Pro-Gay Wondertot America’s Next Balloon Boy?
Published: November 17, 2009
DATELINE: WEST FORK, ARKANSAS
Controversy continues to swirl and swirl and swirl around Will Phillips, the brainy fifth-grader who has publicly refused to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance until “gays and lesbians are allowed to marry.”
Phillips, who is “good friends with a lot of people who are gay,” has pointedly remained seated while his less politically engaged Arkansas classmates stand to recite America’s national loyalty oath which, according to historians, was written by a Christian Socialist who worked for a company that sold American flags to public schools.
Joined by his father Jay, described by both admirers and critics as a “bearish, sensitive type with baby-soft hands and a nicely trimmed goatee”, young Will showed an uncanny knack for arch eloquence, condescension, and affecting a “high tone” during a lengthy interview with CNN anchor John Roberts:
I was analyzing the meanings of [the Pledge] because I want to be a lawyer… I eventually said [to my teacher], very solemnly, with a little bit of malice in my voice, “Ma’am, with all due respect, you can go jump off a bridge.”
Meanwhile, gay rights activists around the country are crossing their fingers and holding their breath, lest the chatty munchkin be exposed as same-sex marriage’s very own Balloon Boy.
“This surly, ostentatious bleeding-heart urchin is transparently a shoddily-quaffed homosexual ventriloquist’s dummy, awkwardly placed before the cameras as a lightning rod for the gay agenda,” says Jonathan Krohn, the life-long far-right Republican stalwart and author of the bestselling tract, Define Conservatism, who, at thirteen years of age, drew standing ovations when addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference in February, 2009. “This operatically grotesque charade, likely planned and orchestrated by the fanatical Far Left with the full and knowing cooperation of his fiendish communist-sympathizing father, can’t go on forever.”
Phillips’ classmates would seem to agree.
“Will is a total gaywad,” said Aspen Parish, who has sat at the Blue Table with Will for the past six weeks. “But his dad is always willing to make me tiny ‘thimble soufflés’ for my Barbie brunches.”
According to Aspen, her mother, Llewellyn Parish, befriended Mr. Phillips when, as a way of meeting neighbors when first moving to the West Fork area, he and Will opened their luxury condo to host a Tupperware® “Jell-O Mold Jamboree™”.
I have to stop reading these while driving:
That almost made me drive into a canal.
From the mouths of babes, hypocrisy is exposed to the light of day and found wanting. Liberty, and justice for all… as long as they are not gay and don’t do things we don’t like, or that make us feel icky.
Someone should do a trend piece about people avoiding things they really didn’t want to do in the first place because “gays can’t get married.”
Clean out the basement? Sorry, hon. Not until gays can get married.
@LG: Damn it – you just foiled my plan. “Research that statute through 40 years of session laws? Sorry, not until gays can get married.”
In all seriousness, something is wrong with me. Even just 10 years ago I could get all frothy at the mouth about certain indignities suffered by the the holy triumvirate of women, minorities & gays. These days, the thought of my child refusing to pledge on behalf of someone’s rights? Just makes me tired – just say the damn pledge and send your allowance money to GLAAD.
@LG: Technically, gays can get married. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex.
@Perverseus: Oh, hey, that might be funny except that that line is actually used as a ridiculous “we already have equality” argument against same-sex marriage by some courts and anti-homosexuality groups.
Both of you—lefty, righty—go to your rooms, and don’t come out until you’ve found an editor.
There is always room for Jell-O.
But when gays can get married, I’ll end up having to buy yet more couples toasters. And I don’t even have my own toaster.
@Sarah: That begs the question, what toaster did Virus end up purchasing?
@Mama Penguino: Virus strikes me as a 4 wide slots man.
@BC: Not to stir the puddin’, but we do already have equality under the law. That equality is based around the concept of marriage being a legal union between one man and one woman. Unfortunately, that doesn’t cater to the desires of homosexuals or polygamists or whatever fill-in-the-blank special interest group you choose. Homosexuality is normal but it is not the norm, and voters in a number of states have made it quite clear they aren’t ready to expand their definition of marriage to include those people whose natural instincts make them different.
Personally, I think gay marriage will do wonders for the entertainment value of “Divorce Court.”
@Newt: Perhaps, but he didn’t have room for a very big one.
@Perv! You EAT the puddin’, not STIR the puddin’!
Perseverus: “…we do already have equality under the law. That equality is based around the concept of marriage being a legal union between one man and one woman.”
So, see,(and I’ll say this very slowly) if you’re gay, you DON’T have equality under the law because your relationship is not considered a marriage. Oh, I get it, you’re just here to bait. Silly me! Never mind.
Perverseus: Really? I was under the impression you had more sense than what you wrote in your last comment.
I stand corrected. Gloves: off.
Perverseus: There’s a fairly easy analogy to be made between the current struggle for federally-recognized gay marriage rights and the ultimately successful struggle for interracial marriage 40 years ago that is worth your contemplating.
Until the Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, interracial marriage, or “miscegenation,” was outlawed in much of the United States. So, for example, if you were “white” and happened to be in love with a “black” girl, you couldn’t get married.
More recently, the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the many liberties protected by substantive due process in each and every state, even Alaska, under the Fourteenth Amendment.
I am always curious to know from straight men (I’m assuming something here) like you which parts of those Supreme Court decisions you disagree with. Is it the humping across racial lines sanctioned by Loving, or the fellatio, cunnilingus and annilingus of Lawrence that you can’t live with?
How would you feel if your state’s polity voted to make your girlfriend’s or wife’s act of sucking you off illegal?
Not good, right?
I’m going to ask you to use your imagination now. I know this is not something your used to doing. Nevertheless, please think about the myriad rights that attend a legal marriage. The rights in inheritance and upon divorce. The rights in real property. The rights you have to your wife’s Social Security benefits and pension and health insurance.
Now imagine that all of that isn’t available to you because you happen to be a white boy who loves a black girl. Does that seem reasonable to you?
That was the state of affairs in this country as recently as 1967.
Think, if you can, about that.
@Perverseus:
“Unfortunately, that doesn’t cater to the desires of homosexuals or polygamists or whatever fill-in-the-blank special interest group you choose.”
Really? “Cater to the desires of”? So, the right to marry is akin to “Oh, I think I’ll have a Carmel Fruppuccino today!”?
And did you just lump gays in with polygamists as a “special-interest group”? I guess I can applaud you for not making the beastiality comparison that most of your ilk immediately point to.
Seriously, a low point on Wordsmoker.
So…back to the actual post: Yeah, it sounds like this kid is being coached. However, I don’t think we can call him the pro-gay Balloon Boy until he pukes on national TV.
Oh, and now that I’m no longer seeing red, what I meant to say in here before I read my way down the thread is that my kindergarten teacher used to start off class in the morning by sitting down at the piano and playing “America the Beautiful,” which we would sing. I always thought that should have been our national anthem anyway instead of the war song our country opted for.
It was a gentler form of indoctrination, I guess. I wasn’t politically aware enough to make any stands other than boys were gross and naptime was a waste, so I was happy to sing along every morning.
@Forward: Talk slower, you might get it this time. The law IS equal for all people. One man of legal age can marry one woman of legal age at a time. That is equal. I never said it was inclusive of every conceivable variation. And of course I’m baiting, it’s fun. Did you see how pissed LawyerGay got? He pulled out his law books and everything!
@Vox: Yes, I lumped gays in with polygamists as special interest groups, because that’s what they are. For the sake of this discussion, they are interested in changing laws to impact a minority of the population. A group, if you will. A group that has a particular agenda, interests that are special to them, if you will.
You sadden me. The fact that you can’t even consider another point of view because it’s not politically correct (or, if you ask President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton, IS politically correct) is the exactly the kind of narrow minded attitude that conservatives are accused of all the time. If my post was a “low point,” you’ve actually lowered the bar. Pathetic. Stick to comments about fluffy bunnies and lollipops and leave the serious discussions to the grownups.
@LG: I have a great deal of sense and a very active imagination, so please get over yourself. Thank you for all your court references. They illustrate my point beautifully. The United States continues to mature as a country — and ideas and actions that were once considered socially taboo are now protected under the law. You could have also included a bit about outlawing slavery and 19th Amendment, but I’ll take what I can get.
Sadly, there are still people in this country who don’t believe interracial marriage should be legal, and others that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. I’m sure there’s even a handful of folks who wouldn’t mind slavery making a comeback. These people are ignorant and there’s really no helping them, but they are entitled to their scary opinions.
Gay marriage is yet another taboo that is trying to gain mainstream acceptance. Whether it’s reasonable to me or not is not the issue. To the majority of voters in several states, it is not reasonable. If you don’t like my characterization that gay marriage is taboo, that’s unfortunate, but it’s accurate. Despite a flurry of media attention and increased homosexual exposure in motion pictures and television, there are still a lot of people in this country that just aren’t comfortable with the idea of homosexuality, let alone gay marriage.
Remember, the media is exceptionally good at telling people what to think about, but it still hasn’t mastered the art of telling people what to think. Many of the people who oppose homosexuality and gay marriage come at it from a religious standpoint. Good luck convincing them — it will be almost impossible. You can’t use logic or scientific evidence to debate someone whose faith-based argument is “sinner repent.”
So don’t blame the messenger, and please, put the gloves back on. They match your eyes.
By the way, I find it astounding that some people who have responded to my post seemed to have decided that I am against gay marriage (and presumably gays in general) — and don’t really want to have a honest dialogue about this issue. That’s too bad. Please remember in the future that you really don’t know the first damned thing about me, my friends, my family, or the people with whom I have worked for and with throughout my career. If you did, you’d realize how positively improper your attacks sound. If we don’t want to have serious discussions on this site — and that means someone taking the other side of the debate every once in a while — let me know.
@Perv: I think that you have encapsulated the arguments of the anti-Gay Marriage crowd perfectly. That is to say that they same sex marriage should be illegal because most people don’t want it. However, I don’t believe that majority opinion always matters in these cases. There was a time when only white men could vote. If it were left to those voters, what possible incentive would they have had to include other groups in their voting pool? Blacks, women, Asians, etc. water down the power of the existing white male vote and start to influence matters in ways that are counter to the interest of the powers that be. The decision came from constitutional amendments as opposed to referenda.
Although, i think that I get the gist of your argument, this is an emotional issue to a lot of the people on here, because they are currently being denied a freedom which you and I have enjoyed. I know that you get that. I think that the polygamy to same sex marriage comparison is not apt since one deals with quantity and the other deals with type.
@All: I am not going to speak for Perverseus. However, the way that I read his post was that he was trying to exploit a flaw in the Gay Marriage argument. That is not the same as saying that he is against same sex marriage. I have done this myself. For instance, I believe in individual gun ownership, but my arguments never center around maintaining militias or overthrowing the government. I have never had a Gay Marriage discussion with Perverseus, but if you pay attention to his early writings, he has made arguments that would lead me to believe that he is for as little government intrusion into the personal lives of its citizens as possible. I would assume that would extend to interference with marriage.
Actually, I can accept another point of view, but lumping gay people in with polygamists is pretty offensive, period. It’s not a matter of being PC. Gay couples seeking rights to marry have a lot more in common with hetero couples in that two people want to marry each other, period. How do polygamists fit in there, in reality, besides the fact that you see them as “other”?
You know – I had a feeling that you were going to call me narrow minded and was about to type all this out earlier, but I thought you wouldn’t try that old comeback. Oh well. Like a wise man once said, you sadden me.
I have a simple test in complex legal matters: if you can get Ted Olsen and David Boies to agree on something, then it is the appropriate course of action. And yes the 14th Amendment rocks.
By the way, Perv…fluffy bunnies and lollipops? Is that all my girlie pea brain can handle? I think the other Wordsmokers here can vouch for my smarts. You’re a really offensive person in many, many ways.
CB: It’s nice of you to try to stick up for your friend, but really he’s dug his own grave on this one, I think.
Sigh. Can’t we have opposing views without personal attacks?
Perv, perhaps you would not come off as such a troll if you could explain why you personally oppose non-opposite marriage rather than regurgitate pre-fab opinions.
@Chill: I appreciate the comments, but my example regarding polygamists is valid. Like homosexuality, this behavior falls outside the norm as identified by the majority of society, even though these are normal behaviors to the people who participate in them. Certainly they are not interchangeable, and I did not say as much. But they are both minority groups looking to pass legislation to have their way of life legally recognized.
With regard to gay marriage, of course this is an emotional issue! We’re talking about marriage here. There are loving couples that do not have the opportunity to say “I do” in front of their family and friends and have it be legally binding. It’s heartbreaking. I can’t tell you how thrilled I was when I learned a good friend from an old job went to New Jersey earlier this year and — whoops, too much information. Don’t want to ruin my credibility.
And as LawyerGay noted, these people don’t enjoy the rights of property and inheritance afforded to heterosexual couples who have been legally married. When my brother di — oops, almost said too much there, too. I’ve already been painted as the bad guy in this debate, better stay in character.
Suffice to say, majority rule doesn’t already make majority right. However, right now, the majority says no to gay marriage. And as recent elections in a handful of states and the beliefs of our commander-and-chief and his staff have shown, it is going to be a tough uphill battle.
@Vox: I didn’t actually know you were a “girlie,” but the pea brain comment seems appropriate. You have certainly shown that you can be both intelligent and narrow minded. I suppose congratulations are in order. Please pin a bright gold ribbon on that enormous chip on your shoulder. Your attitude reminds me of the prevailing attitude I noticed when I lived in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Everyone there was open-minded, too, as long as you thought the same way they did.
I’m not going to engage with you anymore – not because you’re right or made a great point, but because smacking people down with insults isn’t what people come here for. I don’t think you’re really listening anyway, so what’s the point of continuing this.
I was told once that when someone puts you down, they’re saying a lot about themselves and their insecurities. I’ll just leave it at that.
Nothing to see here folks, move along. Same old same old.
Sorry folks, but Mama Penguino hit on the more important topic here – my toaster
IT’S BEAUTIFUL.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=400076943001
@Virus: Thick slots, eh?
@Chill: Thank goodness that
tot in a strollerspeed bump slowed you down.@Perv:The thing is, the APA has recognized that homosexuality is an innate characteristic of some people – not a choice or “lifestyle.” From a physiological standpoint, it’s no different than being left-handed (remember that people used to think south paws were evil, too).
Let’s do a thought exercise: to use your logic, if society decided that left-handed people shouldn’t get married to each other because it’s “outside of social norms” and they can already get married to right-handed people if they wanted to, that would be ok. The reason why it’s ok is because lefties have the right to marry right-handed people, therefore we’re all equal.
Perverseus: The point I tried to make earlier was that it’s the court’s job to safeguard fundamental rights. Before this hate-filled campaign against sexual minorities kicked into high gear about 10 years ago, the popular majority wasn’t often afforded a vote on which rights a given minority were entitled to exercise. And when this happened, it was struck down. See Romer v. Evans.
And for the record, I don’t think you’re a bad guy, but I do think you’ve got some unexamined prejudices that you revealed when you framed this issue as a some kind of vaguely illegitimate crusade by an out-of-the-mainstream “special interest.”
@Monkeyrash: But mommy, she started it!
@Kitten: Troll? Are we talking Dungeons & Dragons troll or Hobbit/Lord of the Rings troll? I like to know to what degree I’ve been personally insulted for daring to voice an opposing viewpoint.
@Heneage: An interesting point. The problem with your example, however, is that you are changing what is currently accepted — left-handed and right-handed people of the opposite sex are free to get married. In other words, society would be deciding to take away freedoms that already exist, not changing the law to invite something new. Still, I like the argument.
@Virus: I’m more of a toaster oven man myself, but that is an impressive unit. Tee hee, I said unit.
@Virus, Newt, Monk: Yep, four wide slots. Newt wins the door prize.
Is “thick and think” toaster a typo or is this some sort of philosopher appliance?
Hen, LG: Good points. Here, have some toast. It’s real imported Scottish smart toast from Virus’ GLORIOUS TOASTER.
@LG: I never said the issue of gay marriage was an illegitimate crusade, vaguely or otherwise. Nor have I actually stated my personal opinion on the issue (it might surprise you). However, I did frame it as a “special interest” for the purposes of this debate, which apparently is not a very popular characterization.
Always enjoy our debates, though. And I swear, the next time I’m incarcerated for clubbing baby seals, I’ll be calling you to defend me.
Perv: If I didn’t know better I would think you are gloating over the fact that this issue is a difficult one for some, and that it doesn’t impact your life at all. That makes it safe for you to talk about any way you would like, because you have no emotional attachment to it. I’m asking you in the future to pick a different topic to show how clever you are on the internets. The price of pork bellies? Lady Gaga Vs. Madonna? Or, I don’t know, something that impacts your life enough so that your opinion is filtered through a sense of personal consequence and feelings. I am testy on this topic even though my GF and I have no intention of marrying, even if it were legal. (I think if I had been straight, I would have felt the same way. Just not that into marriage, although I know it is an important milestone for others.) The reason I am testy is this issue has brought out many from the woodwork who want to give their opinion on how I am generally living my life as a gay person, and they just seem to be doing it for the heck of it, like you are, nothing at stake, repeating what they heard on the news or at church group or whatever. I am asking for a little more thought than that. You claim that no one knows you, and it’s true we don’t know each other. Perhaps in your real life you are a deeply respected philosopher.I don’t know. All I know is your comments in this thread largely seem flippant, regurgitated and shallow, and I ask for more than that from you.
Can I just say I’m thrilled that oral sex is legal?
Also, to Virus: I thought you were having space problems? Four thick slices? What’d you have to move from the counter to make room for this behemoth?
@ForwardMotion: I actually know Perv. I don’t agree with all of his points as I mentioned in my last post. However, I can tell you that he is not a bigot. I’ve spent a great many times with him at his house, my house or the house of a mutual friend. I don’t recall ever discussing same sex marriage with him, but he comes off as a civil libertarian in most of our political discussions. If we ever talk about it, I will explain to him that the only sane point of view is to support the government getting out of the marriage business all together. If he doesn’t agree, then I will force him to eat grass.
I’m sure that you may have been around when I was been accused of being a misogynist. If not, I would be happy to look up the links and send them to you privately. I can assure you that I like and respect women. However, I may not have the same views on Women’s Rights as the more ardent feminists. For instance, I believe in equal pay for equal work, but I don’t think that we can legislate ourselves to a point where the average pay for women equals the average pay for men. That is not to say that I don’t think that women deserve it. They do. I just believe that the wage disparity is caused by the types of jobs to which the different sexes are drawn. Career selection is so complex that I don’t see any good coming of government interference. I also don’t believe that I should be skipped for promotion because they are trying to get a woman to balance out their ratios.
When reading Perv’s comments, I still don’t know how he feels about the actual legalization of same sex marriage. I do know that he believes that their are flaws in the argument and that it’s not popular enough politically at this time. If I didn’t know him, I would probably reach the same conclusion that everyone else here did. However, I know him to be a literal person and I think that reading between the lines could lead to false conclusions.
In the mean time, you can count on this conservative’s vote, support, petition signature, etc. when it comes to legalizing same sex marriages. I have a friend in Brooklyn who I would love to try to talk out of getting married. However, as things stand, the law prevents me from needing to have that conversation.
Bringing this back to the main point of this article, I really don’t like when children are used to promote any agenda, whether I agree with those ideals or not. I don’t think that a fifth grader would independently refuse to say the Pledge, without some parental prodding. Raise your kids any way you see fit, but leave them out of the public debate. This also goes for the assholes that have their kids holding up signs at the Pro-Life rallies and so forth.
Two of the more ridiculous things (in my opinion) for which I have been attacked here and on the other site:
Calling the President and Secretary of State, “Barrack” and “Hillary” occasionally, but not calling President Bush, “George.” I explained to the commenter that “Barrack” and “Hillary” are iconic and unique names. I never call Mondale, “Walter.”
Being attracted to Asian women for the wrong reasons. The commenter made this about skin tone. Honestly, I like all women. Asian women had just been the topic of the moment.
I was attacked once for dismissively suggesting that I had no interest in seeing Thelma and Louise. Initially I saw this as ridiculous, but after hearing from a few of the more offended women, I realized that my comments were a bit jerky. I really didn’t realize the significance of the film for a lot of women. I only list it here, because it was one of the reasons for which I was attacked. I do think that I emerged from the discussion, better for it.
I’d like to weigh in on this.
Perverseus, you’ve been talking a lot about offering an opposing point of view and getting persecuted for it because of political correctness. You keep saying nobody knows who you really are and how you’re not a homophobe per se.
So far your focus has been all on yourself. It’s all about your struggle to be taken seriously, your angst that no one is respecting your ideas. You’re saying you’re the victim here. You’re the victim of angry gays and lesbians and other assorted liberals who’re out to get you because you’re saying something really cool and interesting and their intolerant minds can’t take it.
To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. You’re so obsessively and intensely zooming in on your problems with people disrespecting your ideas and opinions that you’re ignoring a basic fact: the pain and suffering of gays and lesbians in this culture is very real. You have a lot of rage towards the people in Chapel Hill and various politically correct people you encountered in the past and you’re taking it out on people here.
You’re a heterosexual. There are some things that you will never have to suffer. You know this. Are you so obsessed with fighting your past demons that you’re willing to ignore and dismiss the very real misery and horror that a lot of gay and lesbian human beings endure? You’ve gotten to the point where you’re freely saying that Vox Populi is stupid. Come on. Really?
Oh and more thing, as a straight person who worked in a gay and lesbian community center and was thus frequently assumed to be a gay person, I have actually endured some homophobia. Let me just say it was not pretty. And this was in the Bay Area in California. You’re not the only person on here who has been dismissed and shut down. Ask the gay and lesbian people here. Ask Lawyergay and Forwardmotion.They all have endured humiliation and cruelty.
Showing a little sympathy and caring for people who happen to be liberal doesn’t make you a wimp. It makes you human and that is what is missing from your comments here.
@Forward: Thank you for your comments. I’m not gloating. I save that kind of behavior for Bills and Jets fans, though at 4-5, the Dolphins haven’t given me much ammo this season. Still, I have quite an emotional attachment to professional football, so please feel free to start a thread about that and I will be very eager to debate you passionately about it. I also feel strongly about the importance of recycling, so if you’d like to champion the cause of waste I’m ready to go. Haven’t regularly attended church since 1993, though, so I can’t really give you a good religious debate.
Clearly there are many people who are testy about this topic. I’m sorry you feel the viewpoint I have expressed is shallow, and that you seem to feel people who are not gay are not particularly entitled to express an opinion on the subject. But you need to understand that the arguments against gay marriage ARE shallow. They are based on feelings and faith, not logic or facts. And those people believe that giving gay people the legal right to marry someone of the same sex diminishes the meaning and value of their own marriages. Who you choose to marry does not actually affect them, but they think it does.
As far as marriage is concerned, it is absolutely not for everyone, gay or straight. I truly believe that if it doesn’t matter to you, you shouldn’t do it. I commend you for sticking to your principles.
@Chill: Thanks. I appreciate that you recognize that I have not made this a personal argument, but that I have only been representing the other side of the discussion in an effort to engage my fellow Wordsmokers in a lively debate about a timely issue. But after all the delightful personal attacks — by my recollection, I’ve been likened to a troll, called offensive, and accused of being prejudiced for my efforts — I think I’ll just stick to mildly amusing photo captions.
@Mama: I’m with you.
@Everyone: Believe me, Chillbear is more than capable of making me or anyone else on this site eat grass with one hand tied behind his back.
What the hell’s wrong with polygamy? Consenting, adult humans can do whatever they’d like**, as far as I’m concerned.
*assuming spouses are non-coerced, of legal age, and unrelated
**behind closed doors
@Perverseus: I agree that discretion is probably the better part of valor at this point, and I don’t want to engage in any kind of flame war or go ad hominem, but let me just respond to one thing from your last comment:
“sorry you feel the viewpoint I have expressed is shallow, and that you seem to feel people who are not gay are not particularly entitled to express an opinion on the subject.”
If you really think being gay is the only reason people think the fundamental right to marry the person that you want must extend to gay people, as it does to people of all races per LG’s comment, you really don’t have your head on right. I am a straight supporter of same sex-marriage, as are the majority of people on this thread who don’t like your take on this issue. It’s not the fact that you’re not gay that makes your words offensive to some, it’s what you’re actually saying.
@CaptainFantastic: Agreed. The fact that these issues persist is due to an inability of societal norms to shift with the changes to society. The fact is, where adults are consenting, there should be no barrier to marriage, for the act of marriage is the symbolic representation of the personal belief that one person is uniting with another person in a manner that goes beyond simple physical coupling. Whether this union is between two people of different genders, two people of the same gender, or two people, one of whom may have already formed such an attachment with one or more others, is irrelevant.
This only is an issue because the State determined that it had the right to regulate marriage, beyond the bounds of whatever regulation religious organizations may have imposed on the rite. This was done for two main reasons: 1) to allow the State to keep “undesirables” from marrying and 2) to provide another stream of revenue, through fees. In the end, gay marriage will become a fact, if for no other reason than government interests will see a new, untapped revenue stream they can take advantage of.
@Newt & Captain: Count me in. I’d like to move in and out of houses, too, rather than have my husbands come to one central location. Can I count you both in for a little ceremony, a little wine, a trip downtown (on separate nights, of course)???
Chill: Thanks for being decent. I agree with you on many more points than you might think, believe it or not! Children should not be used as props in politics. It’s both sad and annoying. I’m sorry about your friend who wants to make a Big Life Mistake. We have all had the experience of watching a train wreck relationship, and I personally have never been able to talk anyone out of anything in the relationship category. Usually I end up taking them out for many drinks afterward and nodding when they describe the train wreck in detail. I recommend Sapphire gin and tonic. Helps a person listen good.
WrapItUp: You’re my favorite. (We’re allowed to have favorites, aren’t we?)
@Wrap: Rage toward the people in Chapel Hill? Not remotely. I hope to move back to that area some day. However, it’s just funny to me that people in the extremes (that’s left and right) tend to be the first to jettison common courtesy and go straight for judgmental and personal attacks. And in many college towns like Chapel Hill, the extreme left is the more boisterous.
A victim? That might be overstating things a bit. Clearly I’ve been taken seriously, because people have seriously taken exception to what I have said. What I find interesting, however, is that many of the posts here have been condescending and insulting on a personal level instead of addressing the contentions addressed in the debate. LawyerGay had an exceptional argument, for example, that complemented my contentions, though that probably wasn’t his original intention. I am always thankful for his input, even though he gets snippy at me at times (and I at him). His contributions were argumentative, not personal.
Also, I never called Vox stupid. However, I saw no reason to debate her own personal assessment.
And for the record, same sex marriage is actually not the politically correct stance at this time. President Obama is not in favor of it (he said so during his presidential debates with Hillary Clinton), and voters continue to shoot it down.
Finally, please please PLEASE don’t tell me that I ignore the pain and suffering of gays just because I’m straight. You aren’t the only straight person here who has worked closely with members of the homosexual population. In fact, some of us are even (gasp!) related to homosexuals. Plus, I’m sure I’m not the only straight person here who has been treated differently because people thought I was gay. (What can I say? For a time I was heavily involved in theater and I didn’t have a girlfriend. Not a big reach.) This was supposed to be a discussion of policy, not hurt feelings.
But you’re right about two things. First, I do say really cool and interesting things. And second, they are all out to get me.
@BC: Again, I never said this was my take. I have merely brought up arguments from an opposing viewpoint, arguments which to this point have not really been countered sufficiently. As I said before, don’t shoot the messenger.
However, I agree this nonsense has gone on long enough. Clearly we aren’t going to be able to have an intelligent debate on this issue because it is simply too sensitive an issue for some.
@Everybody: Let’s all just calm down and debate something easy, like abortion.
Perv: Poor you.
Forwardmotion: Ha!
Perv: I think you’re not defining “politically correct,” well, correctly. It doesn’t relfect the prevailing opinions of those in power; it means that what we say and do is meant not to offend someone based on things we think of as “touchy” subjects, i.e. gender, race, sexual orientation.
More to the point, though, what IS your point? That gay marriage is a “special interest?” That you seem ok with the fact that the majority is voting to take rights away from an oppressed minority is really, really disturbing. Gay marriage, and equal rights for the GLBT community in general, are “special interests” in the most literal sense, but by using that otherwise loaded term to describe the fight for equal rights, you are diminishing the legitimacy of an entire movement that you claim you support.
Also,
“I never called Vox stupid. However, I saw no reason to debate her own personal assessment.”
Come ON.
WAIT A MINUTE!!!!
Lawerygay is…… gay?
Perv: For fuck’s sake, you called her a pea-brained child. Own up to it at least.
p.s. Supporting same sex marriage is hardly an extreme left position, as you suggest. Particularly for the under 40 crowd.
@MR: MY WORLD IS SHATTERED D:
I regret that everyone is too sensitive and/or simple to handle the truth, so I will refrain from sharing edifying but purely impersonal observations to avoid being castigated. I will, however, retain the higher ground. Please understand that I am beyond reproach in my personal beliefs but, apparently unlike some others, value full and free dispassionate discussion above all else.
BC: Zing!
What do you stand for, Perverseus? So far you’re all over the place:
You don’t dislike “homosexuals”. You might even (“GASP!”, as you put it) “be related to homosexuals”. You’re just presenting some opposing arguments to same sex marriage, that’s all. Gay marriage is sorta like polygamy, you say. Oh no, it’s not you who’s saying this. It’s Them. You kinda sorta express sympathy for gays because they can’t marry and you use this as evidence to show you’re not a homophobe. But then you insult the gay people here and confuse them. No one else is letting you have an intelligent debate on this because Some People find this to be a sensitive issue. But not you. It’s just those other people who’re being condescending and insulting. But you don’t think of yourself as a victim. No sirree. And you didn’t call Voxy stupid. You just, heh heh, didn’t contradict her.
What are you trying to do? Are you trying to illustrate the arguments and strategies of the religious right against gay marriage? Are you trying to play devil’s advocate? Are you not sure yourself and you’re trying to think out loud and figure it out?
I’m gonna repeat KateKate’s question. What IS your point? Are you for or against gay marriage? Take a stand and please make it clear.
And you still owe Voxy an apology.
@Monkey: Actually, I think it might be a ruse, a very clever ruse. Still trying to work out his evil plans…
@Forward: I know, the persecution is horrible. It’s like I’m being attacked for being different, for daring to stand against the Wordsmoker majority. Wait a second? Did I just have a moment of enlightenment? No, wait, I’m already enlightened. It was just gas.
@KateKate: I have not claimed to support anything. I have not shared my personal feelings on this issue throughout this entire exchange. I have merely expressed the objectives of opponents of gay marriage for the sake of debate. Why does this fact continue to fall on deaf ears?
I will concede that “politically correct” was probably not used correctly with my example. With a nation as divided as ours on this particular issue, political correctness varies widely by community. But thank you for agreeing that in the most literal sense, gay marriage is a special interest. I see a ray of light.
By the way, I generally avoid using the word stupid, just sort of an ugly word to me. It implies that Vox has no intelligence, which is clearly not the case. However, I felt her responses and attacks lacked the actual application of said intelligence. Calm down, it’s not like I called her a Republican or anything.
As far as having a point, this discussion lost anything resembling one a long time ago.
BC: Hee hee!
Perv: Yes, it did lose its point. At about the 5th comment on the thread.
@Wrap: As it should have been clear very early on, I’ve been playing devil’s advocate throughout this entire exchange. I thought it would start an interesting debate. I like debate. Pick a side and start arguing. When it’s done, hopefully all parties involved have learned something, maybe even grown a bit in their understanding of the topic, as most have numerous shades of gray that deserve exploration. What I have experienced here has been very enlightening indeed, just not the in the way I expected.
Veeeeeeery enlightening indeeeed! Hee hee.
I can personally vouch for this. I considered that he might be a homosexual when I first met him. That was not because of anything that he did, but rather my own immaturity and ignorance at the time. I want to mention that I never treated him any differently because of this. I was actually thinking that it would suck if he was gay and didn’t feel like he could share the fact with his friends. Then I guess his luck turned around and he started dating.
I understand where a lot of you guys are coming from. Asking him what he stands for is fair in light of the discussion.
@Perv: I’ve actually been exactly where you are a few times in here, as I’ve mentioned. You should make peace with Vox. She’s one of the good ones. I’d never take sides against you, but you’re not a mean guy and the comment came off that way. You are also exaggerating my ability to make other people eat grass. Wordsmokers are total badasses.
Virus: That toaster is incredible. I’ve never seen such elongated slots.
Perverseus: Okay well, good luck with all that. Get a life, buddy.
@Perverseus: Hey there. Differing opinions I can live with on here, even feisty arguments – trolling I cannot.
I’d appreciate a public apology to both VoxPopuli and ForwardMotion for the following excerpts from your above comments:
– directed at VoxPopuli.
and
– directed at ForwardMotion.
I did ask the below in private, via your Wordsmoker messaging, which will have also notified your normal email account, so I don’t know if you’re just ignoring me, or for some, unknown reason, you haven’t received either. (I did check that it was working perfectly fine prior to writing this.)
Also. It’s no use pulling out a “devil’s advocate” excuse, especially after the act. If you want to posit an alternative viewpoint which, for all intents and purposes seems constructed from the beginning to annoy as many people as possible, then please make it clear in the future so everyone else can ignore it.
Again, as I said in the private message, I do, along with others, value your contribution here. But I’m afraid if no apology is forthcoming for the above remarks, I’ll have to consider a banning, which I’m sure no-one here wants.
“I have not claimed to support anything. I have not shared my personal feelings on this issue throughout this entire exchange. I have merely expressed the objectives of opponents of gay marriage for the sake of debate. Why does this fact continue to fall on deaf ears?”
Well, if you say you’re not a bigot then I assume you support gay marriage. Otherwise…
Ok, my last comment might be unfair.
But I am so fucking tired of people “playing devil’s advocate” or whatever the hell you’re doing. This is not a philosophical fucking discussion. THESE ARE PEOPLE’S RIGHTS.
Now I feel silly. I looked up “trolling” on Wikipedia, so now I understand what Kitten Witawhip meant. Honestly, I thought an inflammatory comment on a site like this was called a “flame,” but considering the discussion thread above, I really don’t want to go there.
Virus, you have been a stand-up guy and I don’t want to my comments to reflect poorly on you or your site. Whether you choose to ban me or not, if I have offended anyone during this exchange, particularly VoxPopuli and ForwardMotion, I sincerely apologize. This is supposed to be a forum for the exchange of ideas, not insults, and I think several people lost sight of that in the past 24 hours.
@katekate is squared: That’s the bit that always gets missed in these discussions. A majority may not favor a particular issue, but that has never stopped the government from bringing it to pass over the majority’s objection. The purpose of having federal government is to provide every American with the same, sacrosanct rights, and to see to the general welfare, even when a majority of Americans think something is against their particular set of morals. The rights of all citizens must be preserved — liberty and justice for all.
Just for the record, when I read Perv’s second comment in this thread (that started the storm) I took it as a devil’s advocate position. Also, he wrote:
[italics mine] which led me to believe that he actually supported gay marriage rights. I’ve only skimmed the subsequent back and forth.
@CL: You could make me eat grass. Now here’s what you’ve gotta do…
@MamaP: (re: polygamy) I certainly don’t want another wife. One is plenty of work. A date every once in a while might be nice however.
@Captain: You’re on!
So, did you guys like my post?
It’s you! It’s you!
@Perverseus: Thanks, I appreciate it. I admit I was too quick to jump the gun myself and I apologize. I do want to have exchanges of ideas here, but I think tone matters a lot. And yes, I’m a big ‘ol liberal, but I’m not as intolerant of Republicans as you may think, either. Besides a sprinkling of old friends who are Republican about half of my immediate family are Republicans, and my only sister, who I adore probably more than anyone, likes Sarah Palin. A lot. And we all manage to get along pretty well. In any case, I don’t want anyone to be banned. I just want us to be able to have debates without name calling. One of my favorite things about Wordsmoker is that it’s a village of smart, funny and twisted people and we try to keep it pretty civil here most days. That tone and just plain damn good writing is what separates from all the FIRST!1!! blogs out there.
Thanks to those who came to my defense. Realize I’m not blameless in this either. Sometimes I should think before I type. Virus, thank you for being a mediator.
@CaptainFantastic: You raise a good point about polygamy, actually. I too don’t really care what people do in their bedrooms and I stopped to consider why my response was so negative. Like it or not, the public face of polygamists who are fighting for their rights at the moment is Warren Jeffs and his followers, who are accused of abusing underage girls. The juxtaposition with gay couples was just too vivid for me, I suppose. And of course, I don’t suggest that all or even most polygamist families are like Jeffs. Nor can I say what polygamist families are like really, because I don’t know any.
Except Penguino. I’m pretty sure she’s into polyandry. More power to you, bird.
Adam – nice post, really. I think this calls for a special Monday Morning Maya about peace and understanding. I’ll bring the patchouli.
@Vox: Yes, but on two conditions: they sign a pre-nup, and they have their own living quarters. In all seriousness (because I’m up super-late for me and feeling tired and maudlin), you are so fantastic to submit your eloquent olive branch. I love you, and thank you from the bottom of my heart for the experience points and millions from the earlier job tonight! xxoo
Thank you and no problem at all – you help me out too when you do those mafia jobs.