Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Duck-a-Muck
Julian Sanchez's earlier post points to some predictably outraged (and inane) conservative responses to yesterday's gay marriage ruling in Massachusetts.
For several years now, I had always assumed that the real reason conservatives hated gay marriage is that, if heterosexual marriage is any guide, it will inevitably lead to gay divorce--and we all know that divorce is the source of all that is bad and rotten and awful in this oh-so-fallen world, right?
But after watching The O'Reilly Factor last night, I suspect a different motivation: deep-seated urges toward trans-species bliss that lurk within conservative hearts. How else to explain that conservatives inevitably, compulsively bring up man-on-beast action whenever the subject of gay marriage is broached? It's almost as if laws defining marriage as the "sacred institution between a man and a woman" are the last defense against their own unspeakable impulses.
Here's Bill grilling his guest, Wendy Murphy, a former "lawyer of the year" in the Bay State:
O'REILLY: ...If you're going to open the floodgate that marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, which is what this court did, found a way to do it, then you have to let everybody get married. The commune people can get married. The people who want to marry a duck can come in, all right. You can't...
MURPHY: That's so absurd.
O'REILLY: No. If I want to marry a duck...
MURPHY: No, Bill.
O'REILLY: ... I have a right to...
MURPHY: Bill, the...
O'REILLY: ... marry the duck, all right?
MURPHY: No, the basis for the...
O'REILLY: ... and leave my house to the duck.
For the record, O'Reilly spent a good amount of the segment talking about shacking up with the fictional "the McGuire twins, the sisters McGuire," all of which no doubt led to interesting post-show chitchat with the real Mrs. O'Reilly.
But O'Reilly--and conservatives who fret that yesterday's ruling will open the floodgates to men marrying goldfish--can relax. It's highly unlikely that Modern Bride will be carrying a sheep on the cover anytime soon. Marriage is, after all, a consensual contract, and very few birds and fish--and even mammals--can say "I do."
Panicky visions of parents marrying their children, brothers marrying their sisters, dogs marrying cats, etc, are equally implausible. Those sorts of kinks just aren't that widespread for any number of reasons, including biological and sociological ones. Species tend to pick one another for mates; and, pace Faulkner et al, people raised in familial proximity typically don't get all hot and horny for one another. The incest taboo reflects reality rather than restrains it.
A more likely scenario involves plural marriage (among human beings) which, as Eugene Volokh convincingly claims, could eventually be sanctioned by the logic in the Massachusetts ruling. I doubt that option would be all that popular, but would it be such a bad thing? As long as it's consensual, I don't see the harm. Unless it caused O'Reilly to abandon his baby ducklings and move in the sisters McGuire.
|11.19.03 @ 4:25AM|#
Forgive me, for I have not been paying much attention, but what
do conservatives usually come back with when their rediculous
straw-duck argument is refuted?
:-)
dhex|11.19.03 @ 4:26AM|#
something about perversion, i'm sure.
it's always about perversion with this bunch.
B. Oreally|11.19.03 @ 4:34AM|#
when our beastiality arguments fail, we follow the gratious Dr.
Dobson of Focus on the Family, think of the children.
When gay marriage is allowed, children grow up in disfunctional
homes. 2 dads is not good for the children.
We would much rather prefer the tried an true, broken home, single
parent, low income method.
|11.19.03 @ 4:35AM|#
What is happening in our culture is an unraveling of all we
once considered normal. - Cal Thomas via Marriage
Redefined
.
Ah yes, the clarion-call of social conservatives... I am sure there
were Cal-look-alikes arguing the same line when the practice of
burning witches became unfashionable.
Madog|11.19.03 @ 4:36AM|#
It's absurd to marry a duck, as pointed out. The real question
is whether it is ok to marry intelligent aliens or robots (should
any ever exist). I'll take a stand now and say yes.
On the subject of group marriages, which I also favor, I should
point out that they are not likely to ever be common. Think about
how hard it is finding that perfect person to spend the rest of you
life with, and then think about how hard it is for several persons
to find those perfect persons to find their lives with. It
increases and order of magnitude with each additional person. I'm
not sure group marriages would increase or decrease divorce though.
Would you be more likely to get a divorce if you disliked one of
several spouses or less likely?
|11.19.03 @ 4:38AM|#
And another Godboy issues forth like that of a donkey:
Massachusetts manhandles marriage
|11.19.03 @ 4:45AM|#
Obviously Mark, because it rhymes my man, because it rhymes ... also, there is an old redneck saying, "if it quacks like a duck," referring to effeminate men...
|11.19.03 @ 4:50AM|#
"If the duck is deceased is it then okay to, you know? Since I
wouldn't have to get its permission?" - Bill O'Really.
:-)
mudflap|11.19.03 @ 4:51AM|#
As soon as the twelve breasted alien women arrive I'm marrying
several.
Mudflap
|11.19.03 @ 4:57AM|#
You have to figure that O'Reilly is going to take a ribbing
about his taste in ducks and who are the McGuire twins?
Derb wants to marry his sister now that the Massachusetts court has
legalized gay marriage.
O'Reilly is really into ducks.
This was a big day for the sexually repressed to come out of the
closet! :)
|11.19.03 @ 4:57AM|#
CROWD:
A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A
witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch! A witch! Burn
her! Burn her! Burn her! We've found a witch! We've found a witch!
A witch! A witch! A witch!
VILLAGER #1:
We have found a witch. May we burn her?
CROWD:
Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!
BEDEVERE:
How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2:
She looks like one.
CROWD:
Right! Yeah! Yeah!
BEDEVERE:
Bring her forward.
WITCH:
I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
BEDEVERE:
Uh, but you are dressed as one.
WITCH:
They dressed me up like this.
CROWD:
Augh, we didn't! We didn't...
WITCH:
And this isn't my nose. It's a false one.
BEDEVERE:
Well?
VILLAGER #1:
Well, we did do the nose.
BEDEVERE:
The nose?
VILLAGER #1:
And the hat, but she is a witch!
VILLAGER #2:
Yeah!
CROWD:
We burn her! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah!
BEDEVERE:
Did you dress her up like this?
VILLAGER #1:
No!
VILLAGER #2 and 3:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No.
VILLAGER #1:
No.
VILLAGERS #2 and #3:
No.
VILLAGER #1:
Yes.
VILLAGER #2:
Yes.
VILLAGER #1:
Yes. Yeah, a bit.
VILLAGER #3:
A bit.
VILLAGERS #1 and #2:
A bit.
VILLAGER #3:
A bit.
VILLAGER #1:
She has got a wart.
RANDOM:
[cough]
BEDEVERE:
What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3:
Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEVERE:
A newt?
VILLAGER #3:
I got better.
VILLAGER #2:
Burn her anyway!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn her! Burn! Burn her!...
BEDEVERE:
Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she
is a witch.
VILLAGER #1:
Are there?
VILLAGER #2:
Ah?
VILLAGER #1:
What are they?
CROWD:
Tell us! Tell us!...
BEDEVERE:
Tell me. What do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2:
Burn!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
BEDEVERE:
And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1:
More witches!
VILLAGER #3:
Shh!
VILLAGER #2:
Wood!
BEDEVERE:
So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3:
B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
BEDEVERE:
Good! Heh heh.
CROWD:
Oh, yeah. Oh.
BEDEVERE:
So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1:
Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE:
Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #1:
Oh, yeah.
RANDOM:
Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
BEDEVERE:
Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1:
Throw her into the pond!
CROWD:
The pond! Throw her into the pond!
BEDEVERE:
What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1:
Bread!
VILLAGER #2:
Apples!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1:
Cider!
VILLAGER #2:
Uh, gra-- gravy!
VILLAGER #1:
Cherries!
VILLAGER #2:
Mud!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2:
Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR:
A duck!
CROWD:
Oooh.
BEDEVERE:
Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1:
If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of
wood.
BEDEVERE:
And therefore?
VILLAGER #2:
A witch!
VILLAGER #1:
A witch!
CROWD:
A witch! A witch!...
VILLAGER #4:
Here is a duck. Use this duck.
[quack quack quack]
BEDEVERE:
Very good. We shall use my largest scales.
CROWD:
Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn
her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh...
BEDEVERE:
Right. Remove the supports!
[whop]
[clunk]
[creak]
CROWD:
A witch! A witch! A witch!
WITCH:
It's a fair cop.
VILLAGER #3:
Burn her!
CROWD:
Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn! Burn!...
BEDEVERE:
Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
ARTHUR:
I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
Larry|11.19.03 @ 5:23AM|#
One of the prime ironies in this argument is that the same
people who vehemently condemn the promiscuity of the "gay
lifestyle" are throwing up roadblocks to committed relationships.
Hello?
As for Mr. O'Reilly marrying two women, why that's just blatantly
against Christian principles. It says right there in the
Scriptures, "No man may serve two masters."
joe|11.19.03 @ 5:30AM|#
The whole duck argument comes out of the belief that he bonds between gay couples are entirely sexual. Men who screw animals aren't looking for their soul mates, just a good time. To the conservative mind, there couldn't possibly be love or a desire to settle down and start a family between two gay people; it's gotta be the sex.
Kevin Carson|11.19.03 @ 5:34AM|#
So not only is Derbyshire afraid he'll be overcome by temptation to marry his sister without a legal prohibition; now O'Reilly is afraid he'll succumb to duck-lust.
twistedmerkin|11.19.03 @ 5:45AM|#
All this talk of marrying an animal is ludicrous. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? While true that cows can't say "I do", I've never heard one say "no."
|11.19.03 @ 6:02AM|#
Thanks, joe. Since the state's involvement in marriage grants a
set of specific rights, people might choose to be married but not
be sexual partners, or even without some feeling of love and shared
legacy. Before yesterday that might have been "immoral", but was
legal for a pair of complementary heteros. Now most anybody can
arrange to get that set of rights, and since they're less scarce
the perceived value/price will likely drop.
The homos and the duck-wedders are cheapening the self-image of
conservatives. The "marriage club" is no longer exclusive.
"Mathilda" Malkin|11.19.03 @ 6:07AM|#
Twisted Merkin. Excellent name. Did you use duck feathers for
the weave?
THe Merovingian: very good Monty Python. From where did you copy
that?
|11.19.03 @ 6:31AM|#
A Biblical argument against multiple spouses may have
difficulty, seeing as how many of the early Biblical figures had
multiple wives.
Hell, some of those guys were happily knocking up their wives, and
their wives' handmaidens, and their own handmaidens, with no
apparent divine disapproval.
"Jacob had 13 children, 10 of whom were founders of tribes of
Israel. Leah bore him his only daughter, Dinah, and six sons...
Leah's maidservant, Zilpah, bore him Gad and Asher, and Rachel's
maidservant, Bilhah, bore him Dan and Naphtali. Rachel's sons were
Benjamin and Joseph (who did not found a tribe, but whose sons
founded the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim)."
Jacob was married to Leah and Rachel, who were sisters.
Kinky.
|11.19.03 @ 6:31AM|#
Sources say O'Reilly wants to marry his Marilyn Chambers look alike and feel alike blow up doll. Its the anatomically correct version with 3 real orifices.
|11.19.03 @ 6:33AM|#
I wrote: "and their own handmaidens"
Never mind that part... Should have been "their other wife's
handmaidens".
|11.19.03 @ 7:34AM|#
Nick, the ad hominem aside, your argument here I think
is strong and not easily refuted. You (correctly) grant that this
decision, with a plausible extension of its argument, could lead to
further removal of marriage restrictions. (Plural marriage, incest
laws, etc.) This site
appears to be real, so I assume that at least some people do
strongly favor the legality of cousin marriage in all states.
Despite this, it's true that generally such restrictions reflect
society rather than create it, so one would assume that such
marriages would continue to be rare. The counter-argument is the
other well-known truth people's behavior does change with
incentives, an changing laws do change incentives.
(As a single man, though, I remain in opposition to polygamy for
personal reasons.)
|11.19.03 @ 7:44AM|#
Merovingian: "Why not the laissez faire approach to marraige?
:)"
Well, my fiance prefers a more hands-on approach. ;)
|11.19.03 @ 7:46AM|#
Madog: "Think about how hard it is finding that perfect person
to spend the rest of you life with, and then think about how hard
it is for several persons to find those perfect persons to find
their lives with."
Precisely the reason why my fiance and I are unlikely ever to be in
a position to act on our polymarriage beliefs. Excellently put.
|11.19.03 @ 9:20AM|#
"But O'Reilly--and conservatives who fret that yesterday's
ruling will open the floodgates to men marrying goldfish--can
relax. It's highly unlikely that Modern Bride will be carrying a
sheep on the cover anytime soon. Marriage is, after all, a
consensual contract, and very few birds and fish--and even
mammals--can say "I do."
Priceless.
Let this be a lesson to sporting laddies expecting to appease their
Mums by tying the knot with a member of a different species.
Franklin Harris|11.19.03 @ 10:19AM|#
The funny thing about this debate is that Robert Heinlein covered it all 20 years ago and more. See "Friday" for group marriage involving humans and clones.
SharpShooter|11.19.03 @ 10:52AM|#
I wouldn't laugh at O'Reilly for his suggestion about humping ducks, except that he chooses such UGLY ducks.
grn|11.20.03 @ 1:16AM|#
If some gay couples have open relationships, so what? Some
straight people have them too.
What married people do with each other, or with others, isn't the
state's business.
|11.20.03 @ 1:18AM|#
Joe - you're also right about the self-selecting aspect. I forgot to mention that. And to use a few silly theorists to discredit an idea is absurd.
|11.20.03 @ 2:08AM|#
This whole "debate" is going the wrong direction. We should not
be giving new legal benefits to certain kinds of relationships,
homo-, hetero- or just plain weird.
We should be arguing against benefits for marriage generally.
Douglas Fletcher|11.20.03 @ 3:07AM|#
"... his Marilyn Chambers look alike and feel alike blow up
doll..."
I sure as hell hope that's the adult Marilyn and not Baby Marilyn
from the Ivory soap box...
|11.20.03 @ 3:14AM|#
Far be it from me to defend the King of Asininity, but this
argument is basically the "slippery slope" argument, no pun
intended.
O'Rreilly, like so many others, seems to think that any change in
the definition of marriage will lead to more and more changes.
|11.20.03 @ 3:25AM|#
Douglas Fletcher writes: "I sure as hell hope that's the adult
Marilyn and not Baby Marilyn from the Ivory soap box..."
Marilyn was the mother on the box, not the baby.
|11.20.03 @ 5:05AM|#
The social conservatives are looking in the wrong direction to
save marriage (from gay people). Perhaps what they should really do
is only allow heterosexuals ONE marriage and ONE divorce in a
lifetime, licensing and screening before procreating (whether
married or not) and no marriages at ALL for convicted murderers,
addicts, abusers, or those with violent tendencies and sex
offenders.
This makes more common sense in what saves a family, even if it
sounds absurd.
But the real absurdity is saying that polygamists and bigamists and
fetishists are waiting for what happens to gays to make their
stand. Obviously, there is no social necessity or demand for it,
compared to the legit demand for gay marriage. So much so, that 38
states rendered new laws to ensure that gays can't marry. Not to
save marriage, family or children.
Their rationale is 'we just don't like it' and why that is
sufficient is beyond me.
Douglas Fletcher|11.20.03 @ 6:36AM|#
I really don't think I have this wrong -- Marilyn Chambers as an infant was a model for the soap box.
Douglas Fletcher|11.20.03 @ 6:42AM|#
Well apparently I was wrong.
http://www.snopes.com/risque/porn/chambers.htm
|11.20.03 @ 6:48AM|#
I submit that the ridicule and dismissiveness of the oponents of same-sex marriage is somewhat dangerous. Underestimating the opposition is always foolish. There will be a backlash, the only question is what form it will take.
|11.20.03 @ 9:28AM|#
Franklin Harris-
Thanks for reminding me about Heinlein's "Friday". He was the one
that first made me realize that there's nothing wrong with group
marraige, years ago.
I annoys me a little though that when ever I say I'm in favor if
allowing group marriages people seem to assume that means I want to
have several wives? I get the same thing when I argue in favor of
legalizing drugs and prositution. Anyone have a way to get people
to realize that arguing that people should be allowed to do
something if they want is not the same as wanting to do it
yourself?
rst|11.20.03 @ 9:49AM|#
What is so bad about a readily available compromise (the VT approach) that will shut the most people up, satisfy the lawsuit, and avoid having to hastily attach a legal definition to a word that doesn't even need one?
joe|11.20.03 @ 9:57AM|#
Jeff Jacoby, Stanley Kurtz, and others claim that allowing gay
men to have their relationships recognized as marriages will change
the definition of marriage. Since gay men screw around a lot, it
will become considered normal for married men to screw around, and
this would be a bad thing.
I personally think that equal protection under the law requires the
extension of marriage benefits to gay couples, regardless. But the
above prediction doesn't seem easily dismissable to me. Anyone?
joe|11.20.03 @ 10:01AM|#
rst, the existance of a "second class" is offensive to our democratic values.
rst|11.20.03 @ 10:43AM|#
the existance of a "second class" is offensive to our
democratic values.
Where is this second class? The legal protection is the same; the
nomenclature of the contract is altered. A "contract" is
not first or second class, it is a legal document in this case as
binding as a marriage contract. There is no functionally no
difference.
|11.20.03 @ 10:47AM|#
Joe -- I think that's more of a stereotype than the truth. I'm a
gay man in a monogamous relationship and most of my friends in
relationships are also monogamous. I know some couples who have
"open" relationships, but they are mostly somewhat older, from a
generation with a different ethos. Similarly, I know plenty of
straight men (and women for that matter) who have cheated on their
spouses. But even if my experiences are atypical, and the majority
of gay men sleep around constantly, it doesn't really address the
issues of equal treatment under the law.
For example, if someone were to say that a particular racial group
were promiscious, should the state be allowed to bar them from
being married?
joe|11.20.03 @ 10:47AM|#
So long as the legal-contract-that's-not-a-marriage is perceived as being inferior, the dangers of having a legally-designated second class will persist.
John S.|11.20.03 @ 10:53AM|#
Just FYI, there are states where bestiality is legal... or at
least, not illegal. Of course, as has been mentioned before,
actually MARRYING an animal is impossible, since animals are
incapable of entering into a consensual legal contract.
I would also like to say that the stereotype of gay men being
promiscuous is not necessarily true. I am a gay man, 30 years old,
and before I met my current boyfriend, I had sex on average about
once a year. I'm not trying to show how virtuous (or in some
peoples' eyes, pitiful) I am, but rather that for every promiscuous
gay man you find, you can find one who is not.
John S.|11.20.03 @ 10:55AM|#
By the way, somehow I keep hearing echoes of "separate but equal", and we all know how THAT turned out.
|11.20.03 @ 11:05AM|#
The argument about the slippery slope is complex. The religious
right argues that permitting gay marriage essentially means
marriage becomes meaningless, because the state can impose no
restrictions on who can marry ducks, or cousins, or dozens.
But I think the court's reasoning could also be understood as
allowing the state to define marriage as a contract between two
people -- not three or four, no ducks or geese -- but to include
homosexual love as well as heterosexual. It is the major variant of
human behavior, for longer that Milt Romney's 3,000 years of
history. It's not just one of a random number of permutations.
|11.20.03 @ 11:05AM|#
The rhetoric about the Goodridge case opening up the gates to
allow man to marry a duck is hyperbole. But it is not "the typical
right wing straw man" to ask how the ban on marriages among
cousins, or siblings, or parent-child will pass muster with the
Mass. constitution after the Goodridge case. And it is also not a
straw-man to ask how marriage will be between two people after the
Goodridge case. The court ruled there was no rational basis for
limiting marriage between one man and one woman, which is how
marriage has been for centuries. Gay marriage proponents, how can
we limit marriage between two people, if the three people all want
to get married? Don't the children of the three have a right for
the state to bless their arrangement? And how can it withstand
equal protection or liberty for Mass. to not allow cousins to
marry? If you respond that cousins shouldn't marry because it
offends the tradition of marriage, then I call you a hypocrite,
because the tradition of opposite sex marriage has been destroyed
by Goodridge. If you say that cousins shouldn't marry due to birth
defects, etc., then I call you a hysteric who has taken racist,
western-centric prejudices and imposed them on the law, because
other cultures have cousin marriage and seem to do okay. If you say
that cousins shouldn't marry because it's outside of the tradition
of marriage, I say Goodridge took a dump on the tradition of
marriage.
It is not a strawman. Defenders of gay marriage, you cannot defend
limiting marriage to two people, or to non-relatives. Thanks go
Goodridge, I now realize how backwards and neanderthal I was to
think that marriage was "the union of one man and one woman to the
exclusion of all others for life" I now know it means, "whatever
the people who want to get married think it means"
That is all.
rst|11.20.03 @ 11:05AM|#
So long as the legal-contract-that's-not-a-marriage is
perceived as being inferior
Gay "marriages" will be perceived as being as inferior, if
not moreso, than civil unions. You will not legislate that out of
society (the largest domain of perception) by messing with the
definition of a word. The lawsuit sought legal protection
equivalent to that currently enjoyed by married couples. The VT
system provides that. And if two (continental) states adopt it,
then another might. If you want an idea to pervade, why not put it
in the situation where, if you pardon the metaphor, it has to
overcome kinetic rather than static friction?
|11.20.03 @ 11:09AM|#
Abu -- I don't agree with you regarding multiple partners. But probably the Mass. argument does apply to cousins. I don't see why the state has a compelling interest in preventing cousins from marrying, since as you say, it happens in other cultures all the time.
|11.20.03 @ 11:09AM|#
Jeff Jacoby, Stanley Kurtz, and others claim that allowing
gay men to have their relationships recognized as marriages will
change the definition of marriage. Since gay men screw around a
lot, it will become considered normal for married men to screw
around, and this would be a bad thing.
Er-- so the claim is that droves of straight married men are gonna
start asserting their right to have sex on the side, because they
see gay men modeling that behavior? "Geez, honey, why
can't I sleep with Beth from my carpool? Todd and Steve
next door have an open marriage, and they say it's working
great for them!"
Damn, this metrosexual trend is getting totally out of hand...
rst|11.20.03 @ 11:11AM|#
"separate but equal"
This isn't a water fountain. These are legal contracts. The power
and effect of a legal contract is not defined by its name, but by
its contents. If the contents of legal contract A provide the same
benefits, reponsibilities, and rights as legal contract B, then
both A and B are legally equivalent, their name
notwithstanding.
Michael|11.20.03 @ 11:13AM|#
rst-- I wouldn't mind that, as long as this "substitute" marriage really brought the benefits (and responsibilities) of marriage. Some people argue that that would weaken marriage more than gay marraige, but what I care about is the rights and benefits (spouse exemption from the inheritance tax, for example) Where I live, gay relationships are approved of generally, and I don't really give a fig what Fred Phelps or Osama Bin Laden or Milt Romney think of my life.
|11.20.03 @ 12:11PM|#
Mathilda: If Mero is a true fan, he probably typed it from memory. Loved the 2 masters bit, though.
|11.20.03 @ 12:13PM|#
I could handle plural marriage if all the members went into the
marriage on the same day and any one person leaving the marriage
would end the whole union.
Otherwise, we're not talking about a new type of marriage, we're
talking about an entirely different arrangement.
joe|11.20.03 @ 12:22PM|#
John S and Michael, thanks for the cogent responses. How's this:
while there are fewer gay men who are monogamous than straight men,
those gay men who choose to get married are a self-selected, not
representative subset. The fact that they are choosing marriage
demonstrates that they are inclined toward monogamy. Kurtz gets
around this by saying 1) open arrangements are more common among
gay couples, even if other aspects of their marriages do follow
traditional patterns, and 2) several gay activists (David
Ehrenstein, for one) have explicitly stated that getting gay
marriages recognized is a way to undermine the patriarchal,
oppressive blah blah blah institution of marriage.
Rob, your example depends upon there being a huge perceived
difference between how gay couples behave, and how straight couples
behave. By declaring gay couples' relationships to be "true
marriages," Kurtz's thinking goes, gay marriage rulings will
eliminate that difference, and gay marriages will be seen, just
like straight marriages, as appropriate models for married
behavior.
joe|11.20.03 @ 12:28PM|#
By the way, I still support gay marriage, and have the following
quote from the decision on my office wall:
"The plaintiffs are members of our community, our neighbors, our
coworkers, our friends. We share a common humanity...Simple
principles of decency dictate that we extend to the plaintiffs, and
to their new status, full acceptance, tolerance, and respect. We
should do so because it is the right thing to do." SJC Justice John
M. Greeney
I just recognize that actions that are, on balance, positive, can
still have some negative consequences.
joe|11.20.03 @ 12:58PM|#
BTW, do you think they'd let O'Really bring his duck into the gay bath house?
Kevin Carson|11.20.03 @ 12:59PM|#
twisted merkin,
Here in NW Arkansas, it's hard for a hooker to make a living,
because of all the pigs and chickens giving it away for free.
Anybody remember that chickenhouse scene in Pink Flamingos?
Will|11.21.03 @ 4:56AM|#
As conservatives, we should realize that marriage is the domain
of the church, not of the state.
We conservatives are supposed to be the proponents of small
government.
Instead of giving state sanction to homosexual marriages -- we
should take it away from heterosexual marriages.
Keep government doing what it is supposed to do -- building roads,
arresting criminals, and fighting foreign wars.
Keep government out of the bedroom. My bedroom would not be
enhanced by a single member of the Bush administration.
|8.18.04 @ 10:27AM|#
His first huge
cock
Nude Women
Round and brown
Bang boat
Her first lesbian
sex
Her First Big
Cock
Backseat
bangers
Gang Bang Squad
Legesse Dan|9.10.04 @ 2:07AM|#
EMAIL: nospam@nospampreteen-sex.info
IP: 195.94.1.122
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/19/2004 04:27:40
John Bradford, Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins
Green Matthew|9.10.04 @ 2:07AM|#
EMAIL: krokodilgena1@yahoo.com
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://penis-enlargement-exercise.nonstopsex.org
DATE: 12/20/2003 10:33:41
If you save the world too often, it begins to expect it.
Tsao Sandy|9.10.04 @ 2:07AM|#
EMAIL: krokodilgena1@yahoo.com
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.PILLS-PENIS-ENLARGEMENT.NET
DATE: 12/10/2003 07:08:55
Without hope, the rest is nothing.
Jane Williams|11.13.04 @ 1:02PM|#
Learn about penis enlargement
penis enlargement pill
penis enlargement product
penis enlargement surgery
penis enlargement exercise
natural penis enlargement
free penis enlargement
penis enlargement technique
free penis enlargement exercise
penis enlargement picture
medical penis enlargement
penis pump enlargement
penis enlargement patch
surgical penis enlargement
herbal penis enlargement
best penis enlargement pill
free penis enlargement technique
penis enlargement review
penis enlargement herb
penis enlargement pic
penis enlargement program
best penis enlargement
penis enlargement pill review
penis enlargement excercises
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245