March 14, 2014

"I get that Sendik's Fine Foods wants to keep its customers happy and sell lots of groceries, but did it really need to block a tame Milwaukee Magazine cover showing two brides getting married?"

Asks Jim Stingl at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The "tame cover" is one that says: "For love & money: Same-sex marriage is big business and Wisconsin is losing out on millions."

One customer complained and the store put a black covering the offending text and photo (which of course set off other complaints).

What was offensive about the cover? I can think of more than one way! If you support gay marriage out of a sense of justice and fairness, you might be offended to see it pushed because it's good for business. And if you think good for business is a great argument, don't you lose the high ground for arguing against the store, if it's just doing what it thinks is good for business? Or maybe it's all about throwing economic weight around, and the supporters of same-sex marriage struck back, expressing their offense at the black coverings, causing the store to read the business advantage the other way around?

Ah, so much of it is only about money anyway! The strongest argument for same-sex marriage is that it's not fair to exclude gay people from the tax advantages and other financial advantages available to a heterosexual who can enter into the legal relationship of marriage with the person he or she feels sexually attracted to.

The most boring argument against same-sex marriage — which I'm sure my commenters will not be able to resist restating ad nauseam —  is that marriage is a word with a definition that restricts it to one man and one woman. To put that more simply: Please address the new issues raised by this post.

Also: The pretty wedding location in the cover photograph is the Milwaukee Art Museum.

226 comments:

1 – 200 of 226   Newer›   Newest»
Shouting Thomas said...

What's the point, prof?

We want you to cease the social engineering, and we just think you've taken leave of your senses.

The electorate spoke. 30 straight referendum defeats. You and your lawyer colleagues decided that you knew better.

I think you're doing a very destructive thing here.

But, social engineers cannot be deterred. My view now is that we just sit back and wait for the inevitable destruction that your social engineering will cause.

You're so proud of your intellect that you are unable to understand issues that have nothing to do with intellect.

Bob Ellison said...

You're wrong again. The most boring argument against same-sex marriage for women is that the hot chicks get taken, and take each other, while we boring males have to pick up whatever we can find in Walgreen's.

Fen said...

Technically, covering the mag like it was soft porn was wrong.

But realisticly? I'll start caring about gays again when The Gay Mafia starts caring about *other* people's rights too.

So fuck em. I might even join in on the censorship.

Shouting Thomas said...

I am reminded of an essay I read some time ago by an author I no longer remember.

He was discussing how social welfare policy that destroyed families and communities was always sold with this opening line...

"How could it possibly hurt if... ?"

The social engineers operate according to strict rationalism within a short temporal frame. Tradition makes no sense to them.

But, tradition does return to bite them in the ass.

RecChief said...

I guess offensive is in the eye of the beholder. I can remember when people defended a barber for banning smelly pot smokers based on customer complaints.

To a larger point, how many times have people had to take down Christian symbols because one person complained that it was offensive? And now you're going to get up in arms because your strategy has been turned against you? hahahahahhahaha

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shouting Thomas said...

Why is there so much effort to promote its adoption?

Homosexuality is a class marker of the Mandarin class.

Class markers serve quite a few purposes. Too many to enumerate on a weblog comment section.

RecChief said...

what does the location of the wedding photo have to do with anything?

AJ Lynch said...

Your boring on and on about this issue is boring.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

What is the problem Althouse? Did your son not get to purchase the magazine to pick out his wedding dress?

RecChief said...

is that a real wedding picture or two models depicting a wessing picture? dont' read anything into my question, I'm just curious which one it is.

n.n said...

Homosexual behavior has no redeeming value to society or humanity. It can be tolerated, but does not merit normalization. Why is there so much effort to promote its adoption?

Evolutionary fitness is the only objective, reproducible standard for classifying sexual behavior. Everything else is a matter of personal indulgence, and may be suitable for tolerance when exhibited in the bedroom, backroom, etc.

RecChief:

Christian philosophy moderates progressive morality. While this does not exclude libertine behavior, it does require moderation and appropriate context. The goal of Christianity is evolutionary fitness. While the goal of progressive morality is self-indulgence.

EDH said...

The strongest argument for same-sex marriage is that it's not fair to exclude gay people from the tax advantages and other financial advantages available to a heterosexual who can enter into the legal relationship of marriage with the person he or she feels sexually attracted to.

Oh, Scarlett (Johansson) is going to be so surprised when I show up unannounced in her home and tell her we're getting married!

Cherry said...

One of the strongest arguments against same sex marriage is that making the tax and other financial benefits of marriage dilutes the incentives government provides to strengthen and maintain traditional marriages. The argument cuts both ways.

Henry said...

I find the "it's good for business" argument pretty boring and almost always pernicious. It's always a shallow appeal to base greed, with principle treated as a petty concern and deeper analysis avoided completely.

The biggest proponents of the "it's good for business" are gambling casinos. Every time a gambling initiative is on a state ballot the gambling concerns flood the media space with their business arguments. Don't let that money go out of state!

Althouse wrote: If you support gay marriage out of a sense of justice and fairness, you might be offended to see it pushed because it's good for business.

My first thought was: "This is comical overstatement." My second thought was: "Wait, I'm that person."

Okay, I'm not offended. By I am mildly annoyed. Is this really the best you can do, Milwaukee Magazine? Treat gay marriage like it's a gambling or late hours for bars?

mccullough said...

It's tough to be in the middle of these culture battles. Someone is always going to be offended.

It's good for business for the interest groups that raise money off these battles but bad for the businesses that want to make money selling their goods and/or services to everyone.

Lucien said...

The Customer is Always Right. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

rehajm said...

The strongest argument for same-sex marriage is that it's not fair to exclude gay people from the tax advantages and other financial advantages available to a heterosexual...

This is a strong argument for civil union for everyone, not gay marriage.

mccullough said...

I remember back in 1991 being at a grocery store and they had the black band over the Demi Moore naked and pregnant Vanity Fair Cover.

And when I was a kid, the convenience stores all had the girly magazines like Playboy and Penthouse behind the black cover at the back of the upper rack.


chickenlittle said...

It will be novel and of interest to see how the Constitutional Law Professor's countermajoratarian streak kicks in (or not) when religious supporters of traditional marriage are marginalized even more than they are now. Someone asked Sullivan the same thing recently -- whether he would support traditional rites; he scoffed and said they were whining.

Shouting Thomas said...

This post intersects with Althouse's "Why can't we all just be real nice?" argument re "Bossy."

Men understand well why we can't just be real nice. This honesty is something I really admire in men.

Life isn't real nice. Fairness as an ultimate principle has some negative and deadly consequences.

Women seldom understand why we can't just be real nice. They can be quite dangerous as a result.

Althouse is totally in the dark about why we can't just be real nice. No clue.

Rusty said...

File this under ; shit most sane people don't give a damn about.

Jason said...

Why are we obligated to grant same-sex couples a tax subsidy? Who has to pay that money?

Now, there's a counterargument that says that if we allow gay marriage, more of them will marry and blow their eligibility for food stamps, medicaid and other benefits. But I'm thinking people respond to incentives, and people won't marry if it means they give up their food stamp money. Witness the disintegration of the African American family resulting from the War on Poverty. So it will be the affluent gays getting married, except insofar as they are participating in adverse selection for group health insurance to treat HIV/AIDS.

So we're back to square one. Why should we subsidize same sex marriages?

David said...

Sendik's was the progressive place to shop when I lived in Milwaukee. All the cool kids shopped there. Whole Foodsy way before Whole Foods.

The customer base I remember would have loved that cover. Hip East Siders. Woohoo!

rehajm said...

If you support gay marriage out of a sense of justice and fairness, you might be offended to see it pushed because it's good for business

Heteros embrace the big business aspect of marriage. Take note all those other fabu wedding magazines at the checkout counter.

Get with it gays.

Paul Zrimsek said...

If you want people to stick to the new issue, you'd have done better to set an example, rather than presenting your own thrice-familiar argument on the old issue and then demanding that no one rebut it.

n.n said...

rehajm:

Exactly. There was and is a reason to normalize heterosexual behavior. There is no legitimate reason to normalize homosexual behavior, which is purely self-indulgent.

It's also worth noting that with the normalization of this dysfunctional behavior, there is no defensible argument to oppose normalization of similarly dysfunctional or merely tolerated behaviors. With the normalization of abortion, there are, in fact, very few behaviors which can legitimately be rejected.

For some reason, they are stuck on homosexual behavior, to the indefensible exclusion of all others. They think that it has a unique character, but it clearly does not. I guess might (e.g. democratic leverage, judicial decrees, executive actions) makes right.

Curious George said...

Those aren't Madison lesbians.

RecChief said...

@n.n.

My point was that you can always find someone offended about something, and that we now live in a cultrue where if one person claims "offense" the merchant, even society as a whole, is supposed to stop and accomodate that person. This tactic has been used by leftists/liberals/"progressives" for years. It seems to have been reversed in this case, and our hostess seems to take offense at that. Sorry I muddled the waters by mentioning anything Christian (although that appears to be the favorite target). I can't find anything in the Constitution about a right "not to be offended".

madAsHell said...

I'll venture a guess here, and state that most people are not offended by women getting married.

On the other hand, a couple of guys getting married....yikes!!

It's a war on men, I tell you.

mccullough said...

The cover of this issue reinforces the stereotypes that women must be thin. It is a distortion of body image.

Also, not all lesbians are lipstick lesbians. This magazine has an agenda. They don't care about the bull dykes and trannies. There is no money to be made from them.

Shouting Thomas said...

Steve Sailer has written at some length about how differently altering social traditions affects people who make six figure salaries and possess three digit IQs and people who make little money or live on welfare and possess two digit IQs.

He makes a lot of sense.

Althouse sees everything from the vantage point of Madison, the UW, six figure salaries and three digit IQs.

No comprehension of what happens outside that bubble.

RecChief said...

"The strongest argument for same-sex marriage is that it's not fair to exclude gay people from the tax advantages and other financial advantages available to a heterosexual...

This is a strong argument for civil union for everyone, not gay marriage."

Careful, now that the President has evolved, that position is evil and bigoted. Seriously, there should be a separation between the two as there are two different interests involved. Don't know about anyone else, but in the state that we were married in, you had to obtain a license from the state, and received a separate certificate from the church. I don't understand why the words on top of the state form aren't just changed to "Civil Union" and if you can find a church to marry you, have at it.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The strongest argument for same-sex marriage is that it's not fair to exclude gay people from the tax advantages and other financial advantages available to a heterosexual who can enter into the legal relationship of marriage with the person he or she feels sexually attracted to.

You are correct, that is the strongest argument, and it is incredibly weak, since gay people weren't excluded from marriage. They were just not sexually attracted to the people with whom they could potentially form a marriage.

And it seems silly for you to keep restating the same flawed argument, while asking your commenters to not respond with the still valid counter-argument.

YoungHegelian said...

I'm having trouble believing that gay marriage, which concerns at most 2.5% of the population (the percentage of gay men & lesbians combined, according to more recent statistics) can be big business.

Weddings are big business because, for about 49% of the population, it's their really big day. Maybe rolling gay weddings into the straight matrimonial-industrial complex makes it big business, but not by itself.

This makes no comment about its morality at all, but we should at least be honest about SSM's economic claims.

Peter said...

Sendiks did not have the good sense to just not display the magazine. by covering the cover they invited an attack by the bullies, who will not tolerate dissent.

Althouse doesn't seem to understand that the core problem isn't whether gays may get married, it's whether they can

Law may declare that a tail is a leg, but that doesn't make it so. Bullies may attack anyone who says it isn't so, but it still isn't so.

The real tyranny of tyranny isn't forcing people to believe what's not so (because they won't), but to force them to publicly declare that what isn't so is so.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia ...

SGT Ted said...

Technically, covering the mag like it was soft porn was wrong.

But realisticly? I'll start caring about gays again when The Gay Mafia starts caring about *other* people's rights too.


This.

RecChief said...

madAsHell said...
I'll venture a guess here, and state that most people are not offended by women getting married."

If all lesbians looked like the photo, You'd see men lobbying for televised lesbian weddings

wildswan said...

If people don't have children there will be no Social Security. If the family collapses as an institution there will be no children. Marriage is part of the family as a social institution and gay marriage is going to weaken the family as a social institution. It's really in everyone's interest to keep the family strong but that isn't at all how people are thinking about this issue.

They are thinking in an individualistic frame. As a result they doing something that will have adverse social consequences directly affecting them as individuals. But they can't /won't see it.

But all that is down the road just the way the consequence of promising pensions in Detroit while not actually working to make the promise real them used to be far down the road in Detroit. And on we go.

cubanbob said...

A business catering to it's customers desires. Who would of thunk it? Those offended by this can take their dollars elsewhere.

EMD said...

Curious G for the win.

mccullough said...

YH,

Given the number of gay marriage supporters among the heterosexual rank, I think businesses are worried about offending those customers/potential customers (in addition to getting extra cash from gays). So economics are a big component.

A good business wants all customers, and is worried about offending any of them. Business is in a tough position here.

damikesc said...

Technically, covering the mag like it was soft porn was wrong.

But realisticly? I'll start caring about gays again when The Gay Mafia starts caring about *other* people's rights too.

So fuck em. I might even join in on the censorship


This, honestly, is a concern the gay rights brigade needs to consider.

Not saying all gays by any stretch, but the activists who are demanding more and more...it will lead to a backlash.

Taking people to court because they don't want to photograph a gay wedding or bake a cake for a gay wedding is a surefire way to kill off tolerance and the understanding of the majority.

SGT Ted said...

There is no legitimate reason to normalize homosexual behavior, which is purely self-indulgent.

Was it "self indulgent" for my gay cousin to be with a partner for 30+ years, to include taking care of him after a stroke that eventually killed him? Or was he behaving in a moral manner as to their commitment together?

Your declarations that there is no legitimate reason to recognize homosexual relationships ignores Liberty and the Individual.

If your notions about "evolutionary fitness" held any water, homosexuality would have been bred out of the gene pool thousands of years ago. But, that didn't happen, did it?

n.n, your pseudo scientific assertions are quite similar to those made by the Eugenicists and progressives of the early to mid 20th century.

You continue to conflate the problems that come with rampant promiscuity, such as disease vectors and lack of personal commitment, as well as the abandonment of children, solely to being homosexual.

You ignore the fact that the legal and social sanctioning of homosexuality directly led to the ghettoized gay sex culture and it's rampant promiscuity brought on by the radicalization of being excluded from "normal" society.

Shouting Thomas said...

You ignore the fact that the legal and social sanctioning of homosexuality directly led to the ghettoized gay sex culture and it's rampant promiscuity brought on by the radicalization of being excluded from "normal" society.

The old "society made them do it" argument.

The promiscuity and disease vectors of male homosexuality exist because gay men can be promiscuous to an almost unlimited extent, while most hetero men cannot.

Most women will not tolerate the outrageous promiscuity that men will engage in if given a chance.

There are no brakes in male on male relationships.

Society has nothing to do with it. It's a mechanical reality.

SGT Ted said...

They were just not sexually attracted to the people with whom they could potentially form a marriage.

So, how many heteros do you know of that married the one they didn't love or weren't sexually attracted to?

Besides the shotgun marriages?

Are you an advocate for arranged marriages? Those were the last hetero marriages that didn't involve being in love or there being sexual attraction between the two people being married.

Do you see the huge gaping FLAWS in your argument?

I haven't seen one argument against gay union that wasn't based on "Ick!" emotionalism at it's core.

MadisonMan said...

Outrage is boring. Both those who are outraged and tweeting about the cover, and those who are outraged and tweeting about the cover-up.

Get lives, people.

Shouting Thomas said...

I do have a life and I'm not outraged.

I've accepted the outcome, although I do not agree with it.

Just enjoying a little conversation on a morning off after a night working.

Shouting Thomas said...

I haven't seen one argument against gay union that wasn't based on "Ick!" emotionalism at it's core.

Interesting verbal slip.

Who's against "gay union?"

Answer. Nobody.

Gahrie said...

Taking people to court because they don't want to photograph a gay wedding or bake a cake for a gay wedding is a surefire way to kill off tolerance and the understanding of the majority.

True.

But then having a bunch of lawyers and judges overturn and/or ignore the will of the people has gone a long way to doing that already.

Gahrie said...

But, tradition does return to bite them in the ass.

There is a reason traditions exist........

gadfly said...

The easy way out, of course, was for Sendiks not to display this issue of Milwaukee Magazine for sale. That tactic is used all the time by retail outlets and local TV channels to exclude social issues and programming with which they disagree.

In a capitalist society, the business owner gets to choose but when the nation bends to socialists, the economy dies and the stranglehold of big government authoritarians take over.

The really strange thing about socialists is that they employ the "limit the access" tactic all the time in their "diversity" programs that always exclude conservatives.

And despite all the extra letters added to LGBT and even the so-called Gay-Straight Alliances, there is no recruiting of those heteros who believe that the encouragement of homosexual behavior is wrong, So that makes them a special interest group representing a small minority of our population being granted undeserved privileges by the government and the press.

As my Dad always told me, "You can lead a horse to water . . ."

Freder Frederson said...

Marriage is part of the family as a social institution and gay marriage is going to weaken the family as a social institution.

You state this as though it is an indisputable fact rather than just your unfounded belief.

SGT Ted said...

Most women will not tolerate the outrageous promiscuity that men will engage in if given a chance.

There are no brakes in male on male relationships.


Sure there are. They are the same ones that keep most hetero men in line. The Marriage and Commitment Culture. The "I don't want to get nasty diseases" culture.

Are you positing that there are no promiscuous subcultures in hetero culture? There are plenty of places where a hetero can indulge in promiscuous behavior with plenty of willing women. Random women I don't know have nothing to do with keeping my sexual conduct in check. That lies with me. My gay cousins and friends have made the same responsible choices in rejecting the radicalized, promiscuous sub-culture of gay sex.

You don't get that the rise of gay ghetto promiscuity was the result of their radicalization in leftists sexual politics to the point of considering rampant promiscuity as a Revolutionary Act against the "straight" society that had rejected them.

MadisonMan said...

Is Milwaukee Magazine an interesting read? Madison Magazine is snoozeworthy, and good for dentists' offices. (Better than Brava, however) I suppose there must be an outlet somewhere for J-school grads, though, so everyone go buy this fine piece of magazinity. It's the American Way.

The magazine will love this free publicity, of course.

Sendik's has a good butcher usually, but in my experience (the store near UWM and the one on Brown Deer) it's kinda cramped and dirty.

Shouting Thomas said...

You state this as though it is an indisputable fact rather than just your unfounded belief.

Liberals made the same argument 60 years ago. This is the "What could it possibly hurt?" argument I referred to.

And, now, 70% of black kids are born out of wedlock.

You want "indisputable facts" to convince you not to fuck around with human traditions that long predate your appearance on this earth.

Levi Starks said...

This has the feeling of a false flag attack to me. Something done to churn up a controversy to keep the faithful energized.
How dare they censor our loving relationship.....

In other news, an Alabama judge refuses to grant a divorce to two lesbians who went to Iowa to get married, but can't be troubled to go back to get the marriage undone.

Shouting Thomas said...

@SGT

Your argument is ridiculous on its face.

The moment gay men ventured out of the closet, they initiated the AIDS epidemic.

I am astonished by the willful refusal to recognize a reality that is not so distant in the past.

The societal tradition of expecting gay men to stay in the closet kept tens of thousands of gay men alive.

Astonishing willful ignorance.

Shouting Thomas said...

I lived in SF and NYC during the inception and height of the AIDS epidemic.

The average gay guy had nothing to do with gay activism.

I knew them, although most are dead now. Nobody argued along the lines you suggest. When they tried to convince me to go with them to the bathhouses, every one said..

"Why fuck women? You can do whatever you want if you fuck men."

I believe my lying eyes.

Freder Frederson said...

an Alabama judge refuses to grant a divorce to two lesbians who went to Iowa to get married, but can't be troubled to go back to get the marriage undone.

In most states, one of the spouses has to be a resident of the state to file for divorce. I assume that this is the rule in both Alabama and Iowa. So just going back to Iowa to get the marriage undone is not necessarily a simple process.

Humperdink said...

It is tiresome to see homosexuality thrust upon us at every turn (no pun intended - really). I don't promote my heterosexuality. I don't participate in hetero pride parades. Don't shove your homosexuality at us.
I don't care what anyone does regarding their sexuality - knock yourself out.


Want a civil union? Skip card check and go see a lawyer - they need the work.

gerry said...

Marriage is part of the family as a social institution and gay marriage is going to weaken the family as a social institution.

Nah. Gay men will rent third-world wombs to deliver babies that are quickly and permanently removed from their mothers so they can be raised by Dad and Dad.

It's usually called slavery when you buy and sell human beings.

And if you hate the practice, you are a bigot.

n.n said...

SGT Ted:

You don't appreciate the difference between normalization and tolerance. You also don't distinguish between relationships and behaviors. They are not limited by male or female. As for evolution, it is a chaotic process. While there are principles of evolution, their adherence does not guarantee an outcome. That does not mean we should not normalize behaviors which promote fitness. It does mean that we should not normalize behaviors which do not promote it.

In any case, I do not support murder/abortion of human lives before or after birth based on their dysfunctional behaviors, unless there is sufficient cause to reject their behavior. Homosexual behavior, when exhibited by a minority of the population is not a threat to the viability of society or humanity. It is merely one of many dysfunctional behaviors which is tolerated.

I understand that your prejudice is due to personal experience and people in your life. Unfortunately, it is irrational and defies what is completely self-evident. Homosexual behavior while dysfunctional, does not merit rejection. This is unlike murder/abortion which clearly does not merit normalization, can not be tolerated, and should be rejected.

Freder Frederson said...

I don't promote my heterosexuality.

A man whose picture features him standing in front of a classic Corvette doesn't promote his heterosexuality. I find that hard to believe.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

SGT Ted said...

So, how many heteros do you know of that married the one they didn't love or weren't sexually attracted to?

None.

Are you an advocate for arranged marriages?

No

Do you see the huge gaping FLAWS in your argument?

No, though suspect I see all the things that you think are flaws.

If someone wants to get married, they are welcome to, if they don't want to, they don't have to.

The definition of marriage was not created to exclude gays, it was created to recognize an arrangement that was beneficial to society.

In order to make this an issue about right, you must first throw out the definition. Until you redefine marriage, nobody is being prevented from marrying. This is exactly why the Professor tries to pressure us not to discuss the definition.

I haven't seen one argument against gay union that wasn't based on "Ick!" emotionalism at it's core.

Then you've let your biases color what you see.

Freder Frederson said...

This is unlike murder/abortion which clearly does not merit normalization, can not be tolerated, and should be rejected.

Actually in the long history of humanity, both infanticide and abortion were tolerated and accepted. Infanticide is also a common practice in the animal kingdom. If your argument is that morality makes evolutionary sense, you have very little proof.

mtrobertsattorney said...

Is that photo of an actual same-sex marriage or is it a staged photo using two heterosexual young women?

SGT Ted said...

The societal tradition of expecting gay men to stay in the closet kept tens of thousands of gay men alive.

It also directly led to the formation of the big city gay ghettoes where gay men fled the bigotry that expected them to remain closeted and thus, dishonest, which resulted in the conditions that led to rampant promiscuity and what is now known as the "gay lifestyle", which is really a "promiscuous lifestyle".

And, so, demanding that gay people stay closeted and outlaw also led to thousands of them dying from AIDS, because gays, in turn, rejected the morality that also condemned them for being homosexual. See what I am getting at?

My family didn't reject the gay ones and they all turned out to be fairly traditional as far as their sexuality is concerned.

cubanbob said...

ST AIDS is more a phenomena of the jet age than that of gays coming out of the closet. Gays were doing their thing under the radar long before coming out of the closet. From what I've read the first known instance of AIDS dates back to the thirties when the virus apparently mutated to infect humans. It just took a bit of time to spread to the point it reached cities and from there travelers to spread it elsewhere.
When traveling was far more expensive and time consuming diseases simply took longer to spread.

Shouting Thomas said...

I am alive today because I didn't decide to go to the bathhouses and party with the gay boys.

So, the "ick" factor seems to me to be a survival mechanism.

Likewise for the Althouse insistence that "fear of homosexuality" is irrational.

Only if you prefer not to die. That is if you are male.

chickenlittle said...

Seeing is believing, Freder: link

Shouting Thomas said...

@SGT

No, I don't see what you are getting at.

The persecution of the gays didn't happen in the U.S.

I come from small town Illinois. Gay men have been friends since I was a kid in that small town.

It didn't happen. The great persecution is a myth fabricated for political purposes. Mostly to try to shift the blame for the AIDS epidemic to straight men, which is the tactic you are employing.

The AIDS epidemic was triggered by gay men coming out of the closet in the atmosphere of hedonism generated by the 60s. Nothing else.

Gay men move to the big cities for the jobs they like and for the culture of orgies and sex parties. This is not the fault of straight men.

Anglelyne said...

AA: The strongest argument for same-sex marriage is that it's not fair to exclude gay people from the tax advantages and other financial advantages available to a heterosexual who can enter into the legal relationship of marriage with the person he or she feels sexually attracted to.

IOW, your "strongest argument" is based on the painfully muddled notion that the "tax advantages and other financial advantages...of marriage" were instituted because somehow society decided it had an interest in promoting and supporting...sexual attraction.

Jesus wept.

Anglelyne said...

Paul Z: If you want people to stick to the new issue, you'd have done better to set an example, rather than presenting your own thrice-familiar argument on the old issue and then demanding that no one rebut it.

AKA "attempting to get in the last word after having announced that we've all decided to agree to disagree and it's time to move on".

chillblaine said...

Looking at the cover photograph, the word that comes to mind is, "lascivious." The cultural marxists will love it. Anything that critiques the patriarchal and heteronormative is like catnip to them.

I wouldn't complain to the manager about a cover like this; unlike say, the Rolling Stone issue with a gauzy image of Tsarnaev on it. I would likely turn the magazine around in the rack so that the back cover would face out.

I don't begrudge anyone the right to enter any contract with another legally consenting human being. I am disgusted at the way the cultural marxists have conditioned all these victim groups, just so they can be shock troops marching through every institution in Western Civilization.

Henry said...

The definition of marriage was not created to exclude gays, it was created to recognize an arrangement that was beneficial to society.

We live in a society. It happens to be a society that is wildly different than any other human society in history. It is more egalitarian. It is more diverse. It is much wealthier and secure.

What kind of marriage definition would benefit this society?

n.n said...

morality makes evolutionary sense...

While murder/abortion may have been tolerated, it was not normalized. The principle of fitness engenders certain self-evident behaviors. What was normalized (i.e. promoted) was self-moderating, responsible behaviors, which was the incentive for not only religious derivations, but their organization.

Anthony said...

Who said SSM was restricted to gay people? Not like OSM was ever restricted to heteros. . . .

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

which I'm sure my commenters will not be able to resist restating ad nauseam

ha ha like you're one to lecture anyone on riding a boring hobby horse, Althouse.

SGT Ted said...

You also don't distinguish between relationships and behaviors.

Actually, I do, where I refer to the problem really being one of promiscuity and not strictly homosexuality.

To me, supporting gay union/marriage undermines the ghettoized sub-culture of rampant gay promiscuity that is based entirely on the rejection of those that condemn homosexuals in the first place.

Bringing the homos into the marriage/Union fold defangs the "societal rejection" argument that justifies their promiscuous behavior.


Pogo is Dead said...

The Milwaukee Journal being bossy.

mrs.e said...

"Is that photo of an actual same-sex marriage or is it a staged photo using two heterosexual young women?"

From a comment in the linked column, it was 2 actors...and that matters, because...?

BTW, that's quite a black & white, either-or you've got going on there. There are other combinations - you know that, don't you?

pduggie said...

marriage is an institution with a ontology that restricts it to one man and one woman.

Pogo is Dead said...

@SGT Ted
"A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. ( Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978) .

Promiscuity among lesbian women is less extreme, but is still higher than among heterosexual women. Many ‘lesbian’ women also have sex with men. Lesbian women were more than 4 times as likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women. (Fethers K et al. Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2000; 76: 345-9.)

Far higher rates of promiscuity are observed even within ‘committed’ gay relationships than in heterosexual marriage: In Holland, male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly “committed” relationships. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam . AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.) Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years . (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York . 1984)

In an online survey among nearly 8,000 homosexuals, 71% of same-sex relationships lasted less than eight years. Only 9% of all same-sex relationships lasted longer than 16 years. (2003-2004 Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census; www.glcensus.org)

The high rates of promiscuity are not surprising: Gay authors admit that ‘gay liberation was founded … on a sexual brotherhood of promiscuity.’ (Rotello G. Sexual Ecology. New York 1998)
"

Henry said...

What was normalized (i.e. promoted) was self-moderating, responsible behaviors

If that's the way it works, then gay marriage is a no-brainer.

Pogo is Dead said...

"HIV prevalence rates among MSM in Brazil, Canada, Italy and India range between 11% and 15%, while many western European countries have lower rates of around 6%."

Drago said...

SGT Ted: "To me, supporting gay union/marriage undermines the ghettoized sub-culture of rampant gay promiscuity that is based entirely on the rejection of those that condemn homosexuals in the first place."

Whoa.

Full stop.

Rampant gay promiscuity is due "entirely" to those who "condemn homosexuals in the first place."

Wow.

That is quite an assertion.

Quite an assertion indeed.

Would you care to elaborate on how this "fact" was established?

Or is it one of those "received wisdom" "facts" that are just too darn good/convenient to check?

I mean, the male character has NOTHING to do with it.

It's just those h8ters making homosexuals have sex with all those other homosexuals.

Please, show your work.

Krumhorn said...

I despise the calculated boorishness of those posters (I'm speaking directly to you, President-Mom-Jeans) who find it irresistible to make comments about our hostess' son as if, by that reference, there is illumination, somehow, about the motive for her views and thereby defeats her argument. I don't care about motives. I care about the impact. Shouting Thomas is making very sound comments today about impact.

From a political and social perspective, gays have become harpies and bullies. It's not their objective to enjoy the benefits of Ann's fairness argument. Rather, it's their objective to thoroughly rub the rest of our noses in their poo.

We are now at the same point as Captain Picard who, while being tortured by the Kardashian, was almost certain that there were 5 lights when there were only 4.

Me? I look at that magazine cover and immediately think "that's a waste of perfectly good pussy".

- Krumhorn

The Cracker Emcee said...


"Likewise for the Althouse insistence that "fear of homosexuality" is irrational."

ST,
I agree with 90% of the things you write but don't understand why you rail against Althouse on this issue.
Presumably you have children and love them. There are Football Moms, Cheeleader Moms, Band Moms, Marine Moms, and there are Gay Moms (that is to say, the supportive heterosexual mothers of gay children). Why would any rational person expect otherwise?

SGT Ted said...

Between 1947 and 1950 alone, more than 400 people were fired from Government jobs for being suspected of homosexuality.

In the 1950s and 60s, the FBI began keeping lists of known Homosexuals, as well as their friends and regular gathering places.

The United States Postal Service began keeping records of addresses receiving gay-oriented materials. Before long, cities began raiding gay establishments, arresting patrons, and posting their names in local newspapers. It may never be known how many thousands of people were harassed, humiliated, arrested, and institutionalized during these raids, and America’s budding gay culture was kicked, punched, and shoved to the back of its metaphorical closet.

New York was to host the World’s Fair in 1964, and Mayor Robert Wagner feared for the city’s global image. Known gay bars and gathering places had their liquor licenses revoked and police began performing regular raids: anyone with an ID was booked and released, anyone without ID was arrested, as were any men dressed as woman and any women who weren’t wearing at least 3 pieces of feminine clothing.

Despite the raids, bars were among the only places in New York where gays and lesbians could congregate openly and freely. Many, including the Stonewall Inn, were owned by branches of mob families, who saw Homosexuals as merely another source of income. Knowing gays had nowhere else to go, drinks were watered down, and prices were hiked up. Police were bribed to keep raids at a minimum and to keep a blind eye turned away from their lack of a liquor license.


Social and legal condemnation and police brutality of gays for being gay never happened, huh?

I had gay friends too and they were rejected by their families for the most part when they came out, especially the traditionally religious families. Rejected by their families, they went to other gay people for family. That worked out well, didn't it?

THAT was easily refuted. Try your revisionist history on someone else.

Archie said...

People are tired and disgusted by the continual intrusion of homosexual propaganda into a every sphere of live. That explains why people don't want to see this crap everywhere they go.

dbp said...

Slightly OT but here goes:

It seems like men are the net winners of homosexuality.

Gay men are, in my experience, more handsome than the average man. So they would be strong competitors for women--if they had an interest in women.

Lesbians are generally very unattractive (in spite of what Hollywood or glossy magazine photo-spreads imply) and so would not be the kind of women men would compete to attract.

Shouting Thomas said...

@SGT

You could make the same arguments about censorship and suppression of straight hedonism in that era.

The politics of martyrdom require the manufacture of martyrs.

Gays are good at media.

Sigivald said...

The strongest argument for same-sex marriage is that it's not fair to exclude gay people from the tax advantages and other financial advantages available to a heterosexual who can enter into the legal relationship of marriage with the person he or she feels sexually attracted to.

Of course, an equally strong counter-argument is that those benefits/advantages are there to encourage breeding more taxpayers, nothing more.

(I put more weight on the fairness argument myself, but my preferred solution is to remove the benefits from straight couples.

If marriage isn't about "making kids and stabilizing the resulting family", then I see no reason to subsidize it.

Hell, I don't see one anyway, but at least the case is not facially vapid.)

traditionalguy said...

The story is that two women, who keep a man and woman apart, is an economic stimulus because they want a expensive big Wedding.

The real financial stimulus by 100 to 1 has always been raising a family of children. That's why we need Hispanic immigrants who haven't quit breeding and raising good Catholics.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Henry said...

What kind of marriage definition would benefit this society?

One that would do the most to encourage the raising of children by both biological parents.

Note that I think your question is a very reasonable one to ask, and I think reasonable people can reach different conclusions. In a democracy ( or a representative republic ) this can be decided through the legislative process.

It happens to be a society that is wildly different than any other human society in history.

I would argue that the differences are trivial compared to the similarities of what society has to work with: the biological realities and the inherent human nature.

SGT Ted said...

Pogo:

That research merely notes the symptoms of what I have described as having occurred due to the social rejection and legal condemnation of gays in the past causing unforeseen and unintended consequences of that attempt at repression of homosexuality.

My point is that the morality that serves as a check on promiscuity also condemned homosexuals simply for being homosexuals and drove them underground, where they in turn rejected the sexual morality and moralizing of those that condemned them.

Which resulted in what is now the "gay lifestyle" of rampant promiscuous sex that reject the morality of straight culture. It was a direct consequence, unintended though it might have been. That you refuse to acknowledge how it historically played out is not my fault.

hombre said...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/woman-marries-dog-totally-b-h-article-1.1717772

I can see a trend in which the move away from traditional marriage stimulates, for example, the pet supply business.

lgv said...

"The strongest argument for same-sex marriage is that it's not fair to exclude gay people from the tax advantages"

I hear that a lot, but it just isn't universally true. The biggest tax advantage is the inheritance tax savings, but when two high income, childless people marry, they will pay more. For us, it has cumulatively save us over 6 figures being single.

Krumhorn said...

........before someone else says it, I can hear Robert Preston's character, Toddy, say, "I can assure you, it's not going to waste".

- Krumhorn

Shouting Thomas said...

@The Cracker Emcee

Yes, I do recognize that Althouse is just the gay version of a "soccer mom."

I don't think I'm railing.

As SGT has done overtly, Althouse has been tacitly accusing straight men as being the cause of the AIDS epidemic.

This has not exactly endeared her to me.

As I said, I come from small town Illinois. The notion that we straight men from the small town midwest and south persecuted gay men is untrue and stupid. Sure, schoolyard bullying happened. And, everybody got bullied by somebody.

The exact opposite of what is alleged to have happened occurred in my lifetime. My small town male friends were exceptionally concerned about being fair and friendly to gay men. When our gay friends returned from the coasts in droves to die of AIDS, communities like my small town rallied around those men, held their hands and cried at their funerals.

The persecution mythology is a blood libel. It's a vicious tactic.

MadisonMa'am said...

SendIk's customers are mostly conservatives, because their stores are mostly located in very conservative areas. I'm sure they are reacting to the complaints of their customers. I love Sendik's and their bakery is great, but oh well, why does this kind of censorship in a conservative stronghold surprise anyone?

St. George said...

Many, many magazines never get into grocery stores (and especially Wal-Mart) because of their content...Playboy, tattoo magazines, biker mags. In fact, mags bend over backwards to get into Wal-Mart.

I read the article at the mag's website. It...is...boring. Hardly a good cover story for a city mag. They tried to sauce it up a bit with a photo of two obligatory beautiful lesbians...and failed.

If you Google 'Milwaukee magazine covers,' you find the usual....Best Burgers! Top Doctors! Food & Festivals! Cheap Eats! Best of Milwaukee!

February cover was "Ruins of the City" Zzzzz. January? Illustration of a dead woman, some local politico. Zzzzz. Hardly the stuff you want to read in the dentist's waiting room while waiting to have your teeth pulled out.

This is not the sort of publicity the magazine is looking for.

Pogo is Dead said...

@SGT Ted said

So where's the Canadian evidence that Gay Marriage has reduced homosexual promiscuity?

Shouting Thomas said...

When I left small town Illinois at the age of 21, I was also wallowing in persecution mythology. I thought that I was being persecuted, because I was an artist and therefore different.

Years later, I realized that this was all in my own mind and that nobody had mistreated me. That is, I wasn't mistreated, hurt or beat up in any way that was not common to every other kid.

I left small town Illinois for the opportunities of the big city. Period. My notions that I was persecuted were bullshit. And so are the notions that people in the small towns of the south and the midwest are or were persecuting gays.

MadisonMa'am said...

Althouse and Meade, here in Waukesha County, even the President's Welcome Back to School speech was censored in the public schools. You two would probably hate living in this county.

Henry said...

I would argue that the differences are trivial compared to the similarities of what society has to work with: the biological realities and the inherent human nature.

I would definitely place marriage in the category of "society", as opposed to that of "biological realities and the inherent human nature" (one reality being that not all people have the same inherent human nature).

History shows us that marriage and child rearing are far more mutable constructs than these 21st century arguments seem to presuppose.

jacksonjay said...

That you refuse to acknowledge how it historically played out is not my fault.

Sarg is sounding like Cracked!

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Henry said...

I would definitely place marriage in the category of "society", as opposed to that of "biological realities and the inherent human nature"

Yes, marriage is a part of society. My point is that all of society must be organized in a way that takes into account "biological realities and the inherent human nature".

History shows us that marriage and child rearing are far more mutable constructs than these 21st century arguments seem to presuppose.

Do you have examples of societies that had significantly different marriage and child rearing structures that did as well as those which had our traditional structures?

RecChief said...

"SendIk's customers are mostly conservatives, because their stores are mostly located in very conservative areas. I'm sure they are reacting to the complaints of their customers. I love Sendik's and their bakery is great, but oh well, why does this kind of censorship in a conservative stronghold surprise anyone? "

For Pete's sake, Inga, don't you have a unilateral disarmament rally or Wendy Davis rally to go?

Valentine Smith said...

How does stupid shit like this warrant over a hundred comments?

SOJO said...

@n.n. The goal of Christianity has nothing to do with "evolutionary fitness". Snork.

Re: the article. The store had a longstanding policy of covering up rather tame covers (Cosmo, Sports Illustrated) in response to customer request. They sold them, but covered them, a middle ground.

The customer who made the request probably knew this. The vehement demand for open display is the new element here that the store must grapple with. (I don't see the fans of sports illustrated getting their jockeys in a wad about censorship.)

If I were the store, I'd evaluate whether the upset is coming from outside parties or paying customers and whether the media attention is doing the store as much good as it is doing for the magazine.

Iow, whither the Frau opinion goest? It looks like the married straight women, not just the lgbt ppl, are now on the side of open display, but I'm not there. They seem to be responding adequately.

My aunt's argument against gay marriage used to be financial, btw. She did not want straight ppl getting married just to get benefits. Seriously. Think of it in terms of a polygamist who marries an entire town to get it health insurance.

I say this line of reasoning exposes the desire to angrily deny single people who fall through the cracks health insurance as a bizarre fetish at core. Her real reasoning was, of course, that she didn't want gay marriage, which became highly distorted once it moved to the money level.

Anglelyne said...

SGT Ted: I haven't seen one argument against gay union that wasn't based on "Ick!" emotionalism at it's core.

That doesn't surprise me. Probably explains why you think "but my gay cousin is a wonderful person" is a persuasive argument for gay marriage.

Shouting Thomas said...

How does stupid shit like this warrant over a hundred comments?

It's my day off, or at least my half day off.

And, I'm sitting in the car repair shop waiting for my truck to be serviced.

Just passing the time.

Shouting Thomas said...

Pet Boys has free wifi!

Renee said...

I'm assuming the store doesnt carry Cosmo or any Bride Magazines.

The wedding industry doesn't care about marriage, no matter the formation.

SOJO said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SOJO said...

In case it was not clear, she did not want straight ppl faking a gay marriage to get benefits, because, you know, fuck old single people.

jacksonjay said...


Pet Boys?

All this gay talk is getting to Shouting Thomas!

Renee said...

Remember Pope Francis and the Catholic Church want to expand government recognition to non-sexual relationships. If marriagepublic policy has no interest in procreation and the prevention of baby mamas, why should it matter based on sexual activity between two people. Sex becomes irrelevant to point of the legal status.

rhhardin said...

is that marriage is a word with a definition that restricts it to one man and one woman.

It's a definition that comes from an interest that created the word.

Gays want to free ride on that. The effect is to kill the word, and make the interest inexpressible.

It's the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar.

Althouse wants to say it's prescriptive and so is arbitrary.

But it's descriptive.

Descriptive of what? The constellation of relations between men and women, including failure of those relations.

Not between gays. I'm sure they have interesting modes of interaction too. Comedies are full of them.

But marriage doesn't cover them.

SGT Ted said...

I think it will be a few generations down the line before we see the reduction of the ghettoized promiscuous gay subculture, due to assimilation of gay people as ordinary within majority society.

Straight male society still has it's sex ghetto's confined to prostitution and strip/sex clubs, so it won't completely disappear.

But, that assimilation is already happening, as noted in the article discussed here about how the gay neighborhood of West Hollywood is attracting in the heteros.

jacksonjay said...


What caused all those ancient Greeks to act out? I don't think they were shunned or shamed into their hedonistic behaviors! Maybe I'm wrong!

Shouting Thomas said...

Hey, that is pretty funny!

It's actually Pep Guys!

I'm pretty liberal, so I go to the gay car repair shop.

Renee said...

with low marriage rates over all, shouldn't an uptick in any marriage be good for business. the rates of marriage are extremely low for minorities, but no one cares if they get married. Why?

Is it bad for business when black people marry? There are a few economic/social barriers affecting the poor from marryng.

Where are the liberals who use to care?

Why do liberals wait until black men are in jail or murdered to care about them?

Pogo is Dead said...

"I think it will be a few generations down the line before we see the reduction of the ghettoized promiscuous gay subculture"

That's a bullshit response, which allows one never to demand improvement as proof.

You asserted it would help reduce promiscuity, then add that that will take over a century to see.

In comparison, it only took a few years to see the effect on marriage once welfare and food stamps were introduced.

Lyssa said...

Ignorance is Bliss said: What kind of marriage definition would benefit this society?

One that would do the most to encourage the raising of children by both biological parents.


I would absolutely agree that this is priority number one, in terms of benefits to society. But, I'm yet to see any reason that SSM is anything less than neutral on it. Gay people are not going to get into/stay in heterosexual marriages with children if gay marriage is not available. Heterosexual couples are not going to change their decisions about whether to stay together based on whether or not gay marriage is available. At the margins, gay marriage may help keep a small number of gay couples raising children in a stable relationship, which I'm not sure is the ideal parenting situation, but is almost certainly better than the unstable situations that are almost certainly the alternative.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that decoupling marriage from childrearing has its problems, but the fact is, that ship sailed long before gay marriage began getting serious discussion. Straight people have that cross to bear; gays didn't and won't change it.

Henry said...

Do you have examples of societies that had significantly different marriage and child rearing structures that did as well as those which had our traditional structures?

All of them? Too broad? How about Orderville, Utah?

Simply put, I'm challenging what you mean by our "traditional structures." Go back 50 years and the idea that men and women enter into marriage as equal partners is a minority view. Go back 100 or 150 years and child-rearing is utterly different. Go back to Reformation England or Renaissance Italy and you're in an utterly foreign culture -- based on the norms of suburban United States circa 1979.

Pogo is Dead said...

Heterosexual couples may in fact change their decisions about whether to stay together based on whether or not gay marriage is available.

At the margins, hetero males may see the further devaluation of the institution and say 'fuck it', much as marriage no longer offers any added value to straight men.

n.n said...

SOJO:

Christianity is founded with an understanding and directive for evolutionary fitness. Read the Torah to learn the charter, understand the principles, and appreciate the historical evidence for consequences of deviance. There is also a post-mortem clause, but it stands apart from mortal existence. They are not only separable, but exclusive, for those who do not share the philosopher's faith.

Lyssa said...

Pogo said: At the margins, hetero males may see the further devaluation of the institution and say 'fuck it', much as marriage no longer offers any added value to straight men.

Obviously, at the margins, just about anything can happen. Marginal people may make marginal (and absurd) decisions about all sorts of things. But how does marriage offer less to straight men (or anyone) when gay marriage is allowed than when it is not?

EMD said...

"waiting for my truck to be serviced."

Enough with the euphemisms, ST.

n.n said...

Henry:

That's right. Principles matter. The value of philosophies, as well as traditions, should be judged on their own merits. The objective basis for the traditional (i.e. Judeo-Christian) marriage institution is that it is the first level of social organization engendered by the natural order.

Shouting Thomas said...

"waiting for my truck to be serviced."

Enough with the euphemisms, ST.


That is just too funny!

Shouting Thomas said...

And, it is a pickup truck!

Great tune by an old (late) friend from Chicago, the incomparable A.C. Reed.

Pogo is Dead said...

"Obviously, at the margins, just about anything can happen."
The course of society is decided at the margins. Not by' marginal people'; the word "marginal" means "additional," referring to a small change.

The unintended consequences of social and economic policies occur at these margins.

"But how does marriage offer less to straight men (or anyone) when gay marriage is allowed than when it is not?"

Straight marriage has already been devalued. Gay marriage devalues it further. Simple.

Matthew Sablan said...

How much of this problem would go away if we did away with the state sanctioned marriage entirely, and rolled tax benefits to individuals across the board so that the single lifestyle wasn't penalized by the state?

Anglelyne said...

Henry: I would definitely place marriage in the category of "society", as opposed to that of "biological realities and the inherent human nature"...

"Definitely place", eh? Always entertaining to see absurdities - that the (actually rather limited) variety of forms that marriage takes in human societies aren't based on "biological realities" - so confidently asserted.

...(one reality being that not all people have the same inherent human nature).

My goodness, have we a "race realist" in our midst?

History shows us that marriage and child rearing are far more mutable constructs than these 21st century arguments seem to presuppose.

History shows us that quite a few of the our preferred "constructs" are "mutable", not to say downright anomalous. You know, things like "property rights" and "due process" or "slavery isn't allowed here". Funny how cultural relativist brows are furrowed only about certain kinds of "constructs", and never others.

I'm pretty sure that the 21st century presupposers of whom you speak are in general are at least as well-informed about the varieties of marriage forms and child-rearing practices among humans, as glib 21st century un-supposers, who think a mere wave of the relativist wand demonstrates the equal desirability of any of the "mutations", no thinking-through-the-consequences required.

Michael K said...

"The strongest argument for same-sex marriage is that it's not fair to exclude gay people from the tax advantages and other financial advantages available to a heterosexual who can enter into the legal relationship of marriage with the person he or she feels sexually attracted to."

No, that is the best argument for civil unions. The marriage thing is about shoving their lifestyle down the throats of believing Christians.

I don't really care but a good civil union law would have solved the serious problem but not the opportunity to make the religious eat shit.

I skipped the rest of the comments. Not interested.

Pogo is Dead said...

It already happened in the black community in the 1960s due to welfare, as documented by Democrat Pat Moynihan.

Todd said...

Shouting Thomas said...
Pet Boys has free wifi!


What are you using to browse and post with? Laptop, iPad, other? Just asking...

Shouting Thomas said...

@Todd

iPad, with a Logitech keyboard/case.

Can't stand that virtual keyboard.

Lyssa said...

Pogo said: "But how does marriage offer less to straight men (or anyone) when gay marriage is allowed than when it is not?"

Straight marriage has already been devalued. Gay marriage devalues it further. Simple.


No, not simple. What specific value is removed or reduced as a result of gay marriage? My state currently does not have SSM; if that changes, what specifically does my husband (or me, or anyone in a current or future straight marriage) lose?

(I fully agree that straight marriage has been devalued and that that is a severe loss to our culture. We as a society need to do what we can to fix that (and I'm all for good ideas!), but there's no evidence whatsoever that gay marriage has anything to do with that loss or will make it worse.)

(And yes, the inner city (and deep rural) situations with welfare are horrible. Changes need to be made. But they're not horrible because of gay marriage.)

Shouting Thomas said...

@Lyssa

The negative consequences are unknown and unpredictable. By definition. You're asking for the impossible.

As I understand it, nobody has suggested that gay marriage is responsible for the devaluation of family in the black community. They are arguing that nobody foresaw the negative consequences that welfare would have on black families.

The one negative unintended consequence of gay marriage that is already apparent is an all out attack on freedom of association and the right of religious institutions to own their own theology and buildings.

Pogo is Dead said...

I pointed out the reduced black marriage because it showed how the addition of a few government dollars massively devalued marriage among US blacks, first at the margin, and then marching ever inward, marginally.

"What specific value is removed or reduced as a result of gay marriage"
So the same thing is happening to straight marriage, first by the general decay of society, and now hastened by gay marriage.

The specific value was its uniqueness, the role it offered married men, the esteem of being an adult raising a family.

Now marriage doesn't mean much, if anything, to the larger society, except for women to discuss and fret about the ceremony.

Nothing remains for the straight guy.

I turn the question on you. If you cannot name a specific value to straight men offered by marriage, maybe you shouldn't be assuming that your changes will be benign.

Todd said...

Shouting Thomas said...
@Todd

iPad, with a Logitech keyboard/case.

Can't stand that virtual keyboard.


I have a Belkin iPad case with built in wireless keyboard. Find it quite good for meeting notes and such. I agree on the virtual keyboard, better than none at all but that is faint praise.

damikesc said...

No, not simple. What specific value is removed or reduced as a result of gay marriage? My state currently does not have SSM; if that changes, what specifically does my husband (or me, or anyone in a current or future straight marriage) lose?

As Thomas said, we've had plenty of experience with "unintended consequences".

Did the Sexual Revolution end up working out for the best? Did the Great Society work out for the best? Has Obamacare worked out for the best?

How many policies that are passed with an "urgent" need to do so immediately end up actually being good policy.

And people can argue against slippery slope logic in re this topic --- but this, legally, will directly lead to other, far worse, things.

Will polygamy make marriage better or worse? It will be legalized because every argument for gay marriage covers it as well quite well.

At a certain point, it's time to ignore the superficial "It won't hurt me" beliefs and actually examine things in some depth, including negative repurcussions of going along with the policy.

It's not that popular (polls show support, but it is notoriously unsuccessful at the polls). States are ignoring any type of legitimate disagreement with the policy and forcing people to do business with groups they wish to not do so.

We're seeing a shift from tolerance to a demand for acceptance, which no group has any right to actually demand.

Renee said...

@Lyssa

We're old and married.

For those under 30, they have severed marriage from children. Long term effects of fatherless for the kids. It is like we just pushed the concerns of teen pregnancy into the 20s.

More then half of all children born to women in their 20s are not married. What stablility will these children have?


Yeah, it sounds cold to say marriage is all about children. Children are a natural outcome from heterosexual behavior. We can't force couples t marry and love another, but it isn't a private matter either. Children have rights and needs, thet are not joint property. The government should protect their emotional needs to have and promite a relationship with both biological patents.

For consistently, gay adults have a mom and dad too. Just to be made clear.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Henry said...

How about Orderville, Utah?

Are you talking about the period during which they had a communal society? That only lasted 10 years, so is absurd to make any comparison, for or against, with the rest of our society. We need to be looking at multi-generational time scales.

As for your other examples, they are all based around two biological parents raising their own kids. The dead give-away that same-sex marriage is a significant change is that it is that it requires a change in the definition of marriage.

Renee said...

If marriage can't/doesn't protect childrens needs and rights, then what laws should be made to fo so.

Being a dad, is more then child support.

Lyssa said...

Shouting T said: The negative consequences are unknown and unpredictable.

I get that, but the fact is, the negative consequences of just about anything are unknown and unpredictable. We're not putting the genie back in the bottle as far as pushing gay couples back underground, obviously. It's just not going to happen (and there were a lot of negative consequences to that, too).

The negative consequences of continuing as we were from the sexual revolution until the gay marriage movement were unpredictable and unknown - what are the negative consequences of continuing to have gays couples as a second class? - unknown and unpredictable. What are the negative consequences to children being raised by gay parents without marriage - unknown, and unpredictable. (But, again, not about to go away.)

All we can do is look at the evidence and see what is most likely to happen. And we do have a start - states that have had gay marriage for several years don't seem to have problems with it. Right now, all of the evidence points to the fact that allowing gay marriage is a positive for people who want to be gay married, and, at worst, neutral for everyone else. We can't promise the future, but we should look at the evidence and make a rational decision about is best.

And I totally agree with you about the freedom of association issue - but that's an issue of PC culture and liberal fascism, more than gay marriage itself. Fight the fascists, not the gays.

Matthew Sablan said...

"If you cannot name a specific value to straight men offered by marriage, maybe you shouldn't be assuming that your changes will be benign."

-- Marrying the woman you love should count.

Renee said...

@Ignorance is Bliss,

The change occured with sperm donation, and assumption of legal paternity of non bio dad if married to mom.

Renee said...

@Lyssa

In Massachusetts we have a problem.


We have a huge income inequality gap, and concentrated poverty. The averages look oh so nice, but a zip code over.... it is like night and day.

Lyssa said...

Pogo: I turn the question on you. If you cannot name a specific value to straight men offered by marriage, maybe you shouldn't be assuming that your changes will be benign..

I'd love to ask my husband this later, but right now, here's what I can think of: Commitment, expressing and publicly stating your love for the other person, the adult role of raising children that you mentioned, approaching life as a team (in terms of finances, emotions, careers, childrearing, household, etc.), a whole host of legal protections, societal recognition of your bond as a significant and permanent one, the concept of being a family, and a number of others.

If those aren't good enough for you, and you decide not to get married, great for you. But it's just silly to say that there's no benefit.

Pogo is Dead said...

"Marrying the woman you love should count."

Why should it?

Matthew Sablan said...

Pogo: Because it is a benefit available to straight males offered by marriage. You said to name one; if I found a woman I loved enough to want to ask her to marry me, I think it would make me happy to marry her.

Matthew Sablan said...

Lyssa has more practical reasons than my "it would give you warm fuzzies."

Jane the Actuary said...

Blah, blah, blah.

How about we question the claim that gay marriage will provide an economic boom?

The original claims were for the "trailblazer" states which expected a mass influx of tourism from other states. Now that this is no longer the case, we're reading claims of prosperity solely due gay and lesbian couples spending big bucks on weddings and receptions. As if this money will materialize from nowhere for their use, instead of couples spending less on other goodies to fund their wedding.

Lyssa said...

Renee said: We can't force couples t marry and love another, but it isn't a private matter either. Children have rights and needs, thet are not joint property. The government should protect their emotional needs to have and promite a relationship with both biological patents. . . If marriage can't/doesn't protect childrens needs and rights, then what laws should be made to fo so.

Being a dad, is more then child support.


Oh, I completely agree with you. I just haven't seen anything that connects that to gay marriage. We need to focus on the problem; gay marriage is a red herring.

Pogo is Dead said...

"But it's just silly to say that there's no benefit."

Not "no benefit", insufficient added benefit compared to not marrying at all, but shacking up until he don't feel like it no more.

At the margins, the utility of marriage has diminished considerably.

Gay marriage took one more societal benefit away (exclusivity and recognition of the straight male role in remaining a present father).

Your discounting that doesn't reduce its real impact.

Pogo is Dead said...

"I think it would make me happy to marry her."

Then you're a fool.
Marriage isn't about your personal happiness.

It can be, but it might not. usually isn't, not the way most people use the term.
It's primarily a vehicle for raising children.
Your happiness is immaterial.

Pogo is Dead said...

"gay marriage is a red herring. "

No, it's a white flag.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Renee said...
@Ignorance is Bliss,

The change occured with sperm donation, and assumption of legal paternity of non bio dad if married to mom.

Yes, but this probably has no effect on incentives, because just about no couples go into marriage expecting to be unable to get pregnant on their own.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Your happiness is immaterial."

-- You asked for ONE benefit. I gave you the warmest, fuzziest of them.

damikesc said...

Matthew, speaking as a happily married man, the reality is that there are no real benefits for a man in marriage.

If it goes bad, he will lose half of the belongings. He has virtually n shot at custody of his kids. He will have to pay child support...even if the kid is not his kid. Husbands and dads are portrayed as barely literate morons in the culture.

I'm married in spite of knowing this, but I'm not about to claim marriage benefits straight men to any appreciable degree.

Pogo is Dead said...

It's fuzzy because it isn't real, at least not real enough to supersede the arguments against straight males getting married.

Pogo is Dead said...

And all the things Lyssa and Matthew discuss can be had without marrying.

Bob Ellison said...

This is not rocket science or brain surgery.

People should be allowed to do what they want.

People who hurt other people should be constrained.

People who hate other people should be allowed to do so.

Renee said...

I have to agree witb Pogo is dead, it is a white flag.

Lyssa, we can't have it both ways and as a matter of public policy define it and treat it the same way.

It isn't because I hate anyone or wish them unhappiness, marriage was a matter of public policy is about obligation.he An obligation to children, I can not even state that as a personal religious belief without 85% of the people I know think Im some stupid bigot, instead of a difference of opinion.


I'm not going to lie and say there is no differnce, even if the law says the government at this point must in it's public policy.

The truth is there, and now the law isnt about truth of difference in behavior. The law is a tool to shame those who openly disagree with it.

Matthew Sablan said...

You can get married without getting married?

Renee said...

@ Ignorance is Bliss,

Unless you are a same sex couple.

gayivf.com

Popular in Massachusetts

Pogo is Dead said...

Ask all the 60s airheads.
Who needs a piece of paper?

Sometimes it's called cohabitation.

And some people sometimes aim to 'get married' for decades.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Lyssa said...

What specific value is removed or reduced as a result of gay marriage? My state currently does not have SSM; if that changes, what specifically does my husband (or me, or anyone in a current or future straight marriage) lose?

You and your husband would lose nothing, except an amount of prestige in portions of society that you probably rarely come across. It will effect the people at the margins who are on the fence about whether or not to get married. The more society recognizes options other than married raising our own children as equal, the fewer people will choose that option.

Anglelyne said...

Henry: Simply put, I'm challenging what you mean by our "traditional structures."

Oooh, he's challenging. Prepare to have your mind blown by Henry's scarifying revelations from Anthro 101.

I dunno, Henry. I have a pretty firm idea of what a phrase like "our traditional structures" means. But, then again, though I was, as a matter of fact, born and raised in an actual American suburb, I didn't have the misfortune of being abandoned in the "American suburb" of lore and legend, to be raised by wolves (or maybe zombies), arriving at adulthood walking on all fours, bereft of any knowledge of a cultural tradition. YMMV.

Go back 50 years and the idea that men and women enter into marriage as equal partners is a minority view.

Relative to some contemporary ideas of "equal partners", perhaps. Relative to longer historical, or world, standards? No.

Let me help you out here with your own argument. You'd be better off trying to build the case that acceptance of "gay marriage" is a natural result, logically arising from our fundamental ideas about the relation between spouses, developing over the centuries in our culture. I don't believe that, but it would make a lot more sense than the mess you're trying to build on here, which is that any change over time indicates the complete absence of any coherent, understandable, logically developing cultural tradition, nothing but totally arbitrary fashions in marriage and family relations, essentially people just making shit up one century after another, so anything goes.

Go back 100 or 150 years and child-rearing is utterly different.

Uh, no. I have family letters that go back at least that far and the way I raised my own children was pretty much on par with what my great-grandmother, and my husband's great-great-great grandmother, record. Ah, but I forget. "Some differences" means "utterly different". You're right, Henry. Those family documents? What the hell were those old ladies going on about? May as well have been ancient Aztec peasants, for all the sense they made to me.

Go back to Reformation England or Renaissance Italy and you're in an utterly foreign culture -- based on the norms of suburban United States circa 1979.

No, if I went back to Heian Japan I'd be in a seriously foreign culture, but there would be points of understanding. For "utterly foreign" I'd have to hit, say, the Congo 1,000 years ago.

"Utterly foreign". Lol. There would be a great deal that was familiar and explicable to me in Reformation England and Renaissance Italy - like, family structures based on monogamous marriages and patrilineal descent, religious references in art, architecture, and popular culture that I could decipher without much difficulty at all, etc. (I'll pause for a minute here so you can inform us that rich dudes had mistresses and bastards and stuff so....UTTERLY DIFFERENT!!!!!!)

Cultures don't spring out of nowhere, Henry, not even U.S. suburbs c. 1979.

Krumhorn said...

I'd love to ask my husband this later, but right now, here's what I can think of: Commitment, expressing and publicly stating your love for the other person, the adult role of raising children that you mentioned, approaching life as a team (in terms of finances, emotions, careers, childrearing, household, etc.), a whole host of legal protections, societal recognition of your bond as a significant and permanent one, the concept of being a family, and a number of others.

I mean no disrespect, but that's the lady's view. That's not how men see it...well, the beta males do, but they don't count. The harsh reality is that marriage, as an institution, tamed men. And society began to flourish as a result. And, as a general statement, women were vastly better off in almost every measurable way.

Over historical passages of time, societies have found ways to nurture and validate those family structures. In the span of 50 short years, we seem to be doing our very best to destroy that which made us better and stronger. The evidence of that cannot be denied.

No good can come of this although I agree with you that, in the short run, there is no turning back.

- Krumhorn

Humperdink said...

Freder Frederson said:

"A man whose picture features him standing in front of a classic Corvette doesn't promote his heterosexuality. I find that hard to believe."

This is so stupid on several fronts.

1) GM will be disappointed to learn gays do not procure Corvettes.

2) Your hero, Hussein Obama, was running the aforementioned GM and continued to permit them too produce an apparent gay "unfriendly" car.

3) Your a flaming bigot by inferring only heteros drive muscle cars.

Tell me, oh wise one, what cars do gays drive? Inquiring minds want to know.

How about bicycles? Gays ride mountain bikes? Or only street bikes?

Anglelyne said...

Lyssa: "gay marriage is a red herring. "

Pogo is Dead: No, it's a white flag.

Beautiful, Pogue.

Best retort yet to the "but straights have already debased marriage!" line.

Titus said...

"Seeing is believing, Freder: link".

You take a lovely pick undermployed. Love the du.

Henry said...

Ignorance is Bliss wrote, "Are you talking about the period during which they had a communal society? That only lasted 10 years, so is absurd to make any comparison, for or against, with the rest of our society."

I was using Orderville Utah as a reference point for the broader fact of 19th century Mormon culture. It's a culture worth thinking about for this discussion -- a group of Yankee and Northern European protestants who created a hugely successful pioneer culture that fully incorporated polygamy into its fabric.

Given that culture, I find n.n.'s invocation of "traditional (i.e. Judeo-Christian) marriage ... [as] the first level of social organization engendered by the natural order" rather humorous. Leah AND Rachel? That Judeo model of the marriage institution?

Sex is a biological imperative. Shacking up, of some kind or another, can probably be considered a biological imperative. Marriage, in the context of this argument, is a legal and cultural institution that is rather hopelessly modern.

Titus said...

It's really all about the gay men in this place.

The lezzies=laissez faire.

Titus said...

I am more surprised that a crappy city, with a crappy paper, has it's own mag.

Does it think it's the Globe or Times?

Bob Ellison said...

On the other hand, that's kind of an exciting argument.

Titus said...

"The electorate spoke. 30 straight referendum defeats"

The electorate has changed drastically since these votes...in case you haven't read. Even a majority of college pubes aprrove fag marriage....and republicans who find out they have a fag kid too...

Titus said...

The population of those 30 states that banned fag marriage is less than the population of the states that have gay marriage.

Pogo is Dead said...

Thx, Anglelyne

rhhardin said...

Yeah, it sounds cold to say marriage is all about children.

There's a phenomenological validation.

A guy (can't speak for the woman's point of view) having sex with his lady achieves orgasm on his own. It seems like it would be a team effort but it's a solo experience. Which is why it seems overrated at the time.

Unless.

The lack of knowledge coming out of what seemed going in to offer knowledge, is an uncertainty that has been moved into the future, namely a child.

Marriage captures that movement.

Sex isn't just jerking off inside each other any longer.

The banal argument about heterosexual coupling producing children tries to get to that but doesn't see how to.

It's a poetic thing that can be experienced.

rhhardin said...

The Catholic prohibition of birth control tries to get to that as a poetic truth.

When is sex moral.

When that future is a possibility.

That's an experience you can have.

Think of it the next time you have a lady under you.

n.n said...

Henry:

You should be careful to separate religion from accompanying historical evidence used to support its validity. Those religious books predominantly offer historical testimony to the consequences of immoral behavior.

Shouting Thomas said...

@Titus

It is pointless to tell you this, I know, but disagreeing with your political views does not equate to hating an entire class of people.

Do you really think that there is anybody out there in any political faction who is not aware that one of their kids might well be gay?

Hard to believe that you are deceiving yourself in that way.

People are much more sophisticated than you think, and it appears most people are more sophisticated than you.

Pogo is Dead said...

Titus is gaysplaining.

harrogate said...

"Speaking as a happily married man, the reality is that there are no real benefits for a man in marriage."

Don't married men live longer and remain healthier, longer, than their single counterparts?

Titus said...

happy pi da whores.

Renee said...

rhhardin,

Law cant legislate emotions, just obligations.

ALP said...

How are marriages related to SS couples, a small minority of total marriages, "big business"? Given the number of marriages in comparison to hetero unions, methinks this cover is trying toooooo hard.

That's where the irritation with the media's love affair with SSM comes from. We are all sick of stories inspired by looking under every single rock for an issue to write about...anything...and reporting on the tiniest of slights and issues on the path to matrimony, as if not getting a cake from the place you want to is a civil rights violation on par with not being able to vote.

SGT Ted said...

You asserted it would help reduce promiscuity, then add that that will take over a century to see.

No, more like 10-30 years. I tend to measure them in 10 year increments as far as social effects, based what I have seen in my own lifetime as to how society treats gay people has changed.

When I was in my teens and twenties in a small town, adults didn't not accept openly gay people in public life. I had friends who were gay whose parents disowned them when they came out.

Now, no one much cares who is a homo and the battle has indeed shifted to one where the radical gay left is openly intolerant of religious Christian expression and dissent, which of par for the course with leftist movements. Which is why I oppose their Stalinism when they try their "homophobe" bullshit.

And yes, Anglelyne, I do mention my gay cousins and friends, because they are good people that happen to be gay and when it comes right down to it, I'll pick my family and good friends over your Church and your Government and tell you both to go fuck yourselves.

If am in error, I'll err on the side of Individual Liberty.

SGT Ted said...

Tell me, oh wise one, what cars do gays drive?

Passat's and Cabrioles?

SGT Ted said...

Or maybe Volvo's.

Skeptical Voter said...

Ah the progressive argument evolves. It used to be that opponents of same sex marriage on the ground that marriage involves a man an a woman were either stupid, immoral or evil.

Now they're just "boring".

I'm impressed with the power of your argument. Not.

MadisonMa'am said...

Ah, now that's the SGT Ted. I like!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 226   Newer› Newest»