Why is the Concept of Gay Marriage Really So Abhorent to the Right?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Really....why do they care?

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 21 February 2004 04:07 (twenty-two years ago)

It's Abhorrent, Alex.

I don't know why. I see nothing wrong with it.

― Aja (aja), Saturday, 21 February 2004 04:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh. Our state law says "Marraige is between a man and a woman"

They say that's why they don't want same sex marraige in CA

― Aja (aja), Saturday, 21 February 2004 04:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Pshh. Every time I hear talk radio address this it very quickly turns to bestiality, as if that is the imminent, final and inevitable result of allowing gays to marry.

I liked Daley's response this week to the issue in which he at one point says that looky, DIVORCE undermines marriage way more than gay marriage could, but I keep thinking "shhhh, they'll take away divorce next!"

I love using "looky", it sounds so 75 years old.

― Hunter (Hunter), Saturday, 21 February 2004 04:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Because they right is all Ann Coulter. Fucking savages

― The Second Drummer Drowned (Atila the Honeybun), Saturday, 21 February 2004 04:15 (twenty-two years ago)

fucking ann coulter is like fucking an animal.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Saturday, 21 February 2004 05:05 (twenty-two years ago)

(Have any Photoshoppers taken a still from the Paris Hilton video and put Coulter's head on instead?)

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Saturday, 21 February 2004 05:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Mm, no. That would involve having to look at her pinched face.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Saturday, 21 February 2004 05:14 (twenty-two years ago)

b/c they hate fags. (i'm not kidding, i think its this simple & i think that making it more complicated is trying to justify.)

― anthony, Saturday, 21 February 2004 05:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Makes no sense. Well at least in SF.

― Aja (aja), Saturday, 21 February 2004 05:34 (twenty-two years ago)

"b/c they hate fags" There's truth there.

My local paper's on line edition doesn't carry Ann Coulter's column, like its printed version. You see, folks, the computer really is a time-saving device.

― jim wentworth (wench), Saturday, 21 February 2004 05:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Anthony is otm. Trying to construct an elaborate pro/con debate rationale scenario whatever is a waste of time. It isn't about gay marriage, it's about gays.

On the other hand, and although, I know this is an invitation to vitriol, I find them [gay marriages]somewhat, I don't know, silly. But all marriages end up looking silly upon close examination. Actually, what I'm talking about, I suppose, are wedding ceremonies, not necessarily marriages. These are two very different things.

― Skottie, Saturday, 21 February 2004 05:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it's at least partially a misguided fear of undermining marriage, though I agree heterosexuals are doing a perfectly heartbreaking job of that all by themselves.

― Stuart (Stuart), Saturday, 21 February 2004 06:03 (twenty-two years ago)

i think anthony's 100% otm. the "undermining marriage" bit is just so much horseshit, just like all the blather about "states' rights" during the civil rights movement.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Saturday, 21 February 2004 06:15 (twenty-two years ago)

They hate Gays because they're homophobic!

Well, maybe.

― Aja (aja), Saturday, 21 February 2004 06:19 (twenty-two years ago)

what's really amazing ... and gives away their whole game ... is how the far-right is willing to let go of one of their putative hobby-horses (namely, states' rights) in order to stop gay marriages. more precisely: marriage is, under american law, traditionally left to the individual states to regulate. if the federal marriage amendment isn't "big government" invading the traditional, sovereign bailiwick of the states, then what is?

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Saturday, 21 February 2004 06:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Good point, Eisbär. But this type of hypocrisy is hardly confined to the right.

― Skottie, Saturday, 21 February 2004 06:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Interesting.

― Stuart (Stuart), Saturday, 21 February 2004 06:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Also interesting.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 21 February 2004 06:56 (twenty-two years ago)

They hate Gays because they're homophobic!

Um, der.

― Trayce (trayce), Saturday, 21 February 2004 07:31 (twenty-two years ago)

That's just awful!

― Aja (aja), Saturday, 21 February 2004 07:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Stop being tautological.

Why do they hate fags? Would gay marriage 'normalise' homosexuality (in the right's eyes), Christianise it almost, thus weakening the false gaps they've built up between themselves (straight, normal, god-fearing, morally justified) and the other (gay, abnormal, athiest [obv., Anthony, not literally, but figuratively - in the eyes of many 'righters' to be gay is necessarily to deny the existence of god because 'he' would say it is not 'right', and to deny what is 'right' is to deny 'him'], amoral), causing them to have to think of themselves in terms they find unacceptable, disgusting even? Why do they find it unacceptable?

― Sick Nouthall (Nick Southall), Saturday, 21 February 2004 11:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I think its unacceptability w/some is based on cultural norms that are fast changing. What caused those cultural norms is for some historian or something to figure out. I suspect it goes back to the early days of the US with all the religious nuts coming over on boats and all that blah blah blah tradition is hard to break.

I also think there are a fair amount of people who will spout the "I don't care what they do in their bedroom" line while actually having a problem w/homosexuality, much like those whose racism is kept under wraps (even possibly somewhat subconscious to them). Thats why I fuck guys sometimes so I KNOW I'm not a homophobe.

As for states rights the right uses that card only when it suits them and even then its mostly just rhetoric.

― christhamrin (christhamrin), Saturday, 21 February 2004 11:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh and I can't wait until gay marriage is legalized then weakening the concept of marriage and allowing me to hitch either my brother, my dog, Satan, Mother Earth, or the concept of Wu Wei depending, of course, on what the I Ching tells me.

― christhamrin (christhamrin), Saturday, 21 February 2004 11:53 (twenty-two years ago)

ok i was thinking about this.

peoples history lasts one generation, in general, and i think there is this view that the ideal family, in the words of James Dobson "the foundation of society" is mom dad two kids.

when in history, that hasnt been the case (the most common is extended or polygymus families.)

i think then they view it as foundational threat, b/c they have the view that it has always been this way.

i think also, queer folk (as opposed to gays) realise how dangerous marriage is, how assimalistionist, how misogynst, how tied to late market capitalism, and want to destroy it.

there is a threat there, that we need to acknowledge.
(eisbars right about states right, i also think that dubya doesnt hate fags, but realizes what side of his bread the butters on)

― anthony, Saturday, 21 February 2004 14:21 (twenty-two years ago)

i agree that marriage itself is rather suspect but Anthony, don't you agree that a making gays equal in the eyes of the law is a step up? I mean gays can be just as shortsighted as straights so if they want to marry more power to them, but they should have the right as well.

― Viva La Sam (thatgirl), Saturday, 21 February 2004 15:28 (twenty-two years ago)

think that as outsiders, we have a social resbonsibilty to work for soultions that are different, radically so, then the status quo.

i do not think that the state should be involved in marriage, and i think that we should move past what was once and in many ways still is a culture that sells and denigrates desire.

its a way of taking our teeth out, of rewarding us for being polite and quiet.

― anthony, Saturday, 21 February 2004 15:32 (twenty-two years ago)

*scratches chin* Anthony, I've mentioned Eric Anderson, the former coach/now sociology instructor at UCI who went and got married over the past weekend in SF. My sense from him and his work as I've known it over the years is that he is not interested in being polite and quiet. He's not a professional agitator, say, but in what he has done -- being open about his gayness, challenging homophobic stereotypes in school and sports in a pretty conservative region, teaching courses about radical sexuality at UCI, now challenging the state directly by happily getting married -- and by describing it AS a challenge, one against hate in the name of love -- I think he's made it clear how he approaches the assimiliation/dissension conundrum. I'm not saying this to negate your take, merely to note that the issue itself is obviously fluid and can be read in many different ways -- it clearly can't be seen as a strictly binary opposition between 'yay gay marriage' and 'boo gay marriage.'

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 21 February 2004 15:46 (twenty-two years ago)

The core problem is sex, not marriage. People get worked up about sex.

One of the most common reactions for an under-10-year-old child, upon hearing his parents did THAT, is pure visceral disgust (dad stuck his...eeewww). Later, they get over it. The same principle applies to homosexual coupling, except many people never get over it. That's where the Christianity part of the equation comes into play.

There is a strong streak in Christianity of disgust over our corrupt flesh that leads us into sin. Chasitity, purity and holiness are identified with the absence of fleshly desire. Sex, at best, is sinful. At worst it is Satan's playground and a fountain of worldly evil.

The Christians may say all sorts of things to obfuscate the issue, but it generally comes down to this: the idea of gay sex is physically disgusting to most of them.

Then, of course, there are the ones who enjoy having a scapegoat they can heap abuse on. It legitimizes their sadistic impulses and gives them social standing for doing what they love to do.

― Aimless (Aimless), Saturday, 21 February 2004 18:10 (twenty-two years ago)

i know that radical incorpation can occur, and for many people it does.

― anthony, Sunday, 22 February 2004 04:55 (twenty-two years ago)

six months pass...

Hmmm.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 21:07 (twenty-one years ago)

that photo next to the article, it HAD to be intentional...

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 21:11 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, good lord...

http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/w148/amdf671243.jpg

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 21:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheney Says Does Not Back Federal Gay Marriage Ban

Is there a band called Cheney Says?

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 21:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheeeeeney says
As he gets up off the floor...

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 21:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheney says on a night like this
It'd be so nice if you gave me a kiss...

― Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 21:29 (twenty-one years ago)

YEEEPS

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 21:30 (twenty-one years ago)

That's what fucking Laurie Anderson can do to your brain.

― Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 21:32 (twenty-one years ago)

See what happens to policy when it affects you directly?

Let's drill for gas on his front lawn...

― Jimmy Mod, Man About Towne (ModJ), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 22:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Only if the drill is coal burning.

― Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 22:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I wonder if this is really how he feels or rather a way to deflect criticism during the campaign that he really runs the administration?

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 22:48 (twenty-one years ago)

or perhaps it was a huge gaffe as it now allows him open to attack from his allies?

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 23:10 (twenty-one years ago)

CHENEY SAYS:
Love my Good 'n' Plenty!

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 23:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Stence, if he's got any desire to keep his daughter in his life he HAS to say that.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 00:45 (twenty-one years ago)

that may be, but the timing seems odd. Also it's a little disingenuous for him to say it's all Bush's deal, considering Cheney's President of the Senate and could've voted on the amendment as well.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 02:35 (twenty-one years ago)

He only votes on tie-breakers.

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 02:44 (twenty-one years ago)

but the possibility's there, obv.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 02:45 (twenty-one years ago)

or it would've been had the idea not been crap to begin with.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 02:45 (twenty-one years ago)

When would the timing NOT seem odd, given the position taken and the person taking it? (Nice salvage, BTW: 9.685)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 02:46 (twenty-one years ago)

good question, and I have no idea of knowing what his motivations are re: the announcement and its timing. It just seems if you're gonna give it up as a campaign issue now, why raise it in the first place (since it had no hope of passage earlier and was raised specifically to be a campaign issue)?

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 02:49 (twenty-one years ago)

My guess is Cheney is appealling to undecideds after the massive strategic blunder that was the gay marriage amendment ban, plus he's positioning himself for his '08 campaign.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 02:54 (twenty-one years ago)

oh no way you are not serious, that dude is not running in '08.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 02:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I BET HE IS

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 03:08 (twenty-one years ago)

(ie this is complete conjecture and not supported by any facts)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 03:08 (twenty-one years ago)

dude he hates campaigning! And he's incredibly polarizing! Plus 5 HEART ATTACKS!

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 03:09 (twenty-one years ago)

= THE PERFECT CANDIDATE

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 03:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I was about to say, please give him the stress needed to finish the job.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 03:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe running for President of Hell in 2008, but not in this mortal coil.

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 03:42 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.