Justly Married

February 20, 2004 12:09 PM

Justly Married Derek Powazek shares a series of images of same-gender couples who were married in San Francisco over the last week, and sells one stark image in poster form to raise funds for DontAmend.com, an organization committed to fighting the radical right's efforts to add an anti-gay marriage/union amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
posted by Dreama (309 comments total)

Putting aside if 'gay marriage' is right or wrong, I am constantly amazed at all the new 'rights' we keep fining in the Constitution, that were not there before.


posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:22 PM on February 20, 2004

finding, rather
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:24 PM on February 20, 2004

I think it's not so much the new rights as the, "Well, shit, you mean this right applies to even those people?!" In any case, the right in question isn't literally marriage but rather equal protection.
posted by callmejay at 12:27 PM on February 20, 2004

Something can be rightly regarded as a human right without being specifically enshrined in the Constitution. No where did it say "black people can vote," but it was determined that voting rights for all are part and parcel of more general guarantees in the document. The equal protection clause has constitutional weight, and I wouldn't be too surprised if those nine "activist judges" in Washington find themselves with no choice but to apply it here.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:29 PM on February 20, 2004

it's not a new right at all...callmejay has it exactly--it's that the same rights and benefits you get from entering into marriage apply to me too, steve.
posted by amberglow at 12:32 PM on February 20, 2004

Back on topic, those images are really moving. It's hard to imagine being opposed to that.
posted by callmejay at 12:34 PM on February 20, 2004

good lord, I'm tearing up. Those are great, truly joyful pictures.
posted by synapse at 12:37 PM on February 20, 2004

Putting aside if 'gay marriage' is right or wrong, I am constantly amazed bla bla bla

Hey Steve, the post was about pictures. Pictures of ordinary people thrilled that they could be married. Did you notice the pictures?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:44 PM on February 20, 2004

Yeah, that whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing is so obviously narrow.

Back on topic, I can't decide which one is my favorite. I don't think I've ever gotten so choked up looking at wedding pictures.
posted by scody at 12:44 PM on February 20, 2004

same sex, different ages.
posted by tomplus2 at 12:46 PM on February 20, 2004

Plus, Steve, where on the shirt does it say "Constitutional right?" It doesn't. Nice strawman though.

And thanks for pointing out the t-shirt! A shirt I might not otherwise have found will now be purchased by me and my wife :)
posted by terrapin at 12:46 PM on February 20, 2004

Yeah, that one made me do a double take, too. I almost said, "this is about gay marraige, not gay adoption!"
posted by jonmc at 12:48 PM on February 20, 2004

And, in case anyone cares, I'm 100% in favor of both.
posted by jonmc at 12:54 PM on February 20, 2004

cool post, thanx!
posted by archimago at 12:55 PM on February 20, 2004

It's just like Santorum said. First marriage, then bestiality.
posted by stonerose at 12:58 PM on February 20, 2004

Why can't one national politican stand up and point to the love on these people's faces? I think marriage is pretty silly overall, but I'm tearing up looking at these pictures. Why can't the Democrats have half as much discipline in our pluralism as Republicans have in their irrational hate? A big fat cookie to the first Democrat who responds to the "sanctity" argument by simply saying "well, then fuck off. It's your right!"
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:01 PM on February 20, 2004

Human contrivances can't really be considered inherent human rights, but still, cool pictures.
posted by xmutex at 1:04 PM on February 20, 2004

Ignatius, my gut agrees with you, but in an election year where every vote is at stake, I can understand how avoiding this political hot potato is somewhat pragmatic, especially if one considers unseating Bush to be the most important goal. If we get a Democrat in the Oval Office, then I have a feeling the issue will be solved through the appointment of right seeking judges or by turning it over to the states.

But I'll be the first to admit that I may be being naive and cynical at the same time.
posted by jonmc at 1:05 PM on February 20, 2004

I can understand how avoiding this political hot potato is somewhat pragmatic, especially if one considers unseating Bush to be the most important goal.

I guess you're right, but I also wonder why Democrats can justify that, and then be afraid of losing left-leaning voters to Nader (who apparently is running). All I know is that the Democrat strategy has been wildly unsuccessful of late, so my admittedly wild "don't be a fucking wuss" idea may not be too far out at this point. Is anyone in the party still willing to defend the past courtship of pro-segregation Southern Democrats?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:09 PM on February 20, 2004

The Republicans think they have a winning diversionary issue with Gay Marriage/Civil Unions.
posted by terrapin at 1:10 PM on February 20, 2004

I was there on Monday. Man, it was beyond amazing. Every time a couple came out - every minute or two - the crowd would go nuts and cheer and cry and blow bubbles and throw rice and cars would honk their horns. The statue of Abraham Lincoln was holding a rainbow flag.

I feel incredibly privileged to have seen it.
posted by rdc at 1:11 PM on February 20, 2004

I'm going to SF on march 5th--Steve, will you marry me? ; >
posted by amberglow at 1:15 PM on February 20, 2004

where on the shirt does it say "Constitutional right?"

Human Rights are nice and all, but only Constitutional rights matter.

Republicans have in their irrational hate

Obviously everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:19 PM on February 20, 2004

Steve, I don't think I remember the Consitution saying anything about people named "Steve" having the right to free speech, so I think you're going to have to stop posting now before you threaten the institution of MetaFilter any further.
posted by badstone at 1:26 PM on February 20, 2004

Nice things don't matter to Steve_at_Linwood. He'll give you nothing but trouble, amberglow.
posted by liam at 1:26 PM on February 20, 2004

Obviously everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.

Just because you don't realize you're a bigot doesn't mean you aren't one.
posted by callmejay at 1:30 PM on February 20, 2004

I'm going to SF on march 5th--Steve, will you marry me? ; >


Can I be the flower girl??
posted by jonmc at 1:31 PM on February 20, 2004

I was just there half an hour ago. I was with my friend who was going to vote (she is catching a flight out of town this afternoon.) She asked this whole crowd where she could vote and they all laughed. Finally, one man, noticing the confusion on her face volunteered "If you are really serious, you need to go..." Also a bunch of elementary schools seem to be all having field trips to city hall so the area is also packed with children (anyone know why?) It's like this strange atmosphere of pure joy.

Oh, and why not point out too that outside city hall there were a few young white males walking around with various T-shirts and sweatshirts which said, as I recall "Read the Bible", "Fear God" and another with the word "Fags" circled in red and crossed out. Ah well.
posted by vacapinta at 1:37 PM on February 20, 2004

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." -- Declaration of Independence (emph. added).

Unless the "pursuit of happiness" is a weapon of mass destruction, frankly, I don't see what makes any of this dangerous. Our nation was founded on the principles that all men (and thus humans in general) were created equal, which means hetero, same-sex, or bi. It goes against the spirit of this nation's founding document to prevent same-sex couples from marrying and, thus, precluded from "the pursuit of happiness" -- clearly on display in these photos.

Furthermore, can a case be made that marriage is free expression? If so, any law preventing same-sex unions would violate the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

If a same-sex marriage ban became public legislation, it would be a law that respected an establishment of religion (Christianity, which bans homosexuality) and thus unconstitutional. It would also preclude the right of people to peaceably assemble or, for that matter, obliterate the right to engage in this very private freedom of expression. Thus, a marriage ban, from a freedom of expression standpoint, is unconstitutional.

A ban would also violate the Ninth Amendment, which states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Establishing an amendment or a bill is intended to grant rights (such as peaceful assembly and rights implied such as "the pursuit of happiness"), not deny them. Thus, a ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.

The Fourteenth Amendment (Section 1) also prevents states from "mak[ing] or enforc[ing] any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So if a case can be made that a same-sex union ban deprives a person of "life and liberty," then a case could be made that it is unconstitutional for the States to enact legislation which prohibits people from enjoying the "life and liberty" of a same-sex union.
posted by ed at 1:37 PM on February 20, 2004

What Would Jesus Say?
posted by homunculus at 1:40 PM on February 20, 2004

Putting aside if 'gay marriage' is right or wrong, I am constantly amazed at all the new 'rights' we keep fining in the Constitution, that were not there before.

Well, Steve, we don't live in the same society that our country's founders lived in. They couldn't possibly have foreseen that our society would recognize homosexuals as a distinct category of people, as opposed to just people who commit homosexual acts. The founders were only human, and there's no reason we should defer to their wisdom in the area of rights.

I, for one, think it's great that judges can enumerate new rights that our founders never would have considered. Sure, there's the possibility of abusing the system, but for the most part it works darn well.
posted by Tin Man at 1:41 PM on February 20, 2004

Indeed, Who Would Jesus Do?
posted by liam at 1:43 PM on February 20, 2004

It's just like Santorum said. First marriage, then bestiality.
posted by homunculus at 1:45 PM on February 20, 2004

Human Rights are nice and all, but only Constitutional rights matter.

Well, they might be all that matter to the court system in the U.S. (and the U.S. is only one of many, many countries in this wide world, remember), but I would argue that, in a larger sense, human rights do very much matter. Remember, it was a consideration of human rights in the abstract that brought about the foundation of the U.S. Human rights are a powerful concept: one of the Enlightenment's biggest ideas. They have a great hold on the psyche of modern man, regardless of whether or not they are specifically enshrined in the U.S. constitution.

Obviously everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.

Some people who disagree with me are bigots. I would hold that those who prefer to oppress an entire class of humanity are, by definition, bigots. I see no nobility in seeking a middle ground with such people--our country should have learned the lesson of Jim Crow and "separate but equal". No compromises with bigotry!
posted by mr_roboto at 1:47 PM on February 20, 2004

Steve, I don't think I remember the Consitution saying anything about people named "Steve" having the right to free speech

Wow, how clever.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that covers me.

If a same-sex marriage ban became public legislation, it would be a law that respected an establishment of religion (Christianity, which bans homosexuality) and thus unconstitutional.

Well since the purposed Constitutional Amendment doesn't "ban homosexuality" (it defines marriage as between a man and a woman) that is patently wrong.

I, for one, think it's great that judges can enumerate new rights that our founders never would have considered.

The problem with this is that there already is a way to "enumerate new rights" in the Constitution, and it does not involve Judges at all.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:48 PM on February 20, 2004

This is a good thing for Bush.
There will be something for the hardcore Christian vote to mobilize and rally around.

I wonder what Kerry is going to say about this. Should he be on the fence, or should he take advantage of widening acceptance of gay culture and gay chic and come out and support it, and look more humane and compassionate.
posted by Dukebloo at 2:00 PM on February 20, 2004

The problem with this is that there already is a way to "enumerate new rights" in the Constitution, and it does not involve Judges at all.

But an amendment can be ratified only if a vast majority of the people support it. And the majority isn't always correct. One great thing about the judicial system is that it can protect (or enumerate) minority rights that a majority of the people might not support.

And the justices are in tune with politics. They're not going to create a right that, say, only 15% of the people support. They know that if they created a right and the government refused to enforce it, their powerlessness would be revealed. After all, the Supreme Court has no power to enforce its rulings; its power rests on the people's sense of its legitimacy. The Court has never created a right unless there was a pretty large movement for it. The justices might sometimes move ahead of society, but not too far ahead.
posted by Tin Man at 2:09 PM on February 20, 2004

S@L, are you not moved at all by how happy those people in the pictures are? Seriously, I don't think anyone here thinks you or even Republicans are evil incarnate (although a lot of us think the current administration is doing a fuck-up job.) But, unless you're going to thump me with a Bible (which is probably the only thing that gets selectively quoted more than the Constitution) could you please just explain why these happy people, who aren't going to be butt-fucking/going down on each other in view of school playgrounds or anything, are such a threat to America as to require a constitutional amendment to say they should be able to commit to another person the way you or I can?
posted by Cyrano at 2:11 PM on February 20, 2004

"to say they shouldn't"
posted by Cyrano at 2:12 PM on February 20, 2004

I'm still curious, Steve: have you actually looked at the pictures? Of the human beings? In love? Wanting to commit themselves to each other for the rest of their lives? Have you not looked at them? Can you not see and appreciate the glow of love and pride and relief and joy?

I'm not being snarky; I honestly want to know what you see there. I see ordinary folks celebrating their love and commitment to each other -- something that, until now, has been denied to them. I want to know, because I'm genuinely curious: do you not care? Are they not worthy of the same rights and respect as you or I?

[on preview: jinx, cyrano!]
posted by scody at 2:16 PM on February 20, 2004

Kerry's already come out saying that the term marriage applies to a man and a woman, not anyone else. He adds a bunch of wishy-washy crap about how he kinda sorta but not really supports civil unions, but we'll see.

Pretty much everyone here on metafilter is in the distinct minority in the country. An overwhelming majority of americans feel what is going on in SF is wrong, and will likely side with politicians they agree with. It doesn't matter that it seems like an obvious social justice issue, or that most libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives agree that gay marriage is ok, most americans have a problem with it and see it as a threat to marriage, family values, and the morals of this country.
posted by mathowie at 2:18 PM on February 20, 2004

I would love to hear the worst-case scenarios from Steve or others. I'm guessing here, but are these the things that people opposed to gay marriage are really afraid of?:

- once married, they can adopt?
- makes "being gay" totally acceptable and gives it more legal standing?
- would force churches to recognize the marriages?
- would force priests/rabbis/justices of the peace/etc to perform marriages they don't agree with?
- people will starting trying to get married to inanimate objects, animals, and pets?
- gays seem non-monogamous so the marriages wouldn't mean anything and result in more divorces?

What else am I missing here? Is that the worst things that could happen if this went through?
posted by mathowie at 2:24 PM on February 20, 2004

Most americans have a problem with it and see it as a threat to marriage, family values, and the morals of this country.

Well, if the Second American Civil War comes about because of gay rights, at least it will be well catered.
posted by Cyrano at 2:26 PM on February 20, 2004

What's in a word? Plenty, if the word is "marriage."
posted by homunculus at 2:27 PM on February 20, 2004

"Forty U.S. states, including Massachusetts, once prohibited marrying someone of the “wrong” race, no matter how much you loved them. Social prejudice accomplished much the same result in other states. Marriages between whites and persons of color were decried as “immoral” and “unnatural.” Polls showed that overwhelming numbers of Americans agreed. Massachusetts forbade interracial marriage as early as 1705, a restriction which was ultimately changed in 1843 after a three year campaign in the legislature. The legislature understood that withholding marriage based on race was an affront to human dignity and denied our basic guarantees of equality.

Despite the public opposition to interracial marriage, in 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state high court to declare a ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional. In Perez v. Sharp the Court stated that:

“A member of any of these races may find himself barred from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable. Human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains.”
The decision was controversial, courageous and correct. At that time, 38 states still forbade interracial marriage, and 6 did so by state constitutional provision.

Then, in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the remaining interracial marriage laws nation-wide. A Virginia judge had upheld that state's ban on interracial marriages, invoking God's intention to separate the races. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned his decision, declaring that:

* the “freedom to marry” belongs to all Americans;
* marriage is one of our “vital personal rights” and
* the right to marry is “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free [people].”

The parallels between the struggle for the freedom to marry then, and the struggle for gay and lesbian couples today is illustrated by the endorsement of marriage for same-sex couples by civil rights organizations ranging from the Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund, the Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts, the Mexican American LDEF, the National Asian Pacific American LDEF, and the Puerto Rican LDEF. " -- (Marriage - A History of Change).
posted by lola at 2:27 PM on February 20, 2004

The constitution and amendments to same work best when they define restrictions on government not people. The government can't tell you to shut up. The government can't lock you up without telling you why or giving you a chance to defend yourself. It is assumed as a matter of course that the public can do whatever the hell they want so long as everybody hasn't gotten together and agreed they won't in the form of a law/restriction. When the constitution tries to tell individuals what they can't do -- say for instance drink -- it's a total disaster.

What the proposed constitutional amendment really says is we used to agree that equal protection was important enough to restrict ourselves (the legislature) from writing laws that violate it. Now though, we'd really like to violate it, so we want to undo what we've done.

In a hundred years, with any luck it will be obvious what a horrible idea that was. Hopefully the horrible idea won't have been enshrined in the constitution where everybody can see what a bunch of uptight twits we were.
posted by willnot at 2:27 PM on February 20, 2004

The Democrats are horrible on this (I say this as a hardcore Dem). The Republicans even worse. It's not a new right, unless you feel that equal rights for minorities and women were "new" rights rather than honest interpretations of the constitution.

Two Men or Two Women get married.
WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?
posted by owillis at 2:29 PM on February 20, 2004

Can't you guys see? This is just furthering the gay agenda.
posted by owillis at 2:30 PM on February 20, 2004

But is it an issue that will sway undecided voters to the right or one that won't be considered important by the fence-sitters, while giving the left something to rally around that won't alienate a large majority? And providing the shot of energy that comes with doing the right thing? (The hard-right opponents are already so committed to their views and politically active, I don't think we have to worry about rousing them any further).
posted by liam at 2:32 PM on February 20, 2004

This is my favorite, from the Chronicle. . .
posted by Danf at 2:36 PM on February 20, 2004

* the “freedom to marry” belongs to all Americans;
* marriage is one of our “vital personal rights” and
* the right to marry is “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free [people].”

God, no wonder the John Birchers thought Earl Warren was a communist. (Thanks for the legal background, lola.)
posted by scody at 2:38 PM on February 20, 2004

people will starting trying to get married to inanimate objects, animals, and pets?

My brain is tickling trying to remember...was it a Duckman episode? Where Duckman goes to Mexico and runs across a big stadium wedding were the announcer says, "do you take this man, woman, cow or potted plant..."

That's not by any chance what you were thinking of when you wrote that, was it?

(Sorry for the derail. Steve, we're still waiting. And please understand, I/we want to know why you personally oppose gay marriage. I'm not asking my question as an attack. I just plain don't understand why this matters to you and would like to get a personal rather than political perspective.)
posted by Cyrano at 2:41 PM on February 20, 2004

Those interested in the full decision from lola's citations, goto LOVING v. VIRGINIA 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

Oh, and I hate [HATE] it when the inanimate objects line is brought up. Is the inanimate object a consenting adult? No, then therefore can't get married now, or when gay marriage is allowed.
posted by plemeljr at 2:44 PM on February 20, 2004

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that covers me.

Does that mean you take back your opening comment?
posted by badstone at 2:44 PM on February 20, 2004

If we legitimize gay marriage, it means, and we all know this, that we admit that we're killing off the human species.

Coz, you know, gay sex is so much better than straight sex, no one ... NO ONE ... will be able to resist, and none of us will be thinking of the children.

You heard it here first. Gay people are the ancestors of the Borg. They're run by a queen, you know.
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:46 PM on February 20, 2004

are you not moved at all by how happy those people in the pictures are?

Yes, I've looked that the photos. I can see that they are clearly happy. But, I attempt to not make my choices and decisions based on emotion. But as Andrew Sullivan points out himself this is exactly what is going on in San Francisco:

The debate will become how to tear gay couples apart, how to demean and marginalize them, rather than an abstract debate about theories of marriage.

This is a very smart politcal move by the so-called gay activists. They are attempting to reframe the debate from granting gays the privilege of marriage, to tearing apart just two happy people in love.

On perview: "Why?".... well fankly at this hour, I don't have the energy to write that much, but perhap later today.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:47 PM on February 20, 2004

Oh, man, thanks for more waterworks, Danf. I'm crying like a baby looking at this one. (Boy, after being together fifty-one years, they sure are a threat to the sanctity of marriage, eh, Steve? There oughta be a law, right? Right? No wonder poor Britney's marriage couldn't last 72 hours -- not when those immoral sodomites show such disrespect for holy matrimony!)
posted by scody at 2:49 PM on February 20, 2004

Coz, you know, gay sex is so much better than straight sex, no one ... NO ONE ... will be able to resist, and none of us will be thinking of the children.

Prove, Wolfdaddy. . . .now. . .

*smile*
posted by Danf at 2:51 PM on February 20, 2004

amazing pictures. How could anyone want to make such happiness illegal is beyond me.
posted by Sijeka at 2:58 PM on February 20, 2004

These photos are wonderful. I loved the photo of the two grannies who've been together 51 years! What an historic time. As for the debate, this is such a clear civil rights issue. I'm confident that in a decade or two, people will look back on this time just like we do on interracial marriage or women being able to vote.
posted by humbe at 3:00 PM on February 20, 2004

Although S@L remains S@L, I gotta thank him for that link to Sullivan's post. One paragraph that says quite a bit, and says it well.

Looking at all the pictures, and then reading a summation like that, I can't help but get all melodramatic inside and think that perhaps despite having lived in Bush's America, I might still be able to think back to this time someday and remember seeing the start of something big, and wonderful.
posted by pzarquon at 3:01 PM on February 20, 2004

The debate will become how to tear gay couples apart, how to demean and marginalize them, rather than an abstract debate about theories of marriage.

For the record, the rest of the passage:

And as these couples begin to feel what marriage is like, as they experience what civil equality actually is, they will become emboldened. Just as those who refused to leave segregated lunch-counters began to deepen their sense of moral outrage and conviction, so the act of getting married - something heterosexuals simply assume they have - is empowering. When Massachusetts becomes the first free state for gay citizens, the movement will explode. I predict thousands of couples from all over the country and the world will arrive to claim their dignity and rights - and this experience will help transform the argument. I've always believed that if we could get every gay man and lesbian to fully internalize their own equality, to get past the brutalization that society has wrought upon their souls, nothing could stop us from achieving our dream. Now the process is accelerating. Already consciousness has been changed. Already the very idea of equal marriage rights is in the minds and souls of a new generation. And when the religious right try to strip us of those marriages, and force us back into second-class status, then we will see something else: resistance. We are on the verge of the next phase of this civil rights movement: when we become the change we want to see in the world.

Here's hoping. I've known too many good gay men and women to accept anything less.

On perview: "Why?".... well fankly at this hour, I don't have the energy to write that much, but perhap later today.

Steve, I think myself and others framed our questions as an honest interest into what motivates your views. So, personally, I'm going to hold you to "later." (Although maybe not later today or even tomorrow. I'm not pushy. Please, take your time. And I mean that in an non-snarky way.) But, anything less will righteously be viewed as a cop-out.
posted by Cyrano at 3:04 PM on February 20, 2004

lesbian activists who have been together for 51 years

51 years? That's longer than my parents have been married.

And nothing says true love forever like a Harley T-shirt.
posted by deadcowdan at 3:10 PM on February 20, 2004

They are attempting to reframe the debate from granting gays the privilege of marriage, to tearing apart just two happy people in love.

Wrong, Steve. Wrong. It's not a "privilege" (which of course carries certain moral connotations of engaging in so-called "appropriate" behavior -- i.e., the preference to sleep with members of the opposite sex); as lola 's link already clarified, the U.S. Supreme Court already called marriage a "vital personal right."

Or maybe you think that the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries back in '67. I mean, after all, weren't Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving "just two happy people in love" as well? Do you mean to suggest that their love should also have been considered irrelevant in the face of upholding some sacred abstract principle of marriage?
posted by scody at 3:13 PM on February 20, 2004

But, anything less will righteously be viewed as a cop-out.

Given that Steve somehow found the energy to post two comments in the "Israelis kill crops" thread minutes after claiming exhaustion in this one, my money is on cop-out.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:15 PM on February 20, 2004

Steve, my offer still stands, and with jonmc as our flowergirl, we're golden. I love a man I can fight with. ; >
Meanwhile, this was brought about by the Mayor of SF, not an activist or anyone else advancing what you see as an agenda or new rights. The Mayor of Chicago agrees with him, and folks in government in New Mexico now too. (and don't forget Vermont, which showed how half-assed civil unions are) In the coming weeks and months, more and more public officials all over the country will be supporting this, and soon it'll be before the Supremes, where Scalia already said it was legitimized. An amendment to ban it would take years and years to ratify and Bush will be long gone by then--if Repubs think it happens fast, they're delusional. (and Bush is obviously counting on the delusional for his reelection if this is what he wants to focus on.)

That said, I do wish either Kerry or Edwards would get with the program on this.
posted by amberglow at 3:17 PM on February 20, 2004

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay: "Americans have been tolerant of homosexuality for years, but now it's being stuffed down their throats and they don't like it."

So that's the scathing incisor-like logic we have coming from the "opposing view" which is nothing more than veiled bigotry of some degree or another.

There is, and I want to make this statement very clearly, absolutely no manner of logical opposition to gay marriage. Anyone who opposes allowing two individuals of the same sex to do what any other American can do does so out of emotive and bigoted reasons, or theological reasons. Mostly the latter is still just the former.

And neither emotion nor theology should guide the law of a land. Granted, it occasionally does but moral and rational people must concede that these such incidences should be righted as soon and as efficiently as possible.
posted by xmutex at 3:22 PM on February 20, 2004

Yes, people are happy, and yes, it's equality, blah blah blah.

But what all you seem to really want to know is why someone might be opposed to this. Disregarding the ludicrous inanimate object theory.

Here's my take. Marriage was a recognition of monogamy, yes, but also of the dedication of the participants to bringing up the next generation. Thus married people got some special privileges for making that committment. Now, since gay marriages are strictly for the romantic end of it (leaving aside cloning and in vitro and all that) in many people's minds this devalues the raising of children.

Further, gay marriage really does introduce a fundamental change in our society. Polygamy has a much stronger chance of being recognized; legal challenges for it are already being mounted by the polygamists in northern AZ and UT. To fundamental conservatives who still happen to make up a good portion of America, this is disturbing and strange.

To sum up, it takes away societal incentive and recognition for being parents (some think this is a good thing), and it is the first step in a fundamental shift of how our society will handle relationships between consenting adults.

I'm not gay. I find homosexuality fairly repugnant. But I still think that long-term relationships between adults should be recognized. I like committment and value it. So I think that in the short-term this is a good thing. But in the long-term, it will create some changes in our society that I might not like so much. So I remain ambivalent.

Maybe that will spark a little discourse.
posted by hurkle at 3:36 PM on February 20, 2004

check this out: It's legal for gays to marry in New York
... On the same day, the New York City clerk disregarded not only constitutional principles, but also existing state statutes by refusing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Unlike California law, New York's matrimonial law does not restrict marriage licenses to persons of the opposite sex, in the view of leading legal authorities. ... (like New Mexico)

(so add soon NYC to my list above, no matter what Bloomberg or Pataki thinks)
posted by amberglow at 3:37 PM on February 20, 2004

This is a very smart politcal move by the so-called gay activists. They are attempting to reframe the debate from granting gays the privilege of marriage, to tearing apart just two happy people in love.

Those evil gay commie bastards trying to corrupt our bodily fluids. They fight us, because they hate our freedom.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 3:37 PM on February 20, 2004

hurkle: That's not logical. Gay marriage will remove no such societal incentive because it will still apply and remain entirely unchanged. Gay marriage does not affect straight marriage, does not in anyway devalue or reorganize or 'fundamentally shift' the institution of marriage, has approximately zero bearing on anyone's marriage at all.

Your argument has the queer implication (ha ha ha!) that gay marriage might incline someone who would otherwise marry and breed to instead choose gay marriage. I can see that being the only potential 'threat.' Otherwise, it seems to make no sense.

I have no problem with people marrying for the pure romance of it. I hope to one day marry my girlfriend and we have discussed it and will likely have no children. Are we devaluing the institution of marriage?
posted by xmutex at 3:44 PM on February 20, 2004

So hurkle, if so much of marriage is still (presumably) tied up in the notion of being able to raise the next generation, what do you think about the rights of straight couples who get married who don't bring up children? And I don't mean because they're not able to conceive or adopt -- but because they have absolutely no intention of doing so in the first place? Has that "create[d] some changes in our society that [you] might not like so much"? Given that so many (millions?) of married opposite-sex couples don't have kids, I fail to see how the potential social cataclysm argument is really anything other than another straw man.
posted by scody at 3:49 PM on February 20, 2004

Can we stop framing this entire discussion as a question-and-answer session with the stupidest person in the room? Derek Powazek's photos and the event they describe are too great to let one dedicated know-nothing monopolize the conversation.

The thing I haven't heard from genuinely intelligent opponents of gay marriage is what we're losing by recognizing these unions. I can't find a microscope powerful enough to detect any effect the couples in San Francisco might have on the sanctity of my marriage, and normally, you'd expect that if a constitutional amendment is being drafted to solve a problem, you'd expect someone to identify the actual problem.
posted by rcade at 3:50 PM on February 20, 2004

XMUTEX: I think you miss the point, dude. Marriage gave economic and societal privilege to people to help raise kids. Now marriage is not for such a purpose anymore. Next phase, why should married people get the breaks when single people don't? Single people are people too. Where's the equality? I'm not saying people will be disincentived to breed. I'm saying that the fundamental reason marriage received protections and benefits is no longer a valid reason for it to receive such any more. It would not be equal for it to continue. It will be removed eventually as part of the equality-levelling process. Or do you think that somehow straight marriage should be a little more special than queer marriage?
posted by hurkle at 3:50 PM on February 20, 2004

Thanks for the response hurkle, but this key point you're making:

Marriage was a recognition of monogamy, yes, but also of the dedication of the participants to bringing up the next generation. Thus married people got some special privileges for making that committment. Now, since gay marriages are strictly for the romantic end of it (leaving aside cloning and in vitro and all that) in many people's minds this devalues the raising of children.

But it doesn't hold water when there are a couple hundred years of american marriages that didn't produce children. But I'm not religious and I've always seen marriage as an act of committtment, not a promise to raise kids.

Given that there are many happily married heterosexual people that can't have kids or choose not to, homosexual marriage doesn't seem like a big deal to me, but then again I never say kids as vital to the process.

I've always thought that gay couple adoption was why everyone opposed gay marriage, because so many people think that gays somehow corrupt kids or teach them to be gay or something. Since getting legally recognized as married would mean adoption would be easier, I figured that what was really driving this ammendment against it business.
posted by mathowie at 3:53 PM on February 20, 2004

Further, gay marriage really does introduce a fundamental change in our society. Polygamy has a much stronger chance of being recognized; legal challenges for it are already being mounted by the polygamists in northern AZ and UT.

Hurkle, I myself have no desire to be polygamous, but can you come up with a good reason why it shouldn't be allowed? I make this point not to defend polygamy, but to show that the slippery slope argument between gay marriage and polygamy makes no sense. Each issue should be argued on its own terms. Perhaps there's a reason why gay marriage should be allowed but polygamous marriage shouldn't be. If so, okay, no polygamy. If not, then we should allow polygamy.

Polygamy will stand or fall on its own terms. I'm tired of the slippery slope argument being used as a reason to prohibit gay marriage.
posted by Tin Man at 3:55 PM on February 20, 2004

I'm not gay. I find homosexuality fairly repugnant.

Oh dear. I'm sure this will come as a great disappointment to that tuxedo-clad fellow I've just sent over to your house with a dozen roses and a wedding band. Because, you see, you're going to be forced to marry gay! [with thanks to Jon Stewart]
posted by scody at 3:56 PM on February 20, 2004

To sum up, it takes away societal incentive and recognition for being parents

According to this logic, we should give lesbian couples twice the marriage benefits, since they can propagate the species in parallel.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:56 PM on February 20, 2004

also, there are many thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of naturally-derived and adopted and in-vitro children already living with their lesbian moms and their partners, or gay dads and theirs. Children are actually a good and important reason to do this.
posted by amberglow at 3:57 PM on February 20, 2004

rcade: nice insults - beautiful way to avoid having a conversation. You must be proud. Also, I'd be amazed if you could detect any change in society with your microscope over the past few hours, seeing as how societal change can take years if not generations to show up. Snap to the conversation instead of your emotions.

scody: I didn't set up a straw man. And I'd thank you not to put words in my mouth. I never said social cataclysm. I said things I might not like. And hey, it's America. I'm allowed not to like certain aspects of society. Regarding straight couples that choose to be childless - it's not been much of a concern of mine, as marriage has been heading this way for a long time. Once single parenthood was established to be normal and sufficient for raising a child we were on our way. this is just another step. And I'm amazed that you sidestepped the fact that I think this is a good thing, and simply ignore the fact that I think we are fundamentally changing society. Even some of the other posters state that this is a historical moment. I just see it as historical with what I feel is a little more of a long view.
posted by hurkle at 3:59 PM on February 20, 2004

As Bill Maher recently said (not that he is a bastion of intelligence) "anything you can do drunk at 3 in the morning in vegas is not sacred. " The words 'privilege' and 'sanctity' are pretty hollow given the current status and statistics of the institute of marriage.
posted by dig_duggler at 3:59 PM on February 20, 2004

hurdle: that may have been the original intent but there are a lot of exceptions to that even without gay marriage. A lot of people decide not to have children, some of them are so sure of this that they have surgical procedures done. Some people just can't conceive. Other people put it off until it's a good time for them and it never is.

I haven't heard anybody argue that non-child bearing marriages are somehow wrong or undermine marriage even if there always was an intent not to have children. If what somebody else does undermines your marriage then your marriage is horribly weak.

What this is really about, in my opinion of course, is the loss of one of the final accepted prejudices. They lost racism, they've also lost sexism. If gay marriage and homosexuality becomes accepted to the point where the average person feels "Well, it's not something I'd ever do but whatever floats their boat" then the prejudice becomes unacceptable. Those who continue to berate gay people will be treated like the uncle nobody talks to who still talks about "niggers" at the family reunion.
posted by substrate at 4:02 PM on February 20, 2004

Marriage gave economic and societal privilege to people to help raise kids.

This might have been true in the 1800s or something, but it's preposterous to think that marriage has this function any longer. Like matthowie said, millions of heterosexual marriage exist without either children or even the intent of children. It's not at all a prerequisite. Therefore marriage doesn't exist has a benefit or privilege for the procreating class. Moreover it's seen as very much a deep and personal choice to have children and not in anyway tied to the institution of marriage.

Now there is actually a genuine debate to be had over the whole idea of legal interpersonal relationships and the benefits given to them but it's irrelevant to the topic of gay marriage: because marriage exists for two consentual American adults it should therefore apply to all.

And thanks to Lola (and I'd refer you back to his/her post if I could figure out what the HREF would be but alas, just scroll up) for the astouding SCOTUS legal precedent that says marriage is "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free [people]" and that 'the “freedom to marry” belongs to all Americans.'
posted by xmutex at 4:02 PM on February 20, 2004

mathowie: I don't feel a need to defend polygamy because I never said it was bad. I simply said we're facing a shift in society.

scode: Thanks for making fun of my honesty (wrt "I'm not gay").

I included that to make the point that I think the commitment between adults should be applauded and recognized even if I find what they do personally repugnant. But hey, that's America. I'll defend to the death your ability to do what you want and say what you want. What I find odd, though, is that all I get is attacked and made fun of for having an alternate viewpoint and an opinion. If anyone is showing bigotry, it ain't me.
posted by hurkle at 4:04 PM on February 20, 2004

I'm saying that the fundamental reason marriage received protections and benefits is no longer a valid reason for it to receive such any more. It would not be equal for it to continue. It will be removed eventually as part of the equality-levelling process.

And I'm amazed that you sidestepped the fact that I think this is a good thing, and simply ignore the fact that I think we are fundamentally changing society.

OK, Hurkle -- although you weren't addressing me, I won't ignore what you said. Sure, it's possible that gay marriage could have unforeseen consequences. But everything has unforeseen consequences. In my opinion, it's good to rethink traditions, and if there's no viable reason to keep them going, they should end.

(If there's a viable reason to keep them going, they should of course continue.)
posted by Tin Man at 4:07 PM on February 20, 2004

And also, what other people said. There are already childless heterosexual marriages, and there are lots of gay couples raising kids.
posted by Tin Man at 4:10 PM on February 20, 2004

hurkle, I didn't bring up polygamy, but I do thank you for posting here and wish people would stick to the issues instead of attacking you. I geniunely want to know what the opposing viewpoint is on this issue.

Personally I'm trying really hard to figure out what about a legal gay marriage does to "fundamentally change society" but I can't come up with much beyond general acceptance, some minor spouse-related laws, and adoption. I don't see this costing insurance companies or health care companies much money, and the money raised by all these marriages would certainly spawn an entire new industry.

A lot of people think this is a big deal, and I'm wondering what exactly makes it a potentially big deal, as it seems like a harmless thing to me.
posted by mathowie at 4:15 PM on February 20, 2004

What I find odd, though, is that all I get is attacked and made fun of for having an alternate viewpoint and an opinion. If anyone is showing bigotry, it ain't me.

Maybe the reason you're "attacked" is because your arguments carry no more weight than standing up in 1964 and saying "I think black people having sex with white people is repugnant, but I'll tolerate it as long as they don't demand the right to marry".
posted by Armitage Shanks at 4:18 PM on February 20, 2004

I think that for a lot of people on the con side, the choice isn't gay marriage vs. committed gay couples without legal sanction. It's gay marriage vs. no gays. They don't want to think about it, they don't want to know about it, they just want homosexuality to disappear off the face of the Earth. Because if you think about it, if there are going to be gay couples, including gay couples with children, who should be first in line demanding that they get married but conservatives?
posted by callmejay at 4:21 PM on February 20, 2004

I geniunely want to know what the opposing viewpoint is on this issue.

And I think that's what a lot of us have been saying this entire thread.

Tell us what makes it wrong for you. Not wrong for society. Not wrong for democracy. Not for America. But wrong for you.
posted by Cyrano at 4:22 PM on February 20, 2004

Gay marriage as a gateway to polygamy and the breakdown of civil society? Fear.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 4:26 PM on February 20, 2004

Nice post, Dreama. Couldn't have done better, myself.

Looks like New Mexico's doing the right thing, too:

(CBS/AP) A county clerk in Bernalillo, New Mexico issued marriage licenses Friday to at least 15 gay couples, some of whom then exchanged vows outside the courthouse, and dozens more same-sex couples lined up for a chance to tie the knot.

The latest incident of gay civil disobedience came as foes of the weddings headed back to court in California to stop San Francisco from giving licenses to same-sex couples.

In New Mexico, a sign-up list at Sandoval County courthouse grew to 38 couples after county clerk Victoria Dunlap announced she would issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But on the other side of fairness and freedom...let's see....at least locally, we've got our own resident waffler-cum-apologist for outright bigotry: Steve@Linnwood. And let's see...the support he provides for his righteous indignation that gays want "new" constitutional rights was based on...wait for it.... an image of a fucking T-shirt (fer chrissakes) which actually spelled out the words "H-U-M-A-N rights" right there before his ownest eyes.

~chuckle~

To Steve@Linnwood and his ilk, I say: keep it up. Really. Wonderful job. You will continue providing exactly the same easy target as those right-wingers who fought against equal rights for minorities in the recent past, no matter how you try (and they tried) to quibble and spin the issue into legal nitpicking.

Ameican IS changing....for the better.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:30 PM on February 20, 2004

Incidentally, this just in: "Gay and lesbian couples won another reprieve Friday when a judge declined to immediately stop San Francisco from granting them marriage licenses, saying conservative groups failed to prove the weddings would cause irreparable harm."
posted by Tin Man at 4:31 PM on February 20, 2004

I geniunely want to know what the opposing viewpoint is on this issue.


The problem with the anti-gay-marriage spokespeople I've heard (and I'm not pointing this solely at hurkle) is that it seems that they start with the supposition "Gay marriage is bad" and from there try to work out reasons for the suposition. In a word, they're rationalizing. Whether you agree with it or not, the pro-marriage side of this debate has a very simple statement: "We deserve access to the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else." It's a pretty clear, unambiguous stance. The arguments against have a "but . . . but . . . " feel to them. This article pretty much sums up what the prominent arguments against are, and the author(s) skewer(s) them pretty well.
link from owillis' blog
posted by deadcowdan at 4:32 PM on February 20, 2004

And if it comes down to it say, "well, I just don't like fags..." At least cop to it. Be honest.

(And I'm not attempting to read the minds of those on the other side of this issue [although, I'm sure {because I've met them} some people {not necessarily in this forum} actually hold such an opinion.])

(on preview: I've agreed with foldy twice in one day now. I need a drink...)
posted by Cyrano at 4:33 PM on February 20, 2004

Polygamy has a much stronger chance of being recognized; legal challenges for it are already being mounted by the polygamists in northern AZ and UT.

I wouldn't think so. There are lots of not-stupid policy reasons to restrict legal marriage to only two people, mostly dealing with extension of benefits. Restricting marriage to only two people self-limits a lot of fraud -- I'd be reluctant to enter into a sham marriage with someone in order to get him or her on my health insurance, or to get him or her into the US, because being married to them means not being married to whoever I actually want to marry.

Allowing full legal polygamy would create obvious incentives to enter sham marriages, which would in turn make the government even more intrusive into which marriages are valid and which are fake. It's bad enough the crap that my Canadian bride and I have had to put up with, and will have to continue putting up with, from INS/BCIS. Having to put up with a similarly intrusive process in other circumstances... ooh.

It also creates lots of problems with marital decision-making. If Husband1 is in the hospital on life support and Wife1 and Husband2 say to pull the plug, but Husband3 says not to, what should the hospital do?

None of which means that a bright person couldn't come up with a way to manage these concerns, only that there are at least not-obviously-invalid reasons to limit legal marriage to a single couple. Unlike gay marriage, where the only conceivable purpose behind forbidding gay marriage is finding it repugnant.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:35 PM on February 20, 2004

Thanks to those commenters who have focused on the nature of the post; the beautful and moving pictures. The images are not really subject to debate. Excellent post, Dreama.
posted by moonbird at 4:38 PM on February 20, 2004

The images are not really subject to debate.

Word.
posted by Cyrano at 4:39 PM on February 20, 2004

My partner and I were turned away at the County Clerk's office in Sandoval County, New Mexico this afternoon. With no formal ruling, they decided to suspend issuing same-gender licenses and closed the office.

We watched couple after couple get married, and cheered for them, but were unable to enjoy that happy moment ourselves.

I hope that nobody else ever has to be turned away on the day they want to marry the person they love. I'm still shaken up by it.

I've never felt like a second-class citizen until today, and I'm still too hurt to be mad.

Hopefully, the mad will come later.
posted by answergrape at 4:50 PM on February 20, 2004

Allowing full legal polygamy would create obvious incentives to enter sham marriages, which would in turn make the government even more intrusive into which marriages are valid and which are fake. It's bad enough the crap that my Canadian bride and I have had to put up with, and will have to continue putting up with, from INS/BCIS. Having to put up with a similarly intrusive process in other circumstances... ooh.

It also creates lots of problems with marital decision-making. If Husband1 is in the hospital on life support and Wife1 and Husband2 say to pull the plug, but Husband3 says not to, what should the hospital do?

None of which means that a bright person couldn't come up with a way to manage these concerns, only that there are at least not-obviously-invalid reasons to limit legal marriage to a single couple. Unlike gay marriage, where the only conceivable purpose behind forbidding gay marriage is finding it repugnant.

Interesting analysis of polygamy - I was just wondering about that. But what about, say, sibling marraige - aside from the issue of genetics & children (although today we don't prevent known carriers of genetic disorders to breed), what is the reason for banning them aside from their being "repugnant" to others (mainly, I might add, from a religiously-based value system)?
posted by laz-e-boy at 4:54 PM on February 20, 2004

Our friends over at MonkeyFilter are also talking about the good and bad things that happened in Sandoval County, New Mexico today.
posted by answergrape at 4:58 PM on February 20, 2004

Hurkle, please. I'm not making fun of your "honesty" -- I'm straight too, so I trust you'll believe me when I say I'm not "bigoted" against the breeding types. I was taking a jab at the idea that your admitted personal distaste for homosexuality is somehow separate and incidental to the social consequences argument you're trying to lay out. If you're going to hang your hat on the arguement that marriage is (or was) for procreation and that your discomfort stems from the breakdown of that, then your problem is not with homosexuality -- as has been amply demonstrated, A) many straight married couples do not have kids, and B) many gay and lesbian couples already do. In fact, if that's really your concern, then you should be supporting gay marriage, because it will make it that much easier for gays and lesbians to adopt children and bring up the next generation.

So if that's not the case, then frankly, you're trying to have it both ways -- that is, you say you find the idea of two men (or two women) together to be "repugnant," yet you want to claim that that's got nothing to do with your concern over the issue. But given that your "non-repugnance" portion of the argument (i.e., the ways in which gay marriage might potentially harm society) doesn't hold water, I'm left with assuming that you are actually driven by your repugnance in this case. And since the fact that you personally wouldn't want to be married to someone of the same sex is completely irrelevant, those of us (gay and straight) who do support gay marriage are still left wondering: what specific social/political problem would a ban on gay marriage solve?

On preview: moonbird, I don't think you can really fault the discussion for going to the broader implications and political argument that's taking place all over the country (as answergrape's maddening experience today shows). I've made it clear I'm deeply moved by the content of those photos -- of course. But the post itself also links to dontamend.com -- those of us who are moved by what we see in those photos must, I believe, confront the forces in this country who will try to stop these marraiges from going forward. Maybe one day same-sex marriages will cease to be political lightning rods; until then, however, each of those beautiful images represents not just the story of a couple's love, but also a chapter in the emerging saga of a social revolution.
posted by scody at 5:01 PM on February 20, 2004

answergrape: Your statement, painful as it was to make, is very powerful. You keep goin', girl.
posted by moonbird at 5:05 PM on February 20, 2004

Armitage Shanks: Oh, that was a beautiful post. Because I don't like homosexuality I must be a bigot/racist/sexist. Man, you are too much. Talk about close-minded!

Many of you wonder why people are opposed to gay marriage. I tried to present the arguments as I understand them, without ever saying that I viewed gay marriage as a bad thing. Yet I have been insulted for genuinely trying to answer the original post about why people are opposed. No wonder there's so little actual discourse.

Mathowie: you're right. All change leads to more change. However, my point is that this is simply another point on the slide into a different society. And I'm not happy about some of the things I foresee, regardless of whether gay marriage is good or bad.

Another poster said they felt that restricting marriage to two people would be the "right thing" and that they doubted that polygamy would become de rigeur. Without finding the actual articles, there have been two legal challenges in favor of polygamy since the Massachusettes Supreme Court approved same-sex marriages. Why aren't you all leaping on that person for daring to imply that two people are better than many? I mean, where's the line? And if there is a line, then why there? Why not further or nearer?

By the same token, if I said that I found infatilism or plushy activity fairly disgusting but would support your right to do it, would it give all of you who took such offense the same degree of outrage, especially those who insinuate, like Armitage Spanks, that I am a bigot for having my own ideas about what I like in my life and what I don't.

I don't like naziism, but in America they get free speech. But judging from our little conversation here, the only people who shouldn't get free speech are those who aren't as "politically correct" as you all. Conservatives - oh no. They are WRONG. People who find the idea of having sex with someone of the same gender disquieting? BIGOTED! WRONG! Especially if you dare to say it.

Once again, for those who steadfastly refuse to actually read and think about a post, I think this is right and just. But that doesn't mean I don't like what I see as some of the potential implications.

I thought that some of the Patriot Act was a good idea too! But I didn't like the full bill and what it means for personal privacy.

I think that child abuse is horrible, but I think that we have given the government way too much control and influence over our private lives.

These are my opinions. If you want to debate them in a reasoned way, as some do, then I'm all for it. However, if you want to insult me and call me bigoted for not thinking as you do, I suggest you get busy attending to the motes in your own eyes.
posted by hurkle at 5:18 PM on February 20, 2004

get busy attending to the motes in your own eyes.

Um, I think that's supposed to be the logs in our own eyes. Let's make sure we get our clichés right.
posted by deadcowdan at 5:24 PM on February 20, 2004

deadcowdan: re: logs. I don't get the reference. Sorry.

scody: I'd hope that you weren't bigoted against the "breeding types", seeing as how us breeders made you.

I think I made it clear that I believe that allowing same-sex marriage is the Right Thing (tm) to do. I think I also made it clear that I think that it is an indication that we are changing society pretty quickly. I think I also made it clear that I believe if we're not careful, we're going to end up with the Hiroshima of the relationship movement on our hands. The questions this opens up for public discourse are: Why should marriage only be limited to two people? Why should those two people not be from the same family, especially if they aren't going to be breeding? Mother-son? Father-daughter? Brother-sister? Father-son? Mother-daughter?

One thing that I really am HAPPY about because of same-sex marriage is that when two lesbians get divorced and fight over the kids, there will be no way to apply presumptive maternal custody with two mothers on the line. Thus I think in this area we will see - eventually - more joint/shared custody and parenting. I think we'll see the growth eventually of communes - or at least large open families. Do I think this is a good thing? No, not right now. Am I open to thinking about it and discussing it and deciding if I am making an intellectual or emotional decision? Yes.

Are some of the people I see posting here capable of the same thing? Yes. Do others appear to be? Hmmm.
posted by hurkle at 5:29 PM on February 20, 2004

scody: That's a sound argument, and I can buy that. But the discussion felt as if it was getting a bit too divisive, a rip-roaring debate that has been hashed out here many times in many ways. Is it possible for us to celebrate or ignore these picutres without getting into a virtual arm wrestling match over the legal and ethical implications? I don't know, but your point is well taken.
posted by moonbird at 5:30 PM on February 20, 2004

Armitage Shanks: Oh, that was a beautiful post. Because I don't like homosexuality I must be a bigot/racist/sexist.

In your own words, you find homosexuality "repugnant". Unless you can articulate a valid reason for that, then yes, you're bigoted against homosexuals.

I didn't say that you were a racist. I simply pointed out that the arguments you presented against gay marriage in 2004 could have been spoken almost word-for-word by racists against inter-racial marriage in 1964.

those who insinuate, like Armitage Spanks, that I am a bigot for having my own ideas about what I like in my life and what I don't

Sigh. See above.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:32 PM on February 20, 2004

hurkle: Because I don't like homosexuality I must be a bigot...!

bigot. \Big"ot\, n. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion. [Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary]

Hurkle, I respect your right to hold a particular view on any subject you see fit. What I don't much respect are those who don't question the motives, implications and blind-spots in their own world-view. Why isn't it ok for the government to recognize the union of gay people? I have yet to hear any opposition that doesn't, yes, stink of bigotry - with that unflinching, uncritical view that this must be wrong, even if it's impossible to articulate quite why.

I'm not asking you to agree with me, but I just wish that people with your position would be a little more critical with their thinking, and look beyond gut, (literally) homophobic, unChristian, unsympathetic feelings like "homo sex is gross". They're two human beings in love: let's celebrate that.
posted by Marquis at 5:35 PM on February 20, 2004

I believe if we're not careful, we're going to end up with the Hiroshima of the relationship movement on our hands

Love will end because a small subset of the population is allowed to make their love "official"?
posted by badstone at 5:42 PM on February 20, 2004

answergrape, I second that keep the faith cheer. Frankly, as someone who is both a heterosexual in a non/never will be childbearing marriage and also a believer that we ought to take seriously the ideas that make is better people, I simply do not understand the heated opposition to either gay marriage or homosexuality in general and have yet to hear an argument that does not rely on the invisible man in the sky saying [Church Lady voice on] Bad... baddd [/off].

Hurkle, who I will say I think got harsher treatment in this thread than the initial comment deserved, does bring up what I think are valid points for discussion and its too bad they got lost in the heat.

Why, at a logical level, not allow polygamous marriages? The economic issues are pragmatic and therefore (IMO) not worthy of rising to a consitutional level, as are some of the legal confusions such as how to make decisions. Why should we continue to base tax laws on marital status? If we, in a majority rules the group sense, want to give certain economic benefits to households with children, that's fine but follow through and be consistent. Etc...

Plus, I love the photos and the bestiality column homonculus linked, thanks!
posted by billsaysthis at 5:46 PM on February 20, 2004

As usual.. Derek says it so perfectly in pixels.
Beautiful.
posted by Latitude11 at 5:46 PM on February 20, 2004

I SPENT ALL DAY AT CITY HALL. Let me tell you, love was in the air, so much so that certain hallways were getting a bit stuffy. Here's a video [19MB Quicktime] from my camera (a still camera that does not take great video) in which you can see the line as it stretches from the clerk's office (bottleneck of the whole operation) well into the basement. Video is from about 3PM and Flo & Anne (my friends at the end there) had been there since 10AM, so folks up front had been there much longer. The widespread laughter and spontaneous cheers were not so obvious by 3PM, but they were still happening. Sorry about the bold caps there, just trying to stand out as an addition to the images in the fpp as opposed to the noise of the ensuing discussion.
posted by damehex at 5:47 PM on February 20, 2004

A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right

Marquis, this is precisely my point about the anti-Hurkle comments. He never said he was unquestionably right and in fact said he sees no legal or logical reason to deny gay marriage, just that personally he finds it distasteful. In none of his words did he ever say or suggest that others should refrain from homosexuality because of his feelings.
posted by billsaysthis at 5:49 PM on February 20, 2004

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
-Matthew 7:3, KJV

Okay, beam, not log. Pretty much the same thing. You should have said that we're the ones with beams in our eyes, not motes.

Never mind.
posted by deadcowdan at 5:49 PM on February 20, 2004

Marquis:Hey, according to your definition, you're bigoted for judging me to be bigoted! Cool!

Now did I say I was unquestionably right? Um. No.

Did I say that homosexuality was unreasonable or wicked? Um. No.

Am I intolerant of it? Um, no. Seeing as how I mentioned I'd fight to the death your right to do it, even if I DON'T LIKE IT.

Am I blindly devoted to it? Um. No.

Sorry, Marquis, you judgemental doofus. You lose. Try again. It's okay not to like homosexuality. But it's not politically correct. It's also okay not to like President Bush, but try telling the Dixie Chicks that. Get over yourself.

You tell me, why ISN'T it okay for me to not like homosexuality. I never said it was wrong. I never said it was evil, just that I didn't like it. Why are you so intolerant of that? Didn't you just say What I don't much respect are those who don't question the motives, implications and blind-spots in their own world-view. Try it. Maybe you'll like it.

Armitage Spanks: I also don't like Brussel Sprouts. I know they're good for me, I just don't like them. Guess that makes me a bigot against Brussel Sprouts. OOPS! Read Marquis' definition below. Guess not. I'd say judging by your intolerance and hatred, you're the bigot. Amazing isn't it. Here you are all proud of how open-minded and wonderful you are, supporting same-sex marriage, patting yourself on the back for being so thoughful and intellectual, and yet you can't stand that someone actually says they don't like it. Not that it's bad or wrong, they just don't like it. C'mon Mr./Mrs. Intolerance-Pants. Grow up. Get over your gut-level reactions.
posted by hurkle at 5:50 PM on February 20, 2004

spanked.
posted by Marquis at 5:53 PM on February 20, 2004

You're all a bunch of fucking hate-mongerers.
posted by xmutex at 5:58 PM on February 20, 2004

Oh, and the pictures are very nice. And I must admit, the couples are in love. That's just how I looked the day I got married.

Not to mention the whole thing about the flowers being sent from all over made me sentimentally shivery. That was beautiful.

Even if it was for icky gays.
posted by hurkle at 6:01 PM on February 20, 2004

By the way, that was a joke. Poor taste maybe, but it should be said with a wink in the voice. If you get what I mean.
posted by hurkle at 6:02 PM on February 20, 2004

I've never felt like a second-class citizen until today, and I'm still too hurt to be mad.

Answergrape, I am so, so, so sorry.

*THIS* is what is wrong with the other side of this argument. Making people feel like this.

Answergrape, you are not a second class citizen. You just live in a country where many, many people think they should legislate their PREFERENCES on such minutia.

Why can't anyone on the other side say why this is wrong without resorting to religious declarations or outright bigotry?
posted by Ynoxas at 6:03 PM on February 20, 2004

Guess that makes me a bigot against Brussel Sprouts.

I suspect that you don't dislike the actual entity itself, rather you dislike the taste and/or smell. Perhaps you have a similarly rational objection to homosexuals.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:04 PM on February 20, 2004

I don't see how the polygamy arguments stem from gay marriage arguments. We're talking about making a minor change from "between a man and a woman" to "between two people" - extending that to polygamy is a slippery slope argument. That said, if there were ways to sort out the legal benefits of marriage such that polygamous marriages were "fair", I see no problem with it. Nor do I see a problem with incestuous marriages - since genetic counselling is already strongly suggested to those with genetic defects in their family lines, there's no reason the same counselling couldn't be extended to an incestuous couple (remember that the problem has to exist in your genes in the first place for inbreeding to increase the chances of its occurring) - as long as everyone's a consenting adult, I don't see a problem.

answergrape - I'm so sorry you couldn't get married today, but don't despair. And what Ynoxas said.
posted by biscotti at 6:05 PM on February 20, 2004

AS: You're right. I do. It makes me feel all icky on the inside.

And I was raised in Santa Fe. So while I intellectually accept it, I just viscerally don't.
posted by hurkle at 6:07 PM on February 20, 2004

Damehex: great video! Wow!
posted by moonbird at 6:36 PM on February 20, 2004

Totally off topic but I have to say this gay marriage in SF thing certainly makes me like our mayor more. That and the fact that he is actually going to crime scenes in the projects to see for himself how tough it is to solve murders in low income neighborhoods. In a couple of ways, he's thumbing his nose at the establishment. Pretty impressive for a rich politician.
posted by culberjo at 6:44 PM on February 20, 2004

Folks, don't feed into hurkle's victimization party. He/she is part and parcel of the whole problem. Whether it grows out of not liking icky gays or not, that isn't the issue anymore. The issue is that people are getting hurt, and too many people on the obviously undefendable side of this are co-opting pain at all our bigotry. To them I say: "Guess what, buckwheat? If you defend a stupidity, you should feel bad!".

Steve brought up earlier that the debate will now be framed as one of breaking up happy couples instead of being the rational discourse of society. Bullshit. This was never about the rational discourse of society. It is about the fact that there are people in pain who want relief, want satisfaction and want justice in a supposedly just society. The arguments against that don't hold water ... never have, never will. The rational debate? There are many here who rationally pointed out the ludicrous nature of hurkle's defense against gay marraige. To hurkle's credit that may have been the most rational of all reasons to prohibit same sex unions, and it has no base in reason at all. But we're all supposed to calmly debate while others are hurt. Sorry, No.

And now we have the defenders of the rational proposing a change to the foundational document of our political society ... to define a word. A fucking word! This is not rational, its idiotic, bigoted, and defies the very principle of the seperation of church and state. But God forbid any of us librals ought' point that out, 'cause we might hurt the feels of those who defend a lunacy. From this backwoods bubba to all you enlightened folks who think that the Constitution should defend the word of God I give a hardy "too bad and tough shit". Deal with the fact that human lives are too important to leave at the mercy of your definitions.

Gee, hurkle, I'm real sorry that there were folks slapping you around with words on your computer screen. Might I suggest in the future that if you are going to play devil's advocate that you don't take it so personally. But if you do back a failing and stupid argument, kindly don't expect me to weigh your pain against that of people who just want to have the rights and privilages of a loving life-long union. Simply put, hurkle, do you expect me to feel worse for you than I do for answergrape? I don't. Get over it.

(answergrape, in contrast to the great feeling I've had about the events in San Fransisco, I was deeply angered and hurt by what happened to you. The wife had to stop me from raging and ranting around the house. What happened today in NM wasn't legal, or right, and I deeply hope that the happiness and justice you deserve will be yours very soon.)
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:46 PM on February 20, 2004

There's one thing missing from this discussion -

Many happy years for the couples who've gotten married; may your lives together be what you wish them to be.

Congratulations!
posted by pyramid termite at 6:48 PM on February 20, 2004

Wulfgar: how nice of you to compare my feelings to answergrape's. I didn't. Once again, it's the old game of put word's in someone's mouth and then slap them out.

Of course you shouldn't compare pain, but you're the one who did. I didn't ask for it.

Of course, why should I expect better from someone who can't handle the fact that I don't agree with you. If you feel that gives you cause to call me part of the problem, I's say you're the problem. But that must be what you are calling liberalism: say what you want, and insult what you don't like.

Once again, I never said anything against same-sex marriage, I gave the arguments as I understood them. And for that I have been told I'm a bigot, and get commentary from idiots like you who can't let their intellect override their reason.

Yes, you read well at first glance, but your whole diatribe is based on nothing more than "feelings". Something made you feel good. Then something made you feel bad. Is that liberalism? Acting on feelings instead of intellect?

I'm not a victim. But I am completely aghast at what I see as some of the more intellectual, enlightened, humorous souls on the internet totally freaking out at one small person speaking something that isn't in the religion of political correctness. No matter how many times I've said this is a good and just thing, close-minded people liek you still need to vent their little feelings, instead of acting from an intellectual viewpoint.

But of course. You actually urge action instead of thought. How dare anyone discuss anything when people are being hurt right now! Shoot first! Ask questions later! It doesn't matter who's wrong. Give in to your anger, Luke!

As far as answergrape goes, I can feel for him/her deeply. In fact, I was ashamed of my "icky" joke because on post I read that message. But that's the net - can't take it back.

But my human understanding and empathy has nothing to do with my feelings about homosexuality. It's nice I can use my brain to analyze them. It's too bad you apparently can't use yours to read my posts before you start spouting off.
posted by hurkle at 7:18 PM on February 20, 2004

Final notes:

1. This discussion clarified for me why I think same-sex marriages are okay and the next progession in the evolution of society.

2. It made me realize that I need to rethink where I think society will take the concept of "two adults" instead of "a man and a woman". Perhaps it won't be as bad eventually as I think it will be. And why I think it is bad stems from my moral upbringing. Perhaps that will change.

3. It made me humanize the debate - the same thing that eventually changed my mind about abortion.

4. It made me realize that leftists and liberals can be just as hateful and blind and rabid as any right-wing conservative. Note to self: watch out for this in future.

Thanks.
posted by hurkle at 7:26 PM on February 20, 2004

Even if the Constitution doesn't have wording in it that allows same-sex marriage, it does have wording in it that makes international agreements equal to law, so long as they don't contravene the Constitution.

And according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the US is a signatory...

"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."

It doesn't say that the couple has to be a man and a woman, nor does it say, for that matter, that the couple can't be a triad, dyad, etc.

Alternately, you can believe that those who are born with mixed genders or who are infertile are not entitled to marry. Your choice...

Personally, I think it's time we start forcing the infertile to divorce, because obviously God made them that way on purpose, and they are acting in an abominable method contrary to God's plan... right?!
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:26 PM on February 20, 2004

If Gays have the right to get married, hetrosexuals have the right NOT to get married. You know, be a respectable citizen of the community who is happily single and seeing 2 or 3 partners, perhaps kids with a bunch of people. Many people allready live this lifestyle but are the kids better for it, is the community stronger for it? Typically not according to most studies a 2-parent household is the strongest.

That is the nightmare scenario for the conservatives. Gay marriage is an attack on the institution of the family, from the perspective of the Right.
posted by stbalbach at 7:51 PM on February 20, 2004

Isn't the divorce rate in America currently around 49%?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:10 PM on February 20, 2004

To put it another way.. just as there are forces to prevent gays from being married, there are forces on hetrosexuals to be married. Legal and otherwise.

If gays can get married, than straights should not pay (higher taxes etc) for not being married. All the arguments for why gays should get married can be turned around and the same thing said for hetrosexuals freedom to not be married.
posted by stbalbach at 8:16 PM on February 20, 2004

I've thought for a while, based on the way that France managed to get civil unions approved a few years ago, that activists should stop talking about "gay marriage" and focus on getting equal legal rights through civil unions. The idea of "gay marriage" seemed to me to be a way to antagonize people like hurkle who feel unconfortable about homosexuality, and hand Bush a perfect fundraising opportunity to mobilize his base of support.

These photos and this thread have changed my mind. Actually seeing peoples' faces makes the problem real. Respect to Derek Powazek for the kind of political action that actually might change things, and respect to hurkle for being able to think about different points of view (something that I still think activists need to work harder on).
posted by fuzz at 8:18 PM on February 20, 2004

Okay, there is no reason to have a constitutional amendment for "saving marriage." But, if this continues, then dammit I want divorce to be outlawed and codified into the Constitution as well.

What's that? No, divorce is okay?! Well, I guess we are not that worried over the "institution of marriage" of marriage then. Hypocrites.

Wake me when we are done with this hypocrisy. I now know what Jim Crow was like when we dealt with "those sub-humans." Here is the segregation of our generation.

Pathetic narrow minded
Real things to worry about (poverty, literacy, cancer/disease, etc. etc. and this is what people raise their anger about.)
posted by fluffycreature at 8:41 PM on February 20, 2004

Oh, one more thing.

Seperation of Church and State - recall this from the Constitution? Well, remove all tax credits and other loop holes for being married. The government should not be in this business, right?
posted by fluffycreature at 8:43 PM on February 20, 2004

Great Video, damehex!

Thank you for sharing that!
posted by vacapinta at 9:01 PM on February 20, 2004

stbalbach: Heterosexuals already have the right not to get married, even if they have kids. Sometimes, they create two-parent households to raise children together, and sometimes not. But really, it's completely unconnected to the issue of legally allowing same-sex marriage, so right-wingers who try to conflate the issue of same-sex marriage with that of absentee parents are just insane. Has any public figure actually espoused that link?

Simply put: people who advocate legalizing same-sex marriage are pro-marriage; we're all happy that these couples in San Francisco, are finally able to get married, and we want to see more of that. People who are opposed to same-sex marriage are anti-marriage; they want to put boundaries around who can marry whom, which in practice amounts to saying that entire classes of people should never get married. And then they claim to be the ones defending marriage!

Off-topic: I'd love to see the studies which compare two-parent households to multiparent households, rather than just single-parent households.
posted by skoosh at 9:08 PM on February 20, 2004

I gave the arguments as I understood them. And for that I have been told I'm a bigot, and get commentary from idiots like you who can't let their intellect override their reason.

Two points you seem to want to wash away with your sad victimization, hurkle: If an argument is bigoted, then the holder of such argument is, by definition, a bigot. If you don't like being called a bigot, get over defending bigoted causes. Is that clear now? Second, you so accuse that people here deride you because we disagree with you. No, many disagreed with your argument, with valid reason and all use of intellect. You're the one who took it personally and then expected us to care that your feels were hurt, and that we're not all loving people that care with bunnys and hugs. Guess what, I don't care about you with bunnys and hugs. I care about logic, reason, morality, and justice. If your stance is contrary to these things, don't ask me to feel all warm when you offend the basic principles of thought, and then spin it as if I'm the one just bringing up "feelings". You made a bad argument, cupcake. And because of bad arguments such as yours, people are being denied basic human rights. Hey, I'm so not sorry that I'm not slowing down to concider that I might be hurting your feelings if I point out that you're standing stalwart in the defense of idiocy. I'm impatient that way, and much more likely to say "what a moron; lets forget him and move on".

Final note, since these are real human lives we're discussing here, and not some f'ed up mental thought game, I'm very happy if something has been learned here. Here's a few other things I hope have been learned:

Liberals are not all peaches and cream; we're not all going to passively look to the cloud covered fairy lands while the more "level headed" pull nonsense out of their asses and call it reason.

The reasonable have a low tolerance for obviously indefensable stances. If you champion an indefensible stance, don't be surprised if you find yourself buried in the oncoming attack. And if you do, don't take it personaly; that leads to whining, and identifies you as prey.

Hurting people by denying their basic right to just treatment will not be tolerated by some folks. Get used to it. America is rife with such angry hate in service to justice. I see that as a good thing.

Final note: what the hell do you mean by "those who can't let their intellect overide their reason"? Does that even make sense?
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:22 PM on February 20, 2004

I do think Wulfgar and others should lay off hurkle a bit. He's got his own objections, but is intelligent enough to explain them and understanding enough to post about them here. I don't hate him or people with his viewpoint, as he seems "halfway there" when it comes to the issue ("gays can marry but I personally don't understand the gay thing"). I know so many others that are completely and religiously against the thought that they can't even have a conversation about it, which is what I'm trying to do there.

We're never going to build bridges between people or come to an understanding among folks by shouting "bigot" at them when they speak. Personally, I think hurkle's pretty far along to accepting it and is someone I'd call an ally in this debate, not a bigot. So today I suspect hurkle might be merely tolerating gays, in five years he might have accepted them.
posted by mathowie at 10:05 PM on February 20, 2004

answergrape -- I am so, so sorry. I am also unbelievably angry about that. I wish you and your partner all of the love in the world, and hope that we can get this ridiculous debate behind us soon.

stbalbach -- That argument makes zero sense. While there are a few financial disincentives for heterosexuals to stay single, there's hardly a law. I think it's quite a stretch to equate subtle economic discouragement (that can, obviously, be readily ignored, judging by my number of single straight friends) with a legal prohibition.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 10:35 PM on February 20, 2004

As much as I'm not a fan of Hurkle's victim complex in this thread, he is exactly the kind of person that this country needs more of. Yes, he admits that he has a gut-level discomfort with homosexuality. However, he is able and willing to acknowledge that his visceral reaction is not a tool with which to guide public policy. If more people could separate there discomfort with other groups from what is right and just, the world would be an infinitely better place.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 10:41 PM on February 20, 2004

One more vote for laying off hurkle. Hurkle never said he/she was against gay marriage, just that there is a personal element of disgust. That's fine by me--we can't ask people not to be disgusted by homosexuality, all we can ask is that they not let that feeling guide their political beliefs.

I applaud anyone who can ignore their emotions and instead listen to their sense of reason.
posted by Khalad at 11:43 PM on February 20, 2004

Hurkle, unless you're pulling our leg about this, you are in fact a bigot, and you should either try not to be a bigot, or accept that you are one and save the time it takes to try to rationalize your fucked-up view of the world. There are, after all, worse things than being a bigot. Off the top of my head, being gay and American at the same time is one of them. Having a parasitic twin living in your stomache is another, but that's kind of a stretch. Forget that last part, this thread is about gay people!
posted by Hildago at 12:00 AM on February 21, 2004

I do think Wulfgar and others should lay off hurkle a bit. He's got his own objections, but is intelligent enough to explain them and understanding enough to post about them here. I don't hate him or people with his viewpoint, as he seems "halfway there" when it comes to the issue ("gays can marry but I personally don't understand the gay thing"). I know so many others that are completely and religiously against the thought that they can't even have a conversation about it, which is what I'm trying to do there.

Matt, I am damn well sorry here (seriously) if I've upset you with my agression towards hurkle. But I say that in deference to my host, not because I think I'm wrong. I believe that hurkle doesn't want to hurt people, but arguing against the obvious fact that any couple who want to declare thier love and commitment should have the right to do so (and be afforded the benefits and protections thereby) is non-sensical, and I'm tired of playing the feely-good game with those who can't abide the obvious. Same sex marraiges hurt NO-ONE, period. Not one argument presented has shown otherwise. Abiding idiotic thought cultures its growth. I've no wish to put up with that. I'm too tired to have a meaningless issue come to the forfront because certain persons want the dissing of their indefensable beliefs to matter more than the real pain of injustice. Khalad can defend hurkle because we all want the rational to win, but seriously, was hurkle rational when presenting an indefensible argument and then weeping because others tore it to shreds? Please!
posted by Wulfgar! at 12:50 AM on February 21, 2004

I just had a thought about that "visceral reaction" referred to previously. Is that the essential drive behind most people's negative reaction to homosexuality? What is that feeling, and is it possible that it is innate? Perhaps, for some people, heterosexuality is a stronger drive than for others and for those people, they have a stronger reaction to any non-hetero sexual intercourse? Just like some people who know they are gay from an early age, and others only discover it (to their surprise) later in adult life. Or am I just high?

ps. I think Hurkle was hard done by too. I admire him sticking to his guns amidst all the emotional, and perhaps reasoned (it's hard to tell with all that emotion flying around!), responses to his posts.
posted by Onanist at 1:46 AM on February 21, 2004

Hurkle said what he feels, and that's what everyone wanted to hear from the incredible pussy Steve_at_Linwood.

I don't agree with Hurkle - I don't think that gay people are "icky", and I think that gay marriage is exactly analogous to the civil rights issues of the 1960s - but Hurkle expressed what S@L might have said if S@L had a brain. Hurkle got jumped on unjustly and unfairly.

What part of "All men are created equal" is so hard to understand? They wouldn't have to try to amend the Constitution if their objectives weren't unconstitutional. It's as simple as that.
posted by interrobang at 2:06 AM on February 21, 2004

Also, these photos are tear-jerking. Even the posts in this thread reacting to these photos make me tear up. Why do you hate love?
posted by interrobang at 2:18 AM on February 21, 2004

i also don't agree with hurkle, but i think he made some damn good points:

One thing that I really am HAPPY about because of same-sex marriage is that when two lesbians get divorced and fight over the kids, there will be no way to apply presumptive maternal custody with two mothers on the line. Thus I think in this area we will see - eventually - more joint/shared custody and parenting. I think we'll see the growth eventually of communes - or at least large open families. Do I think this is a good thing? No, not right now. Am I open to thinking about it and discussing it and deciding if I am making an intellectual or emotional decision? Yes.
=====
I'm not a victim. But I am completely aghast at what I see as some of the more intellectual, enlightened, humorous souls on the internet totally freaking out at one small person speaking something that isn't in the religion of political correctness. No matter how many times I've said this is a good and just thing, close-minded people liek you still need to vent their little feelings, instead of acting from an intellectual viewpoint.
=====
Final notes:
4. It made me realize that leftists and liberals can be just as hateful and blind and rabid as any right-wing conservative. Note to self: watch out for this in future.

well put.
posted by joedan at 4:31 AM on February 21, 2004

Radiant, aren't they?

Still, I can't help feeling vaguely disappointed; all of this joy, all of this happiness - derived from so prosaic a source - a marriage license.

What is it about that particular construct that inspires such deep - often fierce - emotion?

In Transcendentville, the degree to which people revere a marriage license is inversely proportional to their level of personal enlightenment. But I'm not in Transcendentville, am I - not yet, and likely not ever - so probably it's just me, alone, early of a saturday morn, spinning emptiness into iconoclasm.

They really are radiant, aren't they?
posted by Opus Dark at 5:00 AM on February 21, 2004

Abiding idiotic thought cultures its growth. I've no wish to put up with that.

You may be right about the issues, Wulfgar, but I disagree with you completely about how to effect change. You can't convince someone until you've tried to understand what they think. It feels righteously good to call someone a bigot and refuse to tolerate their ideas, but all it does is help the forces of bigotry.

A lot of people in our culture feel uncomfortable with homosexuality. The more you tell them to shut up and get over it, and the more they will perceive gays as their enemy. The more you show them that gays are ordinary, loving people just like them, and the more they will be able to put aside their discomfort in order to see the injustice.

When was the last time you changed your mind about something because someone told you that you were full of "idiotic thought"?
posted by fuzz at 5:00 AM on February 21, 2004

Let's never forget the most important issue here: Hurkle is the real victim. We must all treat people who find homosexuality repugnant with the respect they don't afford to others.

I wasn't referring to him in my earlier post, but at this point, I can't say I'm that disappointed it was taken that way. To me, people who let their visceral distaste for gay people cloud their thinking are no better than those whose internalized racism caused them to resist the civil rights movement in the '60s. Get on the bus or get out of the way.

I'm tired of religious conservatives trying to make this a country where people are free only to make the same choices they have.
posted by rcade at 5:00 AM on February 21, 2004

I wasn't going to post on this thread, because I had nothing to add except that the pictures were really great, and brought some joy to my day.

However, it amazes me how many people seem to let their emotions overcome their reading ability. So I will try to clarify one minor point.

HURKLE IS IN FAVOR OF LEGAL GAY MARRIAGES.

(Regardless of his personal feelings about homosexuality)

If every republican in congress felt and acted the same way it would be a good start.
posted by bashos_frog at 5:28 AM on February 21, 2004

To me, people who let their visceral distaste for gay people cloud their thinking are no better than those whose internalized racism caused them to resist the civil rights movement in the '60s.

What am I not understanding here? I thought it was quite clear that hurkle was not letting his distaste for gay people cloud his thinking, a point he repeatedly made clear.

And I quote:

hurkle: ...I think the commitment between adults should be applauded and recognized even if I find what they do personally repugnant. But hey, that's America. I'll defend to the death your ability to do what you want and say what you want.

We can't ask people to not be disgusted by gays--feelings like that cannot be controlled by will or reason. All we can ask is that they not let that feeling lead them to discrimination or bigotry, actions that do fall under the purview of reason.
posted by Khalad at 5:31 AM on February 21, 2004

I also think that I should say that while I believe quite strongly in gay rights, and total equality under the law, I also respect the rights of someone to hold whatever opinion they like. Unless they act on that opinion in a manner that deprives another person of their rights, they should be left alone about their beliefs.

Personally, I think religious fundamentalists are icky. But until I start advocating the banning of their religion and the burning of their churches, my beliefs are my business.

On preview, what Khalad said.
posted by bashos_frog at 6:04 AM on February 21, 2004

We can't ask people to not be disgusted by gays -- feelings like that cannot be controlled by will or reason.

That's a pretty broad excuse for simple prejudice. Would anyone give the same license to people who oppose interracial marriage?

I'm aware that he claims support for these unions, but when someone states that he finds homosexuality "fairly repugnant" and believes gay marriage will legitimize polygamy and other unspecified bad things, you'll have to excuse me for not applauding his wafer-thin commitment to equality.
posted by rcade at 6:28 AM on February 21, 2004

Okay, that wasn't the final note...

I appreciate those who understand what my point is - it was trying to answer a question raised back at the start of the thread.

Khalad makes it clear I am NOT letting my feelings cloud my intellectual response to the issue.

Wulfgar and rcade, you are both acting like idiots in my opinion. For some reason, you simply can't fathom that someone might espouse something that they don't like for the simple reason it's the right thing to do. Especially you, Wulfgar. First, with all your big words and effete sophistry, you can't even make a distinction between the answer to a question and the defense of a deeply-held belief system. Second, the derision you are so proud of was not defensible - not by such an enlightened reasoned, smart, intellectual, wonderful, logical, beautiful, caring, human rights-oriented person such as yourself. Unless, of course, groundlessly insulting people is our preferred method of discourse - obviously yours.

I find your "I'm so proud of how tough and gruff I am" type of emotive nonsense just as offensive as Bush's continual lying. You think your "honesty" shows how great you are - and in fact, you end up looking like an intolerant bigot.

Finally, continue harp on my "sad little victimization party" all you want. If it helps you feel better about venting, enjoy it. I never asked for pity... again (even though I feel certain you'll gloss over this in your attempts to find something to whine about) I am not a victim. However, I think those of you who called me a bigot didn't do so because I was championing the convervative right's viewpoint (because I wasn't), but because - CUPCAKE - it made you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to dump on someone because they don't agree with you. I haven't seen a single argument from you yet that really addresses any issue other than how upset you are.

Oh, and rereading this thread... I meant to say way back when that the end of presumptive maternal custody is a good thing. But I'm not so sure about creche babies and communes - they didn't work out so good in the sixties. Maybe noe with legal recognition they will. And again, Wulfgar the prejudiced - I'm allowed not to like that. I'm not even defending it. Read what you will into it, though... (yawns, waves hand)

You'
posted by hurkle at 6:33 AM on February 21, 2004

when someone states that he finds homosexuality "fairly repugnant" and believes gay marriage will legitimize polygamy and other unspecified bad things, you'll have to excuse me for not applauding his wafer-thin commitment to equality

This is the real issue right here, and why a lot of people - especially the conservative right have a lot of trouble accepting homosexuality...

As rcade so thoughtfully points out for us - IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE, YOU ARE A BIGOT!

There's the political correctness issue in a nutshell. I don't think I could have summarized it better myself.
posted by hurkle at 6:36 AM on February 21, 2004

That's a pretty broad excuse for simple prejudice. Would anyone give the same license to people who oppose interracial marriage?

Yep. I give license to any person to think as he wants, right or wrong. KKKer, communist, gay, racist, atheist, fundamentalist, whatever.
You wanna believe that gays are evil - fine.
You wanna believe that aliens exist - fine.
You wanna believe that different races shouldn't marry - fine.

You wanna make laws enforcing your beliefs on everyone - no fucking way.

That, my friends, is the American way.
And for the record, my marriage is interracial.
posted by bashos_frog at 7:08 AM on February 21, 2004

Hurkle wrote:-

It made me realize that leftists and liberals can be just as hateful and blind and rabid as any right-wing conservative. Note to self: watch out for this in future.

Only on Metafilter would somebody say this, as if it's a startling realisation. As if lefties and liberals are somehow morally superior to anyone else.

As to gay marriage:- let them marry, let them divorce. Maybe the gay community can even force changes in divorce laws too, which are horrendously unfair against men and children.

Give it 3 years.....there'll be a hoopla in the gay community about how fucked the divorce laws are. The lefty media listen to gays more than heterosexual men. Just the way it is, but they'll be my new best friend when they start protesting about divorce laws.

Of course, me telling it like it is will draw some lefty, liberal indignation on these boards.
posted by SpaceCadet at 7:19 AM on February 21, 2004

This is the real issue right here, and why a lot of people - especially the conservative right have a lot of trouble accepting homosexuality...

Political correctness makes them intolerant of homosexuality? That would seem to contradict your statement that it's icky on moral or religious grounds, but "they made us feel this way about them" is a nice refuge for people who are uncomfortable about their own beliefs.
posted by rcade at 7:21 AM on February 21, 2004

One last thing before I sleep - I think hurkle's beliefs about homosexual behaviour are prejudiced in a bad way. His tolerance for other ideas clearly show he is not a bigot, at least by the conventional definition. And he has a constitutional and human right to be prejudiced.

There should be no such thing as a thoughtcrime.

I had hoped that most everyone here would agree with that, but apparently not. I guess I now have a pretty good picture now of what a "progressive" John Ashcroft would sound like.
posted by bashos_frog at 7:24 AM on February 21, 2004

rcade - "I'm aware that he claims support for these unions, but when someone states that he finds homosexuality "fairly repugnant" and believes gay marriage will legitimize polygamy and other unspecified bad things, you'll have to excuse me for not applauding his wafer-thin commitment to equality."

Scientific studies of people's emotional and physiological reactions to sex, recorded among straight and gay male and female subjects that everyone was more or less ok with str8 & lesbian porn, but when gay male porn was shown, the gay male subjects were about the only ones who seemed to like it, with others showing signs of uneasiness or at best indifference [largely, IIRC and other disclaimers].

It seems likely to me, to be a much more innate 'issue' than racial prejudice, rcade. But I could be wrong.

Or maybe it's a cultural thing?
posted by Blue Stone at 7:38 AM on February 21, 2004

Main Entry: prejudice
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -diced; -dic·ing
1 : to injure or damage by some judgment or action (as in a case of law)
2 : to cause to have prejudice

I guess I hurt your feelings by stating my dislike. I did not act intolerant. But if hurting your feelings makes me prejudiced. then I guess I better learn to shut up.

Of course, by that token, all you people whom I acted prejudicially against would support Tennessee's (I think it was them) removal of the honor roll from school because it makes the low achieving kids feel bad.

By that token, you hurting my feelings makes you prejudiced.

What kind of society do you want anyway?
posted by hurkle at 8:02 AM on February 21, 2004

Can't sleep.
I was using prejudiced as an adjective, not a transitive verb.
Meanings: emanating from a person's emotions and prejudices, discriminatory, being biased or having a belief or attitude formed beforehand.

My feelings were not hurt, as I think everyone has a right to their own prejudices. Personally, I think your beliefs are wrong, but I am frankly uninterested in trying to change your mind. You seemed tolerant enough at first, and I hope one day you will change your mind on your own. You don't seem eager to deprive anyone else of their rights, and live and let live is good enough for me.

As to the kind of society I want, live and let live, mind your own business, and do unto others as you would have done to you. I guess I'd be a libertarian if I didn't also believe the government has an interest in ensuring that certain less fortunate members of society have food and shelter. (Clothing is optional in my utopia)
posted by bashos_frog at 8:32 AM on February 21, 2004

lay off hurkle--he's free to think what he wants. As long as he's not going to translate those beliefs into action (which is what worries some of us)--and he's said he won't--we're cool.
Many people are disgusted and uncomfortable about all sorts of things--it's the other side of life's rich pageant. Hurkle knows that he's not going to have to be part of a gay marriage or even attend one, and those of us who will now know not to invite him : >
posted by amberglow at 8:39 AM on February 21, 2004

I agree with mathowie and others: quit picking on hurkle. You don't seem to get it, you wonderful pure right-thinking people: if you're willing to deal only with people as pure as yourselves, you're going to form a tight little mutual admiration society with no effect on the world at large. Perhaps you don't realize it, but in that great impure world out there, hurkle is on the progressive tip. Here's hurkle:
I believe that allowing same-sex marriage is the Right Thing (tm) to do.
Now, how many Evil Nasty Bigots do you think are willing to say the same thing? Not many. How far do you think you're going to get if you alienate even people on your side of the issue? Not too damn far.

Look, until I was pushing thirty I too found homosexuality weird and repugnant. How would I not? I'd never known any gay people (knowingly known, that is, if you know what I mean), and the culture offered me absolutely no reason to think otherwise. Homophobia was absolutely taken for granted until the '70s, and it took a long time for anti-homophobia to make its way from progressive circles to the Liberal Media to places outside the Big Coastal Cities; in fact, that change is still very much in the process of happening. It wasn't until I discovered that a family member was gay, then moved to NYC and started working in a bookstore where virtually every other male was gay (a guy who later became a good friend blew me off when I made an innocent remark about a book he was reading because he thought I was trying to pick him up), that I started first realizing that gays were pretty much people like me, even if they had weird repugnant sex that I didn't want to think about, and shouldn't be discriminated against, and then coming to terms with their homosexuality and making gay friends and slowly finding I didn't think it was repugnant any more. That's how it works. If you can figure that out, and get over your own repugnance at Bad Evil Prejudice, maybe someday you'll actually be effective advocates for change instead of self-important ideologues. Remember: being pleased with yourself is not enough.

Steve, my offer still stands, and with jonmc as our flowergirl, we're golden. I love a man I can fight with. ; >
posted by amberglow at 6:17 PM EST on February 20

I'm getting all choked up. I don't think I can make it to SF for the wedding, but I promise to send flowers!

Ameican IS changing....for the better.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:30 PM EST on February 20

Now wait just a cotton-pickin' minute. Just a couple of threads back I saw you claiming that American was becoming ethically worse than every other country in the world. Which is it? I want to know whether to celebrate or pack my bags.
posted by languagehat at 8:56 AM on February 21, 2004

and answergrape, i'm so so sorry for you two--it's wrong that they arbitrarily stopped performing marriages, and i hope lawsuits are being filed out there (and everywhere).
posted by amberglow at 9:08 AM on February 21, 2004

Hold on. Why should there be any tolerance in modern society for people who deride homosexuality the same way Klan members and their ilk deride minorities?

Speaking as a straight black man (all my life :) that sounds like crap.
posted by owillis at 10:07 AM on February 21, 2004

Well, everything seems to be settled then...


*deep-fries flowers, douses them in chocolate sauce, devours them*
posted by jonmc at 10:21 AM on February 21, 2004

An overwhelming majority of americans feel what is going on in SF is wrong, and will likely side with politicians they agree with.

It doesn't matter what people feel, it's illegal for two people of the same sex to marry in the state of California. Did the mayor forget to mention that?
posted by hama7 at 10:23 AM on February 21, 2004

What should we do, owillis--kill him? stone him? ban him? People are allowed to hold whatever views they want--it's the acting on them that count in my book. If hurkle was acting on his views (and he made clear he wasn't, and wasn't going to), then I would join in the bashing. Gays make him uncomfortable and he's grossed out by us, but he made it clear that his views are subject to change (as he changed on the abortion issue--read above). Piling on him won't help that happen--ever. There are many millions of people who feel the same way as him (like there are many millions of racists)--hurkle has shown he's not like 111 or others who aren't even open to discussing the issues, and insulting and piling on him just make for personal resentment. (I'm reminded of the outsourcing thing, where i was called racist--it's very insulting, and in a discussion that's not an effective strategy ever.)

and hama, the state constitution of CA forbids discrimination, which makes the state law banning it unconstitutional. The mayor took an oath to uphold that constitution.
posted by amberglow at 10:28 AM on February 21, 2004

the state constitution of CA forbids discrimination

If enough people in California feel that not allowing same-sex "marriage" is "discrimination", then wouldn't it make sense to amend the state Constitution, rather than flagrantly violating the law?

Or maybe we should all just stop obeying the laws we don't like.
posted by hama7 at 10:47 AM on February 21, 2004

The constitution doesn't need to be amended--it's clear on not allowing discrimination. It's the state law that's discriminatory.
posted by amberglow at 10:54 AM on February 21, 2004

owillis: I never derided it, I just said I didn't like it. That's the distinction some people just can't understand.

And though I don't appreciate the KKK at all, what you are saying sounds suspiciously like some groups (i.e. the ones you don't agree with) shouldn't be allowed to speak out.

Now, THAT's crap, at least according to the principle of free speech. Of course, if you think that we should live in a carefully censored, thought-free society, you are free to work toward that end.

As a person, I could care less if you are black, yellow, white, gay, or straight. However, thinking about homosexual sex makes me physically uncomfortable. Thinking about interracial sex doesn't. No matter how much you want to think I'm bigoted/prejudiced for having this reaction, that's the way I'm made.

Or is it okay to be born homosexual, and I should be all understanding about that, but it only goes one direction, i.e. you don't have to be understanding about how I was born? Would you apply this same logic to child molestation? Where's the line for you?

According to your logic, I should deny my physical feelings because I might be hurting somebody else's feelings. But according to that logic, homosexuals ought to deny their physical feelings because it's hurting MY feelings.

That argument just won't wash. In an ostensibly free society, people can hold their own opinions, and the best ones should ideally rise to the top of the society where they are embodied in law. However, all censoring an opinion will do is give it power.

Unless of course you simply think I should be deprogrammed because my opinions don't agree with yours. In that case, why shouldn't I be able to deprogram you, or homosexuals?

Now, if you want to debate, that's just fine. That's how people's minds get changed.
posted by hurkle at 11:16 AM on February 21, 2004

Family.Code Section 300-310.

California Constitution.

"Californians spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage when they overwhelmingly approved California's law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman." - Schwarzenegger

Case closed.
posted by hama7 at 11:22 AM on February 21, 2004

California Constitution.
posted by hama7 at 11:25 AM on February 21, 2004

No, wait, wait, I got it...

Hold on. Why should there be any tolerance in modern society for people who deride homosexuals the same way feminists and their ilk deride men?

Speaking as a straight white man (all my life :) that sounds like crap.

Let's go fight feminists! Down with tolerance! Up with white men (the largest minority)!
posted by hurkle at 11:31 AM on February 21, 2004

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 1: DECLARATION OF RIGHTS: SEC. 7.

(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws...
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.

Case closed.

Agreed. Thanks for the links, hama7.
posted by skoosh at 12:02 PM on February 21, 2004

According to your logic, I should deny my physical feelings because I might be hurting somebody else's feelings. But according to that logic, homosexuals ought to deny their physical feelings because it's hurting MY feelings.

Extremely weak. You assume your "aversion" is inherent, when in fact it is almost certainly the product of two things: unfamiliarity with the subject, and immersion in a largely homophobic culture. I haven't seen any research that indicates that people are hard-wired to shudder with revulsion at the thought of two dudes going at it, but I have seen research that implies a biological foundation for those two dudes wanting to go at it. My conclusion, then, is that your analogy is bogus, and that your "aversion" is almost certainly your own problem, and also that you need to deal with it as soon as possible if you want to not seem like an ignorant bigot. Your position, however, nuanced, is still no more rational than, say, Jerry Falwell's.
posted by Hildago at 12:08 PM on February 21, 2004

what skoosh said. It's (b) there that exactly speaks to this in crystal-clear language.
posted by amberglow at 12:08 PM on February 21, 2004

If enough people in California feel that not allowing same-sex "marriage" is "discrimination", then wouldn't it make sense to amend the state Constitution, rather than flagrantly violating the law?

Or maybe we should all just stop obeying the laws we don't like.

If Rosa Parks didn't like sitting in the back of the bus, then wouldn't it make sense for her to write a friendly, gracious letter to her Congressman, rather than flagrantly violating the law?

What's the big deal, anyway? Why couldn't she walk the -- what -- five steps to the back? Ten steps? She couldn't have been that tired. I mean, come on.

It's called "civil disobedience," hama7. Sometimes it's necessary, sometimes it's wrong. In this case, it's official. When irrational laws are propped up by irrational arguments, one sometimes has to sidestep traditional methods of challenging them.

As for hurkle, rcade, Wulfgar!, et al., I think everyone should be entitled to an opinion. And that includes rcade and Wulfgar!. You're right that running roughshod over others' opinions when they differ from our own isn't going to win us this war, considering we're mostly in the minority here on MeFi, but I suspect that Wulfgar! and rcade would be more diplomatic in a forum where people have more of an inclination and/or a reason to change their minds rather than just rearrange their prejudices. Minds change so rarely. It's true of life; even more true of MeFi.

Also, I think we presuppose that hurkle, rcade, and Wulfgar! are on the "same side" anyway. They may all agree on gay marriage. But honestly, if someone came in and said, "I find blackness repugnant, but nonetheless am ambivalent about letting blacks marry," I would have a hard time celebrating common cause with him or refraining from calling him a bigot. (And the idea that I should refrain from doing so, hurkle, that's political correctness. PC doesn't mean espousing a certain pre-defined liberal set of opinions, it means cheerily rubber-stamping everyone's different point of view, no matter how wrong you think it is. There's a lot of PC flying around in this thread, but it's not coming from rcade or Wulfgar!, believe you me.)

4. It made me realize that leftists and liberals can be just as hateful and blind and rabid as any right-wing conservative. Note to self: watch out for this in future.

You're only now learning this? And you're married?? How long have you been around?
posted by grrarrgh00 at 12:45 PM on February 21, 2004

There's a difference between holding a belief and sharing it. When you publicly share a belief that you find a minority group "repugnant" (a strong choice of words), you're contributing to the environment to make them less welcome and validating the opinion of others who share that view.

While it's honest for Hurkle to express a sentiment that many of us find ugly (and one he's clearly uncomfortable with himself), the notion that homosexuality is repugnant ought to be repudiated by those of us who don't share that view.

If he truly believes that the best opinions "rise to the top," then he should stop taking such grievous offense because people offer a competing notion to his strong personal belief regarding gays.
posted by rcade at 1:02 PM on February 21, 2004

Hildago sez: You assume your "aversion" is inherent, when in fact it is almost certainly the product of two things: unfamiliarity with the subject, and immersion in a largely homophobic culture.

Wow. So anyone who doesn't like homosexuality just hasn't been "educated" enough. I smell A Clockwork Orange. Would that education include torture - perhaps electroshock therapy? Give me a break.

I grew up in Santa Fe, which has a hell of a lot of homosexuals in it. And I know and have been friends with several homosexuals and bisexuals. That doesn't mean that I'm comfortable with them rump-riding in front of me.

I know that's extreme. But the point is you feel that I simply haven't been exposed to enough homosexual activity to make my aversion go away. How much do you feel I need to have? Will I be required to participate in something I find distasteful just to help you get over your prejudices? What if I really just don't like it. Should I be re-educated? It's great how you get to decide what I should think and feel. Thanks very much.

And research about physical aversion to homosex WAS mentioned earlier in this thread.

And given the massive influence that homosexuals are beginning to have over our media, I find it hard to believe we live in a homophobic society any more. A society that doesn't like them for the most part, okay. But given the metrosexual, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, any number of recent movies with homosexual actions/plots, the homosexual show on Showtime (can't remember the name) and the civil disobedience and support we are seeing RIGHT NOW, your argument about the type of society we live in is straight out of the fifties. It really is 2004 and homosexuality is a tolerated part of society.

Now what it really seems to me is that certain people want it to be celebrated. It's not enough that I swallow my dislike and physical aversion to homosexual sexual activity - NO. I must celebrate it and welcome it and invite it into my life or I am a bigot. If it was the fifties, these are the same people who would be telling me to get a black friend just because they are black - not because of the person they are.

rcade says: the notion that homosexuality is repugnant ought to be repudiated by those of us who don't share that view.

Great - try doing it with logic and reason instead of insults. Just 'cause you're backpedaling now doesn't mean you weren't right there claiming I was the biggest tool around for daring to speak my mind.
posted by hurkle at 1:30 PM on February 21, 2004

that's what everyone wanted to hear from the incredible pussy Steve_at_Linwood

Hurkle expressed what S@L might have said if S@L had a brain

Well, to be blunt, you can go fuck yourself. This is exactly why I said "I don't have the energy to write that much."

I really should have known better, and not posted anything in this thread.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:34 PM on February 21, 2004

One more thing - from what I understand, there have been cases of homosexuals being reeducated to be straight. Hidalgo! Do you support that? I mean, it's been shown that sexual orientation can be influenced by society. Why is one way okay and the other not?

Andrew Sullivan makes a great case for homosexual marriage. One of his most interesting points (IMHO) is: I believe strongly that marriage should be made available to everyone, in a politics of strict public neutrality. But within this model, there is plenty of scope for cultural difference. There is something baleful about the attempt of some gay conservatives to educate homosexuals and lesbians into an uncritical acceptance of a stifling model of heterosexual normality. The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.

In other words, what conservatives fear most, and what I said, is even echoed by a leading homosexual thinker - i.e. marriage - a traditionally hetero institution- will need to change to accomodate the sexual mores and interests of homosexuals; the more society broadens the definition of "marriage" the less seriously it may be taken by everyone.

Of course this is frightening to conservatives who view marriage as a very important function in creating a stable system for the raising and development of the next generation as well as encouraging a trusting, exclusive union.

I'll be sad to see that side of marriage go. I'm not saying ti will for sure, but I think that it will.

I already said I'm for the equality of it.
posted by hurkle at 1:45 PM on February 21, 2004

It really is 2004 and homosexuality is a tolerated part of society.

Tolerated in the sense that... they have the same legal rights as everyone else? Clearly not, ergo this thread. In the sense that they can serve in the armed forces? Have any reasonable chance of being elected to high office? Not be ridiculed and harassed?

Oh. OH! Wait, maybe you just mean that we don't kill them all or arrest them? If this is what you mean, point conceded. Otherwise, explain to me how we as a nation can be said to be tolerant of homosexuality when we still have to engage in debates as to whether the equal protection clause applies to them? When candidates are literally afraid to state a belief on the subject one way or another? When people get lynched for being gay? Please post another dictionary definition of the word, as those have been exceedingly helpful so far.

But the point is you feel that I simply haven't been exposed to enough homosexual activity to make my aversion go away.

Pardon me. Clearly, I'm mistaken. Having grown up in Santa Fe, and having seen numerous examples of gay people, including on television, you are obviously something of an expert. This is another point I am forced to concede to you.

It's difficult for me to imagine, though, how an expert on homosexuals, raised in a society which is so even-handed and enlightened in its views of sexuality (as it has always, generally, been), could find the physical expression of love between any two people revolting to the point where it constitutes a basis for negative judgment of those people.

Perhaps the more we learn about people who are different from us, the more we hate them. This would explain why my recent fascination with Eskimos has led me to despise and fear them for their hideous nose-rubbing and short, heat-conserving limbs.

Still, I'm not clear on one thing: do you admit that your gut reaction to homosexuality is irrational? If not, what logical basis does it derive from? If so, why do you wear it like a badge of honor?
posted by Hildago at 2:05 PM on February 21, 2004

One more thing - from what I understand, there have been cases of homosexuals being reeducated to be straight. Hidalgo! Do you support that? I mean, it's been shown that sexual orientation can be influenced by society. Why is one way okay and the other not?

You might have to rephrase the question, since I'm not totally clear on what you're comparing. If it counts as an answer, I will say that I've always understood those re-education programs to be a joke; more about forcing gays to stop having gay sex, and pretend to be straight, rather than actually making a difference. Plus, extremely high "recidivism". I suppose it comes down to your definition of gayness: having sex with members of your gender, or being sexually attracted to members of your gender.
posted by Hildago at 2:17 PM on February 21, 2004

I really should have known better, and not posted anything in this thread.

you should have.
posted by joedan at 2:18 PM on February 21, 2004

Hidalgo:

I guess all your sarcasm should make me admit what you want me to admit - that my aversion to homosexuality cannot possibly have a physical basis. After all, according to you no right thinking person could possibly not like homosexuality. So when did you invent your mind-reading machine? You know, the one that lets you know what someone else is thinking and how they actually feel?

And no offense, but asking me what my logical basis for a gut (instinctual) reaction is happens to be pretty dumb.

What really kills me about people like you is that you cannot bear to admit that someone just doesn't appreciate homosexuality. You can't bear to imagine that someone actually has a visceral reaction of disgust to the practice of the act, and that they are not ashamed of that reaction.

No matter how much you try to tell me that if I just hang out with gays I'll start to love the idea of sucking wang, it just ain't gonna happen. I may be able to act more comfortably, but I'm not gonna suddenly celebrate what seems to me to be - for lack of a better word - wrong.

Candidates are afraid to express their opinion because they'll lose constituents one way or another. Gays CAN serve in the armed forces, they just can't jump around proclaiming their sexual proclivity. The military is it's own thing, however. Until there is a female draft, the military remains a bastion of anti-male sexism. But gays are tolerated there, just not celebrated. I know, you want to wear your rainbow flag on your uniform to distinguish yourself from all those nasty straights. Well, conformity is the byword of the military. Too bad you have to conform to be in there. Wah.

Can gays be elected to poltical office? I don't know. I haven't seen any running who wear their sexual orientation like a flag. Now, if you mean someone ought to be able to come out and say "I'm gay! Vote for me!" that's just dumb. I'll vote on the issues, thanks. Your sexual orientation may trigger feelings of physical unease in me, but that doesn't mean I disagree with your political theory.

People get lynched for being gay? Whatever, dude. Now that there is the classification of hate crimes, the incidence of that kind of activity is much much less than it used to be(unless there's a big conspiracy to cover it all up from the public, who by your reasoning ought to be happy to hear it - which means the media must be all homosexual to want to cover it up - er - um - gosh I'm all confused now about who has which agenda). At least it's not happening that I hear about. I could be wrong.

Finally, I never said I was an expert on homosexuality - only that I've been around it, thus proving your argument about exposure was at least partially fallacious. The fact that you have to exaggerate in order to knock my comment down simply indicates to me that you can't come up with a reason except that YOU DON'T LIKE ME NOT LIKING HOMOSEXUALITY! And by gum, you'll be damned if you let any American think like that!
posted by hurkle at 2:29 PM on February 21, 2004

Hildago: come on, he's not wearing it like a badge of honour, he's just being upfront about the fact that observing homosexual sex would make him uncomfortable, big deal. And the fact that he's being attacked is likely putting him on the defensive and making him state his views rather more stridently than he might otherwise. Since he's PRO gay-marriage, why harrass him? Pick on someone who actually wants to keep relegating homsexuals to second-class citizen status, not someone who simply doesn't want to watch them fuck. I'm sure most of us have aversions to watching or taking part in something which we equally don't have an intellectual objection to. I think people climbing Mount Everest are idiots, that doesn't mean I want to stop them.

That said, I have a problem with that Sullivan article posted, because he seems to think that heterosexual marriages are homogeneous, and they're just not. There's as much diversity in heterosexual relationships as there is in homosexual relationships.

...need to change to accomodate the sexual mores and interests of homosexuals; the more society broadens the definition of "marriage" the less seriously it may be taken by everyone.

Nonsense. People will take marriage exactly as seriously as it suits them to, just as they have for years and years. Some take it seriously, some don't, there's no reason to think that either group is radically affected by the other. If the seriousness with which any given person views marriage is so weak that it will be greatly affected by a different view, then the conviction wasn't that heartfelt in the first place and their opinion was ripe for the changing. Protecting people from opposing viewpoints isn't helping them strengthen their opinions, it's trying to brainwash them by keeping them ignorant. And really, what difference does it actually make if some people take marriage less seriously? Why is it anyone's business? It doesn't mean YOU have to take it less seriously...unless you're worried that your own convictions won't stand on their own.
posted by biscotti at 2:30 PM on February 21, 2004

I haven't had this much fun since the Boston Tea Party. Back then, rebel colonists had to take some flack from the Loyalists, too. They had a crazy idea that the Brits shouldn't be forcing them to pay premium prices for British products and services. And they were willing to take a stand on the issue, even if others in the same situation didn't agree with them.
I've had two conversations with gay men who do NOT support gay marriage, because A) Americans will never accept it, and B) it will force a backlash.

And then I look at the pictures and video. I read the emails sent by friends who got married. I think of the long legal and social struggle ahead. I think also of those crazy guys who pretended to be Native Americans and rowed out to the Dartmouth to dump its controversial cargo.

What's interesting was that the colonists were fighting strictly in their own self interest. Some of the players in this struggle, such as Gavin Newsom, may have some self-interest, but it's still a big risk. Others have nothing at stake at all, and show up to support the cause. It's not surprising to me at all that ferocious words are being exchanged. That's simply how change happens. The ferocity proves the outcome.

Exult in the repugnance of others. It's a sign you're making a difference.
posted by divrsional at 2:44 PM on February 21, 2004

rcade wrote: When you publicly share a belief that you find a minority group "repugnant" (a strong choice of words), you're contributing to the environment to make them less welcome and validating the opinion of others who share that view.

I think there's some confusion here. What hurkle said in his original post was:

I find homosexuality fairly repugnant.

He did NOT say he finds gay people repugnant. He said he doesn't want to have gay sex.

Stop harping on hurkle, people. Hurkle, as a gay man, I support your right to not want to have sex with me. And I applaud you for supporting gay marriage.

I think we can leave it at that.
posted by Tin Man at 2:52 PM on February 21, 2004

rcade wrote: When you publicly share a belief...

rcade: Do you believe that there are certain beliefs that shouldn't be permitted to be shared? Do you believe the government should make laws prohibiting the expression of those beliefs? Who should decide which beliefs are valid?

I believe the solution to bad speech is more speech, and that it is usually more useful to attack the idea than the person holding it.
posted by bashos_frog at 3:35 PM on February 21, 2004

Do you believe that there are certain beliefs that shouldn't be permitted to be shared?

Of course not.
posted by rcade at 4:00 PM on February 21, 2004

Great - try doing it with logic and reason instead of insults. Just 'cause you're backpedaling now doesn't mean you weren't right there claiming I was the biggest tool around for daring to speak my mind.

Just for the record, hurkle, I never thought or claimed you were the biggest tool around for presenting an argument. I thought you were the biggest tool around for personalizing it and whining about it when your argument got bitchslapped into the dirt where it belongs. That's called conservative backlash, changing the nature of the dialectic from thesis, antithesis, sythesis, to one in which repudiating bad thought is denegrating the thinker and evil feminist liberal metrosexuals are bad for doing that bad bad thing (Mommy!, he's arguing with me again!).

Not once have I tried to shut you or anyone else up. Not once have I claimed that you don't have the right to voice an argument or opinion. All I've done is to try and tell you to grow a backbone in the face of opposition.

bashos_frog, I won't pretend that I can speak for rcade, but I will say that all beliefs should be shared, vocalized and listened to. And then the wrong, incorrect hurtful ones can die the bloody painful death they deserve. Reason and justice will decide which beliefs are valid, and if the holders of the invalid beliefs stake their identities on those, then let them sink with the punctured ship. If that's being bigoted against stupidity and those that tightly and willfully cling to it, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:16 PM on February 21, 2004

So when did you invent your mind-reading machine? You know, the one that lets you know what someone else is thinking and how they actually feel?

I know how my mind-reading machine works, thank you very much. And I still remember the day I invented it: It was late summer, the wind blowing warm out of the south.

And no offense, but asking me what my logical basis for a gut (instinctual) reaction is happens to be pretty dumb.

I'm not asking you what logical basis you have for a gut feeling. I asked you whether it was a gut feeling, or whether you had a good reason for it. I only wanted a logical explanation if you were saying it was a logical position to take. Sounds like you know it's not logical.

What really kills me about people like you is that you cannot bear to admit that someone just doesn't appreciate homosexuality. You can't bear to imagine that someone actually has a visceral reaction of disgust to the practice of the act, and that they are not ashamed of that reaction.

I'm not here to make you appreciate homosexuality. It's not interesting to me whether or not you like gay people. The gay people who've chimed in in this thread don't seem to be bothered by it either. They seem to be satisfied with the small victory that you aren't out actively trying to get them, which I think is awful tolerant of them. As far as I can tell, nobody is hanging on your conversion.

I'm not not part of the Homosexual Agenda, and I don't give a rat's ass about The Institution of Marriage, either. I am simply here to ask from you some sort of accounting of your position. What bothers me the locus of your entire argument so far has been what you admit is a completely irrational (therefore, I extrapolate, groundless) distaste, and that you do not seem to have any problem entering into a debate, straightfacedly, armed only with the defense that you personally find gay people.. you know.. wrong. I want reasons, I want consistency, I want a grown-up discussion that revolves around facts and contradictions, not moral relativism that allows you to hide behind gut reactions as though they were useful in debates on matters of importance.

And I realize I'm being kind of an asshole. You seem nice, but still, I do want answers. I can't explain it, but on some instinctual level, it just... bothers me.
posted by Hildago at 4:17 PM on February 21, 2004

[what bothers me is that..]
posted by Hildago at 4:20 PM on February 21, 2004

I was willing to "leave it at that" as tin man said -- I really, really was -- till I read this bit of compassionate insight from hurkle:

People get lynched for being gay? Whatever, dude. Now that there is the classification of hate crimes, the incidence of that kind of activity is much much less than it used to be [...] At least it's not happening that I hear about. I could be wrong.

My jaw is on the floor -- your response to the specter of gays being lynched is "whatever, dude?" Are you serious? Are you absolutely, utterly serious? (Do you have the same response to racial lynchings these days?) Have you never heard of Matthew Shepard? Come on, dude. He was lashed to a fence and tortured in Laramie, Wyoming before dying in a hospital in Ft. Collins, CO -- less than a day's drive north of your hometown. (I should know; I'm from the same neck of the woods.) It might ring a bell or two, since it was only international news for months. Or how about Billy Jack Gaither? He was stabbed, beaten with an axe, and set on fire in Alabama a few years ago solely because some men "felt icky" about his being gay. Or maybe you've heard of Brandon Teena? They made a movie or two about that particular rape and lynching -- I believe one of them might have won an Oscar or something.

If you are already aware of any of these cases and you can still respond with a callous "whatever, dude," then you've revealed more about yourself than I'm sure you can comprehend, and I have utterly nothing left to say. (Oh sure, you can keep on saying anything that you want -- god forbid anyone say anything argumentative or sarcastic to you without clarifying that they're not trying to put you in the brig for Clockwork Orange-eque re-education -- but I'm disengaging.)

However, if you genuinely aren't already aware of these cases, then perhaps you've revealed to yourself the significance of the limits of your own knowledge. "I could be wrong," you said, regarding your off-the-cuff claim that rates of hate crimes against gays, lesbians, and the transgendered aren't actually on the rise. Yeah, on this count, I think it's objectively demonstrable that you are.

So tell you what: you said earlier that this discussion "made [you] humanize the debate - the same thing that eventually changed [your] mind about abortion." Might I suggest you humanize the debate a little further by finding out more about Matthew Shepard's lynching, or Billy Jack Gaither's lynching, or Brandon Teena's lynching? And don't worry about responding to me -- just see go look at yourself in a mirror or imagine yourself talking to one of their parents, and see if you can still manage to say, "whatever, dude" when it comes to the full horror of how lethal homophobia can really be.
posted by scody at 4:25 PM on February 21, 2004

hurkle, your last few posts make total and utter sense.

You have no business posting on Metafilter.

You need to adopt a leftist, liberal view. Don't speak your mind. Tolerate all minorities, hate the majority, OK dude? What is it with your common sense? It's most important to observe gay rights while ignoring fathers' rights. Gay rights over children's rights. Typical America - champion the minority, fuck the majority.

This thread is one massive piss-stained liberal-tosser train-wreck. hurkle, you have a supporter here, but please don't think you can convert the feminist, leftist, piss-weak readership of Metafilter. Feel free to disassociate from me. This is what debate is about.
posted by SpaceCadet at 5:05 PM on February 21, 2004

Just to repeat, feel free to disassociate yourself from SpaceCadet.
posted by Hildago at 5:17 PM on February 21, 2004

I just realized that I'd forgotten the point of this post for the last hundred or so comments. I've been participating in an utter derail of what was potentially, and was at one point, a good thread. I'm sort of ashamed of myself. Honestly. Shit. Sorry.
posted by Hildago at 5:25 PM on February 21, 2004

Space Cadet, thank you.

I often get frustrated with the inanities and pieties of the American left and other groups. But I'm glad there's people like you around to remind me THAT THE RIGHT IS EVEN MORE FULL OF SHIT!!

Carry on.
posted by jonmc at 5:41 PM on February 21, 2004

And I realize I'm being kind of an asshole. You seem nice, but still, I do want answers. I can't explain it, but on some instinctual level, it just... bothers me.

You are talking about my instinctual response, which you just claimed was not a tenable position to take, right?

If you are already aware of any of these cases and you can still respond with a callous "whatever, dude," then you've revealed more about yourself than I'm sure you can comprehend, and I have utterly nothing left to say.

Okay, the phrase was calculated to make jaws drop. Personally, I think that any violence is horrible. But to make that a primary claim when it is such a SMALL porition of the violence done in the US is - to me - not a worthwhile discussion. Here's why:

"Almost 3,000 of the approximately 5.4 million criminal victimizations reported to police from 1997 through 1999 in more than a dozen states were considered to be hate crimes, according to a new study published today by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). "

"Of the 2,976 incidents police departments reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) for those three years that were attributed to hatred, 1,820 were attributed to racial bias (61 percent), 431 to religious bigotry (14 percent), 379 to sexual orientation (13 percent), 329 to ethnicity (11 percent) and 17 to physical or mental disabilities (less than 1 percent). "

Now, when I hear you get all up in arms about the fact that male rape is more prevalent in the US than female rape (but it's in prisons, so it's not talked about) - 90,000 last year, then I'll be less cavalier about 379 violent incidents. When I hear you pissing and moaning about the 819,000 men admitted to the emergency room in 1999 due to domestic violence FROM WOMEN, then I'll be more concerned about the 379 incidents that year.

Yes, each and every violent incident is regrettable. But 379 is hardly a nation-wide terroristic homophobic hate-filled societal blood-letting.

Not only that, you mention 3 WIDELY-publicized cases. How many widely publicized cases of male rape or femal-on-male domestiv violence have you heard in the last few years? If any, how many that were sympathetic to the victim?

I do apologize for the toss-off comment... I was frustrated. But perhaps now you can understand that 379 incidents is not a hell of a lot to build a case for a "nation of intolerance" as you claim.

Oh, I forgot. You've disengaged.
posted by hurkle at 5:42 PM on February 21, 2004

Derek Powazek should get a job designing posters for Successories.
posted by chrisege at 5:44 PM on February 21, 2004

All I've done is to try and tell you to grow a backbone in the face of opposition.

And I guess, Wulfgar, this would be called - um - lying?

Or can you try and spin this too?
posted by hurkle at 5:47 PM on February 21, 2004

One more thing - regarding Brandon Teena - let's see - she lied, cheated, and stole a cowboy's girlfriend. Had she been a guy, and her ass got killed, no one would have cared - it would have been a page 16 incident in small print. But because she was - oooh - homosexual, it was a Hate Crime (tm) and therefore way more important.

And the movie stunk. Pbbbt.
posted by hurkle at 5:50 PM on February 21, 2004

I'd just like to take the time to refute something that's being used as some kind of support for the "gay is repugnant" thing...

Scientific studies of people's emotional and physiological reactions to sex, recorded among straight and gay male and female subjects that everyone was more or less ok with str8 & lesbian porn, but when gay male porn was shown, the gay male subjects were about the only ones who seemed to like it, with others showing signs of uneasiness or at best indifference [largely, IIRC and other disclaimers].

Uh...actually no. There is however a study that shows that homophobic men physically react very positively to gay porn, in spite of all their assurances that they find gay sex "repugnant". From this the researchers determined that there is a correlation between homophobia and repressed homosexual desire.

I don't even need a scientific study to tell you how false your original "study" is. Just have a look at the large following Queer as Folk has among straight women. Lots of women think that two men gettin' it on is HAWT. In the last month I've read two articles in my local paper about how boy-on-boy is the new black.

And on the more obvious side of things: slash fanfiction, anyone? Do you have any idea how many women in North America write and read slash fanfiction? I think this study you quote was pulled out of someone's ass. If your homophobia wasn't inbred into you, my friend. You learned it the normal way, just like everyone else.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:08 PM on February 21, 2004

Uh...actually no. There is however a study that shows that homophobic men physically react very positively to gay porn, in spite of all their assurances that they find gay sex "repugnant". From this the researchers determined that there is a correlation between homophobia and repressed homosexual desire.

For fuck's sake (literally), this is ridiculous. Can somebody not simply find something disgusting/unsavoury because they ummmmmm, find it disgusting/unsavoury? Must we always resort to some pseudo-Freudian bullshit to invert an opinion (a clumsy ju-jitsu move at that)? I find a man inserting a penis up another guy's arse revolting, therefore I love it and secretly desire it? Disgust = desire? Are you suggesting disgust is an unreliable reaction to something? Look in the mirror people the next time you feel disgust towards something - it might mean you secretly love it - from baby rape to granny murders. Yeah, right.

Space Cadet, thank you.

I often get frustrated with the inanities and pieties of the American left and other groups. But I'm glad there's people like you around to remind me THAT THE RIGHT IS EVEN MORE FULL OF SHIT!!

Carry on.

Thanks for your contribution JonMC. As usual, content-free.
posted by SpaceCadet at 6:58 PM on February 21, 2004

Are you suggesting disgust is an unreliable reaction to something?

10 year old boy: "Ew! Girls are gross!"
12 year old girl: "He put his TONGUE in your MOUTH?!"

Yes, I'd say disgust is in fact an unreliable reaction to something. All kids are disgusted by sex. Sex strikes people as disgusting at first, or have you forgotten that. After they think about it for a while and get used to the idea, they generally come to enjoy it.

Out of curiosity, do you find a man inserting his penis into a woman's anus disgusting, or is that one okay?
posted by Hildegarde at 7:05 PM on February 21, 2004

When I hear you pissing and moaning about the 819,000 men admitted to the emergency room in 1999 due to domestic violence FROM WOMEN, then I'll be more concerned about the 379 incidents that year.

The day I see a thread on MeFi that acknowledges DV happens to men as much as it happens to women is the day I actually take this place semi-seriously. Otherwise, it's as you are:- a bunch of feminist, leftist, socialist "thinkers" afraid to have a point of view that might offend someone.
posted by SpaceCadet at 7:09 PM on February 21, 2004

Hildegarde, are you referring to children who are pre-pubescent? Sex was pretty alien to me when I was pre-pubescent - don't know about you.

Out of curiosity, do you find a man inserting his penis into a woman's anus disgusting, or is that one okay?

Actually I do find it disgusting. Never tried it, and don't want to. I still enjoy my sex life.

Hey, do you find necrophilia disgusting? Copraphilia? Golden showers?

(don't worry, you don't have to tolerate everything to validate your sex life).
posted by SpaceCadet at 7:17 PM on February 21, 2004

Can somebody not simply find something disgusting/unsavoury because they ummmmmm, find it disgusting/unsavoury? Must we always resort to some pseudo-Freudian bullshit to invert an opinion (a clumsy ju-jitsu move at that)?

Something tells me if this study had in fact shown that most homophobic men were indiffierent to gay porn you wouldn't have a problem citing it. But in fact the results for this study indicate that 70% of men are interested in homosexual sex on a visceral level. Particularly the homophobic ones.

And you're so right, SpaceCadet. I'm terrified of having a point of view that might offend someone.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:20 PM on February 21, 2004

(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws...
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.

(a) does not apply: due process of law has gone through; Proposition 22's passing was legally and properly done. Also, sexual orientation is not a prohibited basis of discrimination.
(b) does not apply: all Californians may marry anyone of the opposite sex.

Now, before you act upon the impulse to flame me for posting this, understand this: I don't think that equivalent rights for homosexual couples should be illegal. However, it just happens to be illegal at this time, and attempting to circumvent the laws of the state of California is completely inappropriate for the mayor of San Francisco to do.
posted by oaf at 7:25 PM on February 21, 2004

I'm making another post for this because it's sort of off-topic.

The day I see a thread on MeFi that acknowledges DV happens to men as much as it happens to women is the day I actually take this place semi-seriously.

This is true. I find it amazing how few people on the left end of the spectrum are willing to admit that it happens or that it's wrong. It's the reason I would never consider donating to any domestic abuse shelter that refuses to protect men who are victims of domestic violence.
posted by oaf at 7:28 PM on February 21, 2004

Hey, do you find necrophilia disgusting?

The fact that SpaceCadet compares sex between consenting adults to necrophilia is certainly telling about his wonderful sex life, isn't it.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:37 PM on February 21, 2004

The fact that SpaceCadet compares sex between consenting adults to necrophilia is certainly telling about his wonderful sex life, isn't it.

Ad-homs are a great way to get your point across.
posted by oaf at 7:38 PM on February 21, 2004

Hildegarde, I admit I didn't read the whole article you refer to, but it reeks of propaganda. It makes assertions it doesn't back up with facts. It backs them up with opinions. It states opinions and dresses them up as facts. I have described propaganda. Oh, and the site's got a brick-tiled background. Sorry, on a visceral level, I hate these brick-tiled backgrounds.....in fact, I find them disgusting....oh wait a minute.....does that mean I....?

Enough of this bullshit. I accept there are homosexuals and they have a set of desires/preferences different to mine. I disagree with their lifestyle on a personal level (i.e. it's not for me), but would defend their human rights a la Voltaire. Hildegarde You're trying to make me agree with their (your?) lifestyle. Waste of time. We're all different, nothing wrong with that. Simple.

The fact that SpaceCadet compares sex between consenting adults to necrophilia is certainly telling about his wonderful sex life, isn't it.

Ad-hominem.

You didn't answer about copraphilia. Or, how about fisting?

(p.s. you're allowed to find it disgusting - we won't hate you for it).
posted by SpaceCadet at 7:43 PM on February 21, 2004

What's the problem with fisting?
posted by Hildegarde at 7:57 PM on February 21, 2004

Hildegarde You're trying to make me agree with their (your?) lifestyle.

This seems to one of the biggest problems people have with homosexuality. It's not enough to say "fine, go do it in private". You either actively cheer for it and be proud of how wonderful homosexual sex is, or you are "against" it.

This to me is particularly telling. Of what, I'm not sure. But so is the fact that in almost every discussion of this sort, it comes up that "homophobic men are really gay". Just like it used to come up that all women are actually bisexual, even if they claim they're not.

Folks, get over the fact that some people don't think much of what you do. That doesn't mean I'm gay. I don't think much of anal sex, as someone mentioned before. And that doesn't mean I'm secretly attracted to it - I find the fact that I detumesce every time I try it to be indicative that I just don't like it. And another thing I'd like understood. Just because I don't like homosexuality doesn't mean I'm scared of it.

Regarding Domestic Violence. The real truth is going to come out when same-sex marriages become commonplace. Preliminary studies on lesbian relationships indicate DV rates similar to that of the general population. I wonder how they'll figure out how to blame that on men... I mean, according to the status quo, all women are victims and all men are abusers.

Of course, when male-male marriages don't show 100% DV rates, that will say something too.

That part I honestly look forward to.
posted by hurkle at 8:02 PM on February 21, 2004

What's the problem with fisting?

You want us to like it. Even if we don't. Then you accuse us of bigotry when we say we don't like it, even though we accept you doing it.

Oh, I'm sorry...

I thought you said homosexuality, not fisting.
posted by hurkle at 8:04 PM on February 21, 2004

Thanks for your contribution JonMC. As usual, content-free.

*blows kisses*


Out of curiosity, do you find a man inserting his penis into a woman's anus disgusting, or is that one okay?

Actually I do find it disgusting. Never tried it, and don't want to. I still enjoy my sex life.

Don't knock it till you try it. Or more accurately don't knock what someone else wants to try.

Hey, do you find necrophilia disgusting? Copraphilia? Golden showers?

Putting the obvious wack-job peccadillo of necrophilia aside, yeah I do find copraphilia and golden showers disgusting and think that anyone who enjoys them probably needs psychological help which is why I don't participate in them, but ultimately if the two people involved are consenting adults, I see no reason to stop them.


Is the basic jist of this all so hard to understand. What two grown adults want to do sexually is none of mine or your business. Those who can't give consent, like children, animals and the dead, should be kept out of the sexual arena.

Otherwise, it's as you are:- a bunch of feminist, leftist, socialist "thinkers" afraid to have a point of view that might offend someone.

Please. I don't think that there's a single frequent poster here who hasn't offended someone, and the people in this thread sure as hell don't seem afraid of offending you. Pull yourself together.

Plus, to put your question to rest: obviously people of all races, genders and persuasions are capable of bigotry, deciet violence and other horrible things. Who does it is beside the point. It's the acts themselves that offend sane people not who they come from.
posted by jonmc at 8:11 PM on February 21, 2004

jonmc:- I do find copraphilia and golden showers disgusting

hey jonmc, don't knock it til you've tried it. Or more accurately don't knock what someone else wants to try.

Double-fuckin'-standards, my man.

Hildegarde:- What's the problem with fisting?

I asked if you like it or not. You didn't seem to want to answer that question directly.....nor if you like coprophilia or not.
posted by SpaceCadet at 8:26 PM on February 21, 2004

Gee, I couldn't have predicted at all that we would wind up seeing the claim that anybody who cares about social justice for X (same-sex marraiges) is a hypocrite if they don't scream their heads off about Y (DV against men). We're all so shallow, blind and hypocritical, I guess. (/sarcasm)

Space Cadet and hurkle, that's just misdirective bullshit completely off the topic of the post. If you want to have people round these parts join your social enlightment party about how abused men are and nobody cares, then post something to the front page about it. I notice that you post a whole lot of "what about men, we're picked on too" garbage to your website, hurkle, so I'm sure you could come up with something interesting for the betterment of MeFi. In this thread however, it just makes you look more full of shit than you did previously, if that's at all possible.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:28 PM on February 21, 2004

Read the last line of the paragraph, genius.

I'm sure everybody here finds certain peccadillos (sexual or otherwise) disgusting or off-putting, but not all of us feel the need to so loudly broadcast our disgust with them. We just don't particpate and mind our own business.

I mean, I don't like walnuts, but I don't post endless diatribes detailing my walnut-hatred.
posted by jonmc at 8:31 PM on February 21, 2004

And by the way, hurkle, I defy you to show one lie I've told you here. Just one, buddy. I'll wait.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:32 PM on February 21, 2004

I asked if you like it or not. You didn't seem to want to answer that question directly.....

I have no negative feelings about sexual activities conducted between consenting adults. Shall we talk about rimming next, or are we on to tubgirl?
posted by Hildegarde at 8:35 PM on February 21, 2004

I notice that you post a whole lot of "what about men, we're picked on too" garbage

Wufgar's compassioniate inner light shines forth.

it just makes you look more full of shit

Profanity - the refuge of people who can't hold an intelligent conversation.

Funny... you ignored everything else I said, except to say that I was part of the problem, that I should be ignored, and that I was bigoted/prejudiced. Then you shut up until I made a tangential point. Now you want to shout about that.

You've called me cupcake (obviously trying to push some non-existent homophobe button), claimed my writings were weeping, that I was whining, etc. Now you've progressed to outright personal attacks on my website and on the material I post there.

I'd say you can't come up with a logical reason to hate me, so you're going to lower yourself to the level of non-discourse you have so proudly displayed over and over.

What's next? Are you going to launch a DoS attack on my webhost? Write my boss that I'm bigot? Go ranting and raving around your house (be careful not to hit your wife while you do that - you already mentioned she had to calm you down once)?

My website has nothing to do with what I post here - I used to post a lot about the RIAA and the desth of copyright law - maybe you should try to report me or defame me to them?

Get over your own narrow-mindedness, you self-righteous jerk. I'm sick of you insulting me, then claiming I misinterpreted it, or that I deserved it because I said I don't appreciate homosexuality. Not once have I called you names, but I do notice you don't post a website of your own. I'm guessing you wouldn't want anyone to have an easy way to find out who posts such aggressive, nasty, closed-minded posts.
posted by hurkle at 8:44 PM on February 21, 2004

jonmc wrote :- I mean, I don't like walnuts, but I don't post endless diatribes detailing my walnut-hatred.

I don't actively hate gay sex. It's just not my cup of tea, to use the parlance of the United Kingdom. Not liking something can mean not having a preference for it....not activley hating it. Because I don't want to stick my penis up another guy's anus doesn't mean I'm a homophobe. Sorry to spell it out to you so starkly.

Let's run with the walnuts though. They're just not your thing. That doesn't mean you're a closet walnut lover, as Hildegarde suggests. Nor does it mean you're against people who love walnuts. The fact that you do not like walnuts, suggests to me, that you actually do not care much for walnuts.

Why do people try to make the simple complicated?

Wulfgar! I think I will post something about how family law is applied unfairly to men. Just need to prepare it.
posted by SpaceCadet at 8:49 PM on February 21, 2004

Wulfgar:

All I've done is to try and tell you to grow a backbone in the face of opposition

vs.

Folks, don't feed into hurkle's victimization party. He/she is part and parcel of the whole problem.

was hurkle rational when presenting an indefensible argument and then weeping because others tore it to shreds?

If you don't like being called a bigot, get over defending bigoted causes.

Simply put, hurkle, do you expect me to feel worse for you than I do for answergrape?

Not once have I tried to shut you or anyone else up.

You're right, Wulfie. You didn't lie. All you did was set up a bunch of straw men and knock 'em down. Ooh. You're so strong and manly. And you used the old trick (what's it called? you know lots of big words) of insinuating without actually stating.

Other people even told you that I WROTE that I was pro-same-sex marriage, though I personally find it repugnant. Had you read with the same care you wrote with, you would have seen me say over and over again that I wasn presenting the arguments as I knew them. Not defending them. But then again, really understanding anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't what you do. That much is clear.
posted by hurkle at 8:54 PM on February 21, 2004

I don't actively hate gay sex. It's just not my cup of tea, to use the parlance of the United Kingdom. Not liking something can mean not having a preference for it....not activley hating it. Because I don't want to stick my penis up another guy's anus doesn't mean I'm a homophobe.

Fine. I believe you. No sarcasm intended. But you live in a world where there's a lotta gay people. Maybe you might try to get over some of your aversions simply to be able to enjoy your fellow humans more. And I don't mean sexually.

I wouldn't presume to speak for hildegarde but I'm willing to bet that it was the absolute vociferousness with which you seemed to state it that made her and other people a mite uncomfortable.

I mean, I know quite a few gay people, and when I see two gay guys kiss, I'm not disgusted, it just kinda looks silly to me. This simply means that I'm heterosexual.

And your other argument, that people around here are afraid of having offensive opinions is patently ridiculous on it's face. I've offered up unpopular opinions all over the place here. I've gotten into a few verbal dustups but no lynch mobs have come to get me.
posted by jonmc at 8:59 PM on February 21, 2004

I have no negative feelings about sexual activities conducted between consenting adults. Shall we talk about rimming next, or are we on to tubgirl?

I didn't ask you if you thought it was OK for other people to perform coprophilia - I asked you if you thought it was disgusting. Do you find coprophilia disgusting?

Take the walnut scenario jonmc brought up if it's too abstract a question for you:- let's say somebody asks me if I think walnuts are disgusting. I'm not going to answer "hey, I think it's cool for other people to like walnuts" (I'd sound like a politician). I'm going to tell that somebody my own preference towards walnuts.
posted by SpaceCadet at 9:01 PM on February 21, 2004

You might want to go back and reread yourself, cupcake, as well as what I've written. Your every response to me has been one long stream of ad hominem, which you want to deride others for. I told you not to take your argument personally, and to bear the consequences if you did. You didn't listen, you just tried to say I was bigotted because I disagree with you. That's an ad hominem. You further claim that because people don't appear before you caring as much about your pet issues than they are misguided lefty thinkers. Ad hominem. You claim that I just want you to appreciate homosexuality and that I have lied. Prove where I've said either one. You claim I curse because I can't argue, even though you haven't responded rationally to anything I've said. Ad hominem again.

I never claimed that you misinterpreted my insults, you got them just fine, and they have all been meant with my whole heart and soul. You're reading too much into the "cupcake" thing, though. I just meant that you were a mental lightweight, nothing more. I don't hate you. Never did. I don't know you either. I do pretty much revile your sad devotion to the claims that stem from your own narrow mindedness and self rightiousness. When you throw out specious garbage and then claim something wrong with the rest of the world because we don't agree, yup, that's pretty much when I decided to get in your face about it.

I wouldn't worry too much about my involvement in your personal life. What happens on the web, stays on the web as far as I'm concerned. And I do have a website, or a web journal to be more precise. I'm sure if you want to find it you will. Anyway, this has been fun and informative. Tata.
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:09 PM on February 21, 2004

When I see two gay guys kiss, I am faintly nauseated and repulsed. This simply means I'm a heterosexual.

And I am amazed at how my simple comment - "I'm not gay. I find homosexuality fairly repugnant. But I still think that long-term relationships between adults should be recognized. I like committment and value it. " - has led to me being labeled a bigot, called prejudiced, generated a ton of chatter, and led Wulfgar to greater and greater acts of aggression and small-mindedness.

I mean, if you read the comment, it clearly states my position. But here - a couple hundred comments later, people are still trying to tell me how horrible a person I am for not liking gay sex.

What a crazy world this is.
posted by hurkle at 9:12 PM on February 21, 2004

O_O

I'm a lesbian, but somehow I manage not to feel faintly nauseated nor repulsed by heterosexual displays of affection.

What a crazy, crazy world.
posted by Hildegarde at 9:17 PM on February 21, 2004

hey jonmc, it seems like you've either misunderstood me or you're backing down here. Where have I ever said I don't tolerate gay people? I find gay acts disgusting in the same way I find spiders disgusting. Doesn't mean I hate gay people or spider lovers. If some guy rubbed his cock against my leg though, I'd feel a shiver go down my spine. I wouldn't get an erection from it. That kind of disgust. I'm a lesbian in a man's body. I'm totally hetero. Of course, in gay-speak, this means I'm being defensive and I secretly desire to be loved-up in some homo steamroom. Well actually, it doesn't. It means I am physically attracted to women and hard-wired that way. Gee, it's liberating admitting my fetishes over the airwaves like this.
posted by SpaceCadet at 9:23 PM on February 21, 2004

When I see two gay guys kiss, I am faintly nauseated and repulsed. This simply means I'm a heterosexual.

Good lord man. Are you sure you couldn't have chosen another, less abrasive way of putting that?
posted by malpractice at 9:23 PM on February 21, 2004

Wulfgar: my only claim against you is that you personally attacked me. Again and again. It had nothing to do with your logical arguments.

My claims were: I don't like gay sex. I think same-sex marriage is good. It is part of a fundamental shift in how our society is treating relationships. Here's what I see as the arguments against same-sex marriage.

Your responses: I'm part of the problem. I believe the arguments I presented in response to a question. I'm acting the victim for not liking your personal attacks. I'm attacking your character instead of your arguments (that's ad hominem).

Problems with the above: I'm not part of the problem (your opinion may vary). I wasn't presenting those arguments on my behalf (you assumed so, and continued to belabor that point, despite several people pointing out that you were incorrect). I'm not acting the victim, simply pointing out how vicious people are when presented with viewpoints they don't appreciate. I'm not attacking your argument through your character - I'm attacking your arguments because they suck. Your arguments consist of veiled insults, subtle mischaracterizations interspersed with some backpedaling.

As I mentioned, you didn't exactly lie. But you sure have no problem twisting the truth to fit your position.

I don't know you, but I have gained some measure of your character here. However, in a discussion, that's not the issue. You chose to insult mine, mr. ad hom. I didn't insult yours until it became clear that you were incapable of understanding my position. And that you wouldn't try, because as you put it, liberals aren't interested in talking with people whose viewpoints they think are bullshit.

And you've certainly proved that over and over again.
posted by hurkle at 9:25 PM on February 21, 2004

Good lord man. Are you sure you couldn't have chosen another, less abrasive way of putting that?

I was simply responding to this: I see two gay guys kiss, I'm not disgusted, it just kinda looks silly to me. This simply means that I'm heterosexual.

Much of this whole thread has centered around the fact that I dared to say that I find homosexuality fairly repugnant, and I won't back down from that stance. As SpaceCadet says, it doesn't mean I'm a homophobe, or that I really secretly want an ass-fucking, or that I am against same-sex marriages, or anything else. I originally included it because I intended to show that I was going against my impulses by supporting gay marriage.

Unfortunately, that's not good enough for some people. As you will see by reading this thread :D
posted by hurkle at 9:28 PM on February 21, 2004

hey jonmc, it seems like you've either misunderstood me or you're backing down here. Where have I ever said I don't tolerate gay people? I find gay acts disgusting in the same way I find spiders disgusting. Doesn't mean I hate gay people or spider lovers.

Maybe both. I honestly believe you when you say your straight and I guess I believe you when you say you don't hate gay people, but "disgusting" is kind of a loaded word and you had to know that. Wouldn't have saying "it's not my thing," or something similar been a lot less off-putting? NTM dragging stuff like necrophilia and coprophagia into equation.

Of course, in gay-speak, this means I'm being defensive and I secretly desire to be loved-up in some homo steamroom.

This is a little nuts. Yeah, there are paranoid gay people out there who see homophobia and secret gayness everywhere, but there a tiny minority and when I encounter them I'll call bullshit on them too. I've known plenty of gay people in my time (hell the guy in the next cube to me at work is Gayer than old paree) and I have yet to be accused of harboring secret gay desires by any of them. Relax, they're not coming to get you.
posted by jonmc at 9:35 PM on February 21, 2004

Hey, i only brought it up because someone tried to argue the exact opposite. It's a real study! Besides, Kinsey argued the exact same numbers.

I'm not a paranoid gay person, but I really hate the "I'm hard-wired to be revolted by gay people" argument, yo.
posted by Hildegarde at 9:39 PM on February 21, 2004

I really hate the "I'm hard-wired to be thrilled by gay people" argument, yo.
posted by hurkle at 9:46 PM on February 21, 2004

Hurkle, you know, I don't want to have sex with men either, but I'm not revolted by them, or their sexual lives. Why do you have to be so hateful about this?
posted by Hildegarde at 9:51 PM on February 21, 2004

Personally, I would argue that same-sex marriage is only part of what is needed to make the law fair. There are people throughout the world who have plural marriages or who desire them but cannot get them, yet if they live in or move to the United States, they are forced to choose between those they love.

Plural marriages were common in the Bible, and Jesus never once spoke out against them. As recently as the seventeenth century, polygamy was practiced and accepted by the Christian Church.

Abraham, the founder of modern Judaism, was a polygamist, as were numerous Jews who emigrated to Israel from Arab nations in 1948.

Likewise, the Quran says "marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one..."

Truth is, monogamy is only widely recognized to the exclusion of other options today because it was a Roman law. It should be noted that polygamy developed from the concept that women were -- like Eve -- full of sin and that man was better off to not marry, or, as a matter of practical compromise, to marry just one woman.

The common complaint against plural marriages isn't against most polyamorists, but against how some Mormon polygamists have violated the rights of women and their offspring. These violations, however, are already banned by seperate laws which can and should be enforced in such cases.
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:05 PM on February 21, 2004

Look, I don't mean to appear hateful.

My issues is I am completely frustrated. You know what my original post was. I also said that the pictures reminded me of my own wedding, and that there was clearly love and it was a beautiful thing.

However, the only issue that people really have jumped on is to label me a bigot among other things for feeling a physical revulsion to esp. male homosexuality.

I guess I'd feel the same way if someone posted in a BBQ thread that they were disgusted by pork ribs, but thought that BBQ was good stuff. And then evereyone jumped on them for daring to not like pork ribs.

"You better like them."

"They don't REALLY make you nauseous - you just need to eat them more frequently."

"You're just saying that because pork ribs are secretly what you want more than anything."

"Rib BIGOT!"

Someone tried to rub in my face my "expertise" with homosexuals. Personally, I like some of the homosexuals I know and others I don't. Just like the whites. And the blacks.

Wulfgar told me over and over I'm part of the problem simply because he wouldn't read what I wrote. Then once he understood, he chose to attack my other views as garbage.

I didn't mean to attack YOU personally or to come off as hateful. One of the most valuable tests for sexism, racism, or any of the isms we detest so much is to replace genders or racial identities in the comment that disturbs us.

If we find that the comment only disturbs us when applied in one direction, it usually indicates a lack of understanding or tolerance on our part.

I truly find it interesting that what I said was SO offensive to some people. In my experience, saying something even more offensive (to me), like "All men are rapists" would generate far less controversy here on MeFi. Because homosexuality is a liberal sacred cow.

You seem like a very nice person. I hope you can get married one day (if that is your goal), however watch out for the divorce - she'll get half of everything. No kidding.

However, that doesn't mean I may ever find what you're doing in the bedroom appealing, and I'm fine with that. I'm also fine if you find hetero sex appealing or disgusting. that's your shtick.

Now, if you want to end hetero marriage, then I'll be upset.

Or if you want to reeducate me, as some think, so that I'll like the act of homosexuality, then I'll be upset again.
posted by hurkle at 10:07 PM on February 21, 2004

I've yet to hear anything resembling an argument as to why there should be a god damned amendment to the constitution that prevents gays from marrying.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:19 PM on February 21, 2004

McSweetie: because if there isn't a constitutional amendment, then gays will be able to get married! Duh!

;-)
posted by hurkle at 10:26 PM on February 21, 2004

Your responses: I'm part of the problem.

If you feel personally attacked when others argue against your stance (whether you agree with that stance or not) and you try to portray those opposing you as the bigots, then you are part of the problem. The worst part I would argue, gee, as I already did in my very first comment in this thread. Notice, I made no comment until you were already claiming something wrong with the people who would argue against an argument you don't even support.


I believe the arguments I presented in response to a question.

I don't know if you do or not, and as I said, I don't care. You were personalizing it, and attempting to indict others because they reacted harshly to the argument (and in your eyes, you). The argument is wrong, bad-headed and ugly. Don't stake your identity on it and you won't get scorched when the argument goes down in screaming flames. You'll notice, I'm repeating myself here.


I'm acting the victim for not liking your personal attacks.

No, you were acting the victim before I wrote word one in this thread. As for not liking my personal attacks, you shouldn't. I didn't greatly appreciate it when you did it to me, with out even attempting to address my argument about your "backlash" stance, either. Look at your first response to me, hurkle:

"Of course, why should I expect better from someone who can't handle the fact that I don't agree with you. If you feel that gives you cause to call me part of the problem, I's say you're the problem. But that must be what you are calling liberalism: say what you want, and insult what you don't like."

So do we agree or not?


I'm attacking your character instead of your arguments (that's ad hominem).

hurkle, my character isn't the issue, never was, never will be. Neither is yours, until you put it on the line.

I don't know you, but I have gained some measure of your character here.

No, you haven't, but I'll accept your delusion for now.

I'm not acting the victim, simply pointing out how vicious people are when presented with viewpoints they don't appreciate. I'm not attacking your argument through your character - I'm attacking your arguments because they suck. Your arguments consist of veiled insults, subtle mischaracterizations interspersed with some backpedaling.

You assume that vicious response is a bad thing. I don't and wonder why you do. And kindly don't tell me that my argument originally posted sucks when you haven't, through 20 some odd comments, addressed it even once. Since you and I agree (everyone says we do) lets look at it one final time. You presented an argument (two actually) for why some people don't want gay marraiges. Others argued (and basically ripped those arguments a new one). Some people actually did attack you, and that's a given. You reacted by attempting to show that people who don't give equal credence to all arguments given are bigots themselves (in case you haven't noticed, that's being PC. Whoops, did I insult you again?). My response, no, we don't have to give equal weight to bad arguments, and if people want to embrace bad arguments then they are worthy of derision (not because they disagree, but because they are standing in the way due to poor thinking). You, of course, get your panties in a bunch and don't deal with that argument at all. You launch into a screed about my character, about liberals (you don't even know that I am a liberal) and about how nobody is debating the way you want (saying the things you want to hear). Those are the same exact tactics and methods used by those that you and I supposedly disagree with, and the very same tactics I took you to task for in my original post. If you want to defend sloppy thought in the name of PC goodness, go ahead, but you and I certainly do not "agree". Since then, its just been trading punches. The problem being, you never got it from the outset, so I really didn't expect you to be able to keep up.

From what I've encountered here, hurkle, I actually kind of like you. There's a great deal to be said for tanacity, and you have it in spades. You still want to cling to the idea that I've backpeddled (I haven't) or that I'm the one attacking you (as if that's a bad thing and I just shouldn't do it (PC anyone?)). You have something of a gift for sarcasm, which would no doubt be better used arguing for the things you agree with, rather than against them. You really really need to get over the idea that all disagreement should be in a form that is intellectually and emotionally satisfying to you, though. Keep in mind that a rock through a window never comes with a kiss. If people disagree with you, they're not likely to do it on your terms (and I've gotten no small enjoyment out of taking that concept up a notch).
posted by Wulfgar! at 10:42 PM on February 21, 2004

Wulfgar, the very first thing you said was Folks, don't feed into hurkle's victimization party. He/she is part and parcel of the whole problem. Whether it grows out of not liking icky gays or not, that isn't the issue anymore.

Your very first comment says to ignore what I say, that I'm playing some sort of victim game, and that the issue isn't liking gays or not.

I don't care if people attack my arguments, since they weren't mine in the first place. I do care if people mispercieve what I'm saying and attack me personally for it. Perhaps I should have expected the diatribe because I dared to present the answer to someone's question about opposition to same-sex marriage

Nevertheless, you began your part of the conversation by dismissing me, insulting me, and saying that the whole I reason I was upset was actually not the issue.

Again, you misunderstand fundamentally. My upset stems not from a shredding of the arguments against same-sex marriage, but against the intolerance of those who profess to be tolerant.

You say I was the first to call you names. The post above clearly shows that isn't true. As far as conservative backlash... I'll admit I tried to defend the arguments, but that isn't what got me so upset, as I have repeatedly said.

You state that character isn't the issue, yet in your previous post you claim that I am full of ad hominem attacks - which are attempts to discredit an argument by focusing on a flaw in the presenter's character or person. If you don't feel that character is an issue, then why did you make that claim?

The argument of yours that sucks is the one that began with you discounting what I had to say. The original issue was if same-sex marriage was the right thing. You and I both agree it is. But your whole problem with me (and this is why I keep replying) seems to me to stem from a dislike of me presenting and defending an argument that I don't agree with, and from me getting hurt when people attack my argument. that's the misunderstanding you keep making. So do a lot of other people.

It's not the loss of the argument that bugged me. That's debate. That's discussion. Some ideas are better than others. What bugged me is your vicious response (which I don't think is good, at least not usually) and the anger and backlash against me for what really seems to bother those of you who are bothered - my dislike of homosexuality.

You keep focusing on my argument. But just like you say I fail to address your argument (why should I - it's clear that the arguments against gay marriage are weak, and they weren't my passion anyway), you fail to understand the difference between attacking someone for their intellectual position and attacking them because you just plain don't like what they are saying. You have yet to acknowledge that first, you attacked me and maligned me based on what I feel is your misunderstanding of what I was saying, and that second, you refuse to listen to anything else I say because you still persist in believing that I am offended by one thing, when it's really another.

I'm not interested in PC, so you can stop trying to push that button, and regarding my commentary about liberals, it was only in response to your tirade about conservatives (and you didn't know if I was one - pbbbt!).

Yes, I'm tenacious, and yes, I can be sarcastic, though I try not to use it as much as I used to since it leads to closed, rather than open lines of communication. As does a violent response, which you advocate.

Finally, your comment about the "garbage" I post on my website was nothing more than a cheap shot, and I do believe it IS indicative of your character. Nowhere in any of this do I say gays are garbage, that same-sex marriage is garbage, or anything even close to that.

Yet you repeatedly escalated your personal attacks against me.

You have shown how you operate.

And thank you for the back-handed compliments. I'll take what I like from them.
posted by hurkle at 11:10 PM on February 21, 2004

Lets see if I have this straight; my very first comment is to ignore your defensiveness over the attacks regarding your personal feelings against gays, that that isn't and shouldn't be the issue, and you blow that up to be a blanket statement about you? Self-important much? I think that's the fundamental misunderstanding that you and I have had all along.

You state that character isn't the issue, yet in your previous post you claim that I am full of ad hominem attacks - which are attempts to discredit an argument by focusing on a flaw in the presenter's character or person. If you don't feel that character is an issue, then why did you make that claim?

Umm, if character isn't an issue and that's all you're focusing on, then your refutations are kinda lame, yes? Character isn't an issue her, and you're trying to make it so. This is so obvious I feel silly having to explain it to you.

Again, you misunderstand fundamentally. My upset stems not from a shredding of the arguments against same-sex marriage, but against the intolerance of those who profess to be tolerant.

You've almost got it, so lets take one more step. YOU assume that being tolerant of gay marraige should mean that the same people should be tolerant of stupidity. Nope, notta, no way, no how. Your assumption is what keeps coming back to bite you in the ass, not me.

I'm not interested in PC, so you can stop trying to push that button, and regarding my commentary about liberals, it was only in response to your tirade about conservatives (and you didn't know if I was one - pbbbt!).

Which would make sense if you hadn't started bashing those nebulous liberals and their disappointment of your assumptions before I wrote word one in this thread. Sorry, try again.

Anyway, there's a lot more that could be said, and if you'd really like to I've emailed you my email address. But I think we've abused Matt's hospitality quite enough here. Yes that is an admission of guilt. Sorry Matt.
posted by Wulfgar! at 11:52 PM on February 21, 2004

I'm not interested in re-educating anyone. My belief is not that everyone doesn't have a right to their own opinion, it's just that I don't believe in a moral equivalence where all positions are "okay". (To continue my earlier analogy: Klan members can hold their opinions about other races, hell they have a constitutional right to protest/meet/whatever. But their position is not just "their opinion". They are empirically throwback, dumbass, neandrathal savage hatemongers.) But I see from the ensuing responses exactly what branch of the tree we're dealing with here and it honestly isn't worth the time.
posted by owillis at 12:27 AM on February 22, 2004

For the love of God, why did this become a discussion of how specific people feel about particular sex acts? I haven't read any press accounts about the weddings in San Francisco that would indicate these marriages are being consumated on the courthouse steps, nor do I see that in Derek Powazek's pictures.

Rather than getting bogged down in a discussion that becomes more horrifying by the moment -- I don't want to know which sex acts anyone on MetaFilter likes or dislikes -- I'm reverting back to my original response to this link: Powazek's pictures, and the event they describe, are one of the great civil rights milestones in U.S. history. I'm glad to be around to see it.
posted by rcade at 4:25 AM on February 22, 2004

More discussion from over the pond:

'Yes says Evan Davis, author of A Fruitless Marriage, so that gay relationships get more formal recognition. No, says Terry Sanderson, writer for the Gay Times, who argues that legalisation can only bring unreasonable rules to gay relationships.'

So, to summarize the thread - Lovely pictures. There are no arguments found to support ammending the constitution in order to ban same sex marriage. hurkle likes attention.

That f_n_m quote is worth keeping for posperity. Well spotted languagehat!
posted by asok at 10:01 AM on February 22, 2004

The pictures in the original post are beautiful and moving.
posted by divrsional at 12:43 PM on February 22, 2004

I have skimmed through this thread and have nothing other than this to add:

Last week on Valentine's Day, my boyfriend asked me to marry him. I, of course, accepted happily. We are overjoyed of course. Bit our happiness has been made all the sweeter by the fact that so many of our friends and neighbors can now openly declare their love and devotion for each other and be recognized as spouses in the eyes of the law.

Does their relationship being legally sanctioned somehow detract from that of my fiance (or as we like to pronounce it, FI-ance a la Raising Arizonia) and me? Not in the least. If anything, the anniversary of the day we became engaged will hold even greater meaning to me because it will also be remembered as a milestone in the struggle for civil rights for all people. I am honored and feel blessed to share that date with all the gay and lesbian couples who have gotten married. Congratulations to all of you!
posted by echolalia67 at 5:55 PM on February 22, 2004

Schwarzenegger, on national TV, voices concern over civil clashes in S.F.
posted by homunculus at 8:01 PM on February 22, 2004

New Mexico: For Same-Sex Couples, the Morning After
posted by homunculus at 9:36 PM on February 22, 2004

Boy, one you can say about this thread--The I's have it. They--and the me's, my's and mine's extend off into the horizon like an old growth forest of toothpicks and paperclips.

Nothing is more irritating to read a phrase or two like I think I made it perfectly clear when I... Three I's in the same sentence is an abomination. Who would want to listen to anyone talk at a dinner or a party who said I every five or six words? Too many I's spoil the discourse with their self-importance.

One can explain oneself with force without diving into the narcissus pool of infinite I. Here's a worthy goal: use one, and only one I per sentence and make that sentence one of every three sentences if at all possible. Only you can prevent first person personal pronoun meltdown.

To paraphrase Professor Strunk: Omit needless 'I's.
posted by y2karl at 10:27 PM on February 22, 2004

We concur.
posted by rcade at 5:09 AM on February 23, 2004

I think the point being missed here is that thinking a particular sex behavior is icky does not make you a bigot - thinking that the people who engage in taht sexual behavior are icky and deserve any abuse that comes their way, makes you a bigot. And there is a difference between someone feeling uncomfortable viewing a sex act and someone who views that sex act and becomes homicidally enraged - the difference between a straight gy and a homophobic guy. As far as I know, the study cited earlier about otesensibly hetro men who become aroused when viewing gay porn are referring to the homophobes. So as much as I feel like woke in some bizzarro world this morning, I have to defend Space Cadet and hurkle on this one.

That being said, Space Cadet - I think you are experiencing some kind of selective memory as regards to the way that MeFi's feel about Father's Rights and Domestic Violence. I think I speak for everyone here when I say that a responsible, caring parent shouldn't be denied access to their child because the law gives preference to the other parent. In fact, gay folks, because of our screwed up custody laws, are often in the same position as you are; with only one of the parents legally allowed to adopt/have custody of a child, the other parent is often completely cut off when the relationship falls apart. That means lesbian women as well as gay men are often in the same boat as you are. Legalizing gay marriage will go a long way towards addressing this.

As for domestic violence issues, I am not the only one here, including the other feminists, who have aknowledged that violence against men is a problem (As an aside, my brother who, as I've discussed before, has been the victim of DV, has decided to go back to his abuser - very frustrating and depressing). In fact, the issue of men battering by their male partners, as well as women being beating their female partners, has been recognized for quite some time in the gay community. So it looks like the gay community is already an ally in the issues you hold important.

You should also recognize, as people have noted before, that folks here more upset at the anger and hostility you give off than they are at the issues you raise. Liberals are not your enemy, nor are feminists - your ex-wife, her lawyers, and an archaic legal system are your enemy. Fight the power, my friend, but please quit treating the rest of us like like your mortal foes.
posted by echolalia67 at 9:51 AM on February 23, 2004

Omit needless 'I's.

Right, because this isn't a remotely subjective issue or anything.
posted by badstone at 9:54 AM on February 23, 2004

I've been thinking the same thing, echolalia67 (your first point, re: where bigotry starts), throughout this thread but I just haven't felt like diving in. I can't say that I'd defend hurkle on that point though. Reading his comments (and this is only w.r.t. to the bigotry issue, otherwise I think he's been doing an incredible job of representing his side), it feels like he's exploting the ambiguity so he can get away with proclaiming his disgust with certain people. hurkle says: "I find homosexuality fairly repugnant." That's quite a different thing than saying he finds the concept of him personally engaging in homosexual acts repugnant. The latter is just a manifestation of sexuality. The former is a condemnation of others' sexuality, and since that sexuality defines a large class of people, it is essentially a condemnation of those people just for being what they are, and therefore bigotry.
posted by badstone at 10:07 AM on February 23, 2004

And hurkle, I think people are reacting to your "I find homosexuality repugnant" statement. Had you said "I find homosexual sex repugnant", I don't think people would have reacted as strongly as you did.

And not all male homosexual sex is anal sex. I know plenty of gay men who find anal sex gross too. And there are plenty of straight women who find the idea of a penis in their anus to be repulsive. I think you need to separate the sex act from the gender of the people performing it. Not being turned on at the thought of doing a sex act with a man that you would find enjoyable with a woman, or performing a particular sex act with anyone, male or female is very different than assuming that all gay men do in bed is have anal sex with one another and as a result, finding their overall sexuality to be repulsive. I'm just saying.

On preview: what Badstone said.
posted by echolalia67 at 10:15 AM on February 23, 2004

Dreama, thank you for the amazing, beautiful post.
echolalia67, congratulations on your engagement!!!
answergrape, my heart is with you and your partner-for-life. want me to send you the nice stainless-steel toaster now, or when your rights are formally recognized?
...and SpaceCadet, you'd better tighten up that tin-foil hat, or all those strident feminist liberals running this country will take over your brain and steal your precious bodily fluids.
posted by clever sheep at 11:57 AM on February 23, 2004

echolalia67:- In fact, gay folks, because of our screwed up custody laws, are often in the same position as you are; with only one of the parents legally allowed to adopt/have custody of a child, the other parent is often completely cut off when the relationship falls apart. That means lesbian women as well as gay men are often in the same boat as you are. Legalizing gay marriage will go a long way towards addressing this.

Woah, hold up there. I know a thing or two about marriage, law, and child custody having walked down that road.

What has marriage got to do with a better and more robust legal process for non-custodial parents (than not being married)? I'm talking about in actual practice, reality....? The law does nothing. Visitation rights, expensively won over in court, are not enforced by law. A custodial parent can break such court orders with impunity. They are breaking the law, but the law does nothing. This is perhaps the issue of the growing men's movement. To say that the gay community will be better protected by family law (via marriage) is mistaken. In the years to come, gay divorcess will no doubt be making the same points I've been making over the last few years. You simply have to have it happen to you to wholly understand something.

cleversheep, I think you've posted in the wrong thread, or that's just flame-bait. I used to bite. I can't be bothered now. At least I belong to a school of thought that has a growing membership.
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:56 PM on February 23, 2004

It's sort of tragically ironic that you're NOT gay, SpaceCadet, because then at least, when going up against your male partner in divorce court, you could be reasonably sure that you wouldn't be getting unfair treatment based on gender. So to be clear, gay people won't be making *all* the same points that you've been making here at MeFi.
posted by onlyconnect at 5:07 PM on February 23, 2004

The thing that makes a statement like "I find homosexuality fairly repugnant" offensive is that it refers specifically to a trait of other human beings, something that is considered a primary part of many individual's identities. If you said you found blackness fairly repugnant, or femaleness fairly repugnant, as has been pointed out, it would hardly be surprising that some folks would react defensively.

As for whether you "naturally" feel that repulsion, does it really matter? Is it okay that some people "naturally" feel repulsed by blacks or jews? Differentiating what is learned and what is natural is not easy; I would guess that the more we commit to the idea that "real heterosexuals all feel a natural repulsion to homosexuality - that's what makes them hetero", as you suggested above, the more likely we are to reinforce that feeling in young hetero guys.

If we make it less socially acceptable to express that distaste, perhaps it will become a less common feeling. That doesn't mean you can't answer honestly about it if you're grilled, or in therapy, or whatever, but you don't need to offer the information on threads celebrating pictures of happy couples. People trying to overcome their racism may find themselves feeling icked out by members of a different race, but they don't reinforce that response by expressing it as if it were okay, normal, part of the definition of being (white, most likely).

great photos.
posted by mdn at 9:14 PM on February 23, 2004

onlyconnect:-It's sort of tragically ironic that you're NOT gay, SpaceCadet, because then at least, when going up against your male partner in divorce court, you could be reasonably sure that you wouldn't be getting unfair treatment based on gender. So to be clear, gay people won't be making *all* the same points that you've been making here at MeFi.

Yeah, very funny:- no gender bias from family law when mediating a gay relationship, therefore, assuming this tautology (um, both genders being the same gender), no gender bias in heterosexual relationship (but, both genders being different). Apples and.....

Firstly, does it matter if there's a gender bias or not from family courts, when a non-custodial parent, male or female, gets frozen out of their role as parent? It just happens to men 95%+ of the time (work that one out). Must be deadbeats, right? We've been through this one before:- unless a mother is a clear danger to her children, she will have custody if she wants custody. Exceptions apply, and I can't speak for every single family court in every country. Your explanation in previous posts is that men can't be bothered to even try and win custody - plain wrong and extremely offensive.

mdn, hurkle made it clear that he finds homosexual acts repugnant, disgusting. So do I. No big deal. I don't hate homosexuals though because of what they do, the same way you probably don't hate coprophiliacs, but find what they do disgusting.
posted by SpaceCadet at 1:29 AM on February 24, 2004

SpaceCadet, here's the point -- in order to even begin to fight for custody, you have to have standing. Being legally married to the other parent of your children gives a standing that would assist gay parents. Marriage would open the door to dual-parent adoptions for gays -- right now, when gays adopt most states only allow one half of the couple to become a legal parent, leaving the other without recourse in the event of a break-up. Marriage would also erase much of the problem faced when there are biological children and the non-bio parent wants some shared custody or visitation. Right now, they are at the mercy of the courts in a way that others are not because the law currently looks at them as nothing more than a boyfriend/girlfriend of the bioparent even if they were the primary caregiver from the child's birth while the bioparent was the breadwinner.

No one is saying that there isn't a gender bias in hetero custody proceedings, but at least fathers coming out of hetero relationships have the ability to go to court to fight for their kids. Another consequence of the continued illogical prohibition of gay marriage is that there are kids whose parents -- mothers and fathers alike -- don't even have the right to even try.
posted by Dreama at 2:59 AM on February 24, 2004

Dreama, legal processes are nothing without enforcement.

I know next to nothing of adoption laws, so cannot comment on the law there.

However, divorce is often acrimonious. The child can really only have one custodial parent, unless there's a really amicable arrangement between both parents and child where joint custody can happen. The typical divorce requires simple goodwill on the part of the custodial parent to honour meaningful access to the child for the non-custodial parent. "Honour" should be replaced with "legal requirement" and "goodwill" should become redundant, but I use those words because the law is toothless.

I don't see how gay marriages will dodge the binary split most divorces face with the child going to one parent, and the other one walking the long lonely road of court order after court order granted, yet not enforced by law when the custodial parent breaks the court order.

Gay marriage - great, public affirmation of a relationship, tax breaks, etc. However, these pail into insignificance when you see the real lack of rights that occur at the other end of marriage.
posted by SpaceCadet at 5:03 AM on February 24, 2004

Bush to endorse amendment banning gay marriage.
posted by liam at 7:19 AM on February 24, 2004

SpaceCadet, I think you didn't have a response for my post, so you deliberately misinterpreted it. I'm not saying the courts impose no gender bias in heterosexual divorces; I'm saying that because you have complained bitterly of gender bias in family court proceedings in past MeFi posts, it is too bad that homosexuality so disgusts you, because here at least divorce proceedings by definition should be free from gender bias. Too bad for you!

Secondly, you've previously been given statistic after statistic after statistic that women often win custody because men don't contest it. These stats show that when men do contest custody, they win 50% or more of the time. Your response in the past has been "I can't explain your figures, but I believe them," followed by more personal commentary, unsupported by any verifiable source, about how gender bias is imposed in the UK. Apparently *now* you've simplified this response to "[your statistics are] plain wrong and extremely offensive," even while you continue to cite to absolutely NO facts yourself. I would give your opinion more credit if you backed it up with evidence of men contesting custody and losing at unequal rates, which you have never done. Not once.

Finally, regarding your point that custody enforcement will suck equally for homosexuals and heterosexuals after a divorce, I think you should be happy that members of a group, recently experienced in legislating and litigating for various legal rights, may soon be experiencing the same legal issues that have plagued you in the past. Perhaps homosexuals will have something to bring to the table, which men's rights groups have not yet done, that will ultimately benefit your plight.
posted by onlyconnect at 10:36 AM on February 24, 2004

Ahhh, I see from one of your previous posts that you *are* happy that gays may soon be helping you fight for your rights, so carry on.
posted by onlyconnect at 11:11 AM on February 24, 2004

What has marriage got to do with a better and more robust legal process for non-custodial parents (than not being married)? I'm talking about in actual practice, reality....? The law does nothing.

As Dreama pointed out, if a gay couple splits, the custodial parent automatically gets sole custody. Non-custodal parent gets squat - no legal standing, no day in court, nothing. You may see it as apples and oranges, but a bunch of people who can't see their kids because the law refuses to see them as legitimate parents seem to me to be natural allies to people who can't see their kids because of skewed custody laws or a toothless law that can't enforce visitation access.

If the law can move past the idea that a biological parent/mother is automatically a superior parent to the non-biological parent/father, custody/visitation laws will have to change.
posted by echolalia67 at 11:26 AM on February 24, 2004

onlyconnect, predictably you take the total opposite stance to any view or observation I make, sometimes to the point of absurdity. You even contradict yourself:-

onlyconnect: I'm not saying the courts impose no gender bias in heterosexual divorces

Oh, but here you say there is no bias:-

Secondly, you've previously been given statistic after statistic after statistic that women often win custody because men don't contest it. These stats show that when men do contest custody, they win 50% or more of the time.

If there's no bias in family court as you say in the first sentence, how come you then say that men can win "50% or more of the time" if they contest custody?

These two statements can't sit together. One of them can't be right as they totally contradict each other. And you say them in the same breath (the same post).

To take the second statement as your view on how the family courts work, all I can say is......do a search on google for "unfair family courts" and see how many search results reveal men being screwed by family courts, and how many women are. Either men out-bitch women in complaining, or the vast majority of people victimised by bad family law happen be to men. According to your view, they must be deadbeats as all they have to do is "contest custody" as you put it, and they will stand a 50% chance or more of winning.

What gets me is how antipathetic modern feminists like yourself are towards men and children in this situation. It belies the true motivations of feminism (purely for the advancement of women, before children and men). You'd rather cherry pick skewed statistics to prove your own little world view that men are all domineering and women are the constant victim than be all-inclusive.

As Dreama pointed out, if a gay couple splits, the custodial parent automatically gets sole custody. Non-custodal parent gets squat - no legal standing, no day in court, nothing.

Any links to show this is true? Is this an adoption-specific law?
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:55 PM on February 24, 2004

It belies the true motivations of feminism (purely for the advancement of women, before children and men).

As opposed to your motives?

I choose traditional roles [for women] in the situation where they come into conflict with equality between the sexes. No irony, no nothing. Straight answer.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:24 AM PST on November 7

posted by NortonDC at 8:53 PM on February 24, 2004

mdn, hurkle made it clear that he finds homosexual acts repugnant, disgusting. So do I. No big deal. I don't hate homosexuals though because of what they do, the same way you probably don't hate coprophiliacs, but find what they do disgusting.

a) you don't find the act itself disgusting; you find the combination of people involved disgusting. If a gay couple only engages in oral sex, and a straight couple only engages in oral sex, which is disgusting in your eyes? What about a straight couple who have anal sex, or a lesbian couple who only have missionary-style sex (with toys)?

b) The point isn't what sort of sex people have - if we give it too much thought, lots of people's sex lives will gross us out - there are plenty of people in the world I would not want to witness in action... but I don't actively make it a point to tell them that I wouldn't want to watch them!

The attraction to a person isn't something you can really choose, and some people only fall in love with those of the same sex as themselves. They feel all nervous and excited by individuals they share a gender with. That experience of having a crush, feeling an attraction, falling in love is essentially the same - it's simply that the object of their desire is the same sex. Is that in itself what disgusts you? Why do you think it's ok to tell them that, when the same irrational feeling toward someone of a different race would be a reaction you would know you ought to tame and reconsider?
posted by mdn at 9:02 PM on February 24, 2004

SpaceCadet, you wanted links on custody issues for gay/lesbian couples - here you go.
posted by echolalia67 at 11:38 PM on February 24, 2004

What bugged me is your vicious response (which I don't think is good, at least not usually) and the anger and backlash against me for what really seems to bother those of you who are bothered - my dislike of homosexuality.

Buddy, you can hate homesexuality for the rest of your life, as far as I'm concerned. But when hatred like that (and the hatred now evident in this country, predominantly from the right wing, as Dreama noted) is formalized into laws, you can bet people will rise up (even if it takes years) and throw off those unjust laws that resulted from your hatred. But really, how is your hatred different from the basest form of bigotry?

Steve@Linnwood:Well, to be blunt, you can go fuck yourself. This is exactly why I said "I don't have the energy to write that much."

You poor thing.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:18 AM on February 25, 2004

a) you don't find the act itself disgusting; you find the combination of people involved disgusting. If a gay couple only engages in oral sex, and a straight couple only engages in oral sex, which is disgusting in your eyes? What about a straight couple who have anal sex, or a lesbian couple who only have missionary-style sex (with toys)?


mdn, first you tell me how I think (you don't find the act itself disgusting; you find the combination of people involved disgusting), then you ask me how I think (If a gay couple only engages in oral sex, and a straight couple only engages in oral sex, which is disgusting in your eyes?).

You surely can't be asking me the question, as I've already answered it in this thread (please read this thread, I made a policy to never quote myself again for the benefit of others). I must assume you are telling me how I think: that I find gay people disgusting, and not their acts. This describes a moral disgust, not a visceral disgust.

Big difference.

I feel disgusted at the thought of coprophilia, but it means nothing to me that there are people in the world who do enjoy it. I'm not saying I'm some amazingly liberal person for tolerating such behaviour - it's just that I don't give a shit (sorry for the pun).

Oh, and when I use the word "disgust", I'm not talking about an intense experience, it's just a vague displeasure at the thought of myself performing such acts, or being privy to such acts. Attaching a feeling to an act requires a person to imagine what it would be like if he/she were experiencing/viewing the act. What I like and don't like defines me. Your tastes define you. Venn diagrams show groups of people have similiar tastes. No big fucking deal.

Do you find coprophilia disgusting? Simple question.

Do you not see the difference between moral disgust and visceral disgust?

Could it be that you simply don't like the word "disgusting"?
posted by SpaceCadet at 8:18 AM on February 25, 2004

Gang, it's useless to supply logical arguments to counter a one-note crank like SpaceCadet. He's far too invested in his pain and hatred to hear you. (Though I admit, I admire the patience and forbearance of folks like echolalia in reaching out time and again regardless--bravo!)

That said, unless you want to hear another fifty off-topic iterations of how he and men like him are "done wrong" in family court, and why feminists are eeeeevil for not making his cause the absolute center of their political platform and activism, then please: don't feed the bears.
posted by clever sheep at 11:59 AM on February 25, 2004

clever sheep, don't feed the bears.
posted by SpaceCadet at 2:26 PM on February 25, 2004

Fred's view

And so I decided I didn’t give a damn about sexual peculiarities, provided that (a) I didn’t have to watch them and (b) nobody got hurt. If you like Bactrian camels, it’s fine with me, as long as the camel consents. Just do it somewhere else. Whatever it is.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:16 PM on February 25, 2004

What the hell is "Bactrian camels" - applying antibiotic creme to the nether region of a Camel? Just wondering...
posted by echolalia67 at 4:57 PM on February 25, 2004

What the hell is "Bactrian camels" - applying antibiotic creme to the nether region of a Camel? Just wondering...

A Bactrian Camel
posted by SpaceCadet at 6:06 PM on February 25, 2004

Some footage.
posted by squirrel at 7:49 PM on February 25, 2004

You surely can't be asking me the question, as I've already answered it in this thread.... I must assume you are telling me how I think: that I find gay people disgusting, and not their acts. This describes a moral disgust, not a visceral disgust.

But there are three things involved: the people themselves, the combination of people, and the act. If the act is, say, a blow job, is that in itself what disgusts you? Or is that okay as long as there is only one penis in the room? I'm not accusing you of being disgusted immediately by the gay person, but I think you're mistaken to claim that it's simply the act. Again, do you find oral sex as such to be disgusting? What about kissing, in itself?

Do you find coprophilia disgusting? Simple question.

Yeah, I don't like the idea of it much. I also don't like the idea of sex between two fat people though. Or for that matter, the idea of sex between my parents or other relatives. I don't feel the need to go out and make sure everyone knows that I think two overweight people going at it is unappealing. I hope overweight couples have great sex lives and I wish them all the best, and if there were a law against their being married because their sex lives icked others out, I would be celebrating their happy activist-y wedding pictures and getting teary at how cute they were, & despite having no interest at all in visualizing them screwing, I would not bring up that internal response when the more important issue of an unfair law being overturned was at issue. You see? One has nothing to do with the other, or oughtn't, anyway.
posted by mdn at 9:00 AM on February 26, 2004

Advantage: mdn.
posted by squirrel at 10:57 AM on February 26, 2004

SpaceCadet, I've been away and unable to respond til now. First, I'm really not seeing evidence that men who contest custody of their kids get treated unfairly as a rule. I'm not sure they're not held to a higher standard with alimony, though. We've never talked about that, and I haven't researched it, so I'm keeping an open mind. There may also be other areas of divorce proceedings that I'm not sufficiently informed of to know whether men are getting a short stick. That's why I say I withhold judgment on whether courts impose no gender bias anywhere in divorce proceedings.

But I do know that I've cited you these sociological studies more than once (every time I google I find more of them), and I still find your response of offering personal anecdotes -- in this case the command to in effect google for personal anecdotes -- inadequate in the face of cited studies published in peer review journals. If what you're saying is true, why can't you find any of those? All I did for mine was google.

Instead, you make up statistics, including percentages, and offer them as facts. Specifically, you said:

[Getting excluded from their role as a parent] just happens to men 95%+ of the time (work that one out). Must be deadbeats, right? We've been through this one before:- unless a mother is a clear danger to her children, she will have custody if she wants custody. Exceptions apply, and I can't speak for every single family court in every country. Your explanation in previous posts is that men can't be bothered to even try and win custody - plain wrong and extremely offensive.

Why you find studies and statistics to be "plain wrong and extremely offensive" when the most you offer in rebuttal are made up numbers and personal anecdotes is a total mystery to me.

After all, weren't you the guy who said earlier in this thread, "Hildegarde, I admit I didn't read the whole article you refer to, but it reeks of propaganda. It makes assertions it doesn't back up with facts. It backs them up with opinions. It states opinions and dresses them up as facts. I have described propaganda." Do you think that the information offered on the men's rights sites that come up during the google search, when unsupported by any verifiable research or study, is any different than propaganda? Do you think your own opinions offered in this thread, unsupported by actual facts, are any different than propaganda? Maybe some propaganda is better than other propaganda.
posted by onlyconnect at 4:11 PM on February 27, 2004

onlyconnect: I'm really not seeing evidence that men who contest custody of their kids get treated unfairly as a rule.


Like I say, given that everything's fair (as you say), men must bitch about these things a hell of a lot more than women, judging by the myriad of websites, and blokes dressed in superhero outfits dangling from cranes and bridges, thousands of Santas taking to tthe streets of London and other marches. Not to mention the many opinions online that fly in the face of your assumptions, making the same point over and over, in tandem with my own experience.

Yes, it is odd how you're "really not seeing evidence that men who contest custody of their kids get treated unfairly as a rule" , yet there are so many men (and women!) out there who think the opposite to your view. Not only that, but the press (The Times etc) who report such imbalances in the law must also be deluded. They must either all be deluded and you are correct, or you are simply wrong.

I'll take the latter.

Especially considering the facts.

However, let's hypothesize. Let's assume you are right and all of these men are deluded. Wouldn't their delusion be broken by somebody informing them that the family courts are in fact fair to either sex, and they have as good a chance to winning custody as women? They've spent thousands and thousands of pounds on court orders to uphold visitation arrangements, and yet, they're missing a chance to win outright custody! onlyconnect, do you mind if I forward your posts onto Fathers4Justice? I'm sure they will be overwhelmed with the good news you bring.

Or it might just raise a small chuckle.
posted by SpaceCadet at 8:29 AM on February 28, 2004

spacecadet, don't you ever get weary of turning every unrelated topic into something that's all about you...?
posted by t r a c y at 8:52 AM on February 28, 2004

First, regarding the articles of protesting fathers that you offer as "evidence" of unequal treatment, I guess then you would agree that any organization that has supporters who protest must be correct. Like say, for example, gays who march for their rights, or women who march in favor of abortion. Or PETA. I assume that these causes are also near and dear to you, SpaceCadet, since they also march and congregate en masse.

Second, statistics from your own Times article report that "[o]nly 713 fathers were refused contact with their children in 2001, compared with 55,000 who were granted it." That's 98.7 percent, SpaceCadet. For the most part, courts are requiring at the outset that fathers have access to their kids. If courts are so prejudiced against fathers, why are they ordering access 98.7% of the time?

You are saying that these orders are not getting enforced, but that's different than the custody question that you initially raised above. Remember, you said: "unless a mother is a clear danger to her children, she will have custody if she wants custody." That's still wrong, and you still don't support it with facts or stats that dispute the stats offered earlier -- i.e., that when fathers fight for custody, they get it 50% or more of the time.
posted by onlyconnect at 10:57 AM on February 28, 2004

Like I say onlyconnect, you've enlightened us. There is nothing for men to worry about in the family courts. We are deluded. I'll definitely pass your posts onto F4J and inform them of their wrong direction of policy. There is no more need to protest. The law is there to protect fathers and children and ensure that this bond is not broken. We were wrong all along. All the links I've posted to, the thousands of fathers I met at F4J marches and my own experience has all been a mass delusion. It took a childless person with no experience of family court to tell me this - the info found from a website. Thank you.

While you're on a roll, why not tell any non-white that racism has never existed, tell a homosexual that homophobia is all in the mind. All is fair, and any protesting group has to be eyed with deep suspicion as they're more than likely deluded. [/sarc]

t r a c y, I deliberately target MetaFilter with my views as it's a leftist, feminist sympathising website. I always post honestly and don't pull any punches (the fact I admit why I am here shows this). So what? There are many people I know who hold similar views to mine, but why opine to those who are only going to agree with you? For me, that's a waste of words. I'm not here for my ego or to make friends - just to put the alternative point across. I think I have more than succeeded at doing that. I realise by doing this, I'm open to ad hominem attacks and plain abuse (there are many who cannot counter my arguments so just ridicule me) or even meta-meta-meta discussions about my etiquette on MetaTalk- fair game. My feelings are not hurt, and my life away from MeFi (99.99999% of my life) is fine, despite what people may think (you can actually be radicalised by events in your life, get over them emotionally, yet the radical in you remains). I will be the first person to say that I have an agenda, and it's not really part of the MeFi etiquette. Part of being honest is revealing your motives. If anyone wants to ban me for my reasons for using this site, fine too.
posted by SpaceCadet at 11:50 AM on February 28, 2004

yah, yah, but you know, of all the people here i should be your biggest fan. my dad was rightfully given custody of me when i was 2 years old (by a female judge, hello) so father's rights are a huge deal to me... but your message is lost by way of it's delivery. an agenda, which there isn't necessarily anything wrong with having, can't be pushed forward if it's constantly being raised in the wrong setting. anyway, that's all, hope you're having a good day otherwise.
posted by t r a c y at 1:50 PM on February 28, 2004

t r a c y, that's great to hear, (although what is the relationship with your mother?). For me, it's not father versus mother, but a fair chance for both parents to be afforded access to their children and vice versa, should they want that. It's dead simple. A parent loses their right to their kids under certain circumstances, but not simply because of divorce. It's not really about fathers' rights so much as about parent's rights, in my book. It's just that the law is heavily biased in favour of mothers, whether you think so or not.

I'm a dad. I have no access to my son because of toothless law. onlyconnect tells me all is OK, not to worry. The courts are fair, if I want access I can get it. How she is sure of this is beyond me, yet she is certain that the law is fairly applied, despite my experience of courts, my lawyers experience of courts, and many others I have met who have experienced the same as myself. Either she is boldy lying, or misinformed, or most probably pig-stubborn and contrary and simply wants to disagree with me. Let's assume she is right:- onlyconnect seems lighter than air, having access to such knowledge not afforded to so many people SO CLOSE to this problem. Two days ago, I heard from my lawyer who successfully submitted an "anti-divorce" form denying my son's mother any right to divorce for the next 6 months (law is amazing sometimes). I can re-submit this in 6 months time again (beware all those women looking for a quick escape route, child in hand). Now onlyconnect, please instruct me what to do next, with your infinite wisdom and knowledge.

Anyway, to cut to the chase: onlyconnect: you know nothing, as this is only theory to you in the same way racism is theory to a white middle-class student who might debunk Martin Luther King as being hysterical and misguided. And more fool to ChuckD 30 years later with his paranoid lyrics, eh? Never mind reality and how the law is applied (I can already feel onlyconnect backtracking here).

Like I say, I expect "liberal" (heavy emphasis on quotes) views here. I'm ready for you ultra-sensitives to ban me or pigeon-hole me or call me something akin to a Unabomber/nutter (no, not my "ego" working overtime, just that certain people here are rather hysterical - I really don't take myself so seriously as some of you do).
posted by SpaceCadet at 5:15 PM on February 28, 2004

what is the relationship with your mother?

really good, thanks. i like, love, and respect my mom. if you want to ask me anything else, feel free to email me.
posted by t r a c y at 5:47 PM on February 28, 2004

onlyconnect tells me all is OK, not to worry

No, just that your situation (and the situations of those who self-select because they're in similar situations to you) is not typical of the majority. Which you'd know if you actually read what onlyconnect said. But I don't expect what I say to make any difference to you, since you've already passed judgment on me. Have a nice day.
posted by biscotti at 5:56 PM on February 28, 2004

i like, love, and respect my mom.

t r a c y, it sounds like your parents truly are mature and have made decisions based on your best interests, given your respect and love towards them. Parents earn the respect of their kids.

onlyconnect tells me all is OK, not to worry

No, just that your situation (and the situations of those who self-select because they're in similar situations to you) is not typical of the majority.

biscotti, let's assume I'm not part of the majority. So what? It makes the injustice less important? And what is this "majority"? Do they enjoy joint custody, or continuous, harmonious visitation arrangements (as sure as hell, the courts don't enforce them)? Enlighten me, and the other fathers out there denied access to their kids. Again, I'm glad all this is documented on MeFi. It makes interesting reading to all those fathers out there in a similar position to me. Public access sites are wonderful.
posted by SpaceCadet at 6:42 PM on February 28, 2004

Two days ago, I heard from my lawyer who successfully submitted an "anti-divorce" form denying my son's mother any right to divorce for the next 6 months (law is amazing sometimes). I can re-submit this in 6 months time again (beware all those women looking for a quick escape route, child in hand).

Let's be clear on what SpaceCadet has just done here. He has filed a form in a Japanese court, which has been approved, which prevents his wife from divorcing him for the next six months. He can attempt to renew this judgement in another six months. SpaceCadet has thus succeeded in remaining married to a woman who no longer wishes to be married to him, for at least the next six months. He has decided that his desire to stay married to his wife (despite the fact that I believe they live in different countries) is more important, and takes precedence over, his wife's desire to divorce him.

And he says courts are biased in favor of women!
posted by onlyconnect at 8:15 PM on February 29, 2004

Let's be clear on what SpaceCadet has just done here.

He nearly ruined a good thread by making it about him. He has a whole website to tell his story. It's a story that has nothing to do with the link.
posted by john at 8:41 PM on February 29, 2004

onlyconnect, you clearly have an unhealthy interest in my personal life.

He has decided that his desire to stay married to his wife (despite the fact that I believe they live in different countries) is more important, and takes precedence over, his wife's desire to divorce him.

If you're going to play detective, at least get your facts straight. No journalism stars for you.

This is all about custody/visitation rights to my son (whom you fail to mention - now why would that be?), not a "desire to remain married to my wife". I don't pretend to know your motivations regarding your personal decisions (nor could I care less), please don't pretend or assume to know mine (and why you spend the time researching my life is beyond me). I've done this under my lawyer's advice, giving me the best chance possible to see my son through either visitation or custody. Sorry, but you're being a total asshole here. It's really really sad that my private affairs are displayed totally out of context. If you're going to do such a thing, at least have the common courtesy of linking to the site you got it from. Ah, but then you can't distort the facts, or reveal the reasoning behind my decisions (and why should I even have to justify them here?).

Of course, if you have some personal vendetta against me, I understand why your motivations are unethical and unhealthy - in which case, I'm more than entitled to say:- piss off (I could use stronger language), go find somebody else to take your passive-aggressive wrath on. Otherwise, you've simply over-stepped the mark in putting your point across.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:25 AM on March 1, 2004

you clearly have an unhealthy interest in my personal life.

Says the man (using the term ever so loosely) who is wrapping himself up in a thread on gay marriage and then using it as an exhibitionist's trenchcoat. If you're uncomfortable with what happens when people actually pay attention to the toxic bile you pump out around here, then knock it off. If you need sympathy from the people you make a habit of subjecting to your vicious sexism, then you're even more pathetic than you're previous posts indicated.

This is all about custody/visitation rights to my son

No, this is all about the ability of gay people in love to publicly affirm their love with a legal marriage ceremony. THESE are all about you:

Sex was pretty alien to *me* when *I* was pre-pubescent - don't know about you.

Never tried it, and don't want to. *I* still enjoy *my sex life*.

*I*'m a lesbian in a man's body. *I*'m totally hetero.

*I* deliberately target MetaFilter with *my* views as it's a leftist, feminist sympathising website. *I* always post honestly and don't pull any punches (the fact *I* admit why *I* am here shows this). So what? There are many people *I* know who hold similar views to *mine*, but why opine to those who are only going to agree with you? For *me*, that's a waste of words. *I*'m not here for *my ego* or to make friends - just to put the alternative point across. *I* think *I* have more than succeeded at doing that. *I* realise by doing this, *I*'m open to ad hominem attacks and plain abuse (there are many who cannot counter *my* arguments so just ridicule *me*) or even meta-meta-meta discussions about *my* etiquette on MetaTalk- fair game. *My feelings* are not hurt, and *my life* away from MeFi (99.99999% of *my life*) is fine, despite what people may think (you can actually be radicalised by events in your life, get over them emotionally, yet the radical in you remains). *I* will be the first person to say that *I* have an agenda, and it's not really part of the MeFi etiquette.

*I*'m a dad. *I* have no access to *my* son because of toothless law.

Like *I* say, *I* expect "liberal" (heavy emphasis on quotes) views here. *I*'m ready for you ultra-sensitives to ban *me* or pigeon-hole *me* or call *me* something akin to a Unabomber/nutter (no, not *my "ego"* working overtime, just that certain people here are rather hysterical - *I* really don't take *myself* so seriously as some of you do).

So if, for a change, you're being honest and don't want people to discuss you or your apparently ongoing sexual infidelity to the woman you are forcing to be your wife against her will, quitting posting about yourself would be a hell of a start.
posted by NortonDC at 5:42 AM on March 1, 2004

This is all about custody/visitation rights to my son

NortonDC, if you think I am a troll, ignore me and I will go away. It's simple. Unfortunately, you fan the flames with your misquotes, misinterpretations and demented questioning. Your rabid feminist responses are as bad as onlyconnect and demand ridicule/response (remember these are public boards - I often link to these threads from other sites). If you don't make them, I can't respond can I? Nobody can be 100% correct in their opinion, can they? Only bigots think so. You might get support from your fellow MeFi feminists here, but your misquotes, misinterpretations, out-right lying and plain abuse is open for all to read MeFi people and those I link these threads to.

....the woman you are forcing to be your wife against her will

Eh? If this so, she is also forcing my son and I to be apart, with the help of the family courts. Womens' rights over childrens' rights?


My original point regarding gay marriage and divorce was then replied to with an absurd remark by onlyconnect. That's how the whole thing got de-railed. And you're an expert at keeping the wreckage burning Norton.

Don't like threads getting derailed? Simple, talk about gay marriage instead of throwing crass abuse to someone with an opposing view.

Now I wonder if this can be laid to rest, or can anyone not resist keeping the "thread about me" going? I have nothing more to say (barring any abuse thrown my way - that always deserves to be thrown back).
posted by SpaceCadet at 7:22 AM on March 1, 2004

Sorry, the link to "absurd remark" should point to this post by onlyconnect.
posted by SpaceCadet at 9:07 AM on March 1, 2004

9 uses of "I," 4 uses of "my," and 2 uses of "me" in 1 response.
posted by NortonDC at 7:19 PM on March 1, 2004

Just wanted to end up back on topic and away from the flames by saying that more pictures and commentary of the weddings are available here and here . Especially this one, linked earlier by scody.
posted by onlyconnect at 7:20 PM on March 1, 2004

Sexual Mores and the Bible from therightchristians.org (also back on topic-ish)
posted by amberglow at 7:41 PM on March 1, 2004

(nice one onlyconnect & amberglow)
posted by SpaceCadet at 1:19 AM on March 2, 2004