Daily blog by Dan Piraro, creator of the syndicated cartoon, "Bizarro." Comics, art, photos, thoughts, nouns, verbs, etc.
Please enjoy responsibly.
While I disagree with her views, what baffled me was that so many people just jumped on her and attacked her instead of acting calm and rational to discuss why they disagreed with her. When Perez Hilton called her a "stupid bitch", that indicated that he was not in the mood for a debate: he just wanted to demonize someone whose views he didn't agree with.
The gay and lesbian marriages in my family have lasted consistently longer than the straight ones. I'm just sayin'.
Now that is beautiful.How did he do that?
Bwuahaha. Luv it. Thank you for sharing.
Don't know if you're a fan of the tv-tube or not, but the Rachel Maddow show (on MSNBC, M-F at 9) had those guys (and gal) on for an interview the other day. Her show's worth a look for any die-hard liberal.
whose she..she's cute...
@ Josh...I think the violent reaction to her comments were indicative of the disdain many people have for bigotry. If she had said, "I believe marriage should be between two people of the same race," she would have endured even more criticism. To a growing number of people, bigotry for reasons of race or sexual orientation is equally reprehensible.@ Robert Finis...I watch Olberman and Matthews every night and sometimes Maddow, but I didn't see that guy on there. I like Rachel, but I'm newsed-out by the time her show comes on. :)
I hate getting involved in these debates when I know so little about the subject of gay marriage. I don't have any close friends or family that have acknowledged they are gay. Truthfully, at first I didn't believe gay marriage was a good idea. The reason; I thought it would be difficult to track family lines and history (parents and grand parents and so on). Also I was worried about tax increases due to government benefits being paid out to same sex couples claiming retroactive payments for marriages they felt were valid while living together (remember I live in Canada, a liberal socialist state). Anyway, those concerns are probably not very important. However, I'm just wondering if people in favour of gay marriage are also in favour of laws to keep laws in place to ban polygamy, consensual incest etc. As far as my view is now, I don't have an opinion. I really am disillusioned with marriage of any kind, having experienced a very difficult one. I wish it was as hard to get married as it is to get separated, or alternately, as easy to get legally separated as it is to be wed. Maybe it's time to redefine marriage as a legal agreement/contract between two consenting adults, regardless of gender and sexual orientation. (As you can tell, I'm such a romantic)
Piraro: Just because someone disagrees with gay marriage doesn't make them a bigot. Again, this is the folly of demonizing the other side that I've mentioned so often here.
@Piraro: Hah, I can see that happening. I don't usually get home until Chris is over, so it's only Keith and Rachel for me, but even then I've sometimes hadnenough before they're over.I love Chris Matthews, though- he's just insane enough to have occasional sparks of true insight.
@Karl..Views differ from person to person, but I always look for a "victim" before assigning something a crime. I'm not against any relationships between consenting adults where there is no victim. This includes polygamy,homosexual, etc. Incest is disgusting, but if they don't reproduce (creating a victim of bad genetics) what do I care?@ Josh...In my view opposing gay marriage is as bigoted as opposing interracial marriage or equal rights for blacks. Many have used religious beliefs to oppose racial equality, and while they may believe they are doing the right thing, it is bigotry nonetheless. Particularly to the person being denied basic rights. KKK members are protestant Christians, and believe themselves to be more devout and enlightened than the rest of us. Not all Christians are Klan members, of course, my only point is that religion is no excuse for abuse of human rights.
Piraro: Doesn't Barack Obama believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman? Does that make him a bigot?
@ Josh...I'm very disappointed in Obama's stance on gay marriage, as well as his refusal to prosecute war crimes of the former administration. I can't know for certain, but I suspect these are political decisions rather than indications of his beliefs. He would likely not have been elected had he stated he was in favor of same-sex marriage so he dumbed it down by supporting legal unions. His refusal to prosecute war criminals is in the interest of maintaining as good a work relationship as possible with the Republican Party and the CIA. I don't like either of these decisions, but I understand them. On the plus side, neither of these issues are up to him alone. Criminals can be prosecuted and equality can be achieved through the courts without his help. I hope that's what he's counting on, I certainly am.
Piraro: I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. You're displaying a double standard here; giving Obama a free pass for taking a stance on an issue that you attack people on the other side for having, and then coming up with rationalizations to justify it.Obama said, and I quote, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." That was not "dumbing down" or "catering to the right", that was him stating his beliefs, the same beliefs you criticized Carrie Prejean for having. Please stop using these unfair double standards. It's hypocritical and wrong.
"I'm not against any relationships between consenting adults where there is no victim."Okay, Piraro. Why restrict marriage to just two consenting adults then? Are people who want to define marriage as a monogamous relationship "imposing their morality" on polygamists? How about cousins? If they're two consenting adults, why should their (non-existent) constitutional right to marry whoever they love be denied? Suppose a father wants to marry his nineteen year old step-daughter (similar to Woody Allen); how about a father who wants to marry his biological daughter? How can you say, "That's wrong" or "No, their relationship shouldn't be called a marriage" without being inconsistent. They're consenting adults, after all. There's no victim, is there?On the other hand, if you do think all those groups of people should be able to call their relationship a marriage, then what is marriage? A non-binding union between any number of people? You keep asking, who is harmed by gay marriage.Marriage and family are the pillars for our society. The more families fail, the more it hurts everybody. And if you radically redefine marriage so that the word is drained of any true meaning, there will be plenty of victims.Laura Ingraham had a heated debate with Gloria Feldt Slanders on this whole Miss CA issue:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUd15ZXvHeg
@ Joshthecartoonguy...AS I said, I don't personally believe in restricting marriage between any number of consenting adults, and in cases of incest, if they don't have children, it isn't my concern. There are extenuating circumstances in such cases, however, because the younger partner of this hypothetical couple was doubtless abused as a child and is already a victim. But this couple is imaginary and we can't realistically address them here.Regarding society officially recognizing the marriage of same-sex couples causing the erosion families, the concept is plain and simple nonsense. What is important to families, children, and society is that people treat each other (and their children) with love and respect, not the ratio of what is or is not dangling between their legs. That premise assumes that homosexuals are lousy parents and that legitimizing it will "create" more homosexuals, thus destroying more families. It is gibberish born of superstition.This proclamation of heterosexual marriage (and families) as the salvation of society would also lead one to want to outlaw divorce and require reproduction. Do you really want to live in a world like that?Regarding Ingraham's admonitions that the left is more vitriolic than the right, it is laughable. Both sides ridicule the other, the difference is what they are ridiculing. The right stands for the protection of wealth and power at the expense of everyone else and the environment. They also lean toward bigotry of many kinds: racial, sexual orientation, gender, religious beliefs or the lack of them. The left is for a level playing field for everyone, equal rights, and journalistic integrity. When one seeks to stamp out injustice and bigotry, it is not just, "silencing those who don't agree with them," as Ingraham and her ilk would like people to believe. As a viewer of the O'Reilly show, I'm guessing you will find my opinions laughable, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
Piraro: Both the right AND the left try to actively silence those who disagree with them. Sorry if you don't believe me, but that's the truth.
The elders in my family, having grown up during the Depression years, having served in WWII and having been raised as good, upstanding 'Merikins, were across-the-board completely aghast at the thought of homosexuality. It was something only bad deviants did. It was awful. It was a horrible thing, and it was not even remotely welcome in my family.Then two of my Mom's brothers had children come out of the closet. And one of my Dad's brothers had a child come out of the closet. Once the hysteria died down, my aunts and uncles and parents all realized that one's sexual attraction to same or different genders does not have one freaking thing to do with the content of one's character. Frankly, the fact that these brave cousins of mine had the guts to stand up and say, "This is who I really am, and I'm not ashamed of it," paved the way for my lifestyle choice: I've been married for 25 years but my husband and I deliberately chose to not have children. Being hetero and childfree was just as weird of a concept to many of my family members (my Mom, especially, who just could NOT grasp how I could possibly be happy) as being gay. Yet everyone is okay with it. My Mom only reminded me once a month that I could still have a baby, instead of railing on me constantly. ;-)My cousins, all three of them, have been in committed, loving, happy and stable relationships for a minimum of 26 years. The oldest has been with his partner for almost *40* years. And when I look at what they've done with their lives in terms of positively impacting their families and communities, they are amazing people. One is a medical doctor who works for next-to-nothing, serving people with no health insurance at a clinic in a really crappy part of town. One is a teacher who has encouraged and impacted thousands of students over the years. One works in the office of her partner's practice; her wife is a nurse practitioner who does the same kind of work as my MD cousin.They are all funny, nice, productive citizens, and just want to be able to live with their chosen mates the same way hetero couples do. In my state, with the current laws, they do not have the legal right to attend to their spouses financial affairs. They do not have the legal right to be contacted by a hospital in case of emergency. They don't have the same legal rights as my hetero cousins, some of whom, frankly, have blown through several marriages and can't hang onto even minimum-wage jobs. But they're straight, so they're living as God wants. What the bloody hell? I'm a committed, hard-core Christian, and I am so freaking SICK of the "Christian" community stating that only men an women can get married. The number of references by Jesus of Nazareth to homosexuality is a whopping ZERO. If He wasn't too worried about it, then far be it from me to focus on it.People lobby against what they fear. If everyone would just calm down and educate themselves and actually TALK to the people in their midst instead of trying to mandate how they live their lives, we'd all be much better off.Thanks for the opportunity to say all this.
@ Kelly...You're right, they do. But I think that overall, liberals are far more fair and balanced than conservatives. It is in our nature to see all sides of issues, which conservatives often point out as a weakness. Conservatives tend to have tunnel vision and believe that the ends justify the means. Just my opinion, but I think it is validated by history.@ Penny...Great story, thanks for the contribution. I couldn't agree more.
Post a Comment