Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[LGBT]: Bigots can go eat a bag of [Chick-Fil-A]

19596979899101»

Posts

  • LadyMLadyM Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    I don't think Ernie and Bert even seem like a couple (except The Odd Couple). They don't have very many common interests and are rarely affectionate. When I was a kid I assumed they were brothers, actually.

    But do I think having a gay couple is outside the scope of Sesame Street? Not at all. Inclusion is one of Sesame Street's major themes.



    It started out as a politically conscious show from the very beginning. And I think part of the reason homophobia persists is because people can't separate the image of "two men / two women in love" from the image of "two men / two women having sex." So you show a six year old boy giving a six year old girl a flower and "awww, cute", but a six year old boy giving another six year old boy a flower can't POSSIBLY be a depiction of an innocent crush, it must be an attempt to Corrupt The Children or something. Bleh.

    LadyM on
    wanderingPartizanka
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2012
    Also, what if the gay couple is religious?

    Why can't they get a religious wedding?

    The assumption is that in being gay they are anti-religion.

    Because "Leviticus", or something.

    _J_ on
  • AtomikaAtomika technology is your dickfist Registered User regular
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Guys, for serius.

    New thread.

    Yes, let's definately continue this thing.

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    making the institution of marriage a legal one apparently dependent on two people willing to have sex with each other has always been a legal landmine that has done nothing good for society. It will continue to do harm as gay people enter into the lovely world of divorce settlements and botched prenuptials and ruined lives and careers based upon the erroneous decision to let a ritualistic procedure into the legal sphere. It's like fixing the Y2K bug by putting an asterisk next to year 2000+ entries. It's all well and good for the next thousand years but you know in 2999 we're going to start the whole process all over again.

    I dream of a world where people can get married any way they want and it means nothing legally to anyone but them. They can later after the reception go down to the notary's office and have a ritual signing of the form for a strengthened domestic partnership with all the traditional rights of what we used to call marriage if we really want, but they don't have to do it, and people too world weary to go through the cake and the speech and the ado can just sign it with no fuss and no social expectations. Ridiculous. Corporations don't need to jump through so many clownish hoops to get founded.

    Again, republicans dropped the ball. what bigger encroachment of government on social freedoms is there than encouraging us to love a certain way and have a family a certain way? Pull them out. This, here, is where big government is making its most egregious encroachments, even to the financial ruin of many of its citizens, and yet the precise opposite position is taken. My teeth are gnashing.

    That's a separate fight for a separate time. If you think fundies got upset over Gay Marriage just wait until we try to de-couple marriage from religion. Remember, what sets the fundies off is anything that signals to them their culture is losing its status as dominant. Marriage is still probably the only event where you can be guaranteed to get a chance to get someone into a church in their lives so I doubt they'd want to ever give that up without a fight.

    Umm, marriage kind of is religion-based. Why would you think you get to de-couple it from religion? You always have the option to not be married in a church, or to simply have a JP do the deed, but you're basically so rabid against religion that you think you can take marriage from religion?

    So atheists can't get married?

This discussion has been closed.