Hypocrisy Watch: Carrie Prejean

Remember Carrie Prejean, the Ms. USA contestant who became a favorite of the religious right by stating, during the televised “beauty” competition, that she couldn’t accept same sex marriage because of her Christian faith and family values? Well, it looks as though a graphic sex tape of the fake-breasted Ms. Prejean has just surfaced…. In her defense, though, I don’t think it states anywhere in the Bible that people shouldn’t surgically enlarge their breasts and film themselves frantically masturbating their lady parts in extreme close-up… Then again, I don’t think the Bible says anything about gay marriage, either.

This entry was posted in Other and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

207 Comments

  1. Agast
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 6:46 am | Permalink

    I am completely shocked by this. I don’t know how I’ll break it to my daughters that this woman who the looked up to is actually a…. Democrat.

  2. Martha
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    Mark, I didn’t realize you were in the habit of denigrating women’s breasts as a mode of insult. Do implants make that okay?

  3. Chris
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    I think, “fake breasted” was a reference to her last scandal. She’d denied being surgically enhanced, but ultimately admitted that she’d had work done. I can’t remember the specifics, but, if I’m not mistaken, the Ms USA California office paid for the work or something. And FWIW I don’t recall Mark ever making similar comments about women.

  4. Brent
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    It’s good to know she is good at wagging her finger at something other than those crazy gays that want something as silly as the same rights as everyone else.

  5. Oliva
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    Sounded to me like Mark’s comment was about the fake parts, not the breasts themselves. Presumably, some of the amplified flesh isn’t fake. But who can say for sure? She’s very plastic looking. (On a side note: I once asked a technician if breast implants make mammograms tricky, and she said yes. I’ve also seen a woman’s breast implant effort gone awry so that she has a very un-breast-like mess on one side of her chest and experienced a lot of agony getting that way. Didn’t strike me as being “her breast” anymore, but that’s just my take.)

  6. Curt Waugh
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    Mark reserves the right to denigrate silicone. He also discriminates against fake ficuses and sporks.

    And yes, implants on a perfectly healthy young woman of such upstanding character do, in fact, make pretty much any and all commentary about them or her perfectly OK. Even encouraged.

  7. Kim
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    Second rate Anita Bryant.

    I wonder if this will hurt her endorsement deals.

  8. dragon
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    When do we get Carriefornication? Hot MILF (Palin) catches nubile babysitter (Princess Jesus Boobies) going to town on herself and introduces her to Rock Solid Conservative (not Joe the Non Plumber) handyman.

  9. Kristen Cuhran
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    It doesn’t actually say anything in the bible about same sex marriage, or sexual orientation, or Carrie’s idea of family values.
    http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible

  10. Money Trail
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    Dragon…that’s what the internet was invented for, my man!

  11. Oliva
    Posted November 5, 2009 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    If you want a total antidote to this retooled beauty pageant queen, check out Mary J. Blige’s rendition of the National Anthem before last night’s World Series game. Several comments beneath the video are quite hilarious.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woyi4gOQr88

    Hold your throat, or your heart might try leaping out. It’s wonderful.

  12. EOS
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 5:15 am | Permalink

    You’re way wrong Kristen. Perhaps Mel White isn’t the best reference on this issue. Go to the source – it’s very clear.

  13. Robert
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    Mark, I hope you are not suggesting Prejean isn’t saved, because that is all that matters. By the way, can you get EOS and me a copy of that masturbation video? We love Christian porn.

  14. EOS
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    Robert,
    No Thanks. Don’t care to see the video.

    Did you catch the vote in Maine? 31 of 31 states have voted to reject same sex marriage. Carrie isn’t alone in her opposition to homosexual marriage no matter how hard the left tries to destroy her with ad hominem attacks. And I never saw her parading down Main St. claiming to be proud of her sinful behavior. But I guess it’s easier to attack a young woman than it is to win an argument with God.

  15. Steve Swan
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    Thank you for the great idea. I think prairie muffin solo videos could be huge!

  16. Robert
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    Several points EOS:

    First of all, I don’t care about gay marriage. Hetrosexuals have long since destroyed that institution. I would likely vote the same way you would on any gay marriage initiative.

    Second, I wasn’t attacking Prejean. I’ve said it here several times before; I totally dig hot crazy women. Just like you, I very much want to see her masturbation video. Unlike you, however, I admit it.

    Third, the left isn’t destroying Prejean. They are giving her what she wants; unwarrented attention. They are going to make her a millionaire.

    Fourth, nobody is arguing with God. That’s just the impression you get because you think of yourself as God’s spokesperson. You obviously are not. You’re the spokesperson for hypocracy.

  17. Brent
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    EOS, you are absolutely right, it absolutely is easier to attack a young woman than it is to win an arguement with God. But it’s even easier to win an arguement than God than to win an arguement with people who have a narrow definition of who God is, derrived from a single supposedly divine book edited countless of times by man for political expedience.

    I’d elaborate, but me and my sinful behavior have a parade to get to, then it’s offer to further tarnish the institution of marriage (and it’s near perfect 50% failure rate).

  18. kjc
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Jim Crow couldn’t have been struck down by a majority vote either. It’s a sign of the changing times that gay marriage even made it on the ballot in these states and yet I’m sure sooner or later we’ll put aside the silliness of voting on people’s civil rights (since that’s what’s at issue–not church weddings; EOS and his ilk are still free to bar the church door).

  19. EOS
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    kjc –

    No one has barred the door. The ground is level at the foot of the cross and all sinners are welcome. Christ came to heal the sick, not to pat anyone on their back for being perfect.

  20. 2 Cents
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    People need to move past the word ‘marriage’ and start to understand that this is about civil rights and equality. In order for that to happen all states need to vote down marriage laws.

  21. kjc
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    i don’t want in the door, dude. just honor the separation of church and state and stop trying to foist your values on our civil society. you don’t wanna pay for buses or schools you don’t use; i don’t want my civil rights trampled on by religious beliefs i don’t share.

  22. kjc
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    and btw, i have no interest in getting married. i do, however, have an interest in overturning institutionalized prejudice. keep it in the pews where it belongs.

  23. EOS
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    kjc –

    The first amendment prohibits government from restricting the free exercise of religion. There is nothing about separation of church and state included in the amendment or anywhere in the constitution. Christians and persons of any other faith have every right to express their beliefs in public and to vote accordingly. I don’t want my civil rights trampled on by atheistic beliefs I don’t share either.

  24. kjc
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    You’re free to your religious beliefs. You’re free to get married. You can even stand outside city hall and jeer gay people after they get hitched. You’re free to do all of that. It would be nice if your idea of freedom didn’t extend to limiting the freedoms of others.

    I’m interested: if we put interracial marriage up for a vote, what box would you tick?

  25. Oliva
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    It just keeps being the same thing–here we are, humans living together in a country, needing mutual trust to be able to flourish–needing to do the tireless, hopeful, collective work of building it. But trust gets conflated with faith day in and day out, faith a nice and partly mysterious thing that ideally can soften the roughness of the world and provide a soft landing place for human beings, can even make people’s hearts bigger and better. But it’s increasingly being hijacked by some huge number of uncharitable, self-righteous people who reject the power of human potential (50 million fundamentalist Christians [the Christianist contingent] in this country? could that really be?) and whose self-appointed task seems to be to place painful spurs in the soft-landing blankets of all the people who don’t share their exact same assumptions or ways of saying “God,” their willingness to insist that fear trumps all. But beyond that, they hurl the painful spurs at people who do things differently than they do. And then you have someone like the tarnished beauty queen raise big money to stop gays from getting married, but maybe people on the outside of her faith bubble would say that her augmented breasts are a way to say to God, “Your work was inferior, so really it was not even my choice that I had to get the beauty pageant people to buy me better breasts.”

  26. EOS
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    I definitely support interracial marriage. Race and sexual orientation are two separate and distinct categories and cannot be equated.

  27. Curt Waugh
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    EOS, blowing it out his ass like usual.

    Article VI:
    “…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    Separation bitch.

    Blow it out your ass, you fucking bigot. Anybody in your family ever get divorced? Fuck them, too. Sanctity of marriage, my ass.

    And if Christ came to heal the sick, nationalized health insurance is the way to go. Did it ever occur to you that God created that, too? That’s he’s pointing the fucking way in big neon signs: “You need nationalized health insurance. Idiots!”

  28. kjc
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    Agreed, Oliva. In my opinion, fundamentalism is the greatest evil the world faces, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, whatever.

    And on this issue of gay rights in America, I feel utterly confident that EOS is on the wrong side of history, so he can’t even piss me off by treating people like me as inferior beings. I truly do understand the necessity for him to cling mightily to his narrow beliefs as the tide turns against him.

  29. kjc
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    *Islamic I should have said.

    Ok enough. Why am I arguing with assholes again??

  30. Oliva
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    Race and sexual orientation are two separate and distinct categories and cannot be equated.

    To be so sure while the words themselves cry out, “Baloney!” (or “Bologna!”) . . . a mighty mystery indeed.

  31. 2 Cents
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    EOS-interesting you use the work ‘equated’ in a conversation based on equality.

  32. Brackinald Achery
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Marriage is properly the churches’ domain, not the government’s, in my opinion. Get government out of all marriage (i.e. — tax code, licenses, etc.), and the issue disappears. Any consenting adults can find a church to marry them if they want. Not my business, since nobody’s rights are being violated (except God’s property rights as the creator of sexuality, but he’s perfectly capable of defending himself without my help). kjc’s right on that; and EOS is right that the bible, which no one is forced to believe in, does explicitly enumerate homosexuality as a no-no in several places.

    The sword of enforcing religious belief (or lack thereof) via the power of the state is double edged, and Christians have often been on the receiving end. No sense empowering the state with the ability to trample on adult consenting people’s rights, even if they choose to do things you find evil. Tomorrow, those same precedents might be directed at you and yours.

  33. EOS
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    Curt –

    You are obviously still challenged in reading comprehension. Article VI doesn’t apply to the topic under discussion. Your use of profanity is indicative of an absence of rational argument. Why don’t you try something novel and argue based on facts.

    Oliva –

    That race and sexual orientation are dissimilar is also the current ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States. Human sexual behavior is a choice and not an immutable characteristic deserving of special protection.

  34. tommy
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    EOS – your magic sky wizard has done a piss poor job in overseeing us humans. Perhaps if he (or she, but that probably is an impossibility in your view) went away for awhile we would end up the same. Your ‘guy’, Isalm’s ‘guy’, and any other ‘guy’ who lives up there in the sky and controls our lives should chill out and let it go, we’re a lost cause.

    By the way – when someone gets married or divorced, who has the authority to make the ‘contract’ legal and binding? I think it would be the legal system. If same is a legal contract and we are all supposedly equal under the law, there really is no ‘legal’ case against gay marriage. Marriage never used to be big business for the church, until they figured out that it was a great way to control the sheep.

  35. EOS
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    Everybody is equal under the law. Anyone, regardless of their orientation, is free to marry a person of the opposite sex.

  36. kjc
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    haha. i hope god doesn’t love logic. cuz that’s some twisted shit.

  37. Oliva
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    “Dissimilar” is a big step away from “cannot be equated.”
    The Supreme Court has done its share of bad stumbles; we can thank some of the present members for appointing Bush and enabling other national disasters.

  38. 2 Cents
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    EOS-I suppose I could get married to someone of the opposite sex in order to get equal rights under the law, then proceed commit adultery by engaging in homosexual relations with my neighbors wife. Thanks for clearing things up so logically!

  39. Peter Larson
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Will the sky wizard let me marry someone who has had a sex change? Is that ok? What if they are living the lifestyle of a woman, but haven’t had the operation yet? There’s nothing in the Constitution that says I can’t marry my female dog and my religion, with Jesus at it’s helm, allows it. Can I still go to heaven? Wait, in fact, I don’t think the US Constitution has anything to say about who I can marry at all!

    This whole conversation is preposterous. Yes, many states have had popular votes against gay marriage, but absolutely none of them have been landslides. That’s like saying that the 2000 and 2004 Bush wins were an indication that the majority of Americans were passionate about George Bush.

    My guess is that we’ll see government getting the fuck out of our bedrooms and our love lives for good fairly soon. I can’t fucking wait.

  40. EOS
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    BA –

    I understand that the reformed church does not believe it should engage in politics. And the Baptist Church has a strict policy of separation of Church and State for the very reasons that you state. They believe the risk of governmental involvement would be detrimental. But it is one thing for a church to voluntarily separate from politics and government and something entirely different when persons like kjc suggest that all religious activity be confined to the “pews” or kept within the church walls and limited to a couple hours each week. I believe that when laws involve morality, then certainly those with a religious belief have a seat at the discussion table and should not lose their voice due to the source of their convictions. You bring up good points.

  41. EOS
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    Peter –
    Most of the states votes have been between 60-40 and 70-30. I guess it depends on what you call a landslide.

  42. EOS
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    2 cents –

    You can do anything you want as long as you don’t demand societal approval and attempt to criminalize those who would disagree or silence the expression of opposition.

  43. Curt Waugh
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    EOS, you’re a goddamn biggot. Just accept that. You’re Archie Bunker incarnate. You have absolutely no business telling other people what to do with their lives. It must make a tiny little shit like you feel pretty important to lord (excuse me, Lord) yourself over others that way. Were ya spankin’ it when they announced the Maine vote? Did you and the other mall cops go out and have victory beers? Smackin’ each other on the ass and doing your best to convince each other – and yourselves, of course – just how un-gay you are, dammit.

    You’re a real man, pal. A real tiny little man with a tiny bit of power who reads his tiny little book and thinks he’s God. Sick.

  44. Oliva
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    Human sexual behavior is a choice and not an immutable characteristic . . .

    And yet, and again, speaking nonsense authoritatively does not make the utterances believable or true.

  45. Oliva
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    Ah, whoops, a little boo-boo with the blockquotes there. The first line was the quote.

  46. kjc
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    “something entirely different when persons like kjc suggest that all religious activity be confined to the ‘pews’ or kept within the church walls and limited to a couple hours each week. I believe that when laws involve morality, then certainly those with a religious belief have a seat at the discussion table and should not lose their voice due to the source of their convictions.”

    i was speaking metaphorically, eos. probably hard for someone so literal-minded as you to understand. but you twist my words to your own ends. like i said, do what you want. i’m not trying to silence you or abolish marriage. feel free to denounce as sinners whomever you like and extol your own moral superiority. shout it from the mountaintops. just don’t use civil authority to discriminate against people with different religious beliefs.

  47. Peter Larson
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    So if I’m a hermaphrodite, does that mean that I can marry either a man or a woman? How are hermaphrodites addressed in state votes? What does EOS’s god think of hermanprhodites? My guess is that in Biblical times, they would have been killed at birth but now you let them live. I’m just curious, though as to what they should do when they decide to marry.

  48. 2 Cents
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    EOS-I do not seek societal approval from anyone. I am who I am. I do however, seek equal rights. And anyone is free to hold their won beliefs, whatever they might be. Again, my original point. This isn’t about religion OR marriage. Its about fundamental rights every person should be granted.

    I think the U of M hit the nail on the head when they changed the term “Domestic Partner’ to “Other Qualified Adult’ and now consider (within the listed guidelines) every non-married couple (mostly) equal. The rest of the nation should follow their lead.

  49. Clayton
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    Why does the internet suck the joy out of everything?

    This was supposed to be a thread about a hot model putting her fingers in bad places and then sucking on them, was it not?

  50. Oliva
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. –Matthew 5:30

    Sorry, Clayton. Okay, I haven’t seen the video, but there’s a good chance a right hand was involved. Damn right hand, always mucking things up.

  51. Robert
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    Thank you, Clayton. That was just the point I was about to make. I want to get back to Prejean and how hot and crazy she is. It’s rediculios for anyone to consider anything that she says, regardless of whether they are for it or against it.

    EOS and I are big into good clean Christian porn, where all the participants are saved and nobody does anything the bible says not to. Nowhere in the good book does it say it’s wrong to flip on a video camera and go to town on yourself like Prejean did. She’s a good Christian girl for what she did, and EOS and I are going to go to all her shows when we all get up to heaven.

  52. Robert
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    My spelling is ridiculous.

  53. EOS
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Oliva –

    Human sexual behavior is a choice and not an immutable characteristic.

    “And yet, and again, speaking nonsense authoritatively does not make the utterances believable or true.”

    Exactly what is it that you disagree with? Do you think sexual behavior in humans is not a choice? Or do you believe homosexuality is not immutable?
    Or both?

    I was using “disimilar” and “cannot be equated” as synonyms – I wasn’t making a distinction between the two. I didn’t actually look up the Supreme Court decision to find the exact words. What I meant is that they are not the same. Race and Sexual Orientation are two different categories that don’t share the same characteristics and aren’t treated the same in the legal sense.

  54. 2 Cents
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    Wow EOS- I think the one thing we can agree on is that there is a difference between sexual behavior and homosexuality. They are not one in the same.

  55. EOS
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    2 cents –

    U of M does not consider every non-married couple equal. They do not give benefits to cohabitating heterosexuals. The University’s policy is clearly in violation of the State-wide referendum. The ballot question clearly stated that benefits could not be given to homosexual couples “under any other name.”

  56. 2 Cents
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    Not true EOS, they do in fact give benefits to cohabiting heterosexuals.

    http://www.benefits.umich.edu/eligibility/oqa.html

  57. 2 Cents
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    or purposes of Other Qualified Adult (OQA) coverage under the U-M’s benefit plans, beginning January 1, 2009, a U-M employee who does not already enroll a spouse in the health or other benefit plans may enroll one adult individual for benefit coverage if all of the following eligibility criteria are met:

    * The employee is eligible for U-M benefits; and
    * The Other Qualified Adult, at the time of proposed enrollment, shares a primary residence with the employee and has done so for the previous 6 continuous months, other than as an employee or tenant.

    Just in case you didn’t feel like clicking on the link.

  58. 2 Cents
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    This includes, Medical insurance, Dental, Vision, Legal plan, Dependent Life Insurance and the Long-Term Care coverage.

  59. 2 Cents
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    However should any couple choose this option, the employee must pay taxes on the portion of benefits the University pays for the Other Qualified Adult. That’s why I stated earlier ‘almost equal’.

  60. Stephen
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    Just curious, EOS. When did you decide to be straight?

  61. tommy
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    WILFs – Wingnuts I’d like to F#@*. Prejean makes that list, along with Coulter (just to make sure she’s not a man, baby!), Crazy Eyes Bachmann, Malkin (bent over, of course), there’s got to be others. It’s only a small sin to think such things EOS – name some names!

  62. Peter Larson
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    Noone answered my question about hermaphrodites. I’m dying to know!

  63. Posted November 6, 2009 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    I think in the Bible it said that hermaphrodites could only perform oral on each other.

  64. Posted November 6, 2009 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    Or maybe it said that they should be stoned to death…. I’m not great at translating ancient texts.

  65. EOS
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    2 Cents –

    You’re right. I stand corrected. Did U of M change their plan to offer benefits to cohabitating heterosexuals in Jan 09? I thought that when they originally offered benefits to OQA they specifically excluded heterosexuals?

  66. Oliva
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    tommy, Coulter? For real?

  67. Peter Larson
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

    EOS avoids the important questions.

  68. Brackinald Achery
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    Peter — hermaphrodites are the only people who are allowed to choose which gender of human to have sex with, but they have to keep that one partner for life like everyone else is supposed to. However, they can dress like either a man or a woman, or both, as fits their fancy. This is why everyone is secretly jealous of hermaphrodites.

  69. Brackinald Achery
    Posted November 6, 2009 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    Oh, and if their mate dies, they can choose a new mate of a different gender if they want.

  70. EOS
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    Stephen –

    Sexual orientation is never chosen. Sexual behavior is always chosen, except in cases of rape.

  71. kjc
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    haha. wrong again.

  72. Glen S.
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    Little noticed among the coverage of the failure of the Maine “Gay Marriage” initiative is that last Tuesday, residents in Washington State voted 53-47 for Proposal 71 — an initiative that upheld Washington’s so-called “everything but marriage” bill, allowing same-sex partners to enjoy virtually the same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples — but without calling it “marriage.”

    I think the Washington vote points out an important trend: At this point in American history, it seems likely that at least a majority of voters in most parts of the country (excluding the South and and some deep red Western states) are probably ready to embrace a kind of “separate but equal” approach to this issue — provided that religious conservatives can continue protect the word “marriage” as applying only to opposite-sex couples.

    Personally, I am fine with this approach. In fact, I see no problem with creating a system in which legal “Civil Unions” would be available to all consenting adults, and “Marriage” would become a primarily religious institution, with individual religions and denominations free to sanctify them — or not.

    In fact, this whole argument is kind of ironic for me, since, my own parents were never married in a church, but rather, at a court house, making their relationship, in effect, a kind of “civil union.” They were completely devoted to each other for nearly 40 years (until my dad died), had two children, and experienced all of the typical ups and downs that couples go through during the course of their lives — so it is hard for me to imagine how having all of that “sanctified” in some church would have made any difference, whatsoever …

  73. wetdolphinmissile
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    Agreed Glen S. My own 23 year marriage is a civil union as well. God is in all of us, we don’t need institutions or or buildings to “sanctify” our marriage.
    We do that every day in the love we show our partners.

  74. Oliva
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Off-topic momentarily, but do you think this guy is Geir (or one of many Geirs)?

    Christopher said he never intended to harm Obama. He said he made the threat to gain attention for his cause that he is the second coming of Christ and the apocalypse is coming in 2012 and much of the world will be destroyed.
    –http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20091106/NEWS/91106033/Man+who+threatened+Obama+sentenced

  75. Posted November 7, 2009 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    I had totally forgotten about our friend Geir. Insane…

  76. Posted November 7, 2009 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    And it looks like they cancelled this “Defenders of Family” event with Prejean that was set to take place yesterday.

    I feel kind of sorry for her in a way.

    In order to make it up to her, maybe we could ask the management at DejaVu to reach out to her and offer her a venue for her one-woman show.

  77. Posted November 7, 2009 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    I can’t remember if I responded to the criticism about my using the term fake-breasted. For what it’s worth, I don’t generally break women down into their physical parts and critique them. At least, I can’t remember any other instance on this blog where I’ve objectified a woman by pointing out her ass, breasts or whatever. And, if I did say that someone was attractive, I didn’t do so to denigrate them. (I seem to recall at some point over the past six years saying that I found Natalie Portman attractive, but I don’t think that I was terribly lewd about it.)

    In the case of Prejean’s breasts, I wasn’t saying, “I hate her because she got a boob job.” I was just trying to remind folks that she was involved in a scandal prior to this one, in which she first claimed not to have had breast augmentation surgery, and later confessed as much. I think it gets to the heart of her character (that of a lying hypocrite). And I can assure you that I wouldn’t have mentioned her fake-breasts had that not been the case.

    So, I’m sorry if you found it offensive, but I don’t think the mention of her breasts was gratuitous.

  78. Posted November 7, 2009 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    And I’ve also said that I find Myrna Loy attractive.

  79. Posted November 7, 2009 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    STEPHEN ASKS:
    “Just curious, EOS. When did you decide to be straight?:

    EOS RESPONDS:
    “Sexual orientation is never chosen. Sexual behavior is always chosen, except in cases of rape.”

    OK, so I’m trying to wrap my mind around this now, as I sit here eating my lunch. Is EOS saying that gay men are attracted to women, but that, for some reason, they chose to have sex with men, in spite of it? It’s a fascinating theory.

  80. Peter Larson
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    I’m still waiting to find out about the hermaphrodites. It sounds like a joke, but it’s actually not.

  81. Oliva
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    Peter, I remember being surprised at how high the number is of people born with a mix of male and female sexual characteristics and meant to go search it out before adding to your question–but am sleepy and being called outside to soak up this fine day. (I read recently that some hermaphrodites prefer the term “intersexual” these days. Can’t say I love that term so much–reminds me of the preference by some for using “transracial” instead of “mixed,” which usually just makes people stop and say, “What’s transracial?” maybe because it is kind of close to “transsexual” or just somewhat awkward-sounding and not immediately clear.)

  82. Peter Larson
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    The reason I bring it up is this. If we are to dictate that a marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman, i.e. a male human and a female human, then we are, in essence, dictating gender. When we make specific distinctions, we are assuming that the state has the power to determine exactly who is “male” and who is “female”, when, in fact, the definitions are fairly hazy for a certain people. Sure, they can mandate that males are XY and females are XX, but in the case of persons with rare chromosomal disorders, these distinctions can be difficult to apply.

    My problem is this, if we leave it to the state to determine and legislate who exactly is male and who exactly is female and then determine who can marry whom, then why stop there. The state should also have to power to determine a persons racial group based on the presence of certain traits in their genetic code.

    This is exactly the problem I have with affirmative action. While it is certainly right for the state to make determinations as to marginalized and economically disadvantage persons using economic means and other easily (and fairly) quantifiable factors, it is not responsible nor correct for the state to determine legal access to resources and oportunities based on genetics. People have tried it before and the result was that 6 million people got thrown into ovens.

    My point is, to mandate that marriage is a union between a “male” and a “female” is to move back to the most embarrassing and horrific chapters of our human histories by giving the state the power to dictate gender and ignore the wishes and self-identity of the individual. That, to me, is frightening.

  83. just Josh
    Posted November 7, 2009 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    That’s an excellent point Peter. So often we think of things in black and white when, in fact, there many shades of gray and, as you stated, there are many other factors that determine gender than simply XX or XY.

    A little bit off topic, but related to hermaphrodites: there is an excellent book called “Middlesex” by Jeffrey Eugenides which is the story of a hermaphrodite set in Detroit. The writing is beautiful and the science is completely accurate.

  84. Curt Waugh
    Posted November 8, 2009 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    Dammit Josh, I wanted to mention “Middlesex”. Make that a double recommendation. Excellent book.

    These grey areas are where it all breaks down for the biggots and jerks. It’s so easy to make rules when you see the world as black and white (emphasis on the white). The human species (and other species by the way) has always had homosexuals, intersexuals and transgendered folks. It is NOT a choice. It is NORMAL.

    But since it’s icky, we should probably pass as many laws against it as possible. Gross.

  85. Posted November 8, 2009 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

    This is priceless… According to reports, when the masturbation video was shown to Prejean, she was sitting next to her mom… I love that the Ms USA folks didn’t ask her to leave the room.

  86. EOS
    Posted November 8, 2009 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

    Mark –

    You might be attracted to having sex with a woman other than your wife, but you are under no compulsion to have sex with another woman. All I was saying was the decision to engage in sexual acts is a voluntary choice even when the attraction to so so is unconscious or involuntary. Few human beings have sex with every person to whom they have a sexual attraction.

    Stephen’s question is a red herring that comes up in many conversations on this topic. “When did I choose to be straight?” I didn’t choose my orientation, but I did choose the person, time, and place when I chose to become sexually active based on my attraction and I am personally responsible for my actions.

  87. Glen S.
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 7:18 am | Permalink

    EOS said: “All I was saying was the decision to engage in sexual acts is a voluntary choice even when the attraction to so so is unconscious or involuntary.”

    Interesting how social conservatives like EOS always seem to ignore the complicated universe of reasons why people (straight, gay and otherwise) choose to form relationships and marry — including attraction, friendship, love, companionship, to have a family, etc. — and instead want to boil this argument down to specific “sexual acts.”

    Again … the argument over gay marriage is NOT about the right to engage in “sexual acts.” It IS about the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — which guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law.

  88. Glen S.
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 7:32 am | Permalink

    And, EOS … before you retort that all citizens are already equal under the law because gay and lesbian people are free to “choose” to marry somebody of the opposite sex, let me just ask: How would you feel if the government said YOU could marry anybody you chose … as long as the person you married was a man?

  89. EOS
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    Glen,

    If the government required immorality in marriage, I would choose not to marry. Homosexuality/Heterosexuality is about engaging in sexual acts – otherwise you are just “friends”.

  90. Glen S.
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    So, in your world, all relationships boil down to either “engaging in sexual acts,” or being “just friends?”

    Wow.

  91. kjc
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    wow indeed! EOS, please get out and meet some people.

  92. EOS
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    Glen,

    I didn’t say that at all – you are putting words in my mouth. I am not the one who defines myself by my sexual orientation.

  93. Glen S.
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    Neither do I, EOS.

    And that is exactly my point.

  94. Curt Waugh
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    Bless you Glen.

    EOS’s favorite post (across all time): “You’re putting words in my mouth.” The dude is so ridiculous that even he doesn’t have a clue what the hell he’s saying and gets all offended when someone actually tells him. Read some history, dipshit. All the filth that comes from your mouth was the same filth used to justify everything from the continuation of slavery to laws against interracial marriage and beyond. Sing it with me now “…because the Bible tells me so.”

    Look everybody, EOS and his Christianist friends want the Bible to be the soul source of world law. He basically believes in Christian Sharia. You’re talking to a fundamentalist bigot who thinks non-Christians deserve an eternity of painful suffering and he ain’t gonna budge. American Taliban here wants us to conform or be punished beyond human imagination. Nice fella.

    Does he even know any gay people? Who knows? In his world, gay people wear big signs so they can be singled out to have fewer rights than anybody else. The Christian Taliban can force them to sew pink triangles on their clothes and then make them live together in ghettos.

    And everybody else stop talking around it and quit being such a bunch of wimps: Gay people deserve MARRIAGE and nothing less. All this “let’s call it something else” is bullshit. So, if gay people want marriage no one can have it? You’ll take your damn ball and go home? Every wonderful shade of human being deserves to marry the person they love. MARRY the person.

  95. Posted November 9, 2009 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    EOS:

    So if the government required “immorality” in marriage, you would never have sex? (Because sex outside marriage is a sin, right?)

  96. Peter Larson
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    It would seem to me that it would be in societies interest to recognize gay marriage, if in fact so called “family values” are truly a priority here. Marriages solidify relationships, create family, encourage monogamy and respectful unions, in addition to being economically advantageous to society as a whole. Who gives a shit who the two people are. It is wise, and certainly Christian, to encourage commitments to a long term, loving union.

    Last I heard, “sodomy” was no more serious a sin than lying (bearing false witness) or lusting (adultery) after other women. So, if you ask a heterosexual male social conservative if they have ever lusted at the thought of watching Carrie Prejean masturbate on video and they say no, not only are they guilty of the one, they are guilty of the other. That to me, and in the interpretation of the Bible that I was brought up with, is no better nor worse than homosexual sex, if you indeed subscribe to the idea that sexual acts between consenting adults is in fact a sin.

    It is the one who judges and denies love to another that is truly the sinner. Unfortunately, all humans are guilty of both. The world would be a better place is people worked toward these goals. Somehow, I think that Christ would agree.

  97. Oliva
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    Even though I spent many years thinking marriage was not an enviable arrangement, I went and got married, and in minutes I started collecting society’s rewards, even in the tiniest ways (say, “My husband this or that,” and people give a look that says, “You’re in”–even these tiny little signals add up to social approval and are powerful). There’s a big chunk of marriage tied up with social relations and entitlement and special rights not broadcast but definitely conferred. But if we could drop our allegiance to a stratified, divided/dividing society, marriage could be free to be what it is, plain and simple, without being a way to exclude, stigmatize, take measure, and such. And marriage might even thrive and make good sense in such a context.

    It reminds me of the people in this country who claim to have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps without acknowledging how much of the pulling up had to do with a certain historical moment, a certain majority culture identity, etc. It’s good to be proud of yourself and your effort, but not to shut your eyes to the person down the street who has worked just as hard but hasn’t received all the rewards.

  98. EOS
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    cmadler-
    No, I just wouldn’t have a government endorsed marriage. I would obey God, not Caesar.

    Peter-
    It is in society’s best interest to support heterosexual marriages and lifelong monogamous relationships that provide family values and stability for their children. Children are put at risk when they are raised in families with adults who are not their biological parents. Children are put at risk when they experience a “succession” of adults in parental roles. Children are put at risk where gender roles are confused. It is not Christian to encourage homosexual relationships or any other sin.

  99. 2 Cents
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    EOS-your logic(or lack of) is perplexing.

    “Children are put at risk when they are raised in families with adults who are not their biological parents” …you feel this way even in cases of adoption?

    And how are children are put at risk where gender roles are confused?

    And to answer your earlier question…yes U of M changed their definition of OQA back in January 2009 to included heterosexual couples.

  100. kjc
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Children are put at risk by being born.

  101. Jim
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    An article on a new book surveying research on gay parents summarizes its findings:

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

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magazine/08fob-wwln-t.html?ref=magazine

  102. Peter Larson
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    I would very much like EOS to meet my friends Brad and Chris who have been raising two very wonderful and well adjusted children for the past 15 years. Unfortunately, they can’t marry but fortunately for the children, they are two of the best and most committed parents I have ever seen.

    I would have loved to have had parents like them when I was growing up.

  103. EOS
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    2 Cents –

    Yes, children who are adopted are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse. The risk of sexual abuse increases when children live with step-parents and is higher still in foster care situations. The best case scenario is for children to live in a household with their biological parents.

    A child’s psychological development can be harmed by not observing typical male/female roles portrayed by their parents in the family. They learn their gender identity from their same sex parent and learn to be different from their opposite sex parent. When this isn’t present in the family, their development can be delayed or harmed. That’s why it is so important for boy’s in a single parent family (Mother) to form bonds with adult male role models. Otherwise, they are more likely to get bad grades in school, experiment with drugs, drop out of school, and get involved in crimes. Girls raised without fathers are more promiscuous and more likely to get pregnant out of wedlock.

  104. Andy Ypsilanti
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    EOS, in case you missed it in the Constitution, christianity has no place in this, or any other, debate on government policy. We are not, contrary to what many like you would like to think, a theocracy.

  105. Oliva
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    Children are put at risk when they are raised in families with adults who are not their biological parents.

    Tell that to the thousands of Christians adopting children from other countries–it’s a messy racket, but a lot of these people have been told to do it because it’s God’s work, no matter how unfair it is to the children going into their homes without any protection.

    But aside from mentioning that current practice, what a mean-spirited remark. No sense in it either. Nothing decent about it. Just mean. Like the other statements surrounding it.

  106. EOS
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Peter –
    Everyone has an anecdotal story to tell, but numerous epidemiological studies have shown the typical lifelong, monogamous homosexual relationship is extremely short and not at all monogamous.

  107. kjc
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    strange, i know children in foster care due to abuse from their heterosexual parents. I know lots of girls abused by their biological fathers. But EOS is right. It’s easier to generalize if you just make this shit up as you go.

    And I’m with Curt on the Sharia comparison.

  108. EOS
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    Oliva,

    What might sound mean is in reality a fact backed up by numerous scientific studies over long periods of time.

  109. Peter Larson
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    As an epidemiologist, I object to being called on epidemiologic studies and fully recognize that there are many cases and studies of the poor effects of unstable marriages on children.

    However, you will have to work harder to convince me that children who have been raised by same sex parents are so worse off than children of dual sex parents to merit discouraging committed parents from raising children.

    I had one example. Want me to produce 29 more?

  110. tommy
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    EOS – the best case scenario is for children to live in a household with LOVE.

    I think that love thing is in the bible somewhere. Do us all a favor and read it more, troll around blogs less.

  111. EOS
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    Andy –

    Read back through this post and notice who is bringing up religion. Nine other people have made comments about religion. I’ve been keeping my comments as secular as possible. Any reference to religion was a specific response to a question.

    Jim –
    All the studies that I have seen that compare homosexual and heterosexual parents do so by comparing single parents. Most kids in homosexual families are the biological offspring of one of the two adults. In this scenario why would you expect a significant statistical difference? The outcomes are equally bad. Why don’t you compare kids raised by both biological parents with those raised by homosexuals?

  112. the injector
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    I honestly think conservative Christians who ramble on about the importance of a two parent male and female household are only concerned about the insidious brainwashing that can occur easily in such a set up.

    In contrast to their precious, heteronormative nuclear family, I believe the more capable, thoughtful, mindful, and loving adults involved in the raising up of children the better.

    And if we want to go on about commitment in homosexual relationships–EOS I am sure you are not very much acquainted with many queer people, so let me give you some data on my loving and amazing friends. My committed relationship (2 women) is going on 10 years and it has always been monogamous. Lesbian couple #2 just celebrated 20 years and raised a very stable, straight daughter. Lesbian couple #3 going on 15 years together. Gay couple #1 going on 15 years together. Lesbian couple #4 5 years together. And I could go on and on but I won’t waste my time.

    My anecdotes are enough for me and no matter what the Christian right does to try and paint a picture of my love as vile or harmful or immoral, I will continue to love my partner—my beloved, and I will do so in the faces of your sanctimonious offspring.

  113. RT
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    Here’s a theological question for you- Who would Jesus hate more, a straight Muslim, or a gay Christian?

  114. Jim
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    EOS, I’d be surprised if all of the “more than 100 academic studies” reviewed by Goldberg compared same-sex parents with single heterosexual mothers and not heterosexual parent pairs, but I haven’t read the book (which I just learned about in this NY Times article). I passed on the link because the findings are consistent with summaries of research I’ve heard before.

    Lisa Belkin has an interesting follow up piece today:
    http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/how-the-dutch-work-same-sex-marriage/#more-6631

  115. EOS
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    RT-
    He would love them both and want them to have faith and believe in the one true God, to repent of their sins, and obey His commands.

  116. Posted November 9, 2009 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    “All the studies that I have seen that compare homosexual and heterosexual parents do so by comparing single parents.”

    I don’t know what you mean by “comparing single parents”.

    Pointers to those studies?

  117. EOS
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    Bruce –
    Follow the link in Jim’s post. It’s a comparison of single mothers to lesbian mothers and found no difference. So, its conclusion, two lesbian women do just as well/poorly as a single heterosexual mother.

  118. Jim
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    The NYT article indicates that some of the studies discussed in this book compared the children of lesbian mothers with the children of straight mothers. The article does not indicate whether the heterosexual mothers in the studies summarized were married or single. The article should have clearer, but since a study comparing the children of single, straight mothers with the children of lesbian couples would be meaningless, I think it’s quite unlikely that this was the comparison made by these studies.

    (A previous reply is awaiting moderation, I guess because it contained a link.)

  119. EOS
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    Jim –
    The NYT article states that their information was obtained from Census data in the unwed partners category. I’m glad you agree that a comparison between lesbian pairs and single heterosexual mothers is meaningless. Here’s a sampling of published studies based on that meaningless comparison.

    Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and their children,
    Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 15, Number 2 / April, 1986

    Clinical Implications of Lesbian Mother Studies by Martha Kirkpatrick
    in Psychotherapy with homosexual men and women: integrated identity approaches … By Eli Coleman 1987 – 343 pages

    Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: a follow-up of children
    of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at early adolescence Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45:8 (2004), pp 1407–1419

    Children Raised in Fatherless Families from Infancy: Family Relationships and the Socioemotional Development of Children of Lesbian and Single Heterosexual Mothers Susan Golombok 1 , Fiona Tasker 1 , and Clare Murray 1
    Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
    Volume 38 Issue 7, Pages 783 – 791

    The children of homosexual and heterosexual single mothers
    Child Psychiatry and Human Development
    Volume 23, Number 4 / June, 1993

    Psychosocial Development of Children of Lesbian Mothers, Ch 5 in
    A Steckel – Gay and lesbian parents, 1987

  120. Jim
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    EOS– It’s not worth arguing about this without looking at the book on which the NY Times article was based.

  121. Oliva
    Posted November 9, 2009 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

    In the United States alone, more than 10 million people have one or more lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and/or queer parent(s). Today, COLAGE is the only national organization in the world specifically supporting children, youth and adults with LGBTQ parent(s). . . .

    Whether you already know lots of other people with LGBTQ parent(s), or always thought you were the only one, COLAGE is a source of friendship and understanding. It is a place where you can talk about your family with complete honesty and pride. COLAGE is an organization that accepts your family AND celebrates it!
    –http://www.colage.org/

  122. applejack
    Posted November 10, 2009 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    I’m surprised this hasn’t been posted yet, but for the curious out there here’s the link to a SFW version of the Carrie Prejean video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOU8GIRUd_g

  123. ytown
    Posted November 10, 2009 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    Gay marriage is ridiculous! Not to be allowed.

  124. Posted November 10, 2009 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    What seems ridiculous to me is the amount of time that you folks on the right spend thinking about gay sex. I can’t imagine ever being at a point in my life where I’ve got the time to worry about what two consenting adult males do in the privacy of their own home. It boggles my mind…

  125. ytown
    Posted November 10, 2009 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    Really? You are the one who wrote about saddlebacking and homophobic engorgement. Explain your fascination.

  126. Posted November 11, 2009 at 6:56 am | Permalink

    That’s a great example, ytown. I didn’t, until you reminded me, remember either of those two posts. But there they were, right on the tip of your tongue.

  127. EOS
    Posted November 11, 2009 at 8:06 am | Permalink

    Mark –

    The right became justifiably concerned when homosexual activists brought their curriculum into kindergarten classes and public school officials refused the right for parents to have their children excused during the indoctrination. The right became justifiably concerned when homosexual characters became over represented on just about every TV show on every station. Most wish it was kept within the privacy of the consenting adults.

  128. ytown
    Posted November 11, 2009 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    Touche! Well done Mark, your wit knows no bounds!

  129. Steph's Dad
    Posted November 11, 2009 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    Are there also too many black characters on TV, EOC? How about Jews?

  130. EOS
    Posted November 11, 2009 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    2% of the population is being represented as 20% of the characters on TV. Read the book After the Ball for a full explanation of why this has occurred.

  131. 2 Cents
    Posted November 11, 2009 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    EOS-every person always has the option of simply not watching television. That is a choice every person is able to make. Unlike sexual orientation which is not.

  132. EOS
    Posted November 11, 2009 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    A better option is that in addition to not watching TV is to write to the corporate sponsors of the shows telling them why your family isn’t watching the shows they sponsor or buying their products.

  133. Oliva
    Posted November 11, 2009 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    Good point, just a little tweaking to make it make empirical sense:

    2% [0.002%] of the population is being represented as 20% of the characters on TV [e.g., Beck, Hannity et al.]

    Steve Benen at washingtonmonthly.com linked to a piece by John Cole that gets to the heart of the matter:

    The funny thing about all of this is that no matter how bad all their ideas are, no matter how disastrous their governance has been, no matter how many horrible things they have done to the economy and this country, what really is killing the Republican party is that deep down, they are just complete assholes. –http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=29573

  134. Oliva
    Posted November 11, 2009 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    Re. the “better option,” don’t forget to support Color of Change:

    80 companies have stopped their ads from appearing on Glenn Beck’s show

    It’s one thing to lie, distort, and stir up hysterical fears every day on radio and TV. It’s another to be getting paid for it.

  135. EOS
    Posted November 11, 2009 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    Oliva –

    To you, empirically, conservatives make up 2% of the population. However, latest polls show they outnumber those on the left. Indicative of how widely separated your perception is of reality. In addition, 90% of those eighty companies are still advertising on Fox.

  136. Curt Waugh
    Posted November 11, 2009 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    EOS, I can’t thank you enough for your continued patronage of markmaynard.com. Insanely idiotic statements like the ones you make are typically so abstract and far away on the web. But you bring that big flaming bag of poop and place it right here on Mark’s doorstep. Good on ya for not backing down in the face of sanity and logic! Thank you for wearing your severe homophobia on your sleeve (the Lord’s sleeve).

    Careful with all that boycott talk now. You might not be able to go to Wal-Mart any more. You’ll also pretty much have to completely stop watching all television since all of the the handful of media conglomerates we have left have a gay character in some TV show somewhere.

    Remember everybody: “What about the children!” If you are ever stuck with absolutely no argument at all in support of the most idiotic thing you can think of, just pull out that gem. “Tea bag your children! Tea bag them NOW!”

  137. Oliva
    Posted November 11, 2009 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    I was of course being lighthearted following your creative approach to empirical evidence, EOS; could have just gone with “many scientific studies show . . . .”

    I wasn’t saying “conservatives.” I was actually talking about unhinged nincompoops who get paid to hurt, dismay, disrupt, and bring harm to the citizens of this fine country, not to mention adulterate footage and quotations, mocking that actually important concept of fact-based reality.

    P.S. Are you suggesting that we work with Color of Change to get the advertisers to drop all of Fox and not just Beck’s show?

  138. ytown
    Posted November 11, 2009 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    Good luck trying to get advertisers to drop Beck. They aren’t going anywhere because he is extremely popular. People watch. Just because a small minority of libs doesn’t like him doesn’t mean advertisers will drop him. Look at Air America, or what is left of it, nobody cares what libs have to say but other libs. There is a reason conservative talk shows are so popular, America is more conservative than liberal. Deal with it.

  139. EOS
    Posted November 11, 2009 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    Curt –

    Stay away from our children.

  140. Gretchen Forshay
    Posted November 11, 2009 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    We just need to get eos and ytown into the “How to be Gay” class at UM.

    http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?BG/317descr

    Then perhaps into one of comrade Obama’s reeducation camps.

  141. ytown
    Posted November 11, 2009 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    I took it but dropped it, it was too gay for me.

  142. Kim
    Posted November 11, 2009 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    Rhode Island’s governor doesn’t even want gays buried next to each other in his state.

    http://www.progressivepuppy.com/the_progressive_puppy/2009/11/rhode-island-governor-vetoes-burial-rights-for-gay-couples.html

  143. Peter Larson
    Posted November 11, 2009 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    I would hope that even the most conservative of Christians would agree that this is wrong on just about every level imaginable.

  144. Posted November 11, 2009 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    I’m sure there are quite a few conservatives that would like nothing more that to see all the gays buried next to each other.

    And I’m glad, ytown, that you liked my answer. I was afraid that I’d offend you.

  145. EOS
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 6:06 am | Permalink

    Peter –

    Hope in one hand, spit in the other….

    It’s not about being buried next to each other as Kim suggested. It’s about allowing the legal relatives of the deceased, those with a lifelong relationship, to coordinate the funeral plans of their unmarried relative.

  146. Peter Larson
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 6:21 am | Permalink

    No, EoS, it’s about marginalizing a group of people this policy maker does not like. I don’t know how that could ever be more clear.

  147. the injector
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    you know it really is not worth my breath, but if any of my lifelong relatives even tried to coordinate what to do with my dead corpse, i would rise up and slap them all in their faces. my beloved is the only one who i trust to do exactly what i want with my dead body.

    with that being said, my conservative christian family is much more loving, logical, and kind than the hateful and oppressive rhetoric that eos espouses and would recognize my wishes to have my gay lover/partner/beloved/wife/companion/best friend make decisions on my behalf and carry out the wishes i had shared with her in our most intimate and important conversations.

  148. kjc
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    injector,
    agreed. i shudder at the thought of my family being in charge of the end of my life instead of my partner. but on that score, they’re definitely “do unto others” kinds of christians. they wouldn’t dare.

  149. EOS
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    Injector –

    I merely post a point of view. All the hateful and oppressive rhetoric espoused comes from those who disagree. And of course, the hateful side is the one that demands tolerance for their point of view.

  150. Glen S.
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    “I merely post a point of view … ”

    … however, anybody who disagrees with me is spewing “hateful and oppressive rhetoric” and is going straight to hell.

  151. 2 Cents
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    EOS-most people with an opposing point of view aren’t hateful. Most people simply wish to understand the reason(s) behind other peoples opinions.

    I for one do not demand tolerance for my point of view, nor do I find myself hateful. Everyone person is entitled to their own opinions and thoughts. To each their own.

    Though, after your statement above, I do wonder about your intentions when you post a point a view.

  152. EOS
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    2 Cents –

    Your posts are rational, we have a dialogue, I respect your point of view, albeit different than mine. But do you really think Curt, kjc, and Oliva ( to name a few) are at all interested in my reasoning?

  153. Oliva
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    EOS, it’s just that it feels almost as if you don’t expect for real people who actually are living the experiences you regularly condemn to be on the reading end of your comments, but they’re here, alive and (sometimes) kicking. It seems like people have been clamoring for a while for sound argument to support your more strident pronouncements, that and compassion. It’s a welcome thing.

  154. tommy
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Oh no, not nuance … makes brain hurt!

  155. EOS
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    And Oliva,

    The people you called assholes are????

  156. Brackinald Achery
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    This sort of uncivil discourse is what happens when you outlaw dueling.

  157. kjc
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    EOS is right. I checked Intro to Twisted Logic and it does say that it’s wrong to call an asshole an asshole. (I hope my literal reading is correct.)

    But who cares if homos think you’re an asshole, EOS? That just means you’re on the right track! God is smiling down on you. He’s waiting with your 2% merit badge to reward you for a life spent crusading against gays on sitcoms and assorted other errors—like people in loving and committed relationships not realizing they’re sex partners and nothing more (gay people might be delusional but we sure are romantic!).

    And it’s true that we shouldn’t be so touchy when you tell us we’re inferior neurotics who are going to burn in hell. But isn’t hell enough? i mean, i think hell is pretty serious. Will it really matter if i’m dead and buried next to someone I love since i’m burning eternally anyway? Is there a Bible verse that requires you to kick me when I’m dead? Cuz i’m thinking some of that Christian mercy might be just the thing, every once in a while, when you’re not busy denouncing. Aren’t there verses about that too? Don’t you sometimes have time for not denouncing? Just a minute here or there?

    As for your “reasoning,” it’s not that I’m not interested. It’s just not that interesting.

  158. the injector
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    my lived experience is not rhetoric. i do not espouse hate. i have learned, over the years, to approach my family in love and in turn love has been built between us through our differences. while people in my family may think my “lifestyle” is against their god’s teachings, they still do not think it would be right for the government to stop me from making decisions should my partner be very ill or hurt in the hospital.

    when hate and discrimination and religion get wound up in laws and rules, unfair and emotionally scarring things can happen. that i even have to have thoughts that a nursing staff or social worker staff in a hospital in the upper peninsula could keep me from seeing my dying beloved, is a product of the vindictive policies being lifted up as “christian” by some zealots on the religious right.

    i am a real, live gay person and some people commenting here and voting else where throughout this country work to enact hateful policies that could, would, and are causing harm to a whole group of american, taxpaying citizens.

  159. 2 Cents
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    EOS-was reading back through previous posts and saw you said “the decision to engage in sexual acts is a voluntary choice even when the attraction to so so is unconscious or involuntary”. In the past, you’ve also said other things similar to this.

    This causes me to question what (if any)religion you base your beliefs and opinions on? I wondered for a minute if you were Jehovah’s Witness, but you seem very political at the same time.

    Just asking.

  160. Oliva
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    Well, to me what was appealing about Cole’s quotation was the writer’s comfort with humor in the service of better understanding. Somebody else might have clunkily said, “Hmmm, it’s clearly not about governance or policy, given the evidence over recent years, so what else might explain this willingness by Republicans to toss out the human element when considering legislation that affects actual human lives whose dimensions reach outside their immediate view or comfort zone?” I just wish I were funnier about making a point, like Cole managed to be in very few words.

    And for the record, a family friend, in her eighties, whose husband served in Washington under a Republican president, said not long ago, “I just want my party back.” She thinks that the Republican churlishness of late does much more harm than good, particularly for the party. Me, I feel the sting and wonder why people would be so brazenly uncharitable about others, especially when it comes to laws and rights and access to freedom.

  161. tommy
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    Is ‘Burning for You’ the song of choice that plays in Hell when you are there with your gay lover / partner? If so, hearing that song on a loop would alone be enough to make you heathens want to change your despicable ways! Perhaps ‘Pretty in Pink’, anything by Freddie Mercury, the Pet Shop Boys, the Wham guy, Frankie goes to Hollywood is on the loop as well. Better start to pray away the gay!

  162. Robert
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    EOS is only concerned about whether or not people are saved. He isn’t against homosexuals at all. What we do in this life doesn’t matter at all. Be as gay as you want. EOS I only concerned that you are saved as he an I are.

  163. kjc
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    tommy, i never thought about getting to go to hell *with* my partner, but that’s definitely a better idea than going alone. i mean, suffering myself is not nearly as bad as seeing someone i love–er, fuck–suffer too. i think “it’s raining men” would be my chosen song, but what’s the chance i’ll get to choose?

  164. Robert
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    Sorry about the typos. What I meant to say in that last sentence was that EOS is only concerned that you are saved, as are he and I. We don’t care what you do in this life. None of that matters. Be as gay as you’d like. We are not absolutely perfectly perfect…just saved as all hell. Accept Jesus as your savior and you’re good as gold to run amuck like we do.

    Now, if you don’t mind, EOS and I are going to watch Carrie Prejean’s finger flick on his big screen TV.

  165. Robert
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    …but we won’t be proud of it later, and we sure as hell won’t hold a parade declaring our pride about it. That’s what makes us different from the rest of you, and closer to perfect.

  166. EOS
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    kjc –

    Are you really that delusional? I never said any of that.

    I did say that Jesus loves everyone, including homosexuals. I did explain how a person could be saved and gain eternal life. I did my best to show you why the Bible is true. Only you weren’t interested. You were too busy spewing hate against Christians and attacking the straw man you set up. In your mind, anyone who doesn’t share your opinions 100% is hating on you. Robert has it right – I’m only interested in getting as many people saved as possible. The people who are really hating on you are those who stay silent, or worse, give you false hope.

    Injector –

    The government can’t stop you from making decisions should your partner be very ill or hurt in the hospital. Get a power of attorney document and have your partner fill out a patient directive.

    2 cents –
    “The decision to engage in sexual acts is a voluntary choice even when the attraction to do so is unconscious or involuntary.” This is not based on religion – it’s based on Biology and Psychology. Sexual behavior is entirely instinctual/hormonal in lower animals. Human behavior is controlled by the mind and intellect – or should be.

  167. kjc
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    yes, i’m really that delusional EOS. the fact that the implications of your “arguments” are lost on you really ain’t my problem. Maybe you should look it up in Psychology.

    As for the “saving” others thing, it’s going pretty well, right?

  168. EOS
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    kjc –

    Ask God. He does the saving. I’m sure He is capable of saving everyone who He has chosen.

  169. 2 Cents
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    EOS- appreciate your opinion, but do wish you would have your legal facts in order before speaking on something you clearly need to learn more about.

    You said, “the government can’t stop you from making decisions should your partner be very ill or hurt in the hospital. Get a power of attorney document and have your partner fill out a patient directive”.

    While this does help, it does not guarantee anything. Immediate family can challenge these types of legal agreements and because our rights are not protected by the federal government, they can end up being null and void.

  170. Truth Seeker
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    If I murder someone in a really cruel and inhuman way, and then immediately accept God as my savior, can I go to heaven for eternity? And, if so, how many times can I do that? Can I keep torturing and killing people, and keep accepting God as my savior, and in that way always stay on the heaven list?

    And I need to know the answer before this weekend.

  171. 2 Cents
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    I should add to this that this includes after life decisions, and hospital visitation rights.

  172. the injector
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    i have the directives all written up. but in the case that i were to be in some small town without them and something went amiss and the directives were not right there with me… well then. i do not have the luxury of saying she’s my wife and getting access to those decisions.

    EOS, if you were the social worker on staff or the hospital administrator in some hospital somewhere and we did not have our written directives on us (literally the written documents) would you let me make medical decisions on my partner’s behalf if she could not make those decisions herself?

  173. Oliva
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    You were too busy spewing hate against Christians

    The proper term here is Christianists, not Christians. I am only speaking for myself, but I accept and respect many Christians just fine, love ’em like crazy in fact. I was raised Catholic, which used to be part of Christianity but has been marginalized along with the others in this evangelical era in which you have to talk a certain way about the Bible and “my God” and gays and fetuses and even political party to be in. For me it is nice to think about God, imagine a God, see mystery and wonder about things, be appreciative of life. It’s just that this thing that keeps calling itself “Christian” lately throttles people, seeks to make them small, crafts sometimes weird or gross and anyway arbitrary rules and grants them moral authority, seems hungry for power and willing to manipulate anyone and anything for it, etc.

  174. Curt Waugh
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

    Funny, EOS says god loves gays, but won’t let gays love each other.

    That’s fucked up, man.

    Don’t you love how often EOS speaks for god? Complex much?

    Oh, and I don’t listen to your opinions because I’ve heard all that bigoted shit before and am grown up enough to know better. You’re a horrible human being who hates gay people. Get help.

  175. ytownwf
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    Robert, I’d like to meet you. You seem pretty damn funny. Are you this funny and witty in person? Or do you need time to think of this stuff? I bet you are nothing like I picture. That is supposed to be a compliment.

  176. Glen S.
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    The ultimate irony, and danger, of fundamentalism is that — while most people who belong to more mainstream religions, along with secularists, agnostics, pagans, atheists, etc., generally support the rights of others (including fundamentalists) to believe and live as they choose — fundamentalists (be they Christian, Islamic, Jewish, or whatever), simply don’t return the favor.

    Believe it or not, I firmly believe that EOS has an inalienable right to believe and worship as he wishes, to live according to the dictates of his faith and conscience, to choose a partner and raise children (or not) according to his values, and to worship with his fellow believers in whatever way he sees fit — free from government or societal intervention.

    Unfortunately, however, fundamentalists like EOS see no problem with using any tools at their disposal, including the force of law, to impose their narrow, and very specific world view on others — like me — with whom they disagree, whether they wish to be “saved” or not.

  177. EOS
    Posted November 13, 2009 at 7:38 am | Permalink

    Glen –

    “Unfortunately, however, fundamentalists like EOS see no problem with using any tools at their disposal, including the force of law, to impose their narrow, and very specific world view on others — like me — with whom they disagree, whether they wish to be “saved” or not.”

    So if it is wrong for me to advocate keeping existing laws and encouraging others to support this as well, why is it O.K. for you to use your influence to encourage government to change the laws so as to impose your narrow worldview on persons like me who happen to hold the majority view?

  178. Glen S.
    Posted November 13, 2009 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    EOS –

    First, I don’t think supporting the principle of “equal protection under the law” is in any way a radical or even a minority point of view.

    Second, I don’t see how amending the law to provide all adult citizens with the right to marry the person they choose would “impose” anything on you, or, for that matter — necessarily affect your life in any way.

    Do you seriously believe that “freedom” and “equality” are limited commodities … such that, if somebody gets a bit more of one, somebody else has to lose out?

  179. EOS
    Posted November 13, 2009 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    Glen –

    First, 31/31 states have voted not to accept homosexual marriage. It is the minority view.

    Second, homosexual behavior does have an impact on society at large. It affects the upbringing and public education of children, it impacts the health of the nation, and it contributes to the moral decline at large. And, it has devastating effects to the individuals involved – for an eternity.

    I firmly believe that you should be free to engage in any type of sexual behavior with a consenting adult within the privacy of your home. But widespread endorsement within a society would lead to greater numbers of individuals choosing to partake in a lifestyle that impairs their health and impacts their psychological well being.

  180. Glen S.
    Posted November 13, 2009 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    “you should be free to engage in any type of sexual behavior …”

    Right back to “sexual acts” I see.

    Best of luck, EOS!

  181. notoneofthecoolkids
    Posted November 13, 2009 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Boy! Donald Trump Really knows how to pick em! And look, you all are arguing gay issues because of a half wit that Donald Trump threw into your life!
    Look what power she has to start you all on a debate about homosexuality!
    By continuing to argue over gay rights because Carrie Prejean trigged this blog, this thread…is really a sign of the times.

    The Amish are the only Christians that I have any respect for anymore.

  182. Brackinald Achery
    Posted November 13, 2009 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    The US government isn’t actually God, EOS. That which it legally punishes or does not punish is not a thermostat for the nation’s morality — it doesn’t mean a particular behavior (smoking, drinking, shooting a person in self-defense, having sex with a consenting adult of your own gender) are morally approved or disapproved of, just that they don’t violate anyone’s rights. It’s God’s job to make people moral or not. The government is there to protect people’s rights, ideally. Give Caesar what is Caesar’s, and God what is God’s — which does not include worshipping Caesar’s laws as a Holy Spirit substitute.

    If it’s the government’s job to force people to be moral beyond punishing rights violations, than whichever morality gets in power (not always gonna be conservative Christians), will enforce their morality on you, which sucks.

  183. EOS
    Posted November 13, 2009 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    BA –

    All laws enforce some type of morality. Society prohibits murder. In doing so they enforce God’s morality – Thou shall not murder. However, there are a number of rational reasons to agree with this specific prohibition. We cannot have a system that doesn’t allow us to prohibit murder merely because it agrees with God’s moral code and as some people think, “there has to be separation of church and state”. I can advocate for morals based on God’s word while at the same time you can advocate for morals based on the devils principals. The freedom of speech of all persons is a necessity in a free society. And in the end, somebody’s moral values will prevail.

  184. Posted November 13, 2009 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    EOS –

    “Society prohibits murder. In doing so they enforce God’s morality – Thou shalt not murder. However there are a number of rational reasons to agree with this specific prohibition.”

    Sorry, you’ve got this one totally backwards. Society prohibits murder because it is a rights violation, because of those rational reasons to which you refer. Murder is not illegal because God told us it was wrong; nations that are not majority Abrahamic still outlaw murder.

    It’s not that we can’t have laws that agree with Christianity (or a particular interpretation of it, or any other religion), but that we shouldn’t have laws BECAUSE of Christianity.

    Consider where we might be if we made laws based on the instructions of the Abrahamic diety:
    – It would be illegal to practice any other religion. (“You shall have no other gods before me.”)
    – It would be illegal to do any work on the sabbath. Sunday? Saturday? (“For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work.”)
    – We’d still have slaves, although they would also get the sabbath off. (“But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you.”)
    – Adultery would be illegal. (“You shall not commit adultery.”)

  185. Brackinald Achery
    Posted November 13, 2009 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    In our legal system, murder infringes on someone else’s rights; consentual adult sexual practices engaged in in private do not.

    If anything, divorce and adultery should be punishable in our legal system, due to their being breeches of legal contract. But private consentual sexual immorality that does not involve breech of contract does not enter the realm of government’s proper jurisdiction. That’s the jurisdiction of God and the individuals involved only.

    That’s why they call them private parts, not public parts.

  186. Brackinald Achery
    Posted November 13, 2009 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    cmadler beat me to the post.

  187. EOS
    Posted November 13, 2009 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    You both make good points. However, I’m not saying government should make a law to restrict what goes on in a persons bedroom. Marriage is a legal sanction that impacts all in the community in a variety of ways. I don’t believe in Sharia or Theocracy. But if it benefits the most in society to have a law that is consistent with the Christian faith, then the mere fact that it is consistent with faith is not sufficient in itself to eliminate its consideration as a viable option.

  188. Posted November 13, 2009 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    EOS –

    “But if it benefits the most in society to have a law that is consistent with the Christian faith, then the mere fact that it is consistent with faith is not sufficient in itself to eliminate its consideration as a viable option.”

    Agreed. Where we disagree is on the societal benefit. So let’s stop talking about religion and start talking about the real issue.

  189. Brackinald Achery
    Posted November 13, 2009 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    To that, EOS, I’d argue again that marriage should only involve government in regard to enforcing private contracts between consenting adults. No licenses, no tax code exceptions, no nothing. Just a legal arbiter if the marriage contract is breeched.

    Does this mean that society will begin to culturally approve or disapprove of homosexuality? No, but individuals will be free to do so, or not to do so, without the fear of legal use of government force getting involved. All you need is the courage to hold possibly unpopular (or just unPC) views, and the courage to speak them, if you find yourself in the minority. Both are traits you have in spades. And, as you’ve already pointed out, the popular vote shows that the majority of Americans do disapprove even in this very PC climate. So I’m not sure that not legally forbidding it would change their minds, anymore than legally forbidding marijuana usage would stop people from smoking weed.

  190. Curt Waugh
    Posted November 13, 2009 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Let’s be crystal clear when you all talk about the “majority” of Americans who disapprove of gay marriage.

    The majority of OLD people disapprove of gay marriage (aka, the majority of voters). Younger, more worldly, more open-minded, smarter folks (who don’t vote) overwhelmingly approve of gay marriage. They will get older. They will start voting. This WILL happen. And soon. You can’t stop it.

    This is the righteousness of REAL America. This is MY America. I want my country FORWARD!

  191. Brackinald Achery
    Posted November 13, 2009 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    I mean the other breech. The one spelled “breach.”

  192. Peter Larson
    Posted November 13, 2009 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    Many states do, in fact, at the behest of right leaning, Christian policy makers and citizens, keep sodomy laws on the books, so no, I do not believe that these people view what happens in ones own bedroom as ones own business. Sodomy laws against common homosexual male sexual behavior have often been used as tools with which to marginalize and punish persons who stand on the Christian right’s shit list of morality for decades.

    EOS reminds me of that guy in Louisiana who refused to marry an interracial couple recently. Although clearly a bigot, he maintained that he was not racist and was only thinking in the interests of the children. For years (even in my lifetime) it was maintained that interracial marriages would result in a general moral decay of society and that the children of such marriages would face the worst of social fates, yet we all know that American society is doing just fine. In fact, I would say that things are actually more moral than they were several decades ago, when lynchings were seen as an acceptable form of justice and women were treated as second hand citizens.

    I can imagine that there will be a day when all Americans will be free to choose the marriage partners that they wish, without intervention and don’t see that there will be any such moral decay of society.

  193. Posted November 13, 2009 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for bringing up Judge Keith Bardwell, Pete. I think the analogy is spot-on.

  194. EOS
    Posted November 13, 2009 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    Curt –

    They will get older and wiser. Even I was a liberal atheist when I was younger.

  195. the injector
    Posted November 13, 2009 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

    hey eos,
    it only seems like you will respond to the remarks you deem to be hostile. it’s like you like the fighting bait and go at it…. but then when i ask a question that really puts it to the test, you refuse to answer. so again, would you, if you were the hospital administrator and i did not have my directives on hand (those written burdensome things that gay folks are obligated to carry around cause we cannot simply say we are married) would you let me make decisions for my dying or incapacitated same sex partner?

    this is where morality gets tested…

    because the legality of shit does matter to real, live human beings. there are same sex couples who have been denied access (i am talking not even allowed in the room) to their dying partners. people who have made their lives together for 15, 25, 35 years. so the laws of the land (or the lack there of) do impact two consenting adults. do not pretend that they do not. and if any bullshit is being taught to our children it is the bullshit of greed, individualism, and close-mindedness–homosexuality is not the killer curriculum; rather, the self-serving principles of religious dogma that leave no room for growth or spirit beyond the narrow minded translations of fallible human beings.

    it’s old. the homos are going to hell line, but in the end, it is impacting this homo’s standing in the world, and i am tired of it. it is not just about what i do behind the walls of my bedroom (or living room). I want more… and i am not going away. i will continue to “warp” the minds of children and adults everywhere. I will display acts of affection with my same sex lover in public (hand holding, cheek kissing maybe even a butt grabbing), and I will ask for respect and recognition–the same respect and recognition that straight (only have been together for one month but got a girl knocked up and then got married and now for some reason we are legitimate and sacred in the eyes of god) people get in this society.

  196. Brackinald Achery
    Posted November 14, 2009 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    I agree with you from the eyes of the law, injector, but you can’t force people to approve of something they don’t approve of on a personal level for moral reasons. That doesn’t mean they get to be abusive to you, but you can’t tell people what to think, either.

  197. kjc
    Posted November 14, 2009 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    odd, i didn’t notice injector telling anyone what to think or do. just noting that she has, unlike you, BA, a fundamental disagreement with EOS, and that she plans to continue fighting for her own lived experience. and nothing is more basic about disapproving and approving and telling others what’s right and not right than the continual throwing around of the word “moral.” you notice gay people don’t do that much. it must be cuz we’re so “PC.”

  198. Posted November 14, 2009 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    At least EOS hasn’t mentioned the slippery slope between gay marriage and bestiality. He deserves some recognition, I think, for that.

  199. Brackinald Achery
    Posted November 14, 2009 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    My mistake if I misread her post. Your mistake is that, yes, I do have a fundamental disagreement with EOS regarding government interventionism in the realm of marriage. He/she thinks government should be involved, I don’t… beyond contract enforcement.

  200. kjc
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 2:17 am | Permalink

    BA, you piss me off so much sometimes. And yet I can say, unequivocally, that you are the person on this blog I would most like to meet.

  201. Robert
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    Arguing with EOS is insulting toward people who might have a clue what they’re talking about.

  202. Oliva
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    kjc, I know what you mean re. BA. His old ninja comment when Geir was dumping his vileness into the comment box was a deep relief, and to find a way to relief, to breathe, even laugh, in that context is quite a hopeful, helpful thing–and to me suggests strongly that BA has sincere goodwill and shares it even in the midst of ideological sparring. And then there is a recent one: “I mean the other breech. The one spelled ‘breach.’” Had a similar refreshing effect.

  203. Brackinald Achery
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Hence the psuedonym.

    I really am sorry I piss people off, unless they started it. I try really hard not to, and am genuinely perplexed that it keeps happening when I’m trying the hardest. …Unless I actually am trying to piss someone off because they insulted and exasperated me, in which case I usually fail.

    If it helps any, kjc, you’re really good at pissing me off too. What’s worse is that I find your comments really pithy and witty in their insultarifficness. Other people just blow sophomoric vitriol, malapropos object lessons, or false character accusations at me, and it’s just pathetic. But you’ve got a particular gift for effective heckling.

  204. Brackinald Achery
    Posted November 15, 2009 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    …and Oliva is just really nice.

  205. Robert
    Posted November 23, 2009 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    I don’t mind women with multiple personality disorder as long as all the personalities are hott.

  206. Edward
    Posted May 5, 2010 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    Another well-known leader in the anti-gay movement, a minister by the name of George Rekers, was discovered with a male prostitute in Miami. The two met at a site called Rentboy.com, but Rekers claims he just hired him to carry his luggage while on vacation.

    http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-05-06/news/christian-right-leader-george-rekers-takes-vacation-with-rent-boy

  207. Iron Lung
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

    A very important post from several years ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect

Sidetrack ad Aubree’s ad BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Steve