Sex on Glee and NOM's animus

http://www.nomblog.com/15413

Entertainment Weekly:

The couples losing their virginity? Finn and Rachel and…Kurt and Blaine! Yep, the couple — who was featured on the cover of [Entertainment Weekly]’s Gay Teens on TV issue – finally decide to take the next step in their relationship. It’s all handled very delicately and is incredibly moving. I can’t think of another network series that’s taken a teenage gay relationship so far or been so progressive. The moment is instigated when another teen, Warbler member Sebastian (Grant Gustin), aggressively pursues Blaine. The trio actually have a very amusing triple date to West Lima’s only gay bar Scandals and run into none other than Karofsky (Max Adler). Look for a great moment between Karofsky and Kurt.

What does this have to do with marriage? This just furthers my earlier point that NOM has a deep animus towards gays and ANY portrayal of them on television. Let's look at some comments so far, but believe me there will be more to come later in the day.

Here's a brilliant one from j. fox

I hope there are complaints to the FCC, advertisers and network. This is brainwashing and corrupting the minds of young TV viewers.

You hope people complain about a gay sex scene on TV because it is "brainwashing". I really don't think I need to say anything further, his own idiocy speaks for itself. Here's another one from Louis E., a self-proclaimed anti-gay democrat.

EW should get complaints about the use of the word "progressive".

Your complaining about using a word in an article is hilarious. It's almost like your a devout-Glenn Beck follower. And I happen to think acceptance of homosexuality is very progressive.

Here's another winner from Jeff

If the producers of GLEE get away with this, then it won't be long before other producers of other programs will do the same. It won't be long before homsexual couples get married on TV programs. So yes, we need to stand against what the producers of GLEE are doing. It has EVERYTHING to do with marriage.

Thank you for answering what it has to do with marriage. I would like to point out that in 2002 the World Wrestling Federation (now WWE) had a gay couple almost get married on TV, so I don't see what your issue is. And honestly, gay marriage is part of life. Accept it. Showing it on TV isn't a bad thing.

Here's a good one from BDW

The lbgt doesnt get it. We that believe that marriage is between a man and woman, and we that do not approve of or support homosexual life styles are sick and tired of having it shoved in our faces,of having you agressively attack our beliefs, of you agressively indoctrinating our children fromm hollywood to high school. We will not be silent. We will not just go away.

No, we get it, but let's be honest here for a moment. It's not being shoved in your faces anymore than homosexual people have heterosexual life shoved in their face everyday. We don't attack your beliefs, we question the merits behind your beliefs. And it is not "indoctrinating" your children. It is giving them information that gay people do exist, are quite happy, and lead happy lives. The shear ANIMUS you show in wanting them irradiated from television is mind-boggling.

Here's a good one from M. Jones

Is this really the kind of pseudo reality we want to promote? How can we have a marriage society for supporting the begetting of children when we are encouraging a lifestyle of teenage Sodomy? We have lost our moral compass, I hope the GOP can and will fix this in 2012.

How is this pseudo reality? Gay people have sex. Gay marriage exists in 6 states and in the District of Columbia. And honestly? You're disapproving of how people have sex? I can't think of anything MORE BIG GOVERNMENT than that. Good luck with the GOP, bedroom-monitor. (P.S. Give it a try, it is amazing)

I do think the post of the day comes from John, tho

It has everything to do with marriage. This show makes homosexuality look normal and natural. If it looks normal and natural, then there should be no problem with allowing gay marriage. Problem is, it's not natural, and it's not normal. 3% is not normal.

Thank you again for pointing out what it has to do with marriage. But my question for you is, why is abnormal bad? Are buildings natural or normal? They don't naturally occur in nature, after all. Fact is, it is natural and it is perfectly normal. Your 3% figure might be off, but it begs the question: what percentage qualifies as "normal"? I want a serious answer to this so I know who I can discriminate against without concern.

More to come as these comments get posted. Seriously, this is comedic gold. It is my fondest wish that someone would publish all of these comments in a book just to show how full of animus NOM and its supporters are, as well as how ludicrous their arguments are.

Here's another winner from Louis E

Wren,there is no excuse for anyone (including homosexuals) NOT to be "antigay".The "gay" attitude toward homosexuality is totally incorrect and any action in accordance with it,accommodation of it,or uncritical presentation of it is harmful.(Noting again,I am a non-religious lifelong Democrat).

Oh Louis E., thank you for admitting that you are antigay. You just admitted there's no excuse not to be antigay. Your animus and the fact that NOM allows such blatant homophobia to be displayed on it's MODERATED comment board just demonstrates that there is no logical (read: unemotional) reason to oppose gay rights. And lifelong Democrat? How old are you, again? Remember back when Democrats had a strangehold on the south and vehemently opposed the ending of slavery?

Bible Quotes from Comments

This one is just too good to pass up, from Faye.

Why is part of the Bible quoted, "Render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's, and render unto god what is god's."

But these parts of the Bible are ignored:

"G-d said, 'It is not good that man be alone'. . .and G-d built the rib that He had taken from the man, into a WOMAN, and He brought her to the man."

"Male and Female, He created them. G-d blessed them, and He said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply.'"

"Therefore shall a man leave his father (not 2 fathers) and his mother (not 2 mothers), and he shall cleave unto his wife (not his husband)."

"Like the practice of the land of Egypt in which you dwelled, do not do."

"You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination."

Green because I want to mix it up. But to answer Faye's question, those parts of the bible are probably ignored for the same reason these quotes are ignored.

Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall bean abomination unto you (Leviticus 11:12)

They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh. (Leviticus 21:5). This refers to priests, but I know plenty of bald priests that do not have beards.

Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee. (Leviticus 19:19)

When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

“‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, they will be unclean till evening. (Leviticus 15:19-23)

Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:31) ~ Would you really want someone to deny YOU a marriage license?

So please, if you want to quote the bible, quote other stuff from the Old Testament as well, Faye.

NY Clerks and Marriage Licenses

http://www.nomblog.com/13839

People for the American Way Foundation (PFAW) is threatening legal action against a New York town unless its clerk starts issuing same-sex marriage licenses — or resigns.

Rose Marie Belforti made national headlines last month when she announced that her Christian beliefs would not allow her to sign same-sex marriage licenses, and that a deputy clerk would now fulfill this particular task.

According to PFAW, Belforti has committed a misdemeanor for refusing to personally issue two women a marriage license on Aug. 30. If the board fails to force Belforti to “perform her essential duties” or resign, the liberal advocacy group vows to take legal action on the women’s behalf.

So, NOM has decided to take the side of Ms. Beiforti in this scenario of Ms. Beiforti refusing to do her job based on moral reasons. It's funny because NOM attacked Obama for doing the same with DOMA. I guess so long as it's "defending marriage," any tactic is okay. Of course, if Maggie or Brian wishes to dispute this, I would love the chance to present an interview on this blog so that they might explain the double standards of their organization.

And this wouldn't be complete without ignorant comments from the site, so, let's begin with one from Michael Ejercito

Just like the NYC government forced its police department to issue pistol permits to those not legally prohibited from carrying pistols?


So, Mr. Ejercito, in your mind, the proliferation of gay marriage in the state of New York is similar to the proliferation of handguns in New York City? That certainly reveals the feelings of Mr. Ejercito towards gay marriage and it's impact on society.




Here is a comment from Louis E.


Like the ACLU,PFAW is a group my family *used* to support,until they got involved in issues where we were not in agreement with their stand...


Yeah, why would anyone want to support an organization whose stated purpose is to protect the rights of Americans everywhere?




Last one, from TC Matthews.



Live and let live right? Why is it so necessary to *force* everyone into agreement? It's not enough to force the redefinition of marriage on the nation, but we all have to like it too. Ridiculous.


This one requires a little more dissection.


1). Live and let live? Sort of like this marriage clerk is doing? 
2). It's not forcing anyone into a moral agreement, it is just trying to get Ms. Belforti to do the job she was elected to do. 
3). You don't have to like it, you merely have to abide by the law. For example, I find it absolutely appalling that there are speed limits on the road. I do not agree with them morally (why should the government tell me how fast I can go?). And yet if I break the law, I get in trouble. Weird, right?
4). The only thing ridiculous is the outrage of Mr. Matthews, surpassed only by the sheer inanity of NOM for implicitly defending someone deliberately not doing her job. 

Sunday Comments on Sex and Marriage

http://www.nomblog.com/13147

While Denny Smith, Executive Director of Winning Marriage Equality, lists plenty of nice things that happen to be part of marriage (and other deep friendships as well), he is passionately convinced that "marriage is not about sex ... it's not about sex":

Marriage isn't about sex at all? We wonder what married people would think about that claim.

Denny's claim that marriage isn't about sex proves the point our President Brian Brown made in this week'sMarriage News:

"Gay marriage is a radical proposal because it cuts marriage off at the root, separating it from its roots in human nature."

Let's round up some comments

Here's one from John Noe

Marriage is about the union of one man and one woman. It is about the sex because only heterosexual sex can produce future offspring.


To save myself time, I'll address it at the same time as addressing this gem from Louis E.


Anyone who doesn't understand that marriage exists to unite males to females (those are the sexes of the partners) doesn't understand marriage at all.


Well, they're both wrong. Marriage is not about procreation.  If I may quote the ruling, "Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Griswold v. Connecticut"


Here's one from twingirl2


If marriage is not about SEX, then let's just all drop the label "sameSEX" as a label to claim it applies to sameSEX people. A little sameSEX honesty is in order on the bit and switch politics of sameSEX activists. First you use SEX acts to describe people as either homo or hetero-SEXual (because they have SEX with each other), and then you lump them toegether also based on their gender as non-similar groups because they have male or female homoSEXual or heteroSEXual or biSexual attraction, still based on gener or sex (male or female). It is dishonest and ingenuous to then claim that that same activity, SEX, doesn't really matter in the relationship because it is all about love and commitment and wine and sunsets. No, it IS about sex, but not about only sex acts, but about sexuality itself.


You missed capitalizing SEX a few times at the end there. And yes, we should drop the same sex label and just say it's "marriage" because that's what it is. The joining of two consenting adults into a civil contract called marriage. Everything else is kind of gibberish.


Here is a winner from Tim


Really CJR?? You think this is a description of marriage? It may be a description of a relationship but it has NOTHING to do with the fundamental nature of marriage. This describes parts of a good friendship or a romantic relationship but NOT a marriage. You may want to redefine marriage to be just this but it ISN'T! Marriage is protected and valued in society because of it's nature and ability to bond a woman and man together into more than they are alone. The capacity that they have together to procreate and to provide, care, and develop their children, to provide a home, the social foundation and fabric of a true family that is the fundamental unit of society IS what marriage is about. If marriage isn't about procreation and the upbringing of children then it isn't really marriage. And don't raise the issue of couples who cannot procreate because of age or infertility. God has proven over and over that He can and does overcome those issues. The examples of Abraham being a simple one. In the depths of old age and infertility Abraham and Sarah concieved a child that was destined for greatness. Homosexual couples lack the capacity to produce a child or provide the same home (both a mother and a father) in which to best care for a new life.


Umm...he's not trying to redefine marriage. He's just saying that procreation and having sex aren't essential to marriage. As for the God argument put forth, I'd like to point out that Jesus killed a figtree (what sane God does that?) and that in general the bible is kind of crazy if you actually read it. Seriously though, Tim is using the bible as proof that infertile women or impotent men can procreate? And Abraham as an example? The man was ready to kill his child for God. Doesn't exactly sound like father of the year material to me. Everything else said by Mr. tim is kind of pointless, as gay couples can provide a home and care for a child. That, and finally, marriage isn't about procreation; otherwise, it would be a requirement. Even Massachusetts said that limiting marriage to one man one woman doesn't do anything to make sure heterosexual couples don't have bastard children (Like Maggie Gallagher). 


Here's another winner from MikeGLBT


The sex act is a pleasure and it is a fact of reproduction. Taking the purpose of sex out of the picture is what helps create the illusion of false equivalancy of a couple of the same sex and a man and a woman. The marriage idea was never intended to be the vehicle to make the appearance of 2 men as a couple or 2 women as a couple the same as a man and a woman. They are different. Profoundly and extremely different. Our American obsession for equal rights and equality should not be fooled by this bogus double talk. There is nothing wrong with the special status of a man and a woman as a married couple. It does not make anyone any more or less different.


Marriage was never intended to be an equal partnership between man and woman, it was originally done as a property exchange.  And yes, congratulations, a man-man couple is different from a man-woman couple, just as a black-white couple is different from a white-white couple which is different from an asian-white couple which is different from an asian-black couple, etc. (Oh no, race is being compared to sexuality. Good thing race is not immutable). Every couple is unique, but every couple deserves the same legal recognition by the state. 


And finally, one comment from Michael Ejercito. 

I think his point is marriage is not all about sex ....

So why did Tiger Woods's marriage fail?

I'm kind of curious as to what point Mr. Ejercito is trying to make here. Pointing out a legally-recognized marriage that is clearly a sham does nothing to help your point; if anything, it strengthens the point made by equality activists that marriage is not sacred with rising divorce rates

And to answer Mr. Ejercito's original question, Tiger Woods' marriage failed because he got some bad advice from a caddy who said he should play through and not take the penalty stroke.

Commenters

Many people comment on NOM's blog. I unfortunately am unable to do so. Something about NOM censoring comments and refusing to post any from this IP. Thusly, I think I will point out how commenters are wrong.

Here is a winner from a commenter named "Barb"

"Pseudo-marriage is not a right, and anyone who loves America would not voluntarily contribute to its demise by supporting it."


First of all, referring to gay marriage as "pseudo-marriage" is very mature, Barb. But let's address the crux of your argument, which is the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. By saying that anyone who loves America would not support gay marriage, you insinuate that people who supports gay marriage hates America. Nothing could be further from the truth. I actively support marriage equality, and I proudly honor my country each and every day. However, I will note that this is a great tactic to try and rally support to your side.


Here's another one from someone named P. Edward Murray

"Someone once said that you can lie with numbers well the same can be said about polling..it depends on how you phrase the question.

What can't be denied is the fact that when a State has the chance to vote for or against gay marriage, it is always the same thing...it is voted down!
That, in and of itself should speak volumes but if that doesn't then you have to pose the question to these activists if voting matters?

Does it matter in California where the people voted against gay marriage?

These proponents of gay marriage are Totalitarians just like their bretheren in the old USSR and Red China!"

Yes, that is true that states who have decided marriage equality based on popular vote have voted it down. However, I would like to point out that the United States is not a true democracy. It is a constitutional based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition. That means that what is voted on needs to be in-line with the constitution, which ends up on one's interpretation of the fourteenth amendment (whether or not equal protection under the law protects sexuality). I believe it does. Those who argue it is not immutable do not believe it is protected. I, for one, cannot blame them. If Michael Jackson can change his race from black to white, so can a gay man become straight. I'd also like the point out that at no point was a public vote held to end slavery, extend suffrage to women, or to end segregation. Presumably a sane person, Mr. Murray is anti-slavery, pro women's rights, and anti-colored-drinking-fountain. And yet none of these were voted on by popular vote.

It is also a bit hypocritical that Mr. Murray accuses SSM supporters of being Totalitarians.

Totalitarian: of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercisesdictatorial control over many aspects of life.

Mr. Murray is presumably a NOM supporter, who supports their pledge which includes a request to set up a committee to find out if people have been harassed by SSM supporters. That, and a federal amendment banning SSM. Irony? Oh, and the communism joke is quite appreciated, given that neither Russia nor China have same sex marriage. 

Let's keep going with another comment from Barb

"

1. I believe that many of the folks who are OK with pseudo- marriage have never really given it much thought. They think it's a cool attitude to have and that's as far as it goes.
   Once people really think it through they begin to realize it's just plain silly, at best.
   Then there are those who begin to become fully informed of the negative consequences, the guerrilla tactics, the separation of children from their biological parents, the lawsuits, etc., that come as a result of of pseudo-marriage.
   That's when they begin to realize that it can't be taken lightly. And that's why the more informed folks are the less likely they'll be to support pseudo marriage or any candidate who supports it.
   Kudos to NOM for providing us with valuable information"
   
   
   Again calling it pseudo-marriage, qualifying it because it's different. You know, sort of like colored-drinking fountains. The attempt to say "thinking makes you realize it's bad" is kind of illogical, as you are reaching a moral conclusion from an internal perspective and projecting that onto others. It's funny that she mentions "tactics" of proponents of SSM, as if what is done disqualifies the idea itself. I am by no means trying to argue that ends justify the means, I am merely pointing out that disagreeing with an idea because of who supports it, not because of the idea itself, is kind of...shall we say, a lazy tactic.
   
   
   One more comment, this one from Louis E. 
   "Noreen,you shouldn't commit to doing something wrong,and you and your partner being of the same sex makes your engaging in sexual activity with each other wrong.It doesn't matter whether you do it with one person or a hundred."
   What makes it wrong, Mr. E?  Seriously, why is it wrong? Because the bible says so? (Shellfish are also an abomination). Jesus never said anything about homosexuality either. Is it wrong because it's not "natural?" What is "natural"? Existing in or formed by nature. It's a very interesting way to look at it. I could point out that many animals engage in homosexual activity making it natural, or I could point out that homosexual activity has been part of human history since Greece, but I'll settle for this line of logic, credited to a youtube user called "The Amazing Atheist" (and kind of a bastardization of his original argument). So, God is omnipotent. Nothing else in nature is omnipotent. Therefore, God exists outside of nature (we cannot understand God, therefore God must exist outside of nature). Therefore, God is unnatural. Does that make God bad?
   Or better yet, are buildings natural? Is the computer Mr. E used to post that comment natural? 
   Seriously, why is it "wrong?" Why is Mr. E making a moral judgment based on an activity that goes on in the bedroom of two legal, consenting adults that does not harm anyone?
   
   
   That's all for now.