Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on June 15, 2012 at 12:06pm

The latest from the Vogon Poetry Generator:

Marvel at its big yeasty depths.
Tell me, Vogoness, do you
Wonder why the Almighty ignores you?
Why its foobly stare
makes you feel agitated?
I can tell you, it is
Worried by your Culture War Victory Fund
That looks like
A Maggie's labia.
What's more, it knows
Your Virgin Bride potting shed
Smells of Maggie's discharges.
Everything under the big profitable sky
Asks why, why do you even bother?
You only charm god's true soldiers.

Permalink Reply by David Philip Norris on June 15, 2012 at 12:34pm

Put that on a sampler and hang it over the fireplace.

I love the imagery of a "Virgin Bride potting shed." Is that where virgin brides go to pot their plants, or where Vogons go to pot virgin brides? I can totally see Maggie in her Virgin Bride Potting Shed at night, gleefully stuffing young women into terracotta containers to "prepare" them (somehow) for marriage...

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on June 15, 2012 at 1:04pm

Gotta brush up on needlepoint techniques now! 

Maggie is such a good example of the "Virgin Bride"....  here's her story about the conception of her first son (salon.com The making of gay marriage's top foe):

“My son’s father was my boyfriend at Yale,” is how she describes their relationship. But when she told him she was pregnant, right before spring break in 1982, he vanished on her. “I was in his room and he had to go do something, and I was going to fly out in a couple of hours, had to get to the airport. And the last thing he said to me was, ‘I’ll be back in 30 minutes.’ And then he wasn’t.”

Also this, from The Maggie herself, in her own words:  That was not really his fault, Gallagher says. Neither of them thought they should get married. Nobody did. “There was literally no one — not his mother, not my parents, not the counselor I talked to, none of my friends, nobody in that world,” she says, who suggested they get married. “And in fact I would say the concern was that we not get married” — that they avoid the mistake of marrying too young.

Permalink Reply by dr kellie on June 15, 2012 at 1:23pm

Marriage is a biological reality that reflects human nature?  Really?

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on June 15, 2012 at 1:27pm

Great catch!  Actually, I think marriage may well be an attempt to counteract human nature.  Human nature being more in the direction of seeking sexual variety and experimentation.

Permalink Reply by dr kellie on June 16, 2012 at 8:23am

I agree.  I need variety.

Permalink Reply by David Philip Norris on June 15, 2012 at 1:48pm

A biological reality reflecting the male relationship to a female and her slaves... to his rape victim... to his prisoner of war... to his concubines... to his multiple wives... to his dead brother's wife... and if we take Genesis, to his sister or (presumably) his mother...

Curious how this "biological reality" is always from the male perspective...

Permalink Reply by Tony Carroll on June 15, 2012 at 8:16pm

You know, my biggest concern in all this has never been who anyone marries. Upholding rights for all only enhances my rights. Kinda selfish of me to want a big tent with everyone equal. If you are truly concerned about "saving" marriage, please do something about the divorce rate. That, to me, is the elephant in the room these people don't want to talk about. When slightly over 60% of evangelical marriages end in divorce, every "point" you made against SSM could apply to divorced couples. Just to much to go into here. Hey Maggie, look at. I hope in not being to obtuse.

Permalink Reply by David Philip Norris on June 15, 2012 at 8:27pm

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on June 15, 2012 at 10:02pm

Tony, the biggest "defender of marriage" - for the sake of the children at that - makes no apologies about her decision not to marry the father of her first son.  She's a hypocrite as well as a bigot.

Permalink Reply by Geraldo Cienmarcos on June 23, 2012 at 11:53am

Is marriage equality true equality? Is respectable assimilation true liberation, these are questions that John Lauritsen, David Thorstad and others raise.

challenging non Gay Liberation priorities. (c. 1996)

from
Gay Liberation
by John Lauritsen
http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/GAYLIB.HTM

• For years now Gay Marriage has been touted as the Number One issue of the gay and lesbian (or GLBT) movement. However, many gay scholars and activists are opposed to it, or at least to the priority it has been given.  ... has written a spirited polemic against Gay Marriage, which was published in The Guide; to read it in HTML form click here; or, to read it in PDF form click here [excerpt below].

from "Balls & Chains" BY DAVID THORSTAD
"The center-staging of couples is the most misguided– and discriminatory– aspect of the marriage campaign."

http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/MARRIAGE.PDF

Despite a certain schadenfreude and amusement at the predicament of this pair, the embrace of marriage by many same-sexers, as well as liberals, and even most left-wing groups, raises questions about the way the gay agenda is set. It also shows that the gay movement has become just another conservative, conventional, accommodationist interest group that seeks special privileges for some at the expense of others. With so many sex radicals dead of AIDS or old age, it is perhaps not surprising that an assimilationist mentality has taken over."

Approval, not liberation The gay/lez movement long ago abandoned a vision of sexual freedom and liberation. Instead, the more respectable and well-off (and, generally, white) among us are being ushered into a “place at the [hetero] table,” urged to purge sex radicals, pederasts, and liberationists, join the military to kill Third World babies for Wall Street, clean up our image, and present gay liberation as no threat to the heterosexual dictatorship. Instead of fighting for freedom from state interference and repression, the movement seeks to strengthen state control over our lives, even going so far as to campaign for thought-crimes laws (a.k.a. “hate crimes legislation”), and ape one of the least successful hetero institutions. Despite the immense social infrastructure put in place to shore up hetero marriage (welfare, myriad tax breaks, social approval of uncontrolled breeding, family subsidies, family courts, newspaper sections devoted to couplings and bizarre wedding rituals, state-sponsored damage control following childrearing fuckups, and so on), half of marriages fail. ...

Apparently, it didn’t occur to the ACLU (or the Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and others who are pushing for marriage and special treatment for couples, or the Greens who uncritically support the ACLU’s suit) that health care ought to be a right of all citizens, regardless of their copulations and cohabitations. Yet virtually no gay/ lez groups agitate for a single-payer health system that would extend health care to all, regardless of who they fuck or live with. Instead of reaching out to singles, both gay and straight, gay groups seek to turn them into secondclass citizens, mere money pits for special privileges for state-approved couples. Rather than struggle for a better society for all, they advance piecemeal demands that in no way challenge the fundamental inequities of society, and that, if accepted, will actually multiply those inequities. This is not only shortsighted, it is shameful. Some say that the focus on couples is only a first step toward extending such benefits to all. But who decided that couples had more rights to health care than the singles who are expected to pay for it? Who decided that couples should be given priority? Who decided that some should have more rights and social benefits than others?

http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/MARRIAGE.PDF

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on June 24, 2012 at 10:32am

Geraldo,

That's an interesting point of view from the founder of a pederast organization, NAMBLA, which deserves to be reviled and shunned.

We're supposed to include pederasts as a legitimate part of equality?  Really?  Really?

When I was in the army I was killing 3rd world babies?  Really?

Those 2 lines make it hard to read the rest. 

Now that my blood pressure is up.....

Marriage is all about medical?  It is, some, but there is so much more.

Single people pay for health care of married people?

I know that not everyone wants a partner or spouse - fine.  It's also a challenge even finding such a partner, and the first time doesn't always work, or the 2nd tie, or the 3rd time.  It's a relationship that has challenges, responsibilities, compromises, and work, as well as the companionship, personal security, and at least at the outset, sex.  Maturity is needed. 

I'm fine with single-payer and when it comes up, I support it wholeheartedly.  If the authors want to promote that, fine - it is not incompatible with marriage.

The folks at NOM would love to publicize diatribes like that as representative of the "gay agenda".  In fact, they  probably do. 

I have no idea from that how marriage equality creates inequity for singles. 

Im certainly not going to support any movement that includes pederasts as worthy of supporting.  Pederasty is not to be conflated in any way with LGBT equality.    And anyone who summarizes military service as "baby killers" makes the rest of their argument worthless.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page