Political Cartoon about gay marriage

[rundmc25]

http://www.freep.com/article/20090409/BLOG24/90409003/1214/Blog24/Gay+marriage+

I read the Detroit Free Press almost everyday on my lunch break (or at work when my managers aren't watching). Mike Thompson is one of the political cartoonists for the Free Press. All of his cartoons are pretty funny, but this one on gay marriage that appeared in last Thursday's edition of the paper, is particularly amusing and relevant.

[marlowegarp]

That's a great cartoon. Straight people certainly trivialize it a lot more because it's never been denied to us.

Being from MA, though, I saw the first gay divorces and wondered why everyone was surprised. The cartoonist is spot-on that denying it to people IS just petty and vindictive...even though it sure doesn't solve everything as straights have continued to discover.

[HottiMegan]

Great cartoon. it's been added to my blog :D

[gangstadawg]

personally i really dont see anything really wrong with gay marriage being legalized since if you really think about it there are ALOT of worse things that could be legalized like incest marriage (or the act being in a incest relationship with a blood relative) and Zoophilia/beastiality (which ironically thats legal in some states). at least gay couple are between 2 consenting adults and cant reproduce (in comparison to the 2 taboo things i meantioned) so i really dont see any thing wrong.

[mergirl]

Animals can have babies with humans?!! :eek:
I always find its best NOT to mention Homosexuality in the same breath as incest and beastiality.
Shall i say more?
No, i shall leave it at that!

[gangstadawg]

Animals can have babies with humans?!! :eek:
I always find its best NOT to mention Homosexuality in the same breath as incest and beastiality.
Shall i say more?
No, i shall leave it at that!

i mentioned them together by what society considers as taboo. im not saying they are remotly the same thing which they are not. the only thing these 3 have in common is that they are some what taboo subjects. also when i said " at least gay couple are between 2 consenting adults and cant reproduce" well the part that says "between 2 consenting adults" was in contrast to Zoophilia (animals cant consent) and the part where i said "cant reproduce" was for in contrast to incest ( same sex couples cant reproduce so there is no genitics based issues with children BUT with incest couples there are since they can reproduce and issues could arise from it).

why do i have the feeling someone may try to play the devils advocate with one or both of those 2 subjects?

[mergirl]

yeah, sometimes when words are clumsy they can be misunderstood and misinterpreted. Thanks for clarifying.
You know though, apparently it IS possible, by genetic engineering to make a gamete from two females or two males, its just that no one has done it yet.
I was actually confused about the 'at least they cant reproduce' bit..were you implying that gay people shouldn't reproduce? If it was possible i mean.

[gangstadawg]

yeah, sometimes when words are clumsy they can be misunderstood and misinterpreted. Thanks for clarifying.
You know though, apparently it IS possible, by genetic engineering to make a gamete from two females or two males, its just that no one has done it yet.
I was actually confused about the 'at least they cant reproduce' bit..were you implying that gay people shouldn't reproduce? If it was possible i mean.
i cant say they shouldnt because they already cant. unless science screws around with DNA ,genes , and whatever else and figures out out to give one gender the reproductive abilities of the opposite gender but then that would be bad if that was ever discovered and made possible.

[mergirl]

Here is a quote from a site i dont really like.
"Is "same-sex conception" real?
Yes, researchers are working on methods using genetically engineered stem cells to produce sperm from a woman and eggs from a man. They have already created a mouse named Kaguya in 2004 that has two mothers and no father. Scientists created her in Japan in 2004, combining one mouse's egg with another mouse's genetically modified egg. No sperm was used."

I actually read about this in an article in the Independent newspaper recently. They interviewed a leading geneticist and he said it was entirely possible to create a gamete by taking cells from two people of the same sex.
I dont think this is a bad thing as there are plenty of other ways genetic engineering has helped people/will help people. Why not help gay people have babies that have the genetic information of both parents?

[gangstadawg]

Here is a quote from a site i dont really like.
"Is "same-sex conception" real?
Yes, researchers are working on methods using genetically engineered stem cells to produce sperm from a woman and eggs from a man. They have already created a mouse named Kaguya in 2004 that has two mothers and no father. Scientists created her in Japan in 2004, combining one mouse's egg with another mouse's genetically modified egg. No sperm was used."

I actually read about this in an article in the Independent newspaper recently. They interviewed a leading geneticist and he said it was entirely possible to create a gamete by taking cells from two people of the same sex.
I dont think this is a bad thing as there are plenty of other ways genetic engineering has helped people/will help people. Why not help gay people have babies that have the genetic information of both parents?
i think its bad because this has a "playing god" kind of feeling.

[mergirl]

i think its bad because this has a "playing god" kind of feeling.
right. What about heart surgery? Stem cell recearch that could cure moter neuron deseases? Cancer research? Research into creating crops that will grow in areas people are starving? All the other things that if we didnt research would never become a reality. If we didnt advance scientifically then we would still be stuck in the dark ages. To quote 'The man with two brains' "You are playing god!!" .."Well somebody has to!!"

[gangstadawg]

right. What about heart surgery? Stem cell recearch that could cure moter neuron deseases? Cancer research? Research into creating crops that will grow in areas people are starving? All the other things that if we didnt research would never become a reality. If we didnt advance scientifically then we would still be stuck in the dark ages. To quote 'The man with two brains' "You are playing god!!" .."Well somebody has to!!"

those i dont have a issue with. modifying humans to cure diseases and saving lives is one thing but changing the reproduction thing is another.

[mergirl]

those i dont have a issue with. modifying humans to cure diseases and saving lives is one thing but changing the reproduction thing is another.
Why?
......

[Dr. Feelgood]

Why?
......

Because it would cause a depression. If a viable embryo could be constructed from two ova, it would make males obsolete. And without males, there would be no further reason for for e-mails offering penis enlargement or non-prescription Viagra. Since these two industries represent approximately 97% of America's Gross National Product (based on a random sampling of my e-mail), their loss would cause the entire U.S. economy to implode, with world-wide repercussions. It would also have adverse effects on the producers of guns, pickup trucks, chewing tobacco, and beer.

[mergirl]

Because it would cause a depression. If a viable embryo could be constructed from two ova, it would make males obsolete. And without males, there would be no further reason for for e-mails offering penis enlargement or non-prescription Viagra. Since these two industries represent approximately 97% of America's Gross National Product (based on a random sampling of my e-mail), their loss would cause the entire U.S. economy to implode, with world-wide repercussions. It would also have adverse effects on the producers of guns, pickup trucks, chewing tobacco, and beer.
Ahh ok.. fair enough. :D

[butch]

Hmm, how does reproductive technology that helps queers reproduce differ from reproductive technology that helps infertile straight couples reproduce (Octomom, anyone?)? Both 'play god' to help people who otherwise can't reproduce 'naturally' have children.

[gangstadawg]

Hmm, how does reproductive technology that helps queers reproduce differ from reproductive technology that helps infertile straight couples reproduce (Octomom, anyone?)? Both 'play god' to help people who otherwise can't reproduce 'naturally' have children.
one case is a physical issue and one is a issue of making something happen thats not supposed to be done at all. its almost like screwing around with nature which scientist does enough of.

[butch]

one case is a physical issue and one is a issue of making something happen thats not supposed to be done at all. its almost like screwing around with nature which scientist does enough of.

If other animals can reproduce without two different genders without the aid of science (and there are plenty that can), who's to say that as evolution continues, humans won't one day be able to do the same? Perhaps science is just part of that 'natural' evolution. 'Natural' is a poor and illogical excuse in this scenario.

You can't just pick and choose the science you'll use without qualms, unless you are indeed placing a moral judgement on it, and when you do, your excluding of gay reproduction is casting a moral judgement on gay people's lives. Just own up to it.

[gangstadawg]

If other animals can reproduce without two different genders without the aid of science (and there are plenty that can), who's to say that as evolution continues, humans won't one day be able to do the same? Perhaps science is just part of that 'natural' evolution. 'Natural' is a poor and illogical excuse in this scenario.

You can't just pick and choose the science you'll use without qualms, unless you are indeed placing a moral judgement on it, and when you do, your excluding of gay reproduction is casting a moral judgement on gay people's lives. Just own up to it.
but then thats evolution which would happen automatically with time by nature it self. if a scientist does it than thats more like a mutation. and if humans were to evolve to a point where same sex could reproduce than there pratically wouldnt be a need for 2 different genders. heck a that point it might as well be one gender (mono-gendered). hell for all we know humans could one day evolve to a point of asexual reproduction. and im not placing any moral judgement but you kinda have to think is it ethical for humans to start modifying what we didnt create? but then i guess it comes with the territory of free will.

[butch]

but then thats evolution which would happen automatically with time by nature it self. if a scientist does it than thats more like a mutation. and if humans were to evolve to a point where same sex could reproduce than there pratically wouldnt be a need for 2 different genders. heck a that point it might as well be one gender (mono-gendered). hell for all we know humans could one day evolve to a point of asexual reproduction.

It isn't that hard to argue that the human body is only designed to live for no more than 4 decades, and yet thanks to science, we've doubled that, at least, in a real short time. There's no reason to think that evolution and science don't go hand in hand, and so how do we parse out what life extending or life producing practices are connected to evolution and thus 'natural', and what ones are just 'playing with god'? We can't, and we're not 'playing god' by using our god-given brains to improve the human race as a whole. Funny, too, that genetic changes in our species that are considered good get classified as 'evolution,' and things we classify as 'bad' become mutations. Mutations and genetic adaptability are pretty much the same thing.

[katorade]

If other animals can reproduce without two different genders without the aid of science (and there are plenty that can), who's to say that as evolution continues, humans won't one day be able to do the same? Perhaps science is just part of that 'natural' evolution. 'Natural' is a poor and illogical excuse in this scenario.

You can't just pick and choose the science you'll use without qualms, unless you are indeed placing a moral judgement on it, and when you do, your excluding of gay reproduction is casting a moral judgement on gay people's lives. Just own up to it.

I find it funny that you say this when you have a Panda as an avatar.

[butch]

I find it funny that you say this when you have a Panda as an avatar.

True. :)

That species would most likely be thisclose to extinction if it weren't for reproductive technology.

[thatgirl08]

one case is a physical issue and one is a issue of making something happen thats not supposed to be done at all. its almost like screwing around with nature which scientist does enough of.

Both are 'physical issues.' Also, who is to say that the straight infertile couple is "supposed" to have kids.. maybe they aren't.. maybe that's why they're infertile.

Can't pick and choose.

[gangstadawg]

Both are 'physical issues.' Also, who is to say that the straight infertile couple is "supposed" to have kids.. maybe they aren't.. maybe that's why they're infertile.

Can't pick and choose.

well there is always the option to adopt which we have tons of kids in this country that dont have parents.

[katorade]

well there is always the option to adopt which we have tons of kids in this country that dont have parents.

So would you be okay with gay couples adopting?

[gangstadawg]

So would you be okay with gay couples adopting?

yes whats wrong with that? im not anti-gay. im anti alot of things but im not against that since as i said in one of my post in this thread its between 2 consenting adults so i really dont have a problem with it. and the i say allowing gays to adopt is fine as long as the peoples backgrounds checked out and dont really have any thing serious against them like felonies on there records.

[Observer]

The ramifications of the entire gay marriage issue go a lot further than the rather simplistic terms of the Free Press article:

The fight against gay marriage is nothing more than an attempt to isolate homosexuals both politically and socially. Antigay zealots don't want homosexuals to marry and they don't want homosexuals to adopt. They want to prevent gay people from forming the sort of human relationships that make life worth living.

This simply isn't true. Not everyone opposed to same sex marriages is an anti gay zealot. I know plenty of people who could care less about same sex relationships of others and who who fully support civil unions and same sex adoptions. As to adoption, the record shows that single parent and same sex adoptions can be just as successful as traditional adoptions. What these non-zealots don't like is the political redefining of a word which to them is a religious sacrament.

To such persons I have a question they haven't been able to answer - if we got the government out of the marriage business and made marriage the exclusive province of the clergy, what do you then do with churches and clerics that would elect to sanction same sex marriages? We are back to square one.

Another problem - states can recognize same sex marriages all they want, but it doesn't change the 1100 or so references to marriage in Federal laws. Same sex couples don't get to file joint tax returns, qualify for spousal social security benefits, etc. Consistency says that the Federal and State definition of marriage should be the same. I know of several non-anti-gay zealots that oppose same sex marriages simply based on the practical confusion it creates.

The point being made here: getting the government involved in "marriage" was probably a mistake to begin with, but unscrambling the egg should be done by constitutional amendment, not something done by the courts or the states. I think such an amendment should have three points (the fourth one designed to address the Lee Marvin cohabitation type of situation):

1) permit congress and the states to universally pass laws and extend benefits to those involved in recognized civil unions irrespective of gender,

2) precluding any state from using the term "marriage" "husband" or "wife" in any legislative context. "Spouse" and "partner" would be the appropriate civil union terminology.

3) require all states to grandfather in as a recognized civil union any marriage sanctioned by a religious group.

4) also recognize as civil unions any relationship involving the cohabitation of individuals at the same domicile for more than six months unless they have filed a formal document disclaiming such a status and disavowing any sexual activity or marital intent.

I think it would also be nice if everyone in a civil union, however entered into, would have some sort of required continuing education requirement to insure they know what to do to make the relatonship last.

Such an approach would in my mind be fair to everyone involved. It achieves the real goals and addresses the real concerns of everyone involved except those who want to impose their standards and values on others (and both camps have elements guilty of that!) . However, I doubt if most partisans on either side would be willing to embrace such a resolution of the problem because it doesn't quite give them enough of what they want at the expense of the opposition.

[mergirl]

We have 'Civil Partnerships' here. If people want to put a religious spin on thier 'wedding' day they can. There are plenty of gay ministers that will perform a religious ceremony. Many opt for a humanist ceremony or to get 'civil partnered' by a registrar and then a service/party later. To be honest, i dont know why people would want to push to be involved in a hetrosexual institution in which gay people are frowned upon ie Christian marrage ceremonies. I think the Civil Partnership Is just like 'marrage' without the religion; ie. You have the same legal rights as a married hetrosexual couple and its a proclaimation of your love for another person. Like i said, if you are religious, then this can be included as part of your ceremony. I think over here over 90% of people who get married in a christian ceremony never actually go to church and i'll bet most of them wont even believe in a christian God. Its just a tradition or institution that people seem to think is the only option half the time. I was at a humanist wedding last month and it was a really beautiful service and a lot more personal than any religious weddings i have been to.
Gay people HAVE to be afforded the same legal rights as straight people. End Of.. and i find it rediculous that they dont!!?? Christian Ceremonies are not the important thing to be fighting for here. Equal rights for all humans are.

[katorade]

My biggest issue with it is that Christians forget that marriage is not just a Christian institution. They can argue that it began as one, but at that time it had nothing to do with love and romance and everything to do with breeding rights and social politics. People all over the world have been changing the laws of marriage for centuries. I find it ridiculous that aging men can still marry child brides in some countries but we, one of the most progressive countries in the world, are too set in our ways to let a gay couple marry.

Meanwhile, our divorce rates are how high? Anybody give a crap about that any more, or are they just going to sit back and shut up about how screwed up that is, too? I find it hilarious that people go out of their way to defend such a precious institution when it's CLEARLY a freaking joke to most of them.

[mergirl]

Right. I have friends who got married and they had a pagan handfasting ceremony. The origins of this totally predate christianity. In fact Christianity take much of its symbols and holy dates from paganism too. (grrrr) like Easter-ester and Christmas-Candlemass etc etc. Its weird because Christianity by comparison to others is a fairly new religion, so its weird they stake a claim in so many of the traditions that have pretty much just been stolen!

[cheekyjez]

They can argue that it began as one, but at that time it had nothing to do with love and romance and everything to do with breeding rights and social politics. People all over the world have been changing the laws of marriage for centuries.

Damn right. For much of "civilization", marriage was basically a land contract between two men, with the bride thrown in as a deal-sweetener by her father. Thankfully, we've now got to the point where most of us see marriage as a joining of two equal partners who love each other, so restricting that based on the sex of either partner doesn't make any sense at all.

[Weeze]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8

That is all.

[BbwPennyLane]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8

That is all.

Amazing. (and true of course)

[gangstadawg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8

That is all.

here is something that caused me to get into a few net discusions and arguments a few days ago because i was against the vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIl3unzCH6o

read the comments some people feel that its a double standard.

[mergirl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8

That is all.

Me and my wives. I am poly of course. Also, if you think you see any males there you would be wrong, they are infact cross dressing females!!
:p

[Weeze]

Me and my wives. I am poly of course. Also, if you think you see any males there you would be wrong, they are infact cross dressing females!!
:p

oh my god mer, you have no idea how freaking hot that picture is :wubu:

[mergirl]

oh my god mer, you have no idea how freaking hot that picture is :wubu:
mmmm Quack Quack!! :D