The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

clover wrote:

It's tacky either way.

This.

It's tantamount to saying to a man married to a woman - "What? You do the cooking? But you have a wife."

Gender stereotyping is the preserve of the douchebag regardless of whom they're being applied them to.

KingGorilla wrote:

I have wondered, however, as a matter of genetics. When gay couples have biological children, what process goes into that. And then dealing with their children with that.

Ultimately is 2 men find a surrogate mother, only one of their genetic material will end up impregnating the woman. Only 1 woman in a lesbian relationship will bear the child so there is no question which one is pregnant.

How does a gay couple deal with an inevitable question like "But which one of you is my "real" mommy?" Or "Why do I look more like one dad, but not my other dad?"

C'mon Gorilla, you're a smart dude.

It depends on the specifics of the situation, like any other way to have kids (or do anything involving more than one person). Some couples set it up so they don't know which is the bio parent, some feel one partner is a better fit for various reasons, some mix and match.

How does any couple deal with awkward questions from their bio, adopted, or other kids? Hopefully by telling them the age-appropriate truth. That's not even a little bit unique to gay parenting.

KingGorilla wrote:

I have wondered, however, as a matter of genetics. When gay couples have biological children, what process goes into that. And then dealing with their children with that.

Ultimately is 2 men find a surrogate mother, only one of their genetic material will end up impregnating the woman. Only 1 woman in a lesbian relationship will bear the child so there is no question which one is pregnant.

How does a gay couple deal with an inevitable question like "But which one of you is my "real" mommy?" Or "Why do I look more like one dad, but not my other dad?"

I've never met a kid belonging to a gay/lesbian couple that viewed either parent as more "real" than the other. Granted, I've only known a few lesbian couples with biological kids and the only gay couples I've known with kids were of the adopted variety.

I have known several single moms who refer to biological fathers as "sperm donors".

clover wrote:

C'mon Gorilla, you're a smart dude.

Clover, there are all sorts of conversations I am surprised parents need to have with their kids, generally because of ignorant people.
-Why don't we go to church? Jane says I am going to hell because I am not baptized.
-Am I autistic because I got shots, but Billy didn't?
etc.

I like to pretend that I live in a world of reason, logic, and respect. Your kids are a primary conduit into the truth that much of our world is none of these things.

In my mind, I never really thought that vaccines, or sports, or videogames could be the source of consternation that they can be for parents and kids.

Don't even get me started on the anti-vax folks.

link

Technically a lesbian couple can both genetically contribute to the child. Prior to fertilization you can take the Chromosomes from one egg and put it into another egg, which has its original mitochondria from that donor.

Not sure if that's ever been done outside of the lab though.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that in the lab they have directly spawned animal offspring from two women. The sperm is just a delivery system, and you can replace that. Eventually you should be able to do the same thing with men, as long as you can ensure you don't get two y chromosomes.

I'll look for links when I get home.

KingGorilla wrote:

I often wonder if this question is more sexual in nature or more social.

IE is the question "Who penetrates whom?" or is it "Which one cooks the roasts, and which one goes to the office?"

Since our marriage, Rubb Ed and I have encountered the question of "So, which one of you is the wife?" many times.

While I am willing to accept the ignorance of the question because we live in a heterosexual-dominated world, I do wish that people would think things through a bit or at least do a Google search. Of course, I do quickly respond with "If Dave or I wanted a wife, we would be heterosexual."

Now, I understand that some people are genuinely curious about the mechanics of a gay relationship, particularly about sex, and if the question is asked respectfully, I will answer in a respectful and clinical manner.

However, sometimes the questions aren't respectful and at that point I simply advise the people they should not have slept through biology class.

I've talked about this sort of issue with my therapist, in the context of "dealing with people asking inappropriate questions". He rolls his eyes a lot at the "so you're gay, what's it like having sex [em]all the time[/em]?" question.

Hypatian wrote:

I've talked about this sort of issue with my therapist, in the context of "dealing with people asking inappropriate questions". He rolls his eyes a lot at the "so you're gay, what's it like having sex [em]all the time[/em]?" question.

The answer is "Awesome!" right?

The answer is "Why do you imagine that homosexual couples have more sex than heterosexual couples? And what makes you think it's okay to pry into my sex life?"

Any question like that which reduces someone to a sex object is really ridiculously insulting. It's a similar thing for trans folk and having people ask questions that imply that the only thing that matters is what's between your legs.

I know I have posted about it before, but any time someone mentions the "homosexual agenda" I immediately think of the wonderful piece that Betty Bowers did exposing the real deal.

Paleocon wrote:

I know I have posted about it before, but any time someone mentions the "homosexual agenda" I immediately think of the wonderful piece that Betty Bowers did exposing the real deal. ;)

And of course PhoenixRev supplied an hour-by-hour breakdown in an earlier thread.

I still feel that the first item in the "homosexual agenda" is "reading the minutes from the last meeting."

Hypatian wrote:

The answer is "Why do you imagine that homosexual couples have more sex than heterosexual couples? And what makes you think it's okay to pry into my sex life?"

Any question like that which reduces someone to a sex object is really ridiculously insulting. It's a similar thing for trans folk and having people ask questions that imply that the only thing that matters is what's between your legs.

Too many words for that sort of question. I think saying "Fabulous!" and then thrust wildly at them will get the point across. Or a sad shake of the head followed by muttering "You must have a depressing sex life..." because that's what I think of those people.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I know I have posted about it before, but any time someone mentions the "homosexual agenda" I immediately think of the wonderful piece that Betty Bowers did exposing the real deal. ;)

And of course PhoenixRev supplied an hour-by-hour breakdown in an earlier thread.

That was this thread! It's just so huge that it became the Catch-All.

Vector wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

The answer is "Why do you imagine that homosexual couples have more sex than heterosexual couples? And what makes you think it's okay to pry into my sex life?"

Any question like that which reduces someone to a sex object is really ridiculously insulting. It's a similar thing for trans folk and having people ask questions that imply that the only thing that matters is what's between your legs.

Too many words for that sort of question. I think saying "Fabulous!" and then thrust wildly at them will get the point across.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marriage-equality-is-a-conservative-cause485/ I tried to get this like the nomination but the f*cking Republican party.

Ulairi wrote:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marriage-equality-is-a-conservative-cause485/ I tried to get this like the nomination but the f*cking Republican party.

Well, it's notable that one of my big gripes with Huntsman during the election was his "traditional marriage" stance. I liked him as a person and candidate a lot, but he didn't hedge or equivocate on the issue - he was definitely in the "marriage is a man and a woman" camp. I would have tolerated him dodging or evading the question, but he was pretty direct.

I'm glad to see he's openly changed his stance, but it is still something to keep in mind.

Ulairi wrote:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marriage-equality-is-a-conservative-cause485/ I tried to get this like the nomination but the f*cking Republican party.

Nice; had a feeling a year ago about this.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marriage-equality-is-a-conservative-cause485/ I tried to get this like the nomination but the f*cking Republican party.

Well, it's notable that one of my big gripes with Huntsman during the election was his "traditional marriage" stance. I liked him as a person and candidate a lot, but he didn't hedge or equivocate on the issue - he was definitely in the "marriage is a man and a woman" camp. I would have tolerated him dodging or evading the question, but he was pretty direct.

I'm glad to see he's openly changed his stance, but it is still something to keep in mind.

He was always respectful but I don't think one could run for President in the Republican party in 2012 with that position. I'm hoping in 2016 both parties are for marriage equality.

Wow, what a refreshing thing to read.

Pardon my pessimism, but I don't think 3 years is long enough to weed out the backwards thinking and bigotry in the republican party. Either Huntsman's tune will change come 2015 nominations or he's not even going to be in contention.

America is pretty messed up right now.

oilypenguin wrote:

Wow, what a refreshing thing to read.

Pardon my pessimism, but I don't think 3 years is long enough to weed out the backwards thinking and bigotry in the republican party. Either Huntsman's tune will change come 2015 nominations or he's not even going to be in contention.

America is pretty messed up right now.

I seriously doubt he's in contention in 2016, and I think there's just about no chance the Republican party nominates someone pro-Gay Marriage in the next presidential cycle. The next Pres election is going to be about either continuing or undoing Obama's policies, including gay marriage, and a Republican can't run successfully in the primaries on continuing them.

Tanglebones wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

Wow, what a refreshing thing to read.

Pardon my pessimism, but I don't think 3 years is long enough to weed out the backwards thinking and bigotry in the republican party. Either Huntsman's tune will change come 2015 nominations or he's not even going to be in contention.

America is pretty messed up right now.

I seriously doubt he's in contention in 2016, and I think there's just about no chance the Republican party nominates someone pro-Gay Marriage in the next presidential cycle. The next Pres election is going to be about either continuing or undoing Obama's policies, including gay marriage, and a Republican can't run successfully in the primaries on continuing them.

One of the comments actually made an interesting post about how the Conservative movement needs to divorce itself from its hodgepodge of baggage including the Evangelical movement. This would certainly allow them to try (seeing as how Republicans are SUPPOSED to be about limited governmental power and not interfering with people's lives if they aren't hurting yours)... but I doubt it'll ever even come close to happening.

Demosthenes wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

Wow, what a refreshing thing to read.

Pardon my pessimism, but I don't think 3 years is long enough to weed out the backwards thinking and bigotry in the republican party. Either Huntsman's tune will change come 2015 nominations or he's not even going to be in contention.

America is pretty messed up right now.

I seriously doubt he's in contention in 2016, and I think there's just about no chance the Republican party nominates someone pro-Gay Marriage in the next presidential cycle. The next Pres election is going to be about either continuing or undoing Obama's policies, including gay marriage, and a Republican can't run successfully in the primaries on continuing them.

One of the comments actually made an interesting post about how the Conservative movement needs to divorce itself from its hodgepodge of baggage including the Evangelical movement. This would certainly allow them to try (seeing as how Republicans are SUPPOSED to be about limited governmental power and not interfering with people's lives if they aren't hurting yours)... but I doubt it'll ever even come close to happening.

Nope. The GOP will spend the next four years trying to enact as many voting restrictions as possible, because the only chance they have to be viable in national elections without making significant changes is to keep as many people as possible from voting. It's easier to crap on the notion of democracy rather than face the fact the nation has moved pretty sharply away from their viewpoints.

The Republican party cannot win a national election while being hostile to large groups of Americans. We cannot engage them on an argument on the size, scope, and role of government while antagonizing their lifestyle or where they and their families come from. I think if the Republicans followed the conservative argument for marriage quality, modernized on immigration that we could win national elections much easier. However, I feel that Milkman is right that they are going to try to limit voters for another cycle as a way to win an election. People don't want to talk to us about how the intersection of government and capitalism came about because of the need for the government to be involved with everything. They don't want to hear about how difficult and expensive we make it to start a business or maintain a business due to regulation that often is put into place as a way to pay back established players. There are all sorts of arguments that the Republicans can win on but while the party hates gay people and wants to kick Hispanics out of the country it's not going to work.

One core belief I don't want the party to give up is the whole culture of life but I wish they would come down against the death penalty and institute some common sense gun control measures (I'm pro-registration but I'm not really a gun person) as well as being against abortion. Republicans spend more time talking about abortion than the death penalty and that doesn't make sense. The Republican party belongs to the Southern Evangelicals/Baptists and they've kicked out the Northeast, Western, and Catholic constitutes.

the 2010 gerrymandering will help them retain control of the House for several more years, regardless if they modernize or not.

Seth wrote:

the 2010 gerrymandering will help them retain control of the House for several more years, regardless if they modernize or not.

All the while being viewed negatively while they flail their arms shouting "Obama's fault!" and wondering why that's not helping them with anyone other than the people who were already voting for them anyway.

correct.

And honestly I think this is the best way. There are good things about the Republican Party. I'd even say there are great things about it. But I don't see those things coming to the fore unless the whole damn thing is starved beyond the point of recovery so talks of reform sour and talks of official schism look reasonable.

....at least, I can hope.

Seth wrote:

correct.

And honestly I think this is the best way. There are good things about the Republican Party. I'd even say there are great things about it. But I don't see those things coming to the fore unless the whole damn thing is starved beyond the point of recovery so talks of reform sour and talks of official schism look reasonable.

....at least, I can hope.

Really, as long as they are the party where compromise is a dirty word, they can be sure not to get a vote from me.

Demosthenes wrote:
Seth wrote:

the 2010 gerrymandering will help them retain control of the House for several more years, regardless if they modernize or not.

All the while being viewed negatively while they flail their arms shouting "Obama's fault!" and wondering why that's not helping them with anyone other than the people who were already voting for them anyway. :P

IMAGE(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljcu5dnQgG1qbs0uj.gif)

Late Friday, the Obama Administration filed a brief with the SCOTUS encouraging the high court to strike down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional:

The Obama administration, in a sweeping defense of marriage rights for same-sex couples, argued on Friday that the denial by states of those rights over the last decade is proof that discrimination against gays and lesbians still continues. The brief cited California’s flat ban on such marriages — Proposition 8 — as an example of the ongoing problem of bias against homosexuals.

In the context of the brief, the brief references to California’s Proposition 8 were subtle and fleeting, but they immediately raised the question of whether the administration was getting into position to come out directly, next week, against that voter-approved ballot measure. It has not yet taken a position on the proposition’s constitutionality, and that is not an issue in the case in which the new document was filed — United States v.Windsor (12-307).

In a separate administration brief, also filed Friday in the Windsor case, the government’s lawyers argued that their appeal challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is properly before the Court, and thus can be decided in that case. That 1996 law’s Section 3 barred legally married same-sex couples from any federal benefits or programs based on marriage.

The brief continued the efforts by the administration, begun two years ago tomorrow, to persuade the courts to adopt a rigorous test when they judged laws that discriminated against gays and lesbians. Instead of the much more tolerant “rational basis” test, the government has been pressing for what is called “heightened scrutiny.” And Friday’s brief defended that approach energetically.

Although it may not sway the Court, it is a significant milestone that the executive branch is now firmly in the marriage equality camp.