the conservative case for same sex marriage

[Irvine511]

i'd be willing to bet, though, that Victoria Jackson is worried that "Glee" is going to turn kids gay. that's what virtually *all* of NOM's anti-gay ads are about, the idea of "schools teaching about gay marriage" -- it's when those television ads hit, ads of small children and their parents that play on whatever primal fear parents have about having a gay child, that the polling starts to shift just enough so that you get anti-gay victories in CA and ME.

anyway, as for "Glee," my assessments of it's quality change not just from week to week, but literally from commercial to commercial. there are times when it's inspired, and then there are times when it's an incoherent heap of shit inhabited by characters who have random motivations assigned to them. i do think, however, that it handles it's gay subject matter with a much lighter foot than many other shows, and while Kurt is a walking mass of stereotypes, he's wonderfully played, the bullying episodes were very real, and he and his dad have some of the best scenes on television. the "sex talk" was genuinely moving.

and you're right about a worldview. only a gay man like Ryan Murphy would have the hard won insight to script a speech like this:

"When you're intimate with someone in that way, you gotta know that you're exposing yourself. You're never gonna be more vulnerable, and that scares the hell out of a lot of guys ... With two guys you've got two people who think that sex is just sex. It's gonna be easier to come by and once you start, you aren't gonna want to stop. You gotta know that it means something. It's doing something to you, to your heart, to your self-esteem, even though it feels like you're just having fun...When you're ready, I want you to be able to do everything. But when you're ready, I want you to use it as a way to connect to another person. Don't throw yourself around like you don't matter, because you matter."

not only does this tie into notions of sexuality that we were discussing in the other thread, but more importantly, this is something gay kids never hear. and it's the most important message of all, and it is directly tied into not just this thread, and not just the sky-high rates of suicide and substance abuse among gay kids, but the entire same-sex marriage movement: you are not inferior, a mistake, or a choice; you are as worthy as anyone else; above all, you matter.

 

[nathan1977]

i'd be willing to bet, though, that Victoria Jackson is worried that "Glee" is going to turn kids gay.

Sure. Anyone who doesn't like what "the other side" watches is going to come out railing against anything they see as winning hearts and minds. I just thought it unfortunate that Khanada politicized one side of the aisle, when the reality is, it's simply part of the political discourse now, on both sides.

And for the record, Victoria Jackson can join Jon Voight in the "I'm conservative and bat-sh*t crazy" hall of fame. (I find it hilarious, by the way, that I'm writing a response to this while a Michelle Bachman ad runs at the top of the page. Hilarious and terrifying.)

anyway, as for "Glee," my assessments of it's quality change not just from week to week, but literally from commercial to commercial. there are times when it's inspired, and then there are times when it's an incoherent heap of shit inhabited by characters who have random motivations assigned to them.

You and I agree here. I've grown tired of the "everyone sitting in class while someone sings the requisite slow acoustic song and the camera dollies and pans around their faces" moment in every episode. It feels a little like a one-trick pony. The musical numbers, however, are fantastic, and I think more than anything has led to the show being structured now like a bunch of ready-made YouTube moments with some drama thrown in.

i do think, however, that it handles it's gay subject matter with a much lighter foot than many other shows, and while Kurt is a walking mass of stereotypes, he's wonderfully played, the bullying episodes were very real, and he and his dad have some of the best scenes on television.

Agree. I'm kind of curious how "Glee" and "Modern Family" are received within the gay community. While both shows are still trading in stereotypes and archetypes (like most TV), they've certainly moved the ball down the field in terms of presenting gay characters on TV we've never seen before. (Though I still think Jack on "Dawson's Creek" was more trend-setting, since he wasn't the walking mass of stereotypes.)

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think the Kurt and his Dad moments are the best part of that show, they should focus more on that and not Gwyneth Paltrow, etc. It's not the show it used to be-too gimmicky. I don't see how people could be worried about their kids and Glee, since it's not a show for kids. If I had a kid they'd have to be an older teen to watch it. I do think it would be a good show for parents and teens to watch together.

And Dawson's Creek rules-no musical numbers but it still wins, old school style.

 

[nathan1977]

And Dawson's Creek rules-no musical numbers but it still wins, old school style.

90s teen dramas! High-five!

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

i guess should've clarified, i meant sitcoms and such, not news/news commentary shows.

 

[Irvine511]

Agree. I'm kind of curious how "Glee" and "Modern Family" are received within the gay community. While both shows are still trading in stereotypes and archetypes (like most TV), they've certainly moved the ball down the field in terms of presenting gay characters on TV we've never seen before. (Though I still think Jack on "Dawson's Creek" was more trend-setting, since he wasn't the walking mass of stereotypes.)

well, i can only really speak for myself, but i think my opinions are pretty mainstream gay. both shows are well received. you can go into many bars that have video channels -- there's a whole subculture of dance-oriented pop and, like, Britney b-sides and mid-period George Michael that's played on video monitors in gay bars -- and you'll see clips from "Glee" played amongst your more typical selections. while Kurt is awash in stereotypes, they are played with love. i'll never forget in the first season when Kristen Chenoworth sang "maybe this time" from Cabaret, and absolutely killed it, and then the gag after such a big, emotional song, was a cutaway of Kurt wiping a single tear from his eye. stereotypical? yes. but did i do the same thing at home and then burst out laughing because Kurt and i had the same reaction? yes. Kurt is also easily the most sympathetic character on the show, he gets the best scenes with his dad, and his love story arc with Blaine comes off as the most believable. it is TV, and most characters are quickly drawn and easily understood, but so long as they are drawn with affection and the distinction of laughing with, rather than laughing at, then there's usually no problems. Ryan Murphy being openly gay certainly helps it's cred, and as i pointed out earlier, some of the writing on gay topics shows an insight that you probably wouldn't get from most straight writers.

as for Modern Family, it's a critically acclaimed show, and with good reason. the writing is very, very sharp and it's a model of consistency (whereas "Glee" is known for it's inconsistency). sure, Mitchell and Cameron are stereotypes, but they are no more stereotypes than Phil and Claire or Gloria (my favorite character). it's all comedy, and what's remarkable about Modern Family is how fairly Mitchell and Cam are treated. situations are contrived in order to showcase their easily identifiable (and mockable) traits just like anyone else, and within the world of the show, they are absolute equals to any other member of the family. their love for one another is never questioned; their status as full, and loved, family members is never questioned; and their status as loving parents is never questioned. as Kurt's dad might say, they matter.

 

[PhilsFan]

as for Modern Family, it's a critically acclaimed show, and with good reason. the writing is very, very sharp and it's a model of consistency (whereas "Glee" is known for it's inconsistency). sure, Mitchell and Cameron are stereotypes, but they are no more stereotypes than Phil and Claire or Gloria (my favorite character). it's all comedy, and what's remarkable about Modern Family is how fairly Mitchell and Cam are treated. situations are contrived in order to showcase their easily identifiable (and mockable) traits just like anyone else, and within the world of the show, they are absolute equals to any other member of the family. their love for one another is never questioned; their status as full, and loved, family members is never questioned; and their status as loving parents is never questioned. as Kurt's dad might say, they matter.

This reminds me of an article I was reading the other day about Community and about Donald Glover, in relation to how he's not a stereotypical black character in any way.

I should start watching Modern Family.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

This reminds me of an article I was reading the other day about Community and about Donald Glover, in relation to how he's not a stereotypical black character in any way.

I should start watching Modern Family.

ha, i was just thinking about that too when i was watching it the other day.

and yes you should.

 

[the iron horse]

no, really guys, Springsteen aside, isn't it HILARIOUS that someone would use Adam and Eve as a reference point for the ideal family when they gave birth to one son who murdered the other?

he'd have been much better of with Amanda and Eve.

Please explain why a mom and dad are not the ideal family.

Please explain why the the destruction of this family unit has been a positive event for this generation.

 

[PhilsFan]

Please explain why a mom and dad are not the ideal family.

Please explain why the the destruction of this family unit has been a positive event for this generation.

These are not the points we're making and you know it.

Troll.

 

[the iron horse]

These are not the points we're making and you know it.

Troll.

I know.

The "troll" slam is familiar to me.


I thought I was on topic with my reply.

 

[Irvine511]

Please explain why a mom and dad are not the ideal family.

Please explain why the the destruction of this family unit has been a positive event for this generation.

1. no one is saying it isn't. we are saying that there's more than one way to be an ideal, and that we should judge families by the people who are in them, rather than the fact of their opposing genitalia. i think you'd rather be raised by two good gay parents rather than two abusive straight parents, yes?

2. firstly, the "destruction" of this family unit has absolutely NOTHING to do with gay people -- if you think families are so important, why are you trying to prevent gay people from starting them? but what IS a positive even for this generation is realizing that families come in many shapes and sizes, and that it's the quality of the participants that counts. there are "family units" that are this "ideal" that are horrible and abusive, and there are families that are nontraditional that are loving and supportive.



now, please, as i've done for you, do me the favor of answering the following questions:

1. would you rather be raised by two good gay parents rather than two abusive straight parents?
2. can a non-traditional family (grandparents, aunts/uncles, much older siblings) produce happy, healthy children?
3. can traditional families (mom/dad) produce unhappy, unhealthy children?
4. how does two gay people getting married "destroy" mother/father households?



don't be cute. don't be coy. answer direct questions posed to you. please.

 

[Diemen]

Please explain why a mom and dad are not the ideal family.

Please explain why the the destruction of this family unit has been a positive event for this generation.

When you don't answer questions asked of you and won't explain your position beyond the introductory sentence, why should you expect others to explain theirs?

 

[Diemen]

1. no one is saying it isn't. we are saying that there's more than one way to be an ideal, and that we should judge families by the people who are in them, rather than the fact of their opposing genitalia. i think you'd rather be raised by two good gay parents rather than two abusive straight parents, yes?

2. firstly, the "destruction" of this family unit has absolutely NOTHING to do with gay people -- if you think families are so important, why are you trying to prevent gay people from starting them? but what IS a positive even for this generation is realizing that families come in many shapes and sizes, and that it's the quality of the participants that counts. there are "family units" that are this "ideal" that are horrible and abusive, and there are families that are nontraditional that are loving and supportive.

Well said.

 

[the iron horse]

My reply was blocked by this:

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 1 characters.

 

[Diemen]

My reply was blocked by this:

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 1 characters.

Do you think it's cute to make a mockery of other people's attempts to engage in meaningful dialogue?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Please explain why a mom and dad are not the ideal family.

Please explain why the the destruction of this family unit has been a positive event for this generation.

I'm still waiting for an answer from you...

Why is a crack addict and a convicted felon better for a child than two loving parents?

 

[Caleb8844]

I haven't read this whole thread, but out of curiosity, is there a reason that the only two choices are A: crack head and felon, or B: gay couple?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I haven't read this whole thread, but out of curiosity, is there a reason that the only two choices are A: crack head and felon, or B: gay couple?

Now who said the gay couple couldn't be the crack head and convicted felon and the straight couple couldn't be the loving parents?

If you're catching my drift here...

 

[deep]

I haven't read this whole thread, but out of curiosity, is there a reason that the only two choices are A: crack head and felon, or B: gay couple?

given those two choices
just drown the children.

 

[Caleb8844]

Oh, I see what you're saying. Sorry, apparently I'm slow tonight .

Anyway. I'm a christian, and I don't think anyone would argue that a child has the best chance to grow up into a healthy, happy individual if he/she is endowed with loving parents, regardless of their sexual preferences.

I don't believe that holds relevance in the debate about same sex marriages, though.

 

[Irvine511]

I haven't read this whole thread, but out of curiosity, is there a reason that the only two choices are A: crack head and felon, or B: gay couple?

yes.

because if you're going to deny gay people the right to get married solely because they are gay, then you have to contend that straight people are always, and in all cases, superior to gay people by virtue of their heterosexuality.

so a child is always better off with Charlie Sheen and his goddesses than with Neil Patrick Harris and his partner.

this is what the National Organization for Marriage contends:

“Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

“Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”

http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.4475595/k.566A/Marriage_Talking_Points.htm

otherwise, you have to concede the point that sexual orientation isn't a determining factor for either marriage or parenthood, and when you do that, you realize that there is no intellectually justifiable reason to prevent gay people from participating in either on the basis of their sexual orientation.

so, yes, straight crackheads can be a mother and a father in a way that i can never be a mother, and therefore, the straight crackheads get to get married and i don't.

 

[Irvine511]

I don't believe that holds relevance in the debate about same sex marriages, though.

exactly. we do not require parents to be married, nor do we require married people to be parents.

like these people:

Man turns 100 by marrying 93-year-old girlfriend
March 22, 2011|By BRITTANY LEVINE

For Forrest Lunsway, reaching a century of life was only the half of it. On his 100th birthday Saturday, Lunsway married his 93-year-old girlfriend, Rose Pollard.

The wedding – a surprise for most in attendance – was a long time coming.

Lunsway and Pollard met almost three decades ago. They were both looking for dance partners after their significant others passed away, and mutual friends set them up on a blind date Dec. 18, 1983. It was a Christmas party at the Long Beach Senior Center and the two danced the night away.

Lunsway asked Pollard out on a date, but he lived in Cypress and she lived in Capistrano Beach.

"He lived 40 miles away. It was what you call geographically undesirable. I didn't think it would last," Pollard said.

But the two would meet halfway and go on dates. Sometimes, Lunsway would drive to pick up Pollard for a night out and then drive home.

"If someone will do that, you know that's something," Pollard said.

About 20 years later, Lunsway sold his house in Cypress and moved to Capistrano Beach to live with Pollard. Then he asked her to marry him.

"I told him I would marry him on his 100th birthday," Pollard said, laughing. "I had never intended for him to remember."

 

[Caleb8844]

In my opinion, the main problem with legalizing same sex marriages is it blurs the lines of the definition of marriage. It could be a seriously slippery slope

 

[Irvine511]

In my opinion, the main problem with legalizing same sex marriages is it blurs the lines of the definition of marriage. It could be a seriously slippery slope

if someone would like to step forward and argue why X group who is currently prevented from marrying should be allowed to do so, they can go ahead and do so.

 

[Diemen]

It could be a seriously slippery slope

Towards what, exactly?

 

[Caleb8844]

Quirky News | Orange UK

 

[Irvine511]

Quirky News | Orange UK

a tree can't consent.

problem solved.

also, i am not committing crimes, like incest or polygamy, just to get that out of the way.

 

[Caleb8844]

Towards what, exactly?

Well, if the only requirement for marriage is love, what's to stop a judge from using the same sex marriage ruling (if approved) to justify a man marrying his cousin? Or a woman marrying two men?

Now don't get my wrong, I'm not saying same sex marriage is on the same level as these things. Not even close. I'm just saying, it does blur the lines a bit.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

You know I never realized how ridiculous half of this is until reading some of the responses earlier in the pages.

I think I'm going to become an ALLY on campus, because honestly heterosexism is stupid.