"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde		 Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Preserving the sanctity of "opposite marriage"
Posted by Jill | 6:05 AM
The guy who does my hair has been with his partner for over 30 years. They not only live together, but they also work together. I've been fortunate to watching these guys take care of each other since 1986, and that's just a fraction of the time they've been together.

If these guys are a threat to traditional marriage, it's only because a good portion of their clientele has become widowed during the decades they've been going to this salon. Of course their median customer age hovers around 78 at this point and one customer was widowed at the young age of 91 (and she's still coming to the salon every week at 94), but I'm sure there's a wingnut somewhere who would say, "See? They ARE a threat!"

Meanwhile, one of wingnuttia's foremost advocates of the sanctity of "opposite marriage", as that champion of monogamy, Carrie Prejean would say, has just ditched his SECOND wife, according to "family spokesperson" Dana Perino.

First of all, who the hell in private life has a "family spokesperson"? And what a comedown for Dana Perino, unless she's already the third Mrs. Rove by injection, which is kind of difficult to imagine, given the rumors that surrounded Mr. Rove and the ferocious attempts to keep secret prostitute/fake reporter's hundreds of visits to the White House during the Rove years.

At any rate, I eagerly await the explanation of how getting a quickie Texas divorce when you "plan to spend time together in the future" is consistent with the sanctity of one man, one woman marriage.

Labels: , ,

11 comments
Bookmark and Share
11 Comments:
Blogger Serr8d said...
Setting Karl Rove and his wife's divorce up as a reason to allow gay marriages? Why, because if gays married, they would never divorce?

Marriage between a man and a woman can bear fruit (children). Such a thing is natural and moral. Karl Rove does not have kids under the age of 20, so he and his wife completed their responsibilities. The kid is raised, flown the coop. Their work is done.

For a couple guys (whom you would allow to marry), what is the reason for marriage? There can be no issue; no biological consummation bearing children. Just because they've confused poop chutes with vaginas doesn't mean they've earned the right to marry. Man and Woman: natural. Man and Man: not natural. Parts weren't designed to work with each other that way.

Call it something else, these long-lasting joinings. Civil Union comes to mind; give 'em the legal papers, but never will two same-sexers ever experience (nor do they deserve) a proper, real 'marriage'. They are not biologically 'fit' for it.

And it stinks.
12/30/09, 7:36 AM  
Blogger Jill said...
Mr. B. and I have been married for 23 years and have no children. It was our choice. And yet no one has ever tried to "un-marry" us on the grounds that we did not have children. As to whether we "potentially" could have, well, not with scrupulous contraception. Of course, after they get abortino out of the way, the next bastion the Christofascist Zombie Brigade is going after is contraception. Just to enforce mandatory reproduction.
12/30/09, 9:02 AM  
Blogger Ryan said...
Allow me to break it down for you "Serr8d":

Marriage between a man and a woman can bear fruit (children)

What about for those marriages that don't "bare" fruit? What if one of the people in the relationship is sterile? If you are using the ability to have kids naturally as a prerequisite of marriage, then there are going to be some awfully pissed off people.

Such a thing is natural and moral.

There is nothing immoral about 2 consenting adults being in love with one another. So please take your biblical (and moral) subjectivity and jump off a bridge, thanks.

For a couple guys (whom you would allow to marry), what is the reason for marriage? There can be no issue

For someone who isn't gay, you seem to think you know a lot about them. The reason? There are over 1500 rights and priviledges that a Federal Marriage has over Civil Unions as they are written... from Hospital Visitation rights, Adoption rights to Tax benefits. There's the issue for you.

no biological consummation bearing children

Orly? I suppose my 2 gay friends who have a 16 month old child didn't have it biologically? Ever heard of Surrogacy before? Ever heard of Artificial Insemination?

Just because they've confused poop chutes with vaginas doesn't mean they've earned the right to marry.

The perennial retarded argument. It ALWAYS boils down to "The Act" and some sort of confusion on the part of the 2 men who are in love with each other. You do realize that there are a lot of gay men that don't have anal because they just don't like it. Once again, showing your ignorance yet you seem to think you know.

Man and Man: not natural.

Look to the animal kingdom and tell me it's not natural.

but never will two same-sexers ever experience (nor do they deserve) a proper, real 'marriage'.

Well it's a good thing it's not up to bigots, such as yourself. I know plenty of churches that will marry 2 same-sex partners, yet it's the Federal Government that won't recognize it.

Make all Unions, Civil Unions. Then allow the Churches to bless whatever unions they want with the "Marriage" tag. This way everyone wins. Except the bigoted idiots such as yourself, "Serr8d".
12/30/09, 3:14 PM  
Anonymous mandt said...
"given the rumors that surrounded Mr. Rove" ---Certain bar flies in Texas remember.....and, oh a certain hustler, fake porn marine named Jeff Gannon.
12/30/09, 3:32 PM  
Blogger Jill said...
=applause= Great comment, Ryan. Do stop by more often.
12/30/09, 3:54 PM  
Blogger Ryan said...
Thanks Jill. I lurk mostly between this one and DCap (I found DCap through this blog actually).

What I find patently hypocritical of the "Right" is that they want vastly less government in everything except the areas where they believe it's against their religion or so-called morality.

Then it's OMG PLZ GOV'MENT SAVE US FRUM T3H EBIL HOMOZ!

Or something to that effect.
12/30/09, 6:31 PM  
Blogger Serr8d said...
All reet, Ryan m'boy, I'll be yer huckleberry.

"What about for those marriages that don't "bare" fruit? ..."

Doesn't matter, Ryan. Kids aren't required of a marriage. What's required, and has been for centuries, is that a man be a man and a woman be a woman. Thus, a marriage.

"There is nothing immoral about 2 consenting adults being in love with one another. So please take your biblical (and moral) subjectivity and jump off a bridge, thanks."

Well, of course there is, son! What if people found themselves "in love" with their dog, or their sister, or their first cousin? Whilst you might find it OK to marry close kin or another man, I see that at a road what shouldn't be taken. Society has the right to say 'no' (and if you look at voting results, even in fruit-and-nut California, voters have said 'no' quite clearly.

Oh, and jump off a bridge? C'mon, child, I've jumped in plenty of rivers, lakes and canals from bridges. I'll bet you've never used a rope swing in your feeble life.

"For someone who isn't gay, you seem to think you know a lot about them. The reason? There are over 1500 rights and priviledges [sic} that a Federal Marriage has over Civil Unions as they are written... from Hospital Visitation rights, Adoption rights to Tax benefits. There's the issue for you."

So, change the 'Civil Union' clause to include whatever privileges you would like to have. Just keep your nassty handses off the word 'marriage'. Some things we just won't share (blood and marriage being two; for the health reasons of course).

"The perennial retarded argument. It ALWAYS boils down to "The Act" and some sort of confusion on the part of the 2 men who are in love with each other. You do realize that there are a lot of gay men that don't have anal because they just don't like it. Once again, showing your ignorance yet you seem to think you know."

I don't want to know. But I do, because I had a gay friend 30 years ago, a coworker in the '70's, and we became very good friends. We talked about his 'style'; he said to me once (and I'll never forget the look in his eyes) "I've never had sex with a woman before What's it like?" Well, I said, let's just get you hooked up to find out. Never happened, though. Couldn't pay a woman enough to get some of that.

He died of AIDS in 1987. Poor guy, I wonder if he ever found out?

"Orly? I suppose my 2 gay friends who have a 16 month old child didn't have it biologically? Ever heard of Surrogacy before? Ever heard of Artificial Insemination?"

See, that I would vote to disapprove. They are bringing a child into a non-natural environment. Poor kid has an immediate disposition to actually think the gay lifestyle is natural. Might as well be raised by wolves.

"Look to the animal kingdom and tell me it's not natural."

Yeah, I compare 'em to animals all the time. Seems some of 'em would screw a doorknob if they couldn't get anything else. Slaves to their libido; brought down by their own lusts. Sad, really.

"Well it's a good thing it's not up to bigots, such as yourself. I know plenty of churches that will marry 2 same-sex partners, yet it's the Federal Government that won't recognize it.

Make all Unions, Civil Unions. Then allow the Churches to bless whatever unions they want with the "Marriage" tag. This way everyone wins. Except the bigoted idiots such as yourself, "Serr8d"."

Well, you certainly have the hostility, we can see that. Just a natural-born leftard after all. Always looking to CHANGE what was a great nation to...your version of nirvana. Not going to happen, though; you realize that, right?

Or, better, do you spit or swallow?
12/30/09, 8:59 PM  
Blogger Jill said...
Serr8ed, you seem awfully interested in Ryan's sexual practices for someone who professes to be revolted by them. Can you please enlighten us as to why?

You know, I don't spend my time thinking about how my gay friends have sex. For that matter, I don't spend time thinking about how my straight friends have sex. Ryan brought up a very good point about "The Act" and how most anti-gay rhetoric comes down to that. What I wonder is why so much thought is giving to what other people do in bed. Can't you, like, write a novel or something instead? Get your mind off it?
12/31/09, 5:52 AM  
Blogger Serr8d said...
J1ll, Ryan didn't seem all that pleasant to me (jump off a bridge, bigot!) so, after I see him wishing me death (and your tacit approval of Ryan's wishing me death) how can my poor little digs at Ryan's lack of masculinity even ring a bell with you?

Oh, and I'm not interested in any thing pertaining to Ryan's olbergasms. It's no stinky on my dinky, after all. I do wish him well, and hope he doesn't fall in a trash compactor or anything horrible like that.

I'd like nothing more than to not be hearing the militant gays continuously demanding 'rights' that we can't give 'em. We keep voting and voting and voting NO, they keep trying to do end-arounds (no pun intended) in the courts with sympathetic liberal judges to invent their way to self-justification (so they can feel good about...themselves)...but, so far, no significant movement seems to be at hand.

I blame Anita Bryant. I she hadn't stirred 'em up in the '70's, their movements would still be in the closet.
12/31/09, 7:49 AM  
Blogger Ryan said...
Awesome, the bigot responded to me.

Doesn't matter, Ryan. Kids aren't required of a marriage.

Orly? You just stated the main reason for marriage was to BARE children (In your 1st post). Are you backtracking because it's convenient or is it something you do out of hand?

"What if people found themselves "in love" with their dog, or their sister, or their first cousin?"

Ah the slippery slope argument. One that's used time and time again and never ceases to make any sense whatsoever. Sex with Dogs is obvious non-consensual. The animal cannot consent. Sex with your sister (If that's your thing, have at it...) is consensual. You are just using your biblical morality as justification for your outlook... it's ok we forgive you.
And regarding California... Same-sex marriage failed by less than 5% of the vote... when less than 20 years ago it failed by a much greater margin. Give it 10 more years.

I'll bet you've never used a rope swing in your feeble life.

Yet another assumption and subsequent attack on my masculinity. I guarantee that if you met me on the street, you wouldn't think whatsoever that I was an EBIL HOMOZ but that's fine, whatever makes you sleep at night bigot.

"I've never had sex with a woman before What's it like?" Well, I said, let's just get you hooked up to find out. Never happened, though.

For one, I'm going to assume you use this "Story" as a basis for your worldthink. I doubt you even had a gay friend. This is akin to saying "I'm not racist, I have plenty of black friends". The way you talk about your supposed friend in your anecdote makes me think, if he was your friend, you didn't think very highly of him. And by the way.. I've had sex with a woman... twice... didn't care for it.

He died of AIDS in 1987. Poor guy, I wonder if he ever found out?

He played Russian Roulette and paid the ultimate price. That was the sexual revolution for gays... it's Darwinism. You have sex with random people, you will catch something and probably pay the consequences for those actions. See you bigots like that think those times are still around and gay people are still having random sex with random people... well I suppose they are if they are a Republican Senator which rails against them.

See, that I would vote to disapprove. They are bringing a child into a non-natural environment. Poor kid has an immediate disposition to actually think the gay lifestyle is natural. Might as well be raised by wolves.

Well, it's a good thing we have Capitalism in this world and per capita gay people make more money than their straight counterparts so they can afford it.

Well, you certainly have the hostility, we can see that. Just a natural-born leftard after all. Always looking to CHANGE what was a great nation to...your version of nirvana. Not going to happen, though; you realize that, right?

So you assume that because I'm gay and because I support equal rights for all that I'm an Obama supporter? I'm sorry "Serr8d" I don't blindly follow my party like you Conservatards do. I am of my own mind.

If you had to place a political label on me, I'd say Liberal Libertarian.

Oh, and I'm not interested in any thing pertaining to Ryan's olbergasms. It's no stinky on my dinky, after all. I do wish him well, and hope he doesn't fall in a trash compactor or anything horrible like that.

I don't care how and what you wish on me. You are either with me or against me and I will do everything I can within my power to help my cause, just like you Conservatives do.

Like I said before, you guys are the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

Less Government, except when it clashes with your religion. And that's why Conservatism is slowly dying... no leadership, failed policies and plans.

Good luck with the fail there sparky.
12/31/09, 8:46 AM  
Blogger Serr8d said...
Toying with this "Liberal Libertarian" (read: Confuzzled Flaming Douchenozzle) is interesting, but there's better things to do on my day off. But this needs clarifying...

"Orly? You just stated the main reason for marriage was to BARE children (In your 1st post). Are you backtracking because it's convenient or is it something you do out of hand?"

Reading comprehension, much? I stated "Marriage between a man and a woman can bear fruit (children)." From Merriam-Webster, "bear" when used as a transitive verb, means "to give birth to". g00gle is your friend.

The way you say "BARE children" is worrisome. Are you really that strange Kevin ("Fister Twister") Jennings fellow I've been reading about? Seems like both you and he should be kept far, far away from kids.

Lastly, unless you find a way to reproduce (via spawn of spoor or cloning or whatever) your malfunctioning DNA will die with you. I've always wondered: what if the "Gay Gene" is a built-in control, a trigger that's come into play to keep our species from overpopulating? If so, then more power to you, and yours.

Again, I would like to see Civil Unions (the expanded version) become available to you. Just leave the word 'MARRIAGE' alone for use by us normal folk, m'kay?

And don't spawn yourselves. That genetic trigger, if that's what the obviously befouled gene is, was put there for a reason.

(tw: seessied. Seriously. )
12/31/09, 11:41 AM  
Post a Comment
<< Home