"Real men marry women"

March 10, 2010 4:18 AM

When Washington D.C. began licensing same-sex marriages last week, this story came out on the paper edition of the Washington Post with this photo on the front page. (WARNING: the photo depicts two men kissing) The paper received complaints from upset readers, some of whom canceled their Post subscription. Andrew Alexander, the Post's ombudsman, responds: "There was a time, after court-ordered integration, when readers complained about front-page photos of blacks mixing with whites. Today, photo images of same-sex couples capture the same reality of societal change."
posted by Baldons (86 comments total)

Huh, I always thought real men were secure enough in their own identity that seeing a picture of two people in love wouldn't upset them. Good for D.C., and good for the Post.
posted by Ghidorah at 4:26 AM on March 10, 2010 [11 favorites]

I'm pretty sure I remember something a few years ago where a Boston-area paper had a picture on the front of two men kissing. There was an uproar.

The uproar, of course, was because one man was wearing a Red Sox jersey, and the other was wearing a Yankees jersey, and dude, that's just gross.
posted by olinerd at 4:29 AM on March 10, 2010 [31 favorites]

I'm outraged OUTRAGED that the Washington Post, one of the most prestigious papers in the country, would post a photo of two men kissing and caption it as two couples.

CANCEL MY GOOGLESSUBSCRIPTION
posted by DU at 4:30 AM on March 10, 2010 [9 favorites]

You know, I never complain when papers publish photos of dumpy, poorly-dressed, frog-faced heteros mashing face in Wal-Mart
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:30 AM on March 10, 2010 [3 favorites]

You know, I never complain when papers publish photos of dumpy, poorly-dressed, frog-faced heteros mashing face in Wal-Mart

Good lord! Maybe you should!
posted by Pollomacho at 4:35 AM on March 10, 2010 [3 favorites]

You know, I never complain when papers publish photos of dumpy, poorly-dressed, frog-faced heteros mashing face in Wal-Mart

Made your comment an appropriate response.
posted by Atreides at 4:42 AM on March 10, 2010 [3 favorites]

Nothing the Washington Post could do now would make me read that paper ever again. It has become the NeoCon house organ.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:43 AM on March 10, 2010 [3 favorites]

Um, what, fourcheese?
posted by Pollomacho at 4:48 AM on March 10, 2010 [3 favorites]

That's not mashing face, it's not snogging... it's not even a passionate kiss. It's not even remotely sexual. It's a peck on the lips. It's like kissing your sister - so to speak.
posted by three blind mice at 4:50 AM on March 10, 2010

Funny, I came in here to complain about the warning about two men kissing. This isn't redstate, there's lots people who have teh gay here. I don't think it's necessary.
posted by nevercalm at 4:52 AM on March 10, 2010 [10 favorites]

and you're about to receive complaints from upset readers about your WARNING.

Or praise for your sense of irony. Well done Baldons.
posted by three blind mice at 4:52 AM on March 10, 2010 [3 favorites]

That's not mashing face, it's not snogging... it's not even a passionate kiss. It's not even remotely sexual. It's a peck on the lips. It's like kissing your sister - so to speak.

You do see lot more passionate and longer lasting kisses on the national news, which are viewed by a lot more people than those who read the Washington Post.
posted by Atreides at 4:53 AM on March 10, 2010

It's days like this that I miss dnab. And other days too. Come back, dnab.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 4:56 AM on March 10, 2010 [5 favorites]

!WARNING! Some of the poster's original language was meant to emphasize the ri[REDACTED FOR OFFENSIVENESS]ulousness of the reaction some people have had to the photo.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:04 AM on March 10, 2010 [12 favorites]

!WARNING! Some of the poster's original language was meant to emphasize the ri[REDACTED FOR OFFENSIVENESS]ulousness of the reaction some people have had to the photo.

Hey, this is Metafilter -- no charitable interpretations allowed.
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:09 AM on March 10, 2010 [8 favorites]

This is probably the most insightful comment I have ever seen on a newspaper's website:

"children are unlikely to be shocked by the photo as they haven't yet absorbed the views their parents have about social norms, and so won't yet know why the photo is shocking."
posted by ekroh at 5:13 AM on March 10, 2010 [28 favorites]

WARNING Due to the number of epic gaywar flameouts and the poster's high user number I may have over-reacted. THANK YOU THAT IS ALL.

(aka sorry the irony detector was on the fritz...I've changed the batteries, should be all better)
posted by nevercalm at 5:22 AM on March 10, 2010

People who cancelled their subscription probably aren't shocked at the photo per se, more likely they're shocked to see their world view challenged and crumbling so lash out at the nearest and easiest target.

Better cancelled subscriptions than dead doctors.

Also, good on the Post for not backing down about this. They could have tried to claw readers back with a mealy mouthed apology and it shows spine, or at least foresight, that they didn't.
posted by litleozy at 5:24 AM on March 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

I hereby file a request for Mr.MoonPie's reaction to all of this.

I expect it to be awesome.
posted by mephron at 5:24 AM on March 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

Seeing two guys (or gals) kissing does personally weird me out, just 'cause I don't see it a lot. It's not so much "Eww gross", but more "Huh, oh yeah, gay couple." I don't think there's any way around this and the far more negative reactions, it's just not something a lot of people are used and it's something they don't want to seek out.

But the only way those negative feelings and thoughts go away is more exposure to it. So, real awkward times ahead.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:27 AM on March 10, 2010 [6 favorites]

Also, this from the article:

And the celebration largely overshadowed the presence of four people from a church in Kansas who gathered outside the courthouse, chanting and carrying protest signs, one of which read: "Mourn for your sins."

If that doesn't show how pitiful the Phelps Clan has become, that people aren't even mentioning them more than that, few things will.

I find it excellent.
posted by mephron at 5:27 AM on March 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

And finally, bringing my first post back to here: if "Real men marry women", then MrMoonPie will be a real man soon, when he performs his first wedding of a lesbian couple.
posted by mephron at 5:29 AM on March 10, 2010 [21 favorites]

“I am 65 years old and I realize that the world is changing rapidly – much more rapidly than I would like it to,” she e-mailed. “While I realize that the Post must report on these changes – even the ones with which I do not agree – I feel that the picture on Thursday morning was an affront to the majority of your readership. It is not something that I want coming into my home. I believe that even your editors know that it would have been better placed in the Metro section and that it would have mitigated its impact to do so.”

Stuff like this really blows my mind. Ma'am, with all due respect: You're 65 years old, which means you were 20 when the march on Selma occurred, 23 when Martin Luther King Jr. was shot, 24 when the moon landing occurred, things which by most people's standards represent a full plate of world-changingness. And yet you have the temerity to complain that "the world is changing more rapidly than I would like it to" because two clean-cut men are pecking each other on the lips (note: no nasty tongue-tangling, thank the Lord Jesus!) on the page of your local newspaper. Where have you been all of your life -- living in a cave in the Appalachians?
posted by blucevalo at 5:36 AM on March 10, 2010 [29 favorites]

I'm pretty sure I remember something a few years ago where a Boston-area paper had a picture on the front of two men kissing. There was an uproar.

it was the weekly dig. Most people thought it was funny, I dont remember much outrage.
posted by mpbx at 5:41 AM on March 10, 2010

Seeing two guys (or gals) kissing does personally weird me out, just 'cause I don't see it a lot.

That's a very honest comment Brandon Blatcher - good for you - and I'm sure you are not alone. And I think you're right. I am old enough that I remember it being odd to see mixed-race couples holding hands (let alone kissing) - now it is so common that I don't even notice it.
posted by three blind mice at 5:44 AM on March 10, 2010 [2 favorites]

Where have you been all of your life -- living in a cave in the Appalachians?

Clearly you haven't been to Woodbridge.

I kid.
posted by Pollomacho at 5:45 AM on March 10, 2010 [5 favorites]

I've been summoned!

I certainly saw lots of kissing yesterday, and hugging and tears of joy and dancing. Apart from the lone loonie outside the courthouse in the morning, I heard not one word of criticism, got not one side-ways glance, encountered nothing that reduced the wonder and happiness of the day. I did two weddings at the courthouse, another two at Freedom Plaza, two at the Wilson building, one on the roof-top of the Department of Interior, and one at home to close out the day.

Well, I did run into Marion Barry at the city council building--he was the only councilman who voted against the marriage-equality legislation. I didn't have anything nice to say, so I didn't say anything at all.
posted by MrMoonPie at 5:48 AM on March 10, 2010 [59 favorites]

Cute photo!
posted by internet fraud detective squad, station number 9 at 5:49 AM on March 10, 2010

I kind of like the idea that the negative impact of men kissing could have been mitigated by putting it in the metro section. Because city folk are all you know...
posted by srboisvert at 5:49 AM on March 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

blucevalo:
To play devil's advocate, such people see any kind of homosexual activity as obscene, the same thing as if a newspaper had photos of incest on its front cover. I suppose there is some truth in saying that you should be able to decide what gets in your front door and that you should be subject to SURPRISE gay kissing.

Of course the consequence of this is that you do end up living in a metaphorical cave in the Appalachains. that said, in some ways, more than we'd like to admit, we all live in our own caves with things we'd rather not know about or rather not see. minimised for relativist spin
posted by litleozy at 5:51 AM on March 10, 2010

I kind of like the idea that the negative impact of men kissing could have been mitigated by putting it in the metro section. Because city folk are all you know...

Well, you know, people are always talking these days about those metro sectionals.
posted by Pollomacho at 5:53 AM on March 10, 2010 [40 favorites]

I suppose there is some truth in saying that you should be able to decide what gets in your front door and that you should be subject to SURPRISE gay kissing.

You do get to decide what gets in your front door because you decide whether to get a subscription to the newspaper. But saying that a newspaper shouldn't be allowed to put whatever they want on the front page is infringing on the freedom of the press.
posted by ekroh at 6:00 AM on March 10, 2010

Well, I did run into Marion Barry at the city council building--he was the only councilman who voted against the marriage-equality legislation.

Not quite. He may have been the most corrupt councilman to vote against marriage equality but he was joined by Yvette Alexander of ward 7.
posted by allen.spaulding at 6:07 AM on March 10, 2010

Stuff like this really blows my mind. Ma'am, with all due respect: You're 65 years old, which means you were 20 when the march on Selma occurred, 23 when Martin Luther King Jr. was shot, 24 when the moon landing occurred, things which by most people's standards represent a full plate of world-changingness. And yet you have the temerity to complain that "the world is changing more rapidly than I would like it to" because two clean-cut men are pecking each other on the lips (note: no nasty tongue-tangling, thank the Lord Jesus!) on the page of your local newspaper. Where have you been all of your life -- living in a cave in the Appalachians?

People grow conservative as they grow older. They live the majority of their life under X circumstances, so they're not comfortable when Y happens. There were probably 80 year olds who cheered when slaves were freed, but then got grumpy when women received the right to vote. And you don't have to live in a cave in Appalachia to be a bigot.
posted by Atreides at 6:10 AM on March 10, 2010 [3 favorites]

ekroh: the reaction here is a visceral one that the upset readers don't want to be subject to. Of course it's bigoutry that shouldn't be given too much weight, particularly with the need to protect the press's freedom and that part of living in society is accepting to see things you don't like.

I don't have much sympathy for those who are complaining to the paper and cancelling their subscriptions but I understand that there some things you'd rather not see and have a bad reaction to seeing. Question is more what you do with that reaction.
posted by litleozy at 6:11 AM on March 10, 2010

People grow conservative as they grow older.
Generally, this may be true but thankfully not always. My 81 year old Southern grandmother has come to believe over the last decade that the death penalty is wrong, largely because it disproportionally affects non-whites. In addition, she always asks after my best friend and "his friend". While she can't yet say "his boyfriend", she has gone from ignoring them to wishing them happiness and when I last asked her if she still thinks gay marriage is wrong she said, "I'll have to think about that."

It;s never too late for some people to change.
posted by pointystick at 6:17 AM on March 10, 2010 [16 favorites]

Way to go WaPo ombudsman! Now maybe you can start representing "our" wars pictorially.
posted by Mister_A at 6:27 AM on March 10, 2010

People grow conservative as they grow older

As pointystick says, not always. There's a clear divide in my family between the people who are mellowing as they age, and the people who are becoming more conservative and reactionary every year. A lot of them started in the same places, but for whatever reason their paths forked in their fifties and sixties and they are now miles apart politically and socially.

The heartening thing for me is how attitudes towards homosexuality, just like attitudes towards interracial relationships, are slowly but clearly moving, and moving in the right direction. As those cranky old people, like the one quoted above, continue to die off, they are replaced by younger people who more and more treat gayness as something much less important, and certainly not worth canceling a subscription over.
posted by Forktine at 6:32 AM on March 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

Sorry, not trying to derail. I am pleased by the paper's decision and the ombudsman's response, which shows that he, at least, views gay rights as an integral part of the struggle for equal human rights for all. I am not surprised by the reaction, unfortunately, but I am very pleased that the paper hasn't made some ridiculous token apology or retroactive edit to the picture and story.
posted by Mister_A at 6:34 AM on March 10, 2010

Made your comment an appropriate response.
posted by Atreides at 4:42 AM on March 10

My point, Atreides, is that the photo in question is tame as hell - they're barely even touching lips. Meanwhile, all around us are hundreds and hundreds of images and videos of ass-ugly homophobe backwoods motherfuckers kissing and hugging way more explicitly and no one gives a shit. And frankly, nor should they. But if we're going to start judging affection, then I affirm and declare that the affection between these two handsome clean-cut gentlemen to be more true, to be better, than the affection between a couple stank-ass juggalos in Des Moines, or between a hateful black-souled busybodied grandma like Ann Witty and whatever alcoholic piece of trash actually had the misfortune to marry her.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:41 AM on March 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

This gay thing... it makes me tingle.
posted by Theta States at 6:46 AM on March 10, 2010

the affection between a couple stank-ass juggalos in Des Moines

i didn't know they had caves in new york city
posted by pyramid termite at 6:49 AM on March 10, 2010 [4 favorites]

To play devil's advocate, such people see any kind of homosexual activity as obscene, the same thing as if a newspaper had photos of incest on its front cover.

Or, like, drug-addled celebrities making a farce of the institution of marriage by treating it as a trifle?
posted by desuetude at 6:50 AM on March 10, 2010 [3 favorites]

It has become the NeoCon house organ.

Agreed.
posted by caddis at 6:50 AM on March 10, 2010

Go WaPo ombudsman! (that's hard to type)

I made the mistake of looking at the comments when the WaPo was liveblogging the first couple of gay weddings - why do I do that to myself? I know better! - but then I scrolled back up and looked at the photos of a happy, crying married couple and that made me feel much better about people.
posted by rtha at 6:51 AM on March 10, 2010

i didn't know they had caves in new york city
posted by pyramid termite at 6:49 AM on March 10

If conservatives, racists, and homophobes don't want to have their shit thrown back at them, if they have a problem with their physical and mental deficiencies being pointed out after they slag on real freedom-loving Americans, maybe they should shut the fuck up.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:03 AM on March 10, 2010

MrMoonPie: Thank you. You are one of the good people.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 7:06 AM on March 10, 2010

More photos from the WaPo. (WARNING: this slideshow depicts a lot of shmoopy)
posted by specialagentwebb at 7:10 AM on March 10, 2010

Nobody complained when a pic of these two was on the front page...
posted by Webbster at 7:12 AM on March 10, 2010 [4 favorites]

maybe they should shut the fuck up

says the person who insulted iowa, one of the few states where gay marriage exists, in a thread dealing with the bigoted reactions of people who live on the east coast

your prejudices are showing - and in this case, have no relation to the reality of what is being discussed here

especially seeing as the homophobes in YOUR state seem to be more successful than in iowa

des moines more socially progressive than nyc - who'd have believed it?
posted by pyramid termite at 7:19 AM on March 10, 2010 [12 favorites]

says the person who insulted iowa, one of the few states where gay marriage exists, in a thread dealing with the bigoted reactions of people who live on the east coast

I'm not insulting Iowa, I am insulting juggalos, a notoriously PDA-centric yet homophobic subculture of the Midwest.

especially seeing as the homophobes in YOUR state seem to be more successful than in iowa
des moines more socially progressive than nyc - who'd have believed it?

New York State sucks and I never said otherwise. You're getting New York State and New York City confused. They are very different things. Cool derail, though.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:25 AM on March 10, 2010

Lads, let's don't derail the schmoopy.
posted by Mister_A at 7:26 AM on March 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

I demand immediate reparations from Metafilter.... that photo turned me GAY!
posted by ExitPursuedByBear at 7:35 AM on March 10, 2010

Well, I did run into Marion Barry at the city council building--he was the only councilman who voted against the marriage-equality legislation.

Until a hooker can marry a crack-pipe then no one should be allowed to marry!
posted by fuq at 7:37 AM on March 10, 2010 [3 favorites]

At first I was really confused about how someone could have such a visceral reaction to such a tame picture.

But then I remembered that my own husband has such a reaction to a particular gay-wedding photo album that, as far as I know, has no kissing whatsoever in it.

Granted, it was his own wedding.

And he did have a *really* awful haircut at the time.

So maybe that's a little more justified. Especially since I see no problem whatsoever with the gentlemen in question's hair.
posted by PMdixon at 7:50 AM on March 10, 2010 [6 favorites]

People grow conservative as they grow older. They live the majority of their life under X circumstances, so they're not comfortable when Y happens. There were probably 80 year olds who cheered when slaves were freed, but then got grumpy when women received the right to vote. And you don't have to live in a cave in Appalachia to be a bigot.

I realize this, believe it or not. I too grow more conservative as I grow older, much to my chagrin. I was venting. I was remarking on my occasional amazement at the fact that people who grew up in the 1960s, who lived through the social upheaval and turmoil of the 1960s, can be as bigoted as anyone else. Whether one is older or not actually has not as much to do as you seem to imply with whether he or she is bigoted, actually. I'm sure the Post got hate mail from people much younger than this woman. Your implication that the hate mail that the paper received was just a matter of "grumpiness" is odd, but to each his own.

In any case, I was taking a rhetorical risk, and perhaps I sounded disingenuous doing so. But this kind of stuff, including the hate mail excoriating the Post for promoting the "faggot lifestyle," a lifestyle in which I happen to be engaged, hits pretty close to home for me and got me a little less careful about my emotions than I usually am here, conscious as I try to be of the ever-twitching mefi hypersensitivity antennae.

So for the lapse in decorum and delicacy, including the reference to the Appalachians, I apologize, and I duly note and acknowledge that there are indeed many, many bigots who do not live in the Appalachians. And I should know, because I lived in San Francisco for many years, and that's the only place where I have ever been called a faggot to my face.

that said, in some ways, more than we'd like to admit, we all live in our own caves with things we'd rather not know about or rather not see.

Fair enough. I am not claiming that I do not live in my own cave. However, comparing a photo of two men chastely kissing to "photos of incest" (in point of fact, I have never seen "photos of incest" on the front page of any newspaper, and I venture to guess that you haven't, either, even in London, unless there are racier tabloids in the UK than I've known about up till now) is more than a little uncalled for.
posted by blucevalo at 7:53 AM on March 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

My point, Atreides, is that the photo in question is tame as hell - they're barely even touching lips. Meanwhile, all around us are hundreds and hundreds of images and videos of ass-ugly homophobe backwoods motherfuckers kissing and hugging way more explicitly and no one gives a shit. And frankly, nor should they. But if we're going to start judging affection, then I affirm and declare that the affection between these two handsome clean-cut gentlemen to be more true, to be better, than the affection between a couple stank-ass juggalos in Des Moines, or between a hateful black-souled busybodied grandma like Ann Witty and whatever alcoholic piece of trash actually had the misfortune to marry her.

I understand your point, but it seemed to needlessly be bashing people who aren't as pretty, in shape, and shop at Wal-Mart. That, in itself, is no crime, as much as the two men kissing on the Post front page. As mentioned above, you're firing bigotry at bigotry, even if your kind of virulence is more socially acceptable than the other. It simplest terms, if someone wants to object to the presentation of two people of the same gender kissing, then it should be by the reversal of two people of different genders kissing. It shouldn't drag in what they look like or where they shop.
posted by Atreides at 7:58 AM on March 10, 2010 [10 favorites]

I currently reside in a cave* in the Appalachians and I think men kissing are awesome.

*metaphorical cave but it is kind of chilly and dark in here today
posted by little e at 8:01 AM on March 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

New York State sucks and I never said otherwise. You're getting New York State and New York City confused. They are very different things.

No, they aren't. As much as we'd like to think otherwise, NYC has elected some real bigots- and these are Democrats!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:11 AM on March 10, 2010 [3 favorites]

People grow conservative as they grow older.

Ah, this just means that we complain a lot because we can no longer get our favourite beer any more. Personally, I'd be happy to see pictures of men buttfucking on the front page of the Times.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:12 AM on March 10, 2010 [3 favorites]

In related news: Meredith Vieira Has Gay Panic About Hugs Between 'Hurt Locker' Stars Anthony Mackie and Jeremy Renner.

Ewan McGregor Shuts Down George Stephanopoulos' Homophobic Reaction to His Kiss with Jim Carrey.
posted by ericb at 8:16 AM on March 10, 2010 [4 favorites]

As much as we'd like to think otherwise, NYC has elected some real bigots- and these are Democrats!

Don't forget Rubén Díaz!
posted by blucevalo at 8:17 AM on March 10, 2010

Why does everything always have to be about New York?

Well, I did run into Marion Barry at the city council building--he was the only councilman who voted against the marriage-equality legislation.

I will say in Barry's defense, though he has been quite a jackass in the arriage debate, he was a champion of human rights in his past. On the council in the 70s he helped push and pass the DC Human Rights Act of 1977, the very same act that prevented the marriage issue from being able to be put to a referendum in the city. Barry fought other members of the Council (backed by Anita Bryant)who tried to drop the sexual orientation clause from the Act.

Also as a mayorial candidate in the 1979 election he ran on a pro-gay rights platform in an election that was essentially a referendum on the HRA (he won). Finally, it was Barry as Mayor that actually took the Human Rights Act seriously and pushed cases in the Office of Human Rights. The OHR, though a typical DC bureaucratic morass, actually took and pursued discrimination cases filed by gays and lesbians, which they had not done under Walter Washington. Further as Mayor, Barry pushed and signed the DC Sexual Assault Reform Act of 1981 (lifting DC's archaic sodomy laws) and testified before Congress in its defense. It was shot down by the US Congress and reintroduced and signed by Barry every year of his term as Mayor only to have it tabled by committee each time.

So, while there may not be much to say to Mr. Barry of late, you could at least tip your hat for his past efforts.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:20 AM on March 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

it was the weekly dig. Most people thought it was funny, I dont remember much outrage.

The cover image.

"Joe Keohane Comments on Weekly Dig Cover of Two Men Kissing

Boston, Mass. -- September 29, 2005 -- 'As far as timing of the cover goes, well, the anniversary of the SJC's same-sex marriage ruling is approaching (Nov 18th) and the Sox and Yanks are neck and neck (so to speak), so what the hell?

'As far as meaning, we decided to do it because it'd make a really striking image; because we wanted to see what would piss people off more, the gay aspect or the Sox-Yanks aspect; and because we wanted to float the theory that sexual tension is the real force behind the heated Sox-Yanks rivalry.

'The photo was conceived and shot by Kelsey Bennett, a Berklee Student and Weekly Dig intern (who also happens to be Tony Bennett's granddaughter). She's done a number of photos for us and is ingenious.'"

posted by ericb at 8:46 AM on March 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

I remember that! Keohane was pretty much the reason I read the Dig when I lived in Boston. I really loved that paper.
posted by ocherdraco at 8:49 AM on March 10, 2010

Sometimes i read comments to articles on the WaPo website that suggest to me that many of my neighbors in the DC metro area are completely deranged. I couldn't care less how these people cancelling subscriptions feel about anything. If they want to cover their eyes and put their hands over there ears and sing "Blah blah blah" to keep themselves from reality, fine. I'd prefer that over their spouting their crazy nonsense.
posted by anniecat at 8:57 AM on March 10, 2010

You mean like these neighbors, anniecat?
posted by Pollomacho at 9:04 AM on March 10, 2010

I won't click on this picture because it might destroy the fabric of my heterosexual marriage.
posted by desjardins at 9:30 AM on March 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

ericb, thanks for posting that Ewan link. It made my morning.

I don't know why anyone is reading newspaper comments anyway. They're always a cesspool, no matter how tolerant you think the place you live (or whose paper you read) is. I recently read a racial epithet in the comments of the Austin paper that shocked me; it was deleted later, but who in 2010 thinks it's ok to use viciously racist language? I'm not surprised that people throw a temper tantrum over seeing two men or two women smooch. It just makes me sad.
posted by immlass at 9:35 AM on March 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

You have the right idea, immlass. I try to avoid online comments at news/political sites whenever possible because I know that they will inevitably raise my blood pressure through the roof. Sometimes I can't help myself and I usually regret it.
posted by blucevalo at 9:38 AM on March 10, 2010

If that doesn't show how pitiful the Phelps Clan has become...

I like to think that they never fully recovered from the pirates.

Brandon Blatcher : "Huh, oh yeah, gay couple."

I get the same thing, and I tend to judge myself a little harshly for it every time. I don't want to notice it as being odd, but it's just not common enough in my area that I don't see it anymore.

Hopefully, one day...
posted by quin at 9:52 AM on March 10, 2010

I like to think that they never fully recovered from the pirates.

Could also be the beatings they got in Seaford, Deleware.

I won't click on this picture because it might destroy the fabric of my heterosexual marriage.

You should really read this.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:19 AM on March 10, 2010

Atreides wrote: "As mentioned above, you're firing bigotry at bigotry"

I don't think merely disliking something ought to be called bigotry. I'm not a bigot because I don't like Survivor and would prefer not to see pictures of buttfucking. I would be a bigot if I was saying Survivor and buttfucking are evil and should be illegal.

There's a big difference between not liking something and trying to keep other people from doing it because of your preference.

I prefer not to see men kissing each other somewhat more than I prefer not to see men and women kissing each other (I don't like PDAs regardless of the couple's orientation), but I'm staunchly in favor of gay rights and I recognize that if it's OK for heteros to do something, it's perfectly reasonable if gays do it, too.
posted by wierdo at 10:39 AM on March 10, 2010

I won't click on this picture because it might destroy the fabric of my heterosexual marriage.

[NOT HOMOPHOBICIST]

But what if it replaces the fabric with rich leather?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:41 AM on March 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

> Where have you been all of your life -- living in a cave in the Appalachians?

No, the cave is in her head.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:47 AM on March 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

The WP online photo gallery is seriously making me blubber. Especially picture #18, for some reason.
posted by muddgirl at 11:13 AM on March 10, 2010

Hey, muddgirl, which photo gallery? I can't find anything with more than one or two pictures.
posted by MrMoonPie at 12:16 PM on March 10, 2010

Specialagentweb linked to it in this comment.
posted by muddgirl at 12:20 PM on March 10, 2010

Oh, thanks--I see a few familiar faces (but not me--poo!).
posted by MrMoonPie at 12:32 PM on March 10, 2010

But what if it replaces the fabric with rich leather?
It had better be Fine, Corinthian Leather
posted by pointystick at 12:37 PM on March 10, 2010

The WP online photo gallery is seriously making me blubber.

No kidding. So much schmoopy! I love it.
posted by rtha at 12:38 PM on March 10, 2010

#18is indeed wonderful, but then they're all wonderful. I'll be there in June and this makes me want to renew our vows there.
posted by blucevalo at 12:52 PM on March 10, 2010

Meredith Vieira Has Gay Panic About Hugs Between 'Hurt Locker' Stars Anthony Mackie and Jeremy Renner.

Meredith Vieira Sorry for Remarks About Male 'Hurt Locker' Hugs.

In related news: "National Enquirer...passive-aggressively outs The Hurt Locker's Jeremy Renner."
posted by ericb at 2:23 PM on March 10, 2010 [2 favorites]

The WP online photo gallery is seriously making me blubber.

A hundred shrieking bigots couldn't kill the schmoopy in those photos. I love seeing love captured like that.

So, a month before I moved to MA, marriage equality happened. I travel to D.C. in 5 weeks, and marriage equality happened.

Anyone want to invite me elsewhere for a visit? :)
posted by rollbiz at 5:52 PM on March 10, 2010

Adorable little kid figures out what it means when two guys are husbands. So cute.
posted by Asparagirl at 10:10 PM on March 10, 2010 [4 favorites]

Asparagirl, I love how he goes from puzzled (I've never seen that before) to accepting (that means you love each other) to nonchalance (you can play if you want) in a space of about two minutes. And you're right, he's adorable.

As for the photo essay of married couples, there is nothing sweeter than real love shining through. That people find that obscene if its not one man-one woman saddens me. I'd be depressed, but then Calen and the schmoopy give me warm fuzzies and I am immunized.
posted by sandraregina at 7:32 AM on March 11, 2010