Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Queer Aye


I mentioned this a while ago and it seems worth repeating, given recent developments in Iowa and now Vermont: It's too late for opponents of gay marriage; they've already lost.

The genie is out of the bottle, he's fabulously dressed, and there's no putting him back in.

The New York Times: Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal/4.7.09

27 comments:

L. said...

The whole 'civil union' thing always struck me as a little 'separate but equal'. It's about time that everyone got treated like a proper citizen, despite their sexual preference. As long as it's between two consenting adults it shouldn't be anyone's business.

Lily's Mommy said...

You should read the Free Republic comments. They're hysterical. They are losing their shit over this.

Anonymous said...

"As long as it's between two consenting adults it shouldn't be anyone's business."

So we should adopt one of France's laws and allow incest between individuals of legal age.

After all, it's none of our business, right?

Let's also make the legal age for consent 13 (or if we're really talking physiology, 11 for young girls, 13 for boys!), since most young people have hit puberty by that time. After all, nature made us that way, and people have been having sex at that age for thousands of years before our Christian-leaning views decided that nobody should have sex before they're 18 (or 16 in some states). It shouldn't be anyone's business what you do in privacy so long as your body is adult, right? As long as both parties consent, there shouldn't be any problem. I mean, we can prosecute children as adults as young as 13, why shouldn't we allow them the rights of an adult if we're willing to treat them as such, but only "to punish them"?



If you're going to make one argument in the name of equality, you shouldn't be surprised when others come back with similar arguments of their own that you may or may not agree with.

(Not that I'm actually advocating any of the above, as I honestly don't agree with it even if it makes for an interesting if unsettling discussion, but I also don't agree with gay marriage because there's no real point or purpose to it other than for certain "rights" only granted through that union which should be granted another way in my opinion)

Peter said...

I live in Belgium, where gay marriage was legalized about six years ago (preceded by civil unions with elaborate legal rights for same sex couples).

Although I'm in a committed gay relationship, I won't marry my partner.

You see, Belgium has one of the highest (straight) divorce rates in the world.
And the passed six years, the newly wed gay couples found out we are factually all equal:
the gay divorce rate started rising by the year.

So if gay marriage gives you additional legal rights as a gay couple in a US state (or if you like a lavish wedding ;-): consider/go for it.

But in case it doesn't: why bother to copy a flawed concept?

Anonymous said...

anonymous 5:03 said:"but I also don't agree with gay marriage because there's no real point or purpose to it "

and the purpose of marriage is....?

divorce?
procreation?
multiple spouses?

i guess because YOU don't see a point then YOU must be right for everyone.

Anonymous said...

it's funny because the same people who have been crying for equality for gay couples would most likely never get behind the cries for equality for people who want to have a polygamous marriage. instead, we'll just keep talking about how "weird" and "unnatural" polygamy is and let all those extra wives claim themselves to be single parents and live off the state.

Anonymous said...

anonymous 6:39 said (in part) "extra wives"

what about all us extra husbands?

Trixi said...

Polygamy is not a consensual situation between two non-related adults. Everyone quit with the man/dog, man/daughter, man/2 wives thing. You are tired, outdated, and intimidated by what scares you. Keep your goddamn religous morals outta my life. What the fuck's it to ya? Gaaaa!

Oh, and I'm a raging heretrosexual, might I add.

C Riedel-de Haen said...

Anonymous @ 5:03, you are so wrong in so many ways that refuting your 'points' is a rather daunting task.

What I am tired of is people opposing gay marriage based on "christian-leaning views"

There is no such thing! Christianity is nothing but a mere rehashing of other myths served up as the 'one true way'

Give it up, already.

pknaack1 said...

I grew up on a corn & oats & beans & cattle & pigs & chickens farm in the most rural part of Iowa there is, and left Iowa mostly because I couldn't stand the deep red christian homogenaity of the culture. A good percentage of rural Iowans have lived their entire lives without ever having met a muslim or a jew, and lived their entire lives believing what their pastor tells them without the slightest bit of question because they've never heard an opposing viewpoint that they thought was worth listening to.

And I must say, I'm proud of Iowa for making this stand. But I have also heard from a good deal of my Iowan friends and relatives a good bit of rage at the incomprehensibility of gay marriage being legal in their state, so don't think this is over. This fight will still be going on a decade or three from now, no question. The christian fucks just can't keep their fingers out of our government. They don't understand "separation of religion and state" means that the paranoid and misguided fears of one particular religion shouldn't be allowed to influence the laws for the rest of the population.

L. said...

In response to the Anonymous comment at 5:03:

I meant legal adults, as in people over the age of 18. Suggesting that in referring to 'consenting adults' I was somehow suggesting pedophilia should be legal is a rather ridiculous thing to do and involves some serious reaching.

em said...

At least come up with an anti-gay marriage argument that doesn't include pedophilia. Whatevs.

Becky said...

Anon 5:03:

YOU do not see the point of gay marriage, and therefore you would deny millions of people rights that they desperately want and care about, all because you fail to see the significance of it? Fuck that.

I might not understand the "point or purpose" of mimes or living statues, but that doesn't mean I would want their right to perform and scare the bejesus out of me taken away from them.

People like you fail to get past personal sentiments and never grasp the notion that something as simple as the right to marry can mean the world to some.

Matt Osborne said...

I couldn't have said it better, Chez.

In a way, the most alarming thing about this is the right's reaction. They are losing on all fronts, and so fast, that their apocalyptic language is redoubling. I expect more shootouts, more talk of Obama as antichrist, and more Alex Jones-style paranoid tinfoil hattery to come in the next three years. It's going to get ugly.

Anonymous said...

For those who saw "consent" and "13" and immediately jumped on the anti-pedophile bandwagon like sheep, I made two distinctly separate arguments (mostly sarcastic):

1) Make incest legal. This does not change the legal age but allows any and all relatives of legal age to marry, have sex with each other, go wild. Whatever.

After all, they're both consenting adults. What's wrong with that? If it's okay for two women or two men to get it on, why not heterosexual related family members? So long as the union doesn't produce a child, what argument do you have other than religion (and eww)?


2) Make the legal age of consent 13. Science has proven that our children are going through puberty at younger and younger ages (women are especially hitting it younger, on average at about 10 and 1/2!), and they're certainly not getting any less horny.

If nature made us this way, why is it so wrong to have sex at the age nature decided we were ready? Just because society tells you you're an adult at 18 doesn't mean 18 is the age you should first be able to consent to sex (or to smoke cigarettes, for that matter).

A 17 year old (and many younger "children" or "minors") can be put away for life in prison, but in most states he/she can't legally consent to sexual intercourse.

Isn't the law something of a double standard? A "minor" isn't mature enough to thrust their hips with or without proper birth control in place (hopefully a condom on top of everything else), but can be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law if they commit a crime? Even worse, they can be put into a sexual offender registry list BEFORE THEY CAN EVEN CONSENT TO SEX?



I won't even touch polygamy, because that's just too easy. If it's okay for two homosexuals to marry, it should certainly be okay for three individuals to marry each other (after all, it's ABOUT LOVE to you guys and gals, right?). I mean, you're leaving those poor bisexuals out in the cold here. How are they going to have their meat AND their vegetables?

Please, either advocate equal marriage and sexual rights for all those who should actually have it according to your logic of "It's none of those heterosexual 18+ Christian-leaning people's business what I do in my home." and "It's all about love anyway, why SHOULDN'T we be able to marry? We LOVE each other!"


Of course, I'm completely and totally politically incorrect with all of this and totally "nonsensical" and "comparing apples to peacocks", but it's the truth. You're only asking for equal marriage for gays because it's what you want and it benefits you, not because you're interested in the equality of marriage or sexual expression for all people.


Not that the world is ready for that sort of thing, but it sure would be nice if someday people pulled their heads out of the sand and realized that if we're going to fundamentally change marriage, let's go all the way and say marriage is "between two or more human persons who have attained sexual maturity."


That way, we can avoid having to go back and change the definition again because that covers any and all combinations of people who demand their "right" to marriage, just as you do.

L. said...

One could argue that none of your points are really fair comparisons. People are born either heterosexual or homosexual, which deals with their innate sexuality and sexual attraction to others.

Incest is not a sexual preference. For example, if no men were on the Earth I would be essentially asexual since I am not sexually attracted to women. By contrast, if someone in an incestuous relationship had been orphaned at a young age, they would most likely still seek out sexual relationships with other people.

As for the underage argument, you already don't have to be 18 to get married in a lot of states. Talking about the age at which kids are hitting puberty is pointless because you don't have to be married to have sex.

And for the record, gay marriage rights don't benefit me at all. Believe it or not, people do occasionally care about things that don't directly affect them.

Personally, I just feel that if I was born with the right to get married since I was born straight, a gay person shouldn't be denied that same right simply because they weren't. It's like saying redheads aren't allowed to get fishing licenses from now on because they were born ginger.

courtney 1 said...

wow
i just wanted to pop in and say how hugely proud i am of Iowa, Vermont and DC this week, and I walk into this shit storm.
It saddens me that people seriously equate homosexuality with pedophilia, incest and beastiality. Seriously. Seriously? How can anyone justify that?
and I love the higher standard for gay marriage thing that's going on, too. What, they can't get divorces for the same reasons straight people do?
fuck. I want to be proud of people, and I just end up hating them.

Deacon Blue said...

Just to add my spin on the slippery slope theory...

It doesn't exist.

Gay marriage is not a "gateway marriage" to pedophilia, polygamy, etc. No more than pot is a gateway drug to cocaine, crank, crack, heroin or anything else.

Gay marriage = two consenting adults. This is almost no different than a traditional marriage except for gender. It may be biblically prohibited, but that has no bearing on civil government. We live in a soceity with a multitude of beliefs and traditions. In civil marriage matters, equality should rule, not religious stands.

As for incest, as icky as I think it is, as fucked up as it may be and as biblically incorrect as it may be, I don't see any reason it should be illegal. Consenting adults. We shouldn't be able to stand in the way of what consenting adults choose to do to each other in the bedroom, as long as they're both willing to do it.

As for polygamy, it doesn't apply. There are a multitude of reasons to disallow polygamy simply because of the complications it brings to inheritance, custody, etc. On that basis alone it should be disallowed, as it just makes already thorny issues increasingly thornier. This issue has no connection to gay marriage and so there is no slippery slope. Totally different beast.

And speaking of beasts, gay marriage is not a slippery slope to sex and/or marriage with animals being legalized. Animals cannot truly consent. Sex with animals is a form of abuse.

Pedophilia? Why must people trot out this argument. We don't go from consenting ADULT relationships to approving sex with kids. There is no relation and no slippery slope.

dick_gozinia said...

Funny that Deacon casually brought up pot in his comment because I was going to ask a question about it. And I apologize for going slightly off-topic, but I see a lot of parallels here.

Chez said that gay marriage is "out of the bottle" and that opponents to it have lost. Would you say the same for California's medical marijuana status and the fact that the DEA stated they will no longer raid shops and legal growers within CA? I hope we get to the point where marijuana is legal and regulated much like alcohol, but I don't feel the same kind of "ball rolling down a hill" momentum for that fight as I do for the gay marriage thing.

Thoughts?

Deacon Blue said...

@ dick_gozninia,

As I understand it, the biggest impediment to pot legalization has actually been the alcohol and tobacco lobbies. As long as pot threatens to cut into their profits (especially alcohol, since cigarette makers could easily BOOST their business if they wanted), legalization of marijuana is probably a long ways off still.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, can only add to the economy (weddings and divorces). ;-)

drater said...

Dick, the ball's been rolling for pot for some time. Nevada nearly decriminalized it in 2006, probably would have passed if the feds hadn't illegally stepped in to oppose the initiative. I figured that federal meddling would end with Obama in office, but AG Holder is sending mixed signals. He's not prosecuting medical marijuana facilities that follow state laws (unlike the Bush administration), but he has a history of pushing for tougher anti-pot legislation.

My guess is that the Obama administration won't do anything to legalize pot, but they will give states more latitude in how they deal with it.

Anonymous said...

Deacon Blue:

i (anon 6:39) never said gay marriage was a slippery slope that would lead to incest and polygamy. i don't believe that. i don't believe it's going to lead states to one day allow a man to marry a goat. we are talking about human beings here. what i am trying to say is that people who rage against others for condemning gay marriage are they themselves raging against other types of unions.

for the record here, i am 100% for gay marriage in every way. i just think that while we are granting homosexuals the rights they should have always had, why are we still denying other people their rights too? i understand that on compounds in the middle of the desert there are 14 year old who have had zero exposure to the outside world and are being forced to marry their 45 year old cousins. but guess what? those people don't WANT polygamy to be legal because they wouldn't be able to live off of the state. but those aren't the only polygamous people in the world. what if two fully integrated, mature, intelligent women want to marry the same man? why should anyone give a fuck? why is it anyone's business?

by the way, i don't give a shit about polygamy. i'm just making a valid argument.

Deacon Blue said...

Anon,

OK, my bad...but some of your comments suggested the whole slippery slope thing.

So, why deny certain other groups similar treatment?

For the same reason we draw the lines in lot of places.

Self-defense is OK. Murder is not. Both are killing though.

Gay marriage or even incestuous marriage are identical in all practical ways to traditional marriage. Consensual adults. Two people joining

Polygamy is inherently different.

Marriage between minors is different.

Society requires that laws be drawn for many reasons. But for gay marriage or even incest, there is no logical argument against them from a civil standpoint.

As for the other issues. Apples and oranges. Entirely. No logical arguments at all, at least not from the same basis as arguing for gay marriage.

Anonymous said...

deacon blue said: "...or even incest, there is no logical argument against them from a civil standpoint."

my sister-wife and two-headed, gill-bearing son thank you!

Deacon Blue said...

Anon 11:34...those gills will serve him well when all the polar ice caps melt and the seas reclaim the land...

Anonymous said...

boy am i glad Lindsey dropped that hideous guy she was going out with - sam.

perhaps now she can find a good lookin lesbian bimbo we can all drool over

Anonymous said...

I'm just going to look at it this way:

Jon Klein won't have very far to drive to marry Anderson Cooper once Jon can get Andy tied up and in the trunk of his car.

Here is the lays in bed and watches him:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/13/business/media/13cnn.html

2 weeks on the job and Klein had already decided to make him the face of CNN - so he was already in love when he got the job....stalker much?
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/archiv...#110562861736221031