scratch-mark

I Miss the Supremes

In spite of trying to stay as far away from “news” as possible, I had to get up to speed this morning.

Here’s the best one.

526886 10200883837448910 848087777 n
Paleoish Gay Marriage

(via ABDada)

I’ll let the Supremes take it away.

(Dedicated to all my friends over the years, gay and lesbian alike—some together for over 25 years. Thanks for the anniversaries, even that one sad funeral. Thanks for just being who you were. You made it supremely plain enough to me, including the ignorance I and many of us grew up with.)

Of course, I think it’s ridiculous for the State to be involved in marriage contracts of any gender, no matter how many people or how big an orgy. On the other hand, I recognize how it has become a sort of symbol of parity for them, and so I get it and support it enthusiastically.

They damn well have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us. 🙂

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

16 Comments

  1. Eric on March 27, 2013 at 19:04

    We won’t have true equality until women can also have mail order brides.

  2. Richard Nikoley on March 27, 2013 at 19:13

    “until women can also have mail order brides.”

    That would be a very interesting business model for achieving profitability.

  3. Joshua on March 27, 2013 at 19:51

    My mom often said “I wish I had a wife”

  4. Joshua on March 27, 2013 at 19:58

    I support gay marriage. The only bad thing about it is that It will be a windfall for the lawyers. I’m also afraid they’re going to make it illegal for private parties to discriminate. I want discrimination of all kinds to be legal so I can know who the bigots are and i can avoid giving them my money.

    Goddamn the iPad typing system sucks donkey Dick.

  5. Richard Nikoley on March 27, 2013 at 20:45

    “The only bad thing about it is that It will be a windfall for the lawyers.”

    Whoa, that’ll be a first.

    This is one thing I take on a totally practical level:, lets get everyone equally fucked by the system, then go from there.

  6. Carole AKA CarbsaneR on March 28, 2013 at 06:49

    Cool! The Supremes were class.

  7. Richard Nikoley on March 28, 2013 at 06:51

    Just a little gesture for my friends.

  8. A.B. Dada on March 28, 2013 at 07:11

    I’ve never taken issue with anyone’s sexual preferences. As I said over on FB, my issue is that this Supreme Court situation really has little to do with marriage, per se; it’s more about adding more people to the entitlement roles at the Federal level.

    If you read Larry Koltikoff’s regular column on Social Security, you can see the scam that combines SS and marriage. MOST of his articles are about how married couples can “scam” for more money, just for the simple fact that they are or were married.

    Instead of dialing out the marriage benefit (which “creates” more retirement spending than is put into the system), the same-sex marriage movement is looking to give out even more future money.

    How about the Supreme Court looks at the idea that married couples aren’t a specific entitled group, and just end all of the Federal programs that give married or previously married individuals more money over single ones?

    I won’t support marriage licenses until polygamy is included. I am a neocon’s worst nightmare.

  9. Richard Nikoley on March 28, 2013 at 07:27

    ABD

    Yea, I agree with all that of course on principle grounds of being anti-state.

    This one I take a bit practically, however. As an extreme example, suppose slavery still existed and there was an emancipation movement. Well, one principled counter-argument would be: they just want to take part in the “bread & circuses” and so this is just a ploy at getting on the public dole like everyone else, etc., etc., and so that’s the battle we need to fight and slavery will take care of itself.

    Same thing with the war on drugs. Legalizing or decriminalizing is, in effect, setting up a whole new tax & regulatory scheme (albeit one that would save a lot of time/money given current enforcement and prison populations).

    So, gay marriage and drug legalization are two issues I begrudgingly support on a practical level because both are toxic and destructive, ideas whose time have come so let’s just get it over with. And, in terms of all the wasted human capital and time and money spent fighting against it would probably end up a net plus even given the entitlements for married homosexuals and addicted drug abusers.

  10. Richard Nikoley on March 28, 2013 at 07:30

    ….Also, I don’t think I’ve ever heard gay people actively speak out against polygamy. I’m quite certain that if such were part of the “bargin” they’d gladly accept for the most part. The ones who wouldn’t are the same who stand in the way of gay marriage now anyway. So I don’t see that as a real issue.

  11. Nicole on March 28, 2013 at 07:39

    I agree that the State has no place to be marriage contracts.

    I am for gay marriage. I’m not sure this will have a desired effect on the gay community though. First of all, it makes them more like everybody else. Is that what they really want?

    Also, the expectation of marriage on the part of accepting parents and the rest of the public adds a new and different pressure. If a true legal commitment is available, many potential partners will be seeking it!

  12. Richard Nikoley on March 28, 2013 at 08:15

    “I’m not sure this will have a desired effect on the gay community though. First of all, it makes them more like everybody else. Is that what they really want?”

    Certainly not. Like I always say, ‘they just have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.’ 🙂

    …On parenting. In addition to just the many gay friends I have by virtue of where I lived (urban lofts), one couple were a lesbian couple and one of them was raising her derelict (straight) sister’s boy, Ben. You could not ask for a better mother/couple. And they were smart about it. Tracy went out of her way to expose Ben to males, all of us. She even let him walk around with a toy holster & toy gun during that stage and brought him to see me just so I could chat him up about it.

  13. Steve W on March 28, 2013 at 11:39

    What I don’t understand is why the term marriage “must” be used to define something categorically new. Husband means something. Wife means something. Spouse-1 and Spouse-2 (or husband and husband / wife and wife) is something different. Therefore a new term is warranted. Not hierarchically subordinate necessarily but certainly different terms and conditions. It – is – different. It – is – not – the – same.

    Most of the homosexuals I’ve known are the same PC types that hand-wring over terminology; very PC linguistically. Yet in this case they demand that language be deformed to their view, all the while referring to Nelson Mandela as “African American”.

  14. Steve W on March 28, 2013 at 11:44

    “…On parenting. In addition to just the many gay friends I have by virtue of where I lived (urban lofts), one couple were a lesbian couple and one of them was raising her derelict (straight) sister’s boy,”…

    Richard, why is it that evolutionary psychology / evolutionary paradigms apply to everything else you discuss except homosexual child rearing.

    You go on and on about others’ fallacious reasoning yet offer anecdotes about “good” gay parents and “bad” straight ones. The question is what is best.

  15. Richard Nikoley on March 28, 2013 at 13:10

    Steve

    Unlike almost everyone, I actually pay attention to the topic and context in which I’m writing and commenting.

    I highly recommend it so that people don’t simply dismiss you as a waste of time.

  16. Joshua on March 28, 2013 at 13:15

    Steve W – Welcome to the English language. Words change over time. Marriage has meant “an intimate or close union [the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross]” for a long time. I don’t see it as very much of a stretch to confer that same terminology on the union of two people of the same gender.

    Gay marriage is obviously a second-best solution behind the total abolition of federal/state acknowledgement of “marriage” of any kind, but since I figure that’s never going to happen, I’ll settle for second best.

    How do you know what the evolutionary paradigm for gays with regard to child rearing is? Do you have a time machine that you haven’t told anybody about? How are you defining “best”? Are you defining it as anything that doesn’t have those icky gays raising children? It’s frankly none of your business what’s “best” for my child.

Leave a Comment





YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780