gays! They're our friends! We just don't think they should get to marry."

Bullshit.

Now that bigotry is law in Maine, the true face of traditional marriage has come out into the open. It's not pretty.

goinbroke of kingfield, ME

Nov 11, 2009 9:37 AM

Does anyone know where we can get window stickers that indicate that this particular business is not homosexual friendly? think of it as an anti-rainbow flag. It's about time we "came out" and let the homosexuals from away know how Mainers feel about seeing their sick side show act in our cities and towns.

See above, goinbroke. We did that for many years in this country, to blacks, hispanics, and the irish to name a few. It's something we used to be ashamed of. We still should be ashamed.

Chinook of portland, ME

Nov 8, 2009 9:41 PM
goinbroke of kingfield, ME Nov 8, 2009 8:51 PM

Bob, ... ...Also the next time you are in a business or a resturant and are waited on by some flaming gay guy or lesbian, ask for another server. Simple enough as the customer has the right to be "uncomfortable" as they say. Nothing personal just go away. Mainers can vote with their pocketbook and the homosexuals will get the message and leave. This happens all the time in San Francisco.----------

(What does a "flaming lesbian" look like? I'm unable to picture that.) So, people in San Francisco leave restaurants when the waiter is gay? All the time? Nobody eats out in San Fran, I guess. Also, if you ask for another server in that situation, I sincerely hope the cook wipes his ass with your food, because spitting in your food doesn't quite seem enough.

I very much fear that gays in Maine will soon be reaping what people like the DNA, UFI, the Catholic Church, the Mormons, et al. have sown: hatred. The bigots have won, and now they feel free to put up "No Gays Allowed" posters and refuse to interact with them in public. We can all guess what happens next, and I will be holding each and every one of you bigots personally responsible.

UPDATE: Are you missing valuable opportunities to express your bigotry while barbecuing, walking your dog or just breathing? Then buy one of these lovely MAN + WOMAN ONLY tshirts, aprons or doggy shirts!

Somebody keep me away from the internet before I do myself harm.

Hilarity Ensues

NPR, stand, marriage, gay, same sex, maine, bigotry,
In an amusing development, Stand for Marriage Maine misused National Public Radio content and is now in trouble.

Bigots acting badly? I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!

National Public Radio is demanding that the Stand for Marriage Maine group stop using its content in television ads supporting a people’s veto of a new same-sex marriage law.

Content from an NPR story was used in Stand for Marriage Maine’s latest television ad, which began airing Oct. 16 and suggests that gay relationships and gay sex may be discussed in schools if the law isn’t overturned.

The Sept. 13, 2004 story, titled “Massachsuetts Schools Grapple with Including Gay & Lesbian Relationships in Sex Education,” was part of an All Things Considered program, according to Dana Davis Rehm, NPR’s senior vice president for marketing, communications, and external relations.

“NPR did not license use of this story or its content, and would certainly not have licensed or permitted it if we had been asked,” Rehm said in a statement. “NPR is a highly respected news organization and does not allow its content to be used by political or advocacy groups. Such use is harmful to the integrity and independence of NPR. NPR does allow – even encourage -- personal, non-commercial use of our content, so long as it is not modified, and not used in a manner that suggests NPR promotes or endorses a cause, idea, Web site, product or service. The use made by Stand for Marriage Maine violated all of these terms.”

Stand for Marriage Maine spokesman Scott Fish said today the group has requested the specific complaint from NPR.

“Once we’ve had a chance to digest it, we will issue a response,” said Fish.

Clue to the bigots: god can't testify for you in Court. You need to obey the laws just like the rest of us. Oh, and you might want to hire someone who can read, because NPR's terms of use are clearly stated on its website.

Think of the Children!!!one!!!

bigotry, racism, homophobia, same sex, gay, marriage, traditional,
A Louisiana Justice of the Peace refused to issue a marriage license for an interracial couple because of the children- doesn't that argument sound familiar? And yes, this did happen in 2009.

HAMMOND, La. - A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have.

Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

So, "the children" and "[such] marriages do not last long". Why does that sound familiar? Oh, yeah, you hear them all the time in relationship to same sex marriages. I just didn't expect to hear this about (what I thought was) the settled issue of interracial marriage.

Justice Bardwell's beliefs are based entirely on anecdotal evidence- sound familiar?

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

Then we get the same odd notion of equality you'll hear from "traditional marriage" advocates:

If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.

So tell me, how is this any different? How are the arguments against same sex marriage any different?

Furniture Metaphors

metaphor, euripides, gay, marriage, same sex, homophobia, homosexual,

Euripides, our friend at Self Evident Truths proposes the following metaphor to explain why same sex marriage is bad: Dressers made from two trees are better than end tables made from one.

First of all, I assume he means that the dressers are made from two different species of trees, rather than two trees of the same species, because marriage never involves one person. In response to that, I would like to point out that making furniture from two different species of trees has to do with the look of the furniture rather than its strength. The strength of furniture has to do with how it's constructed. You may want to combine two different color woods, or woods with different grain patterns to create a specific artistic effect, but that wouldn't make anything stronger. So, metaphor fail on that one.

Once upon a time there was a cabinet maker. He produced fine, wood cabinets for the people of his village and they all came to him whenever they needed a cabinet for their home. He took great pride in producing cabinets, using wood from two different trees and fitting the crafted pieces together into a seamless union. His cabinets had many drawers and room enough to protect the things the villagers needed to store. The cabinets were strong and useful, built to last a lifetime.

Many villagers were glad to have a useful and beautiful cabinet in their home. The villagers used the cabinet's drawers to protect their possessions from dirt and bugs, filth and corruption. With care, a cabinet lasted a lifetime, protecting the villagers' possessions and making the villagers happy.

He uses the word "cabinet", which to me is what I have in my kitchen, attached to the walls, which perhaps this is just a regional difference in the way words are used, but to me, he's talking about a dresser or wardrobe, and it is what is pictured in his post.

I assume the "possessions" in question are either love or children. I can't quite tell. I also can't see how a properly made dresser would protect from "corruption", or how marriage protects from dirt or bugs. Oooh- maybe "bugs" is code for AIDS. Fail again. In Africa, AIDS is a disease of heterosexuals, many of them married. I'm still not sure what "dirt" is in this metaphor, though.

Yet, over the years, the cabinet maker discovered that many of the villagers didn't properly care for their cabinets. They no longer realized that even the best-made cabinets needed care and protection. Instead, some villagers left their cabinets exposed to the weather, to dry and crack. Some left their cabinets exposed to rot and filth. Termites ate away at others. Neglected, many of the cabinets broke to pieces. Some villagers even destroyed their cabinets outright in fits of anger or abuse. Some left their cabinets empty and unused, then threw them away because they could find no use for them.

Many villagers, whose cabinets decayed, blamed the cabinet maker for not building the cabinets strong enough. Even more villagers blamed the cabinets themselves, thinking that cabinets weren't worth the price and care needed to maintain them. Of course, the corrupted and broken cabinets weren't the cabinet maker's, nor the cabinet's fault. Neither were responsible for the villagers' neglect or abuse.

The cabinet maker shook his head in sad bewilderment at the villagers who blamed him or his fine cabinets. In neglecting or abusing the cabinets, the villagers blamed everyone but themselves.

So, how many people think dressers are outdoor furniture? Have you ever seen a dresser in someone's front yard? (If yes, I want to know what else was in the front yard. I'm guessing engine block.) Also, termites rarely eat furniture, but that's not really neglect, unless Euripides lives in an area where checking your furniture for termites is common practice. Who is exposing furniture to "rot" and "filth"? What does that even mean? Are they storing garbage in the dressers? Who does that? Who breaks their furniture and then blames the maker? Does anyone think furniture is rated to withstand baseball bats?

These villagers are either stupid or psychopathic.

Then a new "cabinet maker" comes to town with his newfangled "cabinets": end tables made from one tree! How many trees does it take to make an end table, anyway? I mean, has Euripides even seen an end table? They're not very big. Depending on the tree, you could probably make several end tables from one tree. Does anyone put an end table to the same use as a dresser? Well, no. They're different things for different purposes. In fact, most people own both a dresser and an end table, which is where the metaphor really falls apart.

According to the stranger, as soon as he set up shop to sell his new cabinets, the villagers certainly would not want any other kind.

That's ridiculous, too. Why would a heterosexual couple not want to get married because a homosexual couple could get married? Or does Euripides assume that every human being on the planet is secretly gay, and we're all just waiting for same sex marriage to be legal, and then it'll be a big gay planetwide party? That says more about you than anyone else, my dear.

What follows is a ridiculous passage in which the original cabinet maker is sued and charged with hate speech and "unconstitutional acts" for pointing out that end tables are not dressers. Uh, yeah. Look, as long as Fred Phelps and his merry bad of morons are allowed to do their thing, you don't have to worry, Euripides. Unless you're planning on doing something worse than Westboro Baptist already does, which would amost certainly involve throwing poo.

Metaphors: ur doin' it rong.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Was Confused

discrimination, mlk, playful, walrus, opine, editorials, same sex, gay, marriage, traditional, stupid, asshat,

Or so says The Playful Walrus of the Opine Editorials in his latest exercise in sophistry.

The truth is, we all discriminate. We couldn't function if we didn't. We discriminate against staying in bed longer or getting up earlier. We discriminate between eating this or eating that. We discriminate in whether or not to ask any given person for a date or whether or not to accept a request for a date. In decisions large and small, we discriminate - and we should. In addition, all of our laws discriminate - separating what is legal from what is illegal.

It's almost like Walrus just now realized that words frequently have more than one meaning. Or that he thinks we haven't realized this yet.

The definition of "discriminate" that Walrus is using is a valid one. It's the second definition of the word: to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.

However, we all, including Walrus, know damn well that this second definition is not the definition in play when discussing same sex marriage. That would a use of the first definition of discriminate: to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality.

If we accept Walrus' use of the second definition of discriminate in this context, then we also have to argue that Martin Luther King, Jr. was confused. Apparently, the entire civil rights movement was based on Mr. King's inability to grasp that discrimination is a good thing, without which society would grind to a halt, and possibly explode. I doubt even The Playful Walrus is enough of an idiot to make that assertion, but I have surprised by his level of asshattery before, so don't count on it.

We'll All Be Gay!

gay, homosexual, opine, editorials, stupid, homophobia, marriage, same sex, traditional,
Homophobes can be amusing, especially when they whip out that most disturbing of "arguments" against gay marriage/gay people in general: if we let gay people just be gay everywhere then we'll all be gay!

This "argument" hinges on one of the oddest ideas I've ever heard: heterosexuality is an act. No one is really heterosexual, we're all just pretending due to cultural norms. Therefore, if being gay were completely societally acceptable, like wearing jeans or drinking coffee, we'd all throw off the shackles of heteroconformity and dance gayly through the streets, waving rainbow flags, wearing nothing but lavender feather boas and kissing members of our own sex with wild abandon.

No offense to my gay friends, but I don't care how normative homosexuality becomes, I'm heterosexual. In fact, were I to be transported to Opposite Universe, where heterosexuality is treated the way homosexuality is in this universe, I'd still be hetero.

Sexual orientation is not a choice, people. It goes both ways. Homosexuals don't choose to be homosexuals and heterosexuals do not choose to be heterosexuals. We are what we are. Roberto, of the Opine Editorials tmi's the world with his differing opinion.

When people will be taught from an early age that gay is acceptable, gay is good, there is nothing wrong or bad about it, even how pleasurable and fun it can be…… allow me to explain. Roberto is pissed off that some people want to teach children about homosexuality the same way as heterosexuality. as soon as we start teaching children the joys of hetero sex, you let me know. how many of them, when reaching sexual maturity, might not be tempted to experiment with homosexuality? and? i just don't care, to be honest. what's the difference between experimenting with homosexual sex and experimenting with heterosexual sex? besides, the fact is, very few people that aren't inclined that way are going to give it a try. asshat.

After all, why not? because if you're hetero, you're just not into that.No educator or public instance will have ever taught them that there is anything wrong, bad, or immoral about this because there isn't. once this is a policy approved and imposed by government. SOCIALIST FACIST KENYANS WILL MAKE YOUR KIDS GAY! In fact, it will probably be just the opposite! okay, pronouns are good and all, but you need to restate the original noun occasionally for clarity.

And what effect will this have on the time-honored ideal of the sexual relationship as the union of a man and a woman legitimately united in a bond of wondrous, life-giving power? is this the basis of a comic book? seriously, wtf are you talking about?

It will utterly corrupt this ideal! It will desecrate it! you used the same pronoun twice in one sentence to mean two different things. English fail. It will make impossible any ideal of the the sexual relationship once it is divorced from procreation and leave a gaping hole that will invite sexual anarchy. And sexual anarchy is simply anarchy! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! oh, that was awesome. i'm definitely going to have to give some serious thought to joining the anarchist movement. i had no idea it would be so fun.

The politics of homosexuality is an appallingly corruptive force! and you are an appallingly ignorant little man, but you don't see me complaining.

Roberto, that closet has a door. Use it.

Teh Gai, Now Bad for Wimminz, too!

homophobia, homosexual, marriage, rome, berman, gay, same sex, traditional,
Joshua Berman believes that if homosexuality gains widespread accepted in society, men will no longer have sex with women and WE'RE ALL DOOMED! DOOMED, I TELL YOU!!1!!!eleventy!!!

Just a clue, Mr. Berman, if you prefer to have sex with men, and don't really find women sexually exciting at all, you're homosexual. That's it. I could have sex with women. I don't, because women don't do it for me. No matter how acceptable homosexuality becomes, women aren't going to be any more sexually attractive to me.

In other words, Mr. Berman, it's not society, it's you.

Men, we learn from ancient Rome, will enjoy sex with other men, if there is no social censure. Now, all of this should be fine for us as well -- after all, we should let free choice and tolerance reign.

The real problems begin, however, when we read what these writers had to say about marriage. Consider this piece from the first century BCE poet Catullus (Carmen 61:134-141), in which the poet addresses himself to a bridegroom on the eve of his nuptials:

"You are said to find it hard, Perfumed bridegroom, to give up Smooth-skinned boys, but give them up... We realize you've only known Permitted pleasures: husbands, though, Have no right to the same pleasures."

The social history behind this piece is clear: once they've experienced sex with other men, Catullus tells us, men are unsatisfied with what their new wives provide them. Notice that the poet is unconcerned about the husband's dallying with other women -- it's the other men around that threaten the marital union.

. . .

The losers from all this will be the vast majority of women. With full social sanction given to homoerotic activity, the historical precedent suggests that tomorrow's women will have a harder time finding and holding on to suitable men. As women will suffer, so will the vitality and stability of the nuclear family.

Is there anything to say about the above other than, "That closet has a door, Mr. Berman, open it."?

Morality Recession

sally, kern, united states, theocracy, democracy, recession, stupid, bible, homophobia, homosexual, same sex, debauchery
State Representative Sally Kern (R) of Oklahoma is apparently all ten shades of crazy, as evidenced by her explanation of the recession. (Hint: it does not involve securitizing mortgages or lack of oversight of financial markets.)

The “Oklahoma Citizen’s Proclamation for Morality” includes this language about the Democrats and the president:

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and

WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and

WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and

WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and

WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;

This isn't just crazy because she's blaming a recession on debauchery, it's crazy because most of the things on that list aren't even vaguely true.

The United States is not the world leader in abortions, Russia is. Russians have twice as many abortions as Usians. In the US, conservative states consume the most pornography, but Germany hosts the most online porn. As for same sex marriage, the US lags behind Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden. I have no idea why she thinks the US leads in sex trafficking, but that's not even close to true. Approximately 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders each year, with 14,500 to 17,500 trafficked into the U.S.

Child abuse certainly occurs in the US, but we by no means rule the world in child abuse. The US does not engage in child labor, female genital mutilation, child marriage, nor do children serve as soldiers in the US.

Next on Kern's list o' teh crazee is the old saw about the US as a Christian nation, which I'm sick of dealing with, followed by the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives. I highly doubt Kern follows any of those admonitions aside from the one about homosexuality, and that's only because she happens to be hetero. Does Kern really not eat shrimp or pork? Kern never wears clothing made out of mixed threads? The list goes on and on, and I doubt Kern is familiar with any of it.

Two theocracy posts in one day. I live in the US, people.

The Opine Editorials Support Incest!

incest, homophobia, homosexual, marriage, same sex, stupid,
Probably not, but op-ed, in all his fucktarded glory, made it appear that another blogger does by cleverly replacing the word "GLBT" with "incest" in his comment. (I actually had to go read the original comment to make sure the guy wasn't seriously promoting incest. Disgraceful, op-ed, just disgraceful.)

First of all, the difference between incest and homosexuality is simple: incest produces nasty genetic diseases. You can see it with purebred dogs and you can see it with the royal families in Europe and the whole hemophilia mess. The Playful Walrus argued that not all marriages produce children, but you have to be prepared for the fact that heterosexual sex will produce children even with the careful use of birth control, so suck it, TPW.

Secondly, editing someone's comment so they look like a disgusting pervert purely to prove a point that has been debunked ad nauseum is sleazy at best. At best, op-ed. You should not be proud of this.

I'm gonna go bathe now.

The Arguments, They're Getting Weird

homophobia, traditional, marriage, gay, same sex, stupid, dna,
It's almost like the antigay (traditional) marriage crowd has run out of vaguely logical arguments and debunked science, and have been forced to choose between two courses of action: really weird arguments or yelling FAG! at the top of their lungs.

From Euripides we have Some Guy in a 3,000 Year Old Poem Said Stuff:

I was reading Victor Davis Hanson and John Heath's book Who Killed Homer? and found this gem. Odysseus, the hero of the Odyssey encounters a young woman, Nausicaa, on the beach. In speaking with her, he gives a speech about the values of married life:

Nothing is better, he suggests, than when a husband and wife share a house and their hearts, "a great pain to their enemies [the ill-minded ones] and a joy to their friends [the well-minded ones], and they themselves are highly esteemed" (p. 191).

I haven't read the Oddysey in a while, but how many times did Oddyseus cheat on his wife? I can think of Calypso and Circe right off the top of my head. Beyond that, marriage among the ancient Greeks had about as much to do with modern US marriage as a firefly has to do with nuclear power.

From PomegranateApple we get Marriage Fills Chairs (and we wouldn't want empty chairs, now would we?):

My friends always laugh when they walk into the house where I live. There are so many chairs. (You can’t see the rest of the room. There are more chairs.) Way more chairs than we need in the house. I mean, it’s funny.

It normal to me, because growing up, whenever I visited my grandparents’ house: they were never enough chairs.

Ummmm . . . marriage doesn't fill chairs, people do. I guess gay people can't get a roomful of people together to fill up chairs?

The every amusing Opine Editorials gives us a title and a link. When Young Men Are Scarce, They're More Likely to Play the Field Than to Propose. In other news, if the only ice cream available is vanilla, I'll take vanilla. If there are 31 flavors available, I'll probably pick something else.

The good here is that these arguments make for amusing reading. The bad is, soon they'll be left with nothing but yelling FAG!

Oh, C'mon, You Knew I'd Mock Her Eventually, Right?

carrie prejean, traditional, marriage, gay, same sex, homophobia, california,

Carrie Prejean's open letter on Big Hollywood:

Let me begin by saying I treasure the opportunity I’ve had to represent the great State of California, and I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to the thousands of Californians except the gay ones, and other Americans, I have met and who have stood with me through this controversial firestorm um, the firestorm was controversial?. One of the many enduring enduring? as in "lasts a long time"? sure you weren't thinking of "endearing"? things about being Miss California USA as opposed to Miss California Russia? was the opportunity to get to meet and know so many wonderful people not the gay ones. i don't understand why they were so mean to me. I would not be the strong, courageous woman bwahahahahaha what courage? your courage in getting breast implants or your strength in parading around half naked? I am today without your support, and prayers.

I would like to thank Mr. Donald Trump and his organization for his support uh, he fired you and defending me HE FIRED YOU through the most challenging time of my life what are you, like 20? come talk to me after becoming homeless or developing a life threatening illness, you spoiled brat. I am so grateful for him "to"?, and the opportunity I’ve had to get to know him. I admire, and respect him. you know he fired you, right? they did tell you that? I wish Tami Farrell the best; I know she will do a great job.

I hope Americans watching this story unfold, take away the most important lesson I have learned through all of this when your 15 minutes of fame come up, you jump on them like a starving dog on a rib roast: nothing is more important than standing up for what you believe in if you can figure out what that is, no matter what the cost may be. you know, like anne frank. I’ve done my best under the difficult circumstances of being paid lots of money to spout hate and wear clothes to handle the vicious attacks with integrity and show respect to others except gay others, even those who don’t agree with me.

I worked in good faith to meet my responsibilities as Miss California USA. I have met every scheduled appearance, and responsibility, as recently as May 31st. 11 days ago I have followed the proper protocol requested of me except for accepting work from outside organizations and haven’t made any appearances or speaking engagements without the consent or approval from the Miss California USA or Miss Universe Organizations. as recently as 11 days ago I have not signed with any book publisher or taken on any business proposals. after may 31 As of today, June 11, 2009, I have done everything possible to honor my contract. except, you know, fulfill it.

I am proud to be an American, and blessed to have had the opportunity to exercise my freedom of speech. no, we all get the opportunity, every minute of every day. you don't need a microphone and fuckme pumps for it to count as freedom of speech. I am excited and looking forward to where God leads me in the future. I know He has big plans for me. if you get my drift. I am proud to be the strong woman God and plastic surgeons has molded me to be. I will always stand for the truth, that i'd be a bigot if i could figure out exactly what it is i think respectfully, and never back down.

Thank you and God Bless,

Carrie Prejean

I'm gonna miss Carrie. She's been so much fun.

You're Not Really Making That Argument, Are You?

sam schulman, misogyny, women, feminism, gay, marriage, same sex, homophobia,
Sam Schulman argues, in a screed against gay marriage, that gay marriage is bad because it bypasses antiquated notions of the rights of women. (And by antiquated, I mean people 100 years ago would have found them old fashioned.)

The first is the most important: It is that marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality. The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage. Yes, Sam, because married women are never raped or degraded. Ever. In the history of time. And if we let the gays marry, there will be rape everywhere. Everywhere! Do you suppose Sam thinks that all rapists are married gay men? This is why marriage between men and women has been necessary in virtually every society ever known. It may have existed in most societies, that doesn't make it necessary. Marriage, whatever its particular manifestation in a particular culture or epoch , is essentially about who may and who may not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult, and is also about how her adulthood--and sexual accessibility--is defined.

And here we're have Sam's main point: women themselves cannot control who they have sex with, that's the job of men, specifically their fathers and their husbands. In Sam's mind, the thought that I control my own sexuality and choose my own partners is unthinkable, and shouldn't be allowed. This is so misogynistic I don't really know what to say, other than to hope Sam doesn't have any daughters.

Again, until quite recently, the woman herself had little or nothing to say about this, while her parents and the community to which they answered had total control. this was not a good thing, Sam. The guardians of a female child or young woman had a duty to protect her virginity until the time came when marriage was permitted or, more frequently, insisted upon. because virginity was a commodity, Sam. This reduced women to the status of objects for sale, not human beings. and that's not a good thing, either. This may seem a grim thing for the young woman yes, Sam, it is a grim thing. As a human being, I deserve the same rights of self determination as any man.--if you think of how the teenaged Natalie Wood was not permitted to go too far with Warren Beatty in Splendor in the Grass. your comparing a system of degradation and sex-based slavery to a fucking movie?! But the duty of virginity can seem like a privilege, even a luxury, if you contrast it with the fate of child-prostitutes in brothels around the world. false dichotomy. virgin for sale and child rape are not the only two choices. there's a whole panorama of fun in between. No wonder that weddings tend to be regarded as religious ceremonies in almost every culture: They celebrate the completion of a difficult task for the community as a whole. keeping penises out of girls' vaginas.

This most profound aspect of marriage--protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex--is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage. well, i suppose we could sell lesbian girls to other lesbians in the same manner, though i'm not sure why we'd want to. Virginity until marriage, arranged marriages, the special status in the way the status of blacks under jim crow was "special" of the sexuality of one partner but not the other (and her protection from the other sex)--these motivating forces for marriage do not apply to same-sex lovers. why should they? they don't apply to people living in the twenty-first century at all, whether gay, straight or somewhere in between.

The whole post is like this, and I can only take so much misogyny in one day, but nowhere does Sam prove that antiquated notions of the rights of women in any way are good arguments against same sex marriage.

I will leave you with this gem, though:

And is the public, having accepted so rapidly all these rights [that gay people now have] that have made gays not just "free" but our neighbors,

Yes, Sam, you never had gay neighbors before this. Uh-huh.

Live Free or Die

new hampshire, gay, marriage, same sex,

Same sex marriage is now legal in New Hampshire. Live free or die, bichez!

Blowing Maggie Gallagher's Mind

herm, ferm, merm, hermaphrodite, homosexual, gender, same sex, fausto-sterling, intersexual
I came across an article that may very well blow your mind, and will hopefully have the same effect on traditional marriage advocates that salt has on slugs. (Yes, that does work.)

Anne Fausto-Sterling, a Professor of Biology and Gender Studies in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology and Biochemistry at Brown University and Chair of the Faculty Committee on Science & Technology Studies, wrote an article 1993 proposing three additional human sexes. That's right, kids, humans aren't just available in vanilla or chocolate, they come in 5, or more, flavors.

She begins the article with an interesting anecdote from US history:

In 1843 Levi Suydam, a twenty-three-year-old resident of Salisbury, Connecticut, asked the town board of selectmen to validate his right to vote as a Whig in a hotly contested local election. The request raised a flurry of objections from the opposition party, for reasons that must be rare in the annals of American democracy: it was said that Suydam was more female than male and thus (some eighty years before suffrage was extended to women) could not be allowed to cast a ballot. To settle the dispute a physician, one William James Barry, was brought in to examine Suydam. And, presumably upon encountering a phallus, the good doctor declared the prospective voter male. With Suydam safely in their column the Whigs won the election by a majority of one.

Barry's diagnosis, however, turned out to be somewhat premature. Within a few days he discovered that, phallus notwithstanding, Suydam menstruated regularly and had a vaginal opening. Both his/her physique and his/her mental predispositions were more complex than was first suspected. S/he had narrow shoulders and broad hips and felt occasional sexual yearnings for women. Suydam's "'feminine propensities, such as a fondness for gay colors, for pieces of calico, comparing and placing them together, and an aversion for bodily labor, and an inability to perform the same, were remarked by many," Barry later wrote. It is not clear whether Suydam lost or retained the vote, or whether the election results were reversed.

So, almost a century and a half ago, the whole "what is sex? what is gender?" bullshit was going on- and we still haven't resolved it. Yeesh.

For some time medical investigators have recognized the concept of the intersexual body. But the standard medical literature uses the term intersex as a catch-all for three major subgroups with some mixture of male and female characteristics: the so-called true hermaphrodites, whom I call herms, who possess one testis and one ovary (the sperm- and egg-producing vessels, or gonads); the male pseudohermaphrodites (the "merms"), who have testes and some aspects of the female genitalia but no ovaries; and the female pseudohermaphrodites (the "ferms"), who have ovaries and some aspects of the male genitalia but lack testes. Each of those categories is in itself complex; the percentage of male and female characteristics, for instance, can vary enormously among members of the same subgroup. Moreover, the inner lives of the people in each subgroup-- their special needs and their problems, attractions and repulsions-- have gone unexplored by science. But on the basis of what is known about them I suggest that the three intersexes, herm, merm and ferm, deserve to be considered additional sexes each in its own right. Indeed, I would argue further that sex is a vast, infinitely malleable continuum that defies the constraints of even five categories.

You have to wonder what the asshats at NOM and every traditional gender role church would do if confronted with the sudden "appearance" of three additional sexes. Are males still on charge? Of everyone? Between a herm and a merm, who should stay home with the kids? Should ferms wear dresses exclusively? What would count as cross dressing for a herm? What exactly would be a same sex marriage in that circumstance? Would ferms and merms be able to marry, but merms and males not be able to marry? What about males and herms?

It fairly boggles the mind.

The incidences of merms, ferms and herms (intersexuals) may be a lot higher than you might think.

Not surprisingly, it is extremely difficult to estimate the frequency of intersexuality, much less the frequency of each of the three additional sexes: it is not the sort of information one volunteers on a job application. The psychologist John Money of Johns Hopkins University, a specialist in the study of congenital sexual-organ defects, suggests intersexuals may constitute as many as 4 percent of births. As I point out to my students at Brown University, in a student body of about 6,000 that fraction, if correct, implies there may be as many as 240 intersexuals on campus-- surely enough to form a minority caucus of some kind.

Where are all the DNAers on this issue? Hell, chances are, unless Euripides teaches at a very small college indeed, that he's taught, and likely is teaching right now, a herm, merm or ferm.

In reality though, few such students would make it as far as Brown in sexually diverse form. Recent advances in physiology and surgical technology now enable physicians to catch most intersexuals at the moment of birth.

Almost at once such infants are entered into a program of hormonal and surgical management so that they can slip quietly into society as "normal" heterosexual males or females. I emphasize that the motive is in no way conspiratorial. The aims of the policy are genuinely humanitarian, reflecting the wish that people be able to "fit in" both physically and psychologically In the medical community, however, the assumptions behind that wish-- that there be only two sexes, that heterosexuality alone is normal, that there is one true model of psychological health-- have gone virtually unexamined.

Oh, I see, we got rid of them. I will agree that the parents' and doctors' motives are undoubtedly pure, but it does seem a little ethically questionable to me. How do you choose a sex for someone? What if you choose wrong?

It appears that Fausto-Sterling may have met Maggie Gallagher.

But why should we care if a "woman," defined as one who has breasts, a vagina, a uterus and ovaries and who menstruates, also has a clitoris large enough to penetrate the vagina of another woman? Why should we care if there are people whose biological equipment enables them to have sex "naturally" with both men and women? The answers seem to lie in a cultural need to maintain clear distinctions between the sexes. Society mandates the control of intersexual bodies because they blur and bridge the great divide. Inasmuch as hermaphrodites literally embody both sexes, they challenge traditional beliefs about sexual difference: they possess the irritating ability to live sometimes as one sex and sometimes the other, and they raise the specter of homosexuality.

Damn those herms and merms and ferms, making us think about stuff. It's irritating. Running around, blowing the whole male/female, gay/straight, traditional gender roles and heteronormativity out of the water, how can Maggie oppress people if she doesn't even know what they are?

Children: The Harbingers of Immorality

gay, marriage, prop 8, same sex, children, divorce, premarital, adultery, ivf, immoral, immorality
or "Asking the Obvious Question"

The Playful Walrus is determined to ask the obvious question when it comes to other people's private lives:

WHERE IS THE MOTHER? We know these two guys did not conceive and carry these children. If they rescued these kids from a group home, that's a different matter than breaking up a marriage, making babies out of wedlock, or intentionally depriving these children of a mother. Since the media loves focusing on couples with kids in these stories, I will keep asking the obvious question every time they fail to answer it.

Now, you might say Walrus is combining bigotry with an unseemly interest in other people's private lives, but I say why stop at gay couples' children? Children potentially represent all kinds of immorality: divorce, premarital sex, adultery, IVF (but what about the zygotes!), the list goes on.

So I say don't just ask gay couples where the mother/father is, ask that question of any child you see on the street with only one adult accompanying them. Sure, daddy or mommy might be at work, or simply might have stayed at home, but surely we all have the right to make sure we're not witnessing the results of a divorce, or even worse, a couple who never did get married. Of course, it's entirely possible you may confront a recent widow/widower, but don't let that stop you.

But why stop there?

What about divorce, or what about all those women who just can't help but spreading their legs for every guy who comes along, and then pass off their children as their spouse's, another favorite topic of the Walrus? Those children represent immorality so any time you see a child that does not resemble the man (s)he is with, you should inquire as to the paternity. In fact, you may just want to go ahead and take a DNA sample, just to be sure. Don't let a little thing like an assault charge stop you.

What about the use of IVF? They don't just fertilize one egg, you know. And they don't store the rest of the frozen darlings forever, either. So, if you see a family composed of what looks suspiciously like multiples, you should ask how they were conceived. Don't let anyone tell you it's not your business, it totally is.

What about those childless couples you see? Well, they're just selfish and paving the way for the muslim takeover of the world. So the next time you see a man and a woman out in public without children, you should make sure they're taking their reproductive responsibilities seriously. Sure, their children could be at home, and you run the risk of asking that question of someone whose child just died, but don't let that stop you in your quest to save the world's children.

What about older couples with young children? You know that's some kind of immorality. Sure, it could just be grandma and grandpa taking their grandchildren out for some fun, but it could be the horror of older people having babies, or grandparents forced to raise their grandchildren due to their children's uncontrollable immorality, which is always the parents' fault, anyway.

Frankly, I think Playful Walrus hasn't gone far enough. Though, if you're going to root out all the immorality those little things some people call the future represent, Walrus is spot on: you shouldn't let a little thing like common decency get in your way.