CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

Zora — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:28:41 -0000

"But seriously, while I get it, why does this question even have to be answered? Thereâ€™s no burden of proof here."

Because, dear Dan L, the Ick Factor is operative whether we like it or not. Wish I knew the cure. A GLBT couple on every block? Lamba and LISC should fund that, kill two birds w/ one stone.

Re: Question of the day

Ahoy — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:52:36 -0000

People should mind their own business, Period.

Re: Question of the day

dan l — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:34:58 -0000

-----
Letâ€™s leave aside the fields of interior design and fashion, and focus ...... party chow. I mean, no one else was bringing duck sausage in brioche).
-----

Not to mention, if you had a some arch-conservative types on the block and a lgbt couple, I'll guarantee you that the lgbt couple will throw a way better party.

But seriously, while I get it, why does this question even have to be answered? There's no burden of proof here. It's a very simple issue of equality.

Re: Question of the day

Lynn S — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:17:28 -0000

Right on, Zora!! Some of the nicest houses in my neighborhood are owned by lesbians...and there's the gay couple who both have SmartCars (fantastic gas mileage, less pollution)!

Re: Question of the day

David Ormsby — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:51:18 -0000

Two guys beat on each other to a pulp in a boxing ring. Cheers! Two guys kiss. Ick. I see.

Re: Question of the day

Zora — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:39:54 -0000

Toni H. asked: How does being gay â€œprovide general assistance to the communityâ€?

Let's leave aside the fields of interior design and fashion, and focus on the local.

In many urban neighborhoods, they are the ones with the nicest homes on the block and are generous about dividing perennials and sharing garden tips. Having gay neighbors was actually great for my home's property value over time (not to mention the quality of our block party chow. I mean, no one else was bringing duck sausage in brioche).

I know of at least one alderman who used to "recruit" gay couples to buy homes on troubled blocks in her ward, to help turn them around.

Re: Question of the day

Frank Sobotka — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:35:54 -0000

It's totally about the ick factor for me. I hate fashion, show tunes, and the theatre...

Re: Question of the day

Bookworm — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:37:15 -0000

Perhaps the biggest fear among cultural/religious conservatives is that their moral convictions (developed and passed on over thousands of years of human history) combined with the inherent distaste heterosexuals have for homosexuality are going to be criminalized or branded as bigotry. The actions of Proposition 8 opponents in California (boycotts and protests against Mormon churches, etc.) certainly do not allay these fears.

To some extent, the "ick factor" will always exist. The fear is not so much that other people are doing it, as that those who find it "icky" will be forced to think otherwise, or else.

Re: Question of the day

wordslinger — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:04:06 -0000

--Non-productive couples defy nature, and in the end, nature wins - perhaps that is why gay marriage continually died out?--

Sigh... a lot people I respect here refuse to bite on this nonsense, but sometimes I can't resist.

VMan -- what exactly are you talking about? It's gibberish. Let's take the first "point" ----"Non-productive couples defy nature, and in the end, nature wins -"

. If by that, you mean, two individuals who can't conceive will not have children, very true. What's your point? That was true billions of people ago.

The next point: -- --"perhaps that is why gay marriage continually died out?' ''-

Where, when, what are you talking about? And what's your point?

I have to borrow a phrase -- are you daft?

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:52:44 -0000

Rich, I think it's probably the same "ick" factor that created "white" and "colored" drinking fountains and restrooms. To most of us, it seems silly now, but it didn't seem silly to many people at the time. I don't know exactly what you do about that.

Re: Question of the day

Objective Dem — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:28:57 -0000

VM,

(First apologizes to Rich for getting slightly off track)

I don't necessarily agree with your statement "Compulsory sterilization wouldnâ€™t be supported by traditionists because they support life and freedom." This type of statement is broad and the reality is more complex. For instance many, if not most,traditionalists are not opposed to the death penalty or war because that is considered different where the death is justified.

One of the underlying issues with SSM is people will make broad statements about the importance of their beliefs and how these values keep civilization intact, but they only care about these core values when it comes to gays. For instance they say that they believe in the importance of marriage, but yet they don't oppose divorce. They say that marriage is for procreation, but they don't see anything wrong with elderly or infertile people getting married. They say that marriage is ordained by God, but they don't mind when people get married in another faith with a different God. They say civil unions are the equivalent, but fight tooth and nail to prevent gays from using the same word to describe their relationship.

Going back to the original question, the ick factor is a component but I think change is the bigger issue.

Re: Question of the day

OldSmokey2 — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:22:11 -0000

As someone who grew up in Mississippi in the 1950s and 1960s, I think the "Ick" factor is very real in this debate. Before desegregation, I well remember the fears my parents and other Southern whites expressed, openly and often, about blacks contaminating public swimming pools and bathrooms, about how having blacks co-mingle with white students in classrooms and school locker rooms would cause all kinds of diseases. It's just not natural, they said, over and over and over. If God had intended blacks and whites to mix, they said, he wouldn't have made different races. Blacks and whites have always been separate, for thousands of years, they saidâ€”it's even ordained in the Bible.
And what happened when my school and thousands of others had to desegregate? Almost overnight, you just quit hearing those arguments. Why? Because people saw with their own eyes that none of those fears came to pass. The way those arguments just literally vanished remains to this day one of the most striking things I have ever witnessed.
And guess what? The exact same thing has happened across Europe, in Canada, in Vermont and Massachusetts with state recognition of gay relationships. A few people still go on about it, but most people have seen with their own eyes that a gay couple getting married has absolutely no negative consequences in their lives, and, like people in the South in the 1960s, they've shrugged their shoulders and moved on. Nothing destroys the "Ick" factor like reality.

Re: Question of the day

Rick — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:07:35 -0000

"Weâ€™ve established the fact that historically gay marriages have existed but have died out."

I fail to see where we've "established" this point at all. You asserted it, but I don't see it being proven.

Re: Question of the day

VanillaMan — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:05:57 -0000

anti-family conservatives

You must be late to this conversation. We've established the fact that historically gay marriages have existed but have died out. Go to any natural history museum and take a look at Roman or Greek culture. Or Alexander the Great.

Your straw men arguments are...um, straw.

Re: Question of the day

VanillaMan — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:01:51 -0000

Are you suggesting â€œre-educationâ€ for Gays, and Hetro couples that donâ€™t have children?

Have you ever heard of a conservative proposing re-education? "Re-education" is a term only an elitist would use. I believe in freedom, diversity of opinions, and intellectual respect for one another.

So we differ.

Re: Question of the day

Rob_N — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:58:15 -0000

And PS Dupage Dan -

You may not have a problem with "civil unions" (whatever that is) but there are plenty of anti-family conservatives out there who automatically decry civil unions as "just another type of marriage" and thus pooh-pooh the very notion of it.

Re: Question of the day

Rob_N — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:53:57 -0000

PS Vanilla -

Where has gay marriage "died out"?

The so-called Illinois "Family" Institute and similar conservative-partisan groups try to use a similar argument, insisting that the decline in gays applying for marriage licenses in Massachusetts is somehow "proof" that it was just a fad and is now in decline...

Nevermind the fact that after having been banned there would be a natural spike in marriage applications as the first group that is eligible to marry does so. Since that time, the rates of applications have become steady.

It's kind of like all the people who rush the stores at 4am the day after Thanksgiving.

At 3:59am there are no customers in the stores because the doors are locked... At 4am there are suddenly hundreds... By 6am the number of customers has tapered off as the early birds have finished and left, but there's still a steady stream of other customers throughout the day...

Duh.

Re: Question of the day

VanillaMan — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:49:34 -0000

I've enjoyed all of your postings today on this Objective Dem. The only one that lost me for a moment was when you wrote:

Initially I was going to say that opponents of SSM are not the equivalent of advocates of compulsory sterilization.

Compulsory sterilization wouldn't be supported by traditionists because they support life and freedom.

Besides, what would cousins do?

Re: Question of the day

Bacon — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:42:58 -0000

When I saw Brokeback mountain it was opening weekend in N. Lincoln park and I (straight male) was with my girlfriend. I was kind of proud to be the only straight couple I saw in the theater that night. I cherish my gay friends and family, and fight hard for equality in marriage every chance i get. And during the first sex scene, which is passionate, well acted, and between two objectively great looking people, I went 'ick'.

So yes, I think the 'ick' can exist, even for the most progressive of us. Making this a basis of how we treat people, and especially about how we make law, is absurd. If we made no-ick the basis for marriage licenses, only about 4% of the population would be allowed to marry, and most of them would live in Southern California.

Re: Question of the day

Rob_N — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:42:45 -0000

Yes. It's very icky when Catholics marry Protestants... I mean when a white person marries a black person... I mean when two unrelated adults who love each other and care for each other want to spend the rest of their lives together and have a legal document as proof of their devotion to each other....

Either it's childish "ickiness" or it's disgusting discrimination against couples who are in love.

And VanillaMan's crass argument about weak links and non-child bearing hooey proves the point. Plenty of heterosexual couples are biologically unable to have children and many others simply choose not to have children.

What does that have to do with being gay, especially since many gay couples can and do raise happy, healthy children that they adopt or create through IVF?

The same arguments you're making now were used to rationalize bans on marrying people of different faiths, races, etc. in the past. Didn't hold water then and they still don't hold water today.

Re: Question of the day

Objective Dem — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:40:39 -0000

Toni H.,

The theory is that the gay man does not need to feed and support a wife and children. Therefore the products of his labor is used to support other families or parents. In the ancient world this meant produce from farming or meat from the hunt. In the modern world, it means financial and other support for nieces/nephews or elderly parents and taxes for schools.

Re: Question of the day

Rep. Greg Harris — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:37:25 -0000

An interesting day of posts, covering many of the good public policy reasons for supporting civil unions/marriage, a lot of the traditional pro and con arguments....but mainly a provocative topic that has caused a lot of the underlying emotion to be expressed that rarely does in these debates. Thanks for posting it Rich.

Re: Question of the day

dupage dan — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:25:08 -0000

Vanilla Man,

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I for one don't have a problem with civil unions. They will provide for the same benefits as marriage (and downsides, for that matter) without pushing into an area that bothers many people. That isn't an ICK factor for me but could be for many conservative church goers. We have a societal duty to ensure equal protection under the law. It may be semantics but I think the gay community should not try so hard to push at the conservative church goers with the marriage thing. Both sides can live together with less hostility, I think, if the gay community can accept the historical male/female nature of marriage.

BTW, Europe won't be european in about 50 years due to a birth rate that can't keep up with the death rate. Italy is probably in the worst shape. Those w/more education and higher income have smaller families. The figures don't lie.

Re: Question of the day

Amy — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:23:29 -0000

Rich, you banned a subscriber...talk about acting with standards. really gutsy. now, for some humor, i loved Jon Stewart's take on the Vermont legislature decision....new Ben and Jerry's flavor...
Chubby Hubbies! come on Illinois Legislature, enact fairness for people in love!

Re: Question of the day

Toni H. — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:02:46 -0000

Love Vanilla Man! Why don't you run for office - I would raise money for you!!!