If America had true marriage equality, we could get hitched to Etsy.com, the online shop where independent artists sell their wares to the public. We’ve found a number of great (affordable) finds there, and how can you say no to supporting painters, sculptors, and mixed media talent? It’s also where artist Paul Richmond is selling his latest gem: “Cheesecake Boy Pin-Up Painting.” No, we’re not getting a cut of the sale, but as Paul suggests: “It’s never too early for this kind of Christmas package!” Oh, the puns are endless. Like: “Shop till you drop (trao).” Your turn!
(Note to artists: Got something that should be on the radar of Queerty readers? Tell us!)
Bill S
“If Norman Rockwell was gay.”
Timmeeeyyy
I LOVE Paul Richmond’s work! You can see more of it on his flickr stream http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulysworld/
ChristopherJ
Love it. Love the bag love the shoes, love everything
M Shane
Gays will be a part of Norman Rockwell America! Huh?
Michael Letterman
There is nothing unequal about marriage. Marriage is a union between man and woman to join as one. It was never intended as a social union between two members of the same sex. If you’re looking for some kind of equiable solution then perhaps a civil designation can be found for such.
But seriously where does it stop. Should we also look at unions for people who live the Furry lifestyle? How about those who seek to “marry” their dogs or cats? What about people who go beyond the typical tree “hugging”?
Marriage for any deviancy seems inappropriate.
youcanthandlethetruth
@Michael Letterman: Michael thank you for adding a voice of sanity to the ludicrous attempts at redefining marriage
David
@Michael Letterman: Are you even kidding me with this posting? People will want to marry their dogs or cats? It absolutely frightens me to think that people really think like this, but clearly at least one person does. My advice to you is to get a grip on reality. We’re talking about human equality here–yes, an “equitable” enjoyment of rights and freedoms. Oh, and please learn to spell.
Here here to Paul Richmond for another great piece of art that makes this Jewish boy want to celebrate Christmas!
Michael Letterman
@David: No, I’m not kidding you and unfortunately there are too many people who beielve in not only the deviancies I list but many more, some too horrible to even relate.
I have a firm grip on reality and perhaps too vivid a view of how twisted some people want to make this world. We are not talking about Human equality we’re talking about Human deviancy. Non “normal” behavior.
Rights and freedoms are granted equaly to all, specific rights based on your sexual preference isn’t one of them. The day the government decides to grant homosexuals “equal” rights they better be prepared for the onslaught of other devancies looking for the same treatment.
So my advice to you, is to stop advocating deviancy as a mode of respectable lifestyle choice and on a personal note Jewish boys all over the world want to celbrate Christmas but true Jewish boys don’t envy other religions holidays, they relish their own.
Bill S
“Furries” CAN get married. Where’d you get the idea they couldn’t?
And isn’t giving hetereosexuality preferential treatment granting a group of people specific rights based on sexual preference?
Another thing: the APA draws a clear distinction between sexual orientation (Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual) and sexual fetishes and paraphilias, such as the ones you described. Even you couldn’t be stupid enough to believe that same-sex marriage could lead to people marrying their pets.
M Shane
If heterosexuals can get married, so should dogs!
Dwayne
@Michael Letterman: And what about people who spend all their time on “deviant” websites trying to get a rise out of people? Sorry, Michael. I think your argument (which seems completely irrelevant to this article) is just a thinly-veiled excuse to keep coming back to Queerty so you can check out the half-naked guy in this painting.
Michael Letterman
Not only do I believe it. I have heard the argument made in several forums.
Marriage was desgined for a man and woman to join as one for the purposes of legitimizing their offspring.
Trust me I don’t spend all of my time, nor the majority of my time, nor any large amount of time at deviant websites. You can think what you want, your thinking something doesn’t make it so.
hyhybt
Oh, go on and list the ones “too horrible to even relate.” The usual list of incest, bestiality, and pedophilia is getting old.
Ted C.
I just don’t understand how a dog, cat, or tree would exchange vows. Or how you could determine whether the dog, cat, or tree was consenting.
But apart from that, sure, I’d let them get married.
I assume this is in the same universe as those talking trees in Lord of the Rings.
hyhybt
Nitpicky and not really relevant, but there aren’t any talking trees in Lord of the Rings.
Michael Letterman
Hyhybt: Perhaps I have a bit more descretion in the matter, so no thank you I shall not list them for you get your kicks elsewhere.
Ted: You not understsanding is noted, I don’t understand why a man would rather have sex with another man instead of a woman. Your “letting” them get married wouldn’t surprise me however thankfully this country holds marriage sacred and shall continue to do so for quite some time.
edgyguy1426
@Michael Letterman: Michael have you ever taken a critical thinking course in your life? You say:”But seriously where does it stop. Should we also look at unions for people who live the Furry lifestyle? How about those who seek to “marry” their dogs or cats?”
This is one of the most common fallacious arguments around, the slippery-slope. But in order for it to work (which it seldom does) you have to be able to PROVE that one thing will lead to the other.
EPIC FAIL (Damn, that’s the second time I’ve used those words together after promising never again to do so) The author apologizes. 🙂
Cam
@Michael Letterman: you said “There is nothing unequal about marriage. Marriage is a union between man and woman to join as one. It was never intended as a social union between two members of the same sex. ”
________________________________________________________
I always LOVE it when straights get on here acting like Marriage fell out of the sky and was ordained as only allowed between people like Ma and Pa Walton.
Um, can I remind you that Marriage for thousands of years in many areas was ploygomous? That today in dozens of countries men can still take up to 4 wives? That people of royal birth couldn’t marry commoners? That people from warring countries couldn’t marry? women sold themselves into marriage during the westward expansion of this nation, or were sold by their families in Europe to men out west who needed wives. Italians and Irish were kicked out by their families if they married each other, Germans were not allowed to Marry Jews, Blacks and Whites were not allowed to marry….
All those things (Except the foreign ploygomy)has changed. So to try to come here and act like you know what marriage was created for, and acting as if it has always been one way is beyond ridiculous. Oh, and by the way, in some countries, on the wedding night, the lord of the Manner was allowed to have sex with the new bride before her husband did. So again, why don’t you try to tell us how Marriage has ALWAYS been one sacred bond between good churchgoing men and women.
Michael Letterman
Edgyguy: No my university didn’t offer it. Yet I find my critical thinking to be quite sufficent on this topic. Furthermore scientifically speaking I don’t need to “prove” anything I can merely postulate the possiblity and allow time to do the proving for me.
Cam: You assume I’m straight, good for you even though it’s only a guess. You list many examples of the perversion of marriage (yet they all still are about the man/woman version). I agree throughout history man has sought to alter and change the fundemental core reason for marriage to suit his own adgenda. This is exactly what homosexuals are trying to do.
There is nothing wrong in wanting the same treatement that married people enjoy. Health benefit coverage, right of inheritance, etc. but it does not need to be called “marriage” I think it would be much easier to pass a civil partnership which could be entered into by either homosexuals or heterosexuals granting them the same privilidges without the benefit of marriage.
Until this argument shows up on a referendum and is either passed or as I suspect quashed once and for all, it remains a moot point. The law is what it is and until such laws are changed marriage will remain as it is.
BTW to all of you, to personally attack me is amusing to me as I consider it the act of someone with a weak argument resorting to subpar tactics.
Stan
here’s another painting by this artist that seems appropriate, Noah’s gay wedding Cruise:
http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=23454918
Cam
@Michael Letterman: you said “Cam: You assume I’m straight, good for you even though it’s only a guess. You list many examples of the perversion of marriage (yet they all still are about the man/woman version). I agree throughout history man has sought to alter and change the fundemental core reason for marriage to suit his own adgenda. This is exactly what homosexuals are trying to do.”
__________________________________________________________
You can try to say that marriage was created, THEN perverted. But your evidence is sorely lacking. Those weren’t perversions of marriage, they were marriage changing throughout the ages. What I find simply incredible, is that the 10 commandments were handed down directly by God according to the Bible. So those are pretty important rules. I don’t see ANYBODY in any of your churches out picketing to outlaw adultery. Now why is that? homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible in letters written by St. Paul to the Romans. Ok, so you have a human being writing a letter to the Romans, OR you have Laws Handed down from God directly to a prophet. And yet you all choose to ignore those and get all fired up about the gays.
It’s obvious, you only want to listen to your rules when you think they won’t apply do you. You may end up committing adultry, better leave that option out there…but hey! i’m not gay! So lets outlaw all that dirty gay stuff so I can feel like I’m a good Christian.
The selfishiness of your type is truly staggaring. don’t strain your elbow from patting yourself on the back too strenuously.
M Shane
@Michael Letterman : While I’m gay, I frequently take a not at all uncommon gay approach to ” marriage” which is has to do with reasons to involved to say here, mainly that we have our own traditions and ways of living togetherthat aping heterosexual would put to rest. That Civil unions are better approach, You say this.
And I say it with reservation that it may be better than nothing for those who want it,.
But then you go on to assert that gay people are perverts and engage in pracytices not unlike beastiality etc. We are noyt “normal ” if that was ever something to be proud of. In America it currently means being illiterate, inhumain, greedy, ill mannered, politically naive, and generally thoughtless.So we are happy to be out of the normal range. I hope you feel happy being in it, since that seems to be implied.
For what ever reason which I think is politically dificult, I don’t think that gays will get marriage, because of religious fetishism, mainly, but civil parnerships. I hope people get what thyey want, but it is truely nearly insane to say that this is the first step in a long progression of improvisations.
Homosexuality is pretty common and is a major proclivity of people and appers to be unavoidable,; the likelihood of it leading to other problematic forms of marriage is zilch, and you sound a little to inteligent to make such a lame assertion.
If you belive that Civil Unions would be most suitable , then you could pick far more urbane ways of saying that.
hyhybt
@Michael Letterman: That’s not what “moot” means. Issues are moot *after* they’ve been settled “once and for all,” not before.
Michael Letterman
Cam: Thanks for the humorous post I guess some of you are kinda funny in a different way. BTW I am affiliated with no church nor am I any kind of Christian. I also oppose and will villify anyone who commits adultry at any time during their marriage. That’s what I mean when I say marriage is and should remain sacred.
M Shane: I’m so sorry you think that homosexuality is in any way, shape or form, normal. If it was there would be no reason for this discussion as the rules of marriage would have long ago been changed to include such people. There are very few homosexuals in the world when you take into account the whole world population. This minorty seeks to alter the very foundation of marriage in this country and I fully agree with you that it shall (most likely) never happen.
Civil partnerships should be acceptable (yes better than nothing and nothing is what the alternative is).
HYHBT: Yeah I used the word right, the topic has been settled it is the homosexual population (minority) seeking to change it and to date this attempt has been quite unsucessful. I hope and pray it always remains so for the reasons I have outlined.
InExile
@Michael Letterman: Shouldn’t you reveal the name of your Church, the address, and telephone number? Sounds like you are getting into the political side of religion and should be taxed. The government could use additional income.
M Shane
Letterbox: Your reading skills are sadly deficient; I didn’t and never would say that homosexuality was” normal”–that seems to be a freudian slip on your part. Are you gay then?
I said that there wasn’t to much to be said for normality given the general display of it in the U,.S. you being an example.
You don’t seem to have comprehended much of anything I said! WHY? ? Because you have and agenda and an inability to comprehend or respond tonew information clearly.
Michael Letterman
Inexile: As I said I do not now nor have I ever belonged to any church. I never said equated marriage with religion. I also pay quite a bit in taxes myself so I feel like I do my part if the government is deficient in money perhaps they should budget themselves more carefully.
Mshane: Thanks for the personal attack, again I find them to be the tool of a weak argumant. The US has both its share of normal and abnormal, thankfully it’s the normal that usually prevails. And no I’m not gay but my neighbor is, several other friends are and I used to work with quite a few back in the day. I indeed have an adgenda to preserve and continue the sactity of marriage. I do not need to hide that fact.
M Shane
MrLetteman: Then you should also appreciate that I dispise the idea that gay people would want to be part of the tedious mainstream status quo and also that I would like to preserve the sanctity of Gay community and our richer ways of relating to one another as people, not breeding pairs. I think that we should have our own distinct pairing option to avoid confusion.
Not all gays believe in marriage, you are very mistaken if you only attend to commonplace news.
Michael Letterman
Mshane: While I will stop myself short of announcing homosexuality (or any type of sex preference) to be sancitified, nor do I for a second agree that the homosexual method of relating to one and other is in any way richer.
Ok let me qualify that, I’ve seen both the desperate, over-the-top gays and the mainstrean gays, who during our friendship felt they needed to “come out” to me and my wife. I’ve seen how their realtionships fall apart and the hurt and pain that’s left.
So it’s not richer, nor is it poorer, it’s plain old human. I’m not anti gay (by any respect) nor do I feel that those who are and actively protest the gay community are right. What I am is pro marriage, the way it is. If the gay community ever starts asking for civil partnerships I’ll put my vote right along theirs. I’ll champion that plan and hope the gay community gets the very same rights and privlidges as the married community.
I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, that being said I don’t agree with a lot of heterosexual lifestyles either. To me a moral gay person is as worthy as a moral heterosexual. People are equal end of story. Lifestyle choices are not.
As an aside, nothing I have typed on this site, or any others is meant to be anything but an attempt to open dialouge and share my opinion. I in no way am attacking any one person or ideal in specific.