Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

Gay Marriage ‘Not The Same Thing’ As Interracial Marriage, Says Legitimized Bigot

Oh gosh, we’ll get to the weirdness of the Coop hosting this segment in a sec, but don’t you just want to punch Tony Perkins, Family Research Council President’s face in? By “punch” we mean “invalidate his intolerance through legal due process”, of course. It is pretty gratifying to watch him bluster on as Dan Savage senses fear radiating from Perkins’ beady little eyes. I know, I know, this discussion should have happened before Prop. 8 passed, but it didn’t. We’re having it now by making ourselves and our point visible, though and that’s worth celebrating.

It’s hard watching Anderson Cooper anchor a segment about gay rights — particularly, gay marriage — when he can’t even acknowledge where he stands on the issue.

CONTINUED »

By:           Japhy Grant
On:           Nov 13, 2008
Tagged: , , , , ,

  • 39 Comments
    • Inertia_90
      Inertia_90

      I love how right-wingers always compare homosexuality to bestiality.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 4:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      @Inertia_90:

      It’s because secretly they all want to have sex with a gay dog.

      True.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 4:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • boutros
      boutros

      Gay “marriage” isn’t the same as interracial marriage. What’s so hard to figure out about that one?

      Nov 13, 2008 at 4:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Inertia_90
      Inertia_90

      @boutros: If there is love, then yes it is. Case closed.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 4:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • boutros
      boutros

      @Inertia_90:
      Aw, how sweet, as if emotions govern all. Banning interracial marriage was wrong because skin color is an immutable characteristic, it cannot be changed. And besides, it IS a man and a woman. Being “gay” is behavior that people choose to engage in. Even if you make the unsupported and contradicted claim that homosexuals are “born gay”, one still has to choose to act on that “orientation”. That fact doesn’t justify the redefinition of marriage.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 4:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      @boutros: Wrong, slick.

      Being gay isn’t a behavior, but an innate sense of attraction.

      When do you stop being hetero? When you’re not in the act of having sex with a woman (assuming you’re a dude)? No, you are always a hetero because that is defined by your attraction/desire to have sex with someone of the opposite sex.

      Likewise, being gay is not just about fooling around with other guys, but about the desire or attraction to having sexual, emotional, romantic, etc. relations (or, dare I say, relationships!) with other persons of the same gender.

      Marriage has already been re-defined, pumpkin. It is already being enjoyed by thousands of gay couples the world over (including gay couples in our very country) + over time, support is actually growing. Get used to it, dollface.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChristopherM
      ChristopherM

      So redefinition of marriage is only okay when straight people do it, as they have done it over and over again for centuries, despite their claims that marriage should not be redefined? Do us all a favor, Boutros. Worry about your own marriage and the implications to that marriage that you’re spending your time on gay websites rather than trying to legislate against mine. You will be a much more contented person if you do.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 4:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Inertia_90
      Inertia_90

      @boutros: Canada ‘redefined’ marriage five years, and guess what? Straight marriage still exists up there, and it’s arguably healthier than here, since they have a lower divorce rate.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 4:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RJ
      RJ

      @Boutros,
      So you are saying that if race could be changed, interracial marriage would be wrong?

      As for whether or not people are born gay, I would concede that loving is a chosen behavior. However, loving being a “choice” does not mean that a loving relationship should be invalidated just because the two adults have the same type of genitals.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 4:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • michael
      michael

      The first thing we all need to realize is that fundamentalist Christians are just like fundamentalist Muslims. Its all the same bullshit, just a different colour. Why do you think that America is into it with Muslims? Its just the terrorist meeting the terrorist, the christians just have a bigger government and bigger guns behind them. The muslims believe that whatever their God says, or they think says, should be the law of the world. So do Christians. Both group justifies their deep seated hate in the belief that they are victims, but they are actually perpetrators, really there is no difference. They both enjoy hate, hate is energy for them and without it they would basically be left with their meaningless, depressed selves. Now you will never get very far in trying to make these people see that they are exactly what they hate. They seem to have an autistic place that just will not let them go there. After all it is challenging the very identity and purpose in life they hold on to.
      So let us understand these people but do not think you are going to change them. After all, nobody changed Germany, it had to be all but destroyed. An important thing for us is not to jump into their victim, perpetrator loop. By all means, don’t think that they are not enjoying what is happening, they created this for more reasons than they consciously, or maybe do consciously, realize. So let go of trying to convince them, or change them. Its not going to happen. If it were not us it would be another group. The best way is to let them destroy themselves, and they will. When hatred and victim thinking has
      nobody to victimize then it turns on itself. So do not argue with these people, not here on this site or any other. Do not do a battle of words because you are just feeding the beast by doing so. I am from the south, please do not think that just because the civil rights amendment passed that southerners massively changed, they did not. The government changed and that is what we must do, change the government, make it where no group like this can ever vote on the rights of another human being. Thats what we must do. But the most important thing is to not “need” their acceptance. Once you are free from needing it we can move forward.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 5:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ask ena
      ask ena

      Come on folks, leave poor Boutros alone. At this rate, that’s how he will end up… sooner, rather than later.

      I do find it ironic that the two states in the U.S. that HAVE “redefined” (so ridiculous…) marriage are CT and MA…two of the 1st colonies to become states (#5 and #6), founded by people who left England, in part, to ESCAPE RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION. So maybe we just have some catching up to do with our puritan-principled eastern states.

      I know I will gloat when this all blows in our favor…no pun intended :)

      Nov 13, 2008 at 5:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim
      Tim

      “Well you strip me of my rights and I interrupt you, whose really suffering here?”
      And here I thought I couldn’t love Dan Savage any more.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 5:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eclipse
      Eclipse

      @Tim:

      Right?! I love that man so hard. He needs to keep touring the talk shows and hold the bigots to account. He’s one of the most apt and fiery spokespeople we’ve got right now.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 5:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • concretepinata
      concretepinata

      @boutros: Choose to ACT?
      OK I could have skipped over that if you were simply retarded, but you contradicted yourself as well, qualifying you for that “special” kind of stupid.
      “Even if you could make the claim that homosexuals were born gay….choose to act.”
      Either you are magically excluding heterosexuals for no good reason, or you are positing that we should all be chaste and monklike.
      Wow. Do you ever get outside?

      Nov 13, 2008 at 5:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian
      Brian

      I just wish Savage had been a little more respectful and interrupted less. Let the idiot blowhard have his say, and then deconstruct the arguments. Savage is a smart, articulate guy, but many of his arguments got lost in all the yelling and talking over each other.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 6:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • G
      G

      When are they gonna give Dan his own show??? Seriously.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 6:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tarxien
      tarxien

      The mormons have redefined marriage!
      Until relatively recently mormons defined marriage as one man and as many women/girls as he wanted. When pressure was put on them by the legal system they suddenly decided that their god had ‘revealed’ to them that monogamy was the way to go!
      What total hypocrites.

      Humans invented marriage and can change the definition to fit progress.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 6:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Saturday
      Saturday

      I loved how Dan called him out on all those bullshit studies they do. That bigot could have cried when he realized no one there was going to fall for that crap they try to pull.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 6:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Johnny Underscore
      Johnny Underscore

      If the religious right wants to argue about marriage based on doctrine alone, fair enough. But we can’t base public policy solely on religious doctrine. Stealing is illegal not because it violates a commandment but because it’s universally understood to be bad for society. Similarly, marriage laws exist because marriage is universally understood to be good for society. Same sex marriage would be just as good for society as “traditional” marriage and this is reality is frightening for the religious right. They’ll lose this battle eventually.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 6:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wolf
      Wolf

      ALERT PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD.

      The Family Research Council has issued an “action alert” via e-mail for people to e-mail Governor Schwarzenegger and request that he NOT support an over turning of Prop 8.

      We need to counter this by e-mailing, writing, and calling his office asking him to continue to support Marriage Equality.

      http://gov.ca.gov/interact

      Nov 13, 2008 at 6:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jon Justin Fiddler
      Jon Justin Fiddler

      Look how quick Perkins tries to set gays against blacks. It’s a typical right wing tactic.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 7:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Anarchos
      Anarchos

      I will follow Dan Savage anywhere. Love that man.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 7:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Wolf: Yeah I think they did not expect the backlash they are receiving. They thought this was 2004 where they could use us as a wedge, and that would be it.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 8:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chuck
      Chuck

      Exactly right on about AC. When you’ve got Vanderbilt money and are that visible, there’s really no excuse for total silence. He was quite happy to gain career points by exploiting Thomas Roberts.

      Secondly, Anthony Perkins (ahem) Tony Perkins is such a loser. To any of you unfortunate enough to have any knowledge of his alma mater, Liberty University, one can deduce the kind of scum that bastion of hatred in the reddest of red counties in the isolated VA mountains produces. That place really needs to be shut down.

      Anyway, so then he becomes a cop, and now he’s spewing hatred on tv. Huh. Either he’s trying to live down that name, or trying to live the lie of the Liberty U crap. Or maybe, just maybe his preoccupation with the gay sex is rooted in his denial of admission to that gay bar in the ’70′s. He must still be fuming.

      I wonder if his sad wife knows that when she’s asleep at night, he goes on his computer and oogles all those gay sites and picts in the name of “research.”

      Pathetic. Very lame.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 11:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • You talkin' to me?
      You talkin' to me?

      I’d love to be the first to punch Dan Savage in the face.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 11:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • You talkin' to me?
      You talkin' to me?

      A penis is meant for a vagina therefore a man should marry a woman, period. It’s all just so darn simple.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 11:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • You talkin' to me?
      You talkin' to me?

      Fredo777 said: “Likewise, being gay is not just about fooling around with other guys, but about the desire or attraction to having sexual, emotional, romantic, etc. relations (or, dare I say, relationships!) with other persons of the same gender.”

      To me, this just proves that homos are into having as many partners as possible therefore they are not entitled to marriage.

      If you don’t think AIDS came about for a reason you are so unbelievably naive.

      Nov 14, 2008 at 12:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Smokey Martini
      Smokey Martini

      @You talkin’ to me?:

      It’s simple if you’re a fucking dick. But most men are not, I’m sad to say.

      Surprise surprise, You Talkin’ – men and women are H-U-M-A-N-S and come equipped with emotions. Do you know what that means? That means that sometimes men and women wish to have happy, fulfilling relationships with people they are attracted to sexually, emotionally, intellectually (I hope), and ideologically. THAT’s where things get a little complicated and messy; and THAT’s where relationships become a tad bit more interesting than a mere penis/vagina coupling. Wouldn’t you agree?

      Nov 14, 2008 at 12:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ask ena
      ask ena

      @ You talkin’ to me?

      Stop trolling Queerty’s morning goods or I’m going to tell your mother on you.

      Nov 14, 2008 at 1:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • You talkin' to me?
      You talkin' to me?

      Smokey, perhaps a man who is “attracted sexually” to a dog should be allowed to marry it. Would you agree with THAT? Don’t you people see why we don’t want to allow you to marry someone of the same sex? Again, it’s really so simple but, then, your minds are screwed up already so I guess those of us on the RIGHT (they don’t call it that for nothin’) shouldn’t be surprised that you just can’t comprehend it.

      LOL @ Ena :P – na na boo boo

      Nov 14, 2008 at 10:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Smokey Martini
      Smokey Martini

      @You talkin’ to me?:

      Yes, you’re absolutely correct, You Talkin’! A person who is ‘sexually attracted’ to a dog SHOULD be allowed to marry it.

      Dogs – as a full citizen of the United States, who has much to contribute to the economy and the well-being of society – SHOULD be granted the full rights and responsibilities granted to an individual upon marriage. Because, you know, a dog will absolutely know what to do with them. Not to mention the fact that a dog is absolutely capable of saying ‘I DO’ at the altar and willfully signing a marriage license.

      You certainly hit the nail with that one!

      Nov 14, 2008 at 10:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Smokey Martini
      Smokey Martini

      @You talkin’ to me?:

      But to answer your question: NO. I can’t see why ‘we’ don’t want to allow gays to marry the person they have grown to love and cherish. However, I’m slowly starting to see why YOU don’t want gays to marry.

      If you ask me it seems like you have a few loose screws up there, what with your ability to imagine marriage between a man (aka a human) and a dog (aka an animal). Actually, that sounds like it might be some good groundwork for an awesome Disney movie!

      Nov 14, 2008 at 10:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve O
      Steve O

      If the self RIGHTeous folks were really so concerned about the institution of marriage shouldn’t they be putting their efforts toward banning divorce?

      Listen, marriage is a legal institution and as a full law abiding citizen of the United States of America you can not give me less rights than others, it is what our founding fathers built this country upon. I do not understand how anyone argues against that point. Religious explanations should not be given to justify legal arrangements in a society with an alledged separation of church and state.

      Nov 14, 2008 at 10:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • An Other Greek
      An Other Greek

      BTW,

      I GET why gays are so interested in this issue, it is about gay RIGHTS.

      What I do NOT get is why trolls and others are so interested… Why spend all yr morning on a gay site being a reactionary on an issue that has NOTHING to do with YOUR rights???

      Wow.

      There are soooo many FRUSTRATED bisexuals out there, and it is time we began to recognize this… They have proven to be lethal to the discussion, particularly with their insistence that orientation is choice (it is, but only for the bi’s, gays and straights do not choose, they just are) Frustrated, repressed bi’s are confusing the issue by using their own repression as a paradigm of behavior…

      —————————————————–

      Nov 14, 2008 at 12:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Catherine
      Catherine

      Please tell me that Tony Perkins did not just compare gay marriage to marriage between blood relatives and marriages to underage children.

      Nov 14, 2008 at 5:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      @You talkin’ to me?: I’d love to be the first to punch Dan Savage in the face.

      More right-wing Christian/Mormon “love” in action.

      Nov 14, 2008 at 8:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Michael: You wrote: “But the most important thing is to not “need” their acceptance. Once you are free from needing it we can move forward.”

      Bravisimo! Absolutely brilliant. I have been on Queerty all day, and that is the most intelligent and liberating statement I have yet to see on this site.

      Go to the head of the class! ;-)

      Nov 14, 2008 at 11:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @You talkin’to me: You really need to stop fingering your asshole and prostate while trolling Morning Goods and then putting them to the computer keyboard to make shitty comments on this site.

      You’re really beginning to smell up the dialogue here, you know?

      Nov 15, 2008 at 12:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brendan D.
      Brendan D.

      He did a great job, but I would have loved to see Dan call Tony out on the blatant race-baiting he uses to try to turn our focus away from the “pro-family” groups and against our community.

      Nov 16, 2008 at 1:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.