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?

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.