McCain to appear with country singer who compared same-sex marriage to incest.
Filed Under: Radical Right
By on Jun 2nd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
McCain to appear with country singer who compared same-sex marriage to incest.
In October 2007, country music singer John Rich, one half of Big & Rich, sparked controversy when he called homosexuality “unnatural” and compared same-sex marriage to incest:
I think if you legalize that, you’ve got to legalize some other things that are pretty unsavory. You can call me a radical, but how can you tell an aunt that she can’t marry her nephew if they are really in love and sharing the bills? How can you tell them they can’t get married, but something else that’s unnatural can happen?
Rich has since apologized for the comments, which is apparently good enough for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who will appear with Rich at a Nashville’s legendary Ryman Auditorium this afternoon.
View Most Popular
That’s prety funny, coming from an inbred country music star.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:22 pmSo Rich will appear with McCain.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:24 pmWhat? Big is too busy?
As per the usual rabidly republican homophobic icons, I fully expect John Rich to be caught in flagrante with some male backup singer or t’other….
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 pmIt won’t be long before McCain claims that he was unaware of these statements. Someone should teach him (or others on his campaign staff) how to use Google.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 pmOut from the frying pan and into the fire. First, Hagee. Then, Parsley. Now, John Rich. And the MSM talking head’s response to this?: *cricket* *cricket* I look for another free pass by certain media outlet on this latest.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:26 pmWhy are consrvatives so obsessed with incest/bestiality… is the legality of the issue all that’s preventing vast numbers of conservatives from marrying their aunts or horses?
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:33 pmActually, never mind, I don’t wanna know…
“Radical”? - nope, I’d call you a neanderthal.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:34 pmI am a happy, out, politically astute gay person….please just leave us out of the political equation this fall!
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:37 pmI am a happy, out, politically astute gay person….please just leave us out of the political equation this fall!
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:37 pmSo, Cheney has incest with his gay daughter?
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 pmSorry, I said it twice!
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 pmYou know what else is “unnatural” and “unsavory”? That stupid thin-a$$ handle-bar mustache of his. I hate to sound like a bigot here, but it’s kinda Gaaaaayyyyy.
/snark off, seriously, mean no offense to any gay people.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 pmBig & Rich -Grampy McSame’s ‘base’
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 pmSadly, the “gay issue” and “abortion issue” only become relevant to reich-wingers during an election year.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 pmNo worries, Pax. Glad to hear you’re out, happy, and yeah, that’s pretty much it. Awesome.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 pm.
Like I want to marry my brother… geeeshhh!!!
Did Rich then, by his logic, marry his sister?
How shallow of a man’s character that he would resort to such baseless comparisons to make a point. Shallow, indeed.
.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 pmI doubt that Rich’s comments (even if he hadn’t apologized for them) would make that much difference to McCain’s target group. McCain is against gay marriage (and homosexuality in general) and has made his views pretty clear on that subject.
Therefore, this isn’t really news (let alone shocking or scandalous).
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 pmMost of the people who bash homosexuals are usually closeted homophobes to begin with. Who the hell listens to country music anyways? Can you say dying genre??
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:41 pmPax, I too am out but don’t believe it will be a significant issue in the fall…too much else on everyone’s plate. But that doesn’t mean the Republicants won’t TRY to use the California decision as a wedge. If the amendment to the California Constitution the reich-wing is promising comes to a vote before November, the polls say 51% oppose this being added. Let’s hope things like food on your plate are more important than who you sleep with.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:42 pmMisshusseinmolly,
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:42 pmYou’re correct in part. This story (in terms of TP reporting it, or any others as though it is controversy) is aimed at so-called “moderates” who are considering voting for McCain but don’t hate gay people…seriously, there are conservatives out there and non-progressives who don’t hate gay people and would find this offensive, but they still like Bushie’s tax cuts. You can be greedy and also tolerant/not bigoted…the human race is a strange animal.
Jebus. Inbred knuckledragging moron.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:43 pmIt isn’t shocking or scandalous…just terribly misguided. Of course, if I was married to Cindi McCain, I’d be thinking of going with my own team as well…
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:43 pmHow sad that Rich and his Aunt were not able to marry.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:43 pmbandwagon,
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:44 pmtechinically heterosexual sex is just as primitive as homosexual sex since they’ve been around for the same length of time…
i.e. since the first species that ever started reproducing sexually evolved I’d imagine…
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:45 pmbandwagon = agitating bigot = flagged
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:45 pmWhere is the biker, the cop, the construction worker and the indian?
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:46 pmBandwagon - Sex ISn’t a non-primitive thing…it’s the ATTITUDES that are primitive in terms of acceptance. To think that loving somebody only extends as far as what is between their legs is ludicrous. We’d all be a lot better off if we simply started thinking about love as opposed to starting off with the thinking constricted by a ’straight’-jacket.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:46 pmbandwagon Says:
——————————————————————————–
I believe it was the progressive’s who told me once they were trying to bring the human race away from its primitive mind set and behaviors. With that in mind why do you simply over look the behavior of homosexuality as non-primitive?
Uhh….whaaat?
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:46 pmHey,isn’t incest against the law because of the serious genetic mix ups?
At least when gays have sex, they don’t run the risk of abandoning, abusing, or neglecting their subsequent offspring.
By the way pax, congratulations.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:48 pmEnjoy life! You deserve it!
Unfortunately, the “gay” issue is the boogie man of the right, rearing it’s ugly head every 2-4 years during election.
I hope, as a nation, we finally realize there are more pertinent issues than the ridiculous belief that Bob and Ted unifying in love will somehow ruin heterosexual marriages.
Hell, heterosexuals have been ruining heterosexual marriages for thousands of years. Maybe we should ban “straight” marriages to save it’s sanctity?
Bobwurst,
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:48 pmThey’re busy at the YMCA…
Sex: The more primitive, the better!
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:48 pmlol big n rich
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:49 pmwhere are they now?
Keltoi Says:
Uhh….whaaat?
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I’m with you on this one, Keltoi.
Sheesh…
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:49 pmKeltoi -
I’ll translate what bandwagon was saying:
“I’m homophobic. I justify it any way I can, common sense and logic be damned. The end.”
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:49 pmI suppose we shouldn’t point out that bandwagon uses an apostrophe for some plurals (”progressive’s”) and not for others (”behaviors”), since the larger problem, of using the language to present a cogent point, still escapes him.
But seriously, why use an apostrophe on “progressives” and not on “behaviors”? If you think it’s proper on one, why not on both?
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 pmI think Rich must be speaking form personal experience.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 pmliberal traitor I think John Rich’s mustache is a Fu Man Chu instead of a handle-bar. I know a little about mustaches as I have a womb-broom one.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 pmReally, DRx, I agree that straight people haven’t needed any help from us in screwing up their own marriages. Maybe same-sex marriages would teach them how to love each other and be better partners?
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:51 pmSaint Augustine Says:
I know a little about mustaches as I have a womb-broom one.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Dare I ask…?
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm“bandwagon Says:
I believe it was the progressive’s who told me once they were trying to bring the human race away from its primitive mind set and behaviors. With that in mind why do you simply over look the behavior of homosexuality as non-primitive?”
If hetro-sex was orginally designed to be procreative, then it stands to reason that gay-sex is an advancement, right? it’s that nasty hetro-sex that is primitive. What with all your rightwing christians screwing little girls like rabbits down in your compound in Texas…
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
If you think it’s proper on one, why not on both?
This could also be referencing sexual persuasions too…;)
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pmHuh? How is same sex marriage and incest the same? Rich needs to go back and count the branches on his family tree.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pmNeither of those have anything to do with homosexuality.
But, at least we have YOU on the record supporting pedophilia and incest. You sick perv.
*flagged*
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pmAnd once again, the Right whines that if gays get to marry, then why can’t the Righties legally engage in THEIR favorite sexual pursuits, too?
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:53 pmSt. Augustine:
Womb-broom….oh man, I am totally stealing that description…with your permission of course…which I guess means it’s no longer stealing…
Long story short: High-Larry-Us
Point of contention: It only looks Fu Man Chu because it’s so thin. I say it’s handlebars since I would think that’s what Rich would be going for.
Weren’t Big & Rich the guys that did the song “Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy”? Does anyone else know where I’m going with this? Cowboys riding…er…ahem…
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:54 pmSee, Bandwagon, you’re equating two entirely different things. I am totally against sex with minors because they don’t have the capacity to understand what is happening to them, and first cousins don’t get married because of the genetic probability their children will be deformed. Why do conservatives always go to these talking points to reject my love for another man who in every respect is a productive, smart, rational thinking person? Why do you go there?
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:54 pmKeltoi, you are on fire today!
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:54 pmZooey @ 41
It’s exactly what you think it means…don’t think about it too hard…
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:55 pmbandwagon Says:
So if you want to be democratic about it let adults marry minors and first cousins marry.
Because there are victums in both. If an adult marries a minor, the minor is victumized. If first cousins marry, any children they bear could face genetic disorders.
If two consenting adults of the same sex commit to each other for life, where’s the victum? And your conservative sense of self-rightousness doesn’t count.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:55 pmBandwagon is on record supporting pedophilia and incest.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:55 pm“The gayly painted bandwagon
So if you want to be democratic about it let adults marry minors and first cousins marry.”
There’s something called the age of consent, idiot. Ask your mom about that whole “first cousins” marrying thing, it seems that there is some of that in your genetic past.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:56 pmWhere else they gonna go? Logic? Reason?
You see their dilemma.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:56 pmThat’d be a short count (or maybe not, this guy’s a moron). His family tree resembles a STUMP. Not a whole lotta branching going on.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pmliberal traitor Says:
Zooey @ 41
It’s exactly what you think it means…don’t think about it too hard…
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Heh. That’s probably best. ;)
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pmBandwagon, please don’t go to the bestiality thing either. I asked my cat to love me and she gave me that ‘cat’ look and walked away…
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pmTeh Stupid is strong in this one.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:58 pmWow… I spelled victim wrong twice. I suck.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:59 pm58. GeeDubs
I love cats…but at the same time they are creepy. When a dog looks at you, you know there’s nothing going on in that brain beyond the words “Friend, Food, Play, Scratch, Sleep, Friend”
When a cat looks at you, you look them in the eye and you just know they’re thinking “If I was bigger, I’d eat you.”
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:59 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi, you are on fire today!
Thank you, but including “too” and “also” in the same sentence reveal me to be a member of the Department of Redundancy Department.
Womb-Broom. A guilty chuckle is definitely heading my wife’s way, probably at the most inappropriate moment imaginable….
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:59 pmGeeDubs Says:
Why do conservatives always go to these talking points to reject my love for another man who in every respect is a productive, smart, rational thinking person? Why do you go there?
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Cuz it makes him feel all icky, and slightly intrigued.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:00 pmDid someone call for a couple of gays?:
http://images.starpulse.com/ Photos/ pv/ Big%20&%20Rich-18.jpg
http://media.canada.com/ 1c80e43f-6eb3-4724-8464-0291601cdf8f/ big%20rich071107.jpg
http://z.about.com/ d/ countrymusic/ 1/ 0/ z/ Q/ bigandrich3.jpg
lol more like Big and Gay. They even wear the same ring.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:00 pm62. Keltoi
And K successfully navigates the tightrope between ribald humor and just inappropriate. Well played sir.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:00 pmSometimes. Most of the time, I’m convinced they’re thinking “If I had thumbs, I would SO own you.”
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:00 pmReich-wingers, please answer this question: If two adults of the same sex get married, how does that effect your life and/or marriage?
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 pmI bet the short one is the top.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 pmIt’s a legal issue, that’s why the minor and cousin argument are valid points.
Huh?
I could debate a rock and get better responses.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 pmMcCain doesn’t like to be outdone by his supporters on stage, so he aligns himself with non-thinking, ignorant, ranting extremists. They make him look better in comparison.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 pm“bandwagon Says:
It’s a legal issue, that’s why the minor and cousin argument are valid points.”
And if we let the gays marry, then we’ll have people driving on the wrong side of the road too. and bandwagon will remove all the tags from his mattresses, and he’ll want to buy beer on Sunday before noon!
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 pmAhhh, those cowboys. While on the range, it is a place where men are men, and sheep are nervous.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:03 pmbandwagon,
Just so you know, bestiality is outlawed as well, since the animal is a victim of cruelty at that point.
See, all these legal issues you are throwing out are only legal issues because there is a VICTIM involved. Minors: The MINOR, Incest: The children of the union, Bestiality: The animal.
With gay marriage: Repeat after me, maybe it’ll sink in:
THERE
IS
NO
VICTIM
Do you get it now?
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:03 pmgasp. I guess we finally know that mcCain is against same-sex marriage. This, and the fact that he said so point-blank on Ellen.
I agree with the out commenters that we can win this without making gays an issue. We know mcCain isn’t the model of tolerance. I doubt there’s many people thinking, “you know, McCain speaks to my values on the war, healthcare, and taxes… if only he was gay-friendly”
The nice thing about being the progressive party is that you know you are the voice of tolerance. Unless you get worked up over “an inadequate black man” stealing the nomination from a white woman. how sad… In my opinion, if we have to alter our candidates or positions to cater to racists and homophobes in our party we simply do not deserve to win.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:03 pmbandwagon,
Go have a snack and a nap, and then run out and play for a while.
Jeebus…
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:04 pmI’m willing to bet against that.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:04 pmWell, legally pets are considered property, so I guess if you allowed me to have sex with your cat it would be legal. Just like if you were to ask me for permission to have sex with a can of chili I owned.
Except the cat would feel pain and there are laws against animal abuse. Cans of chili can’t feel pain (they inflict it) and there are no laws against sex with chili. Although I would question the act from a sheer intelligence standpoint. Chili powder and hot chilis are getting no where near my areas.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:04 pmStratRat Says:
Ahhh, those cowboys. While on the range, it is a place where men are men, and sheep are nervous.
And when the sheep see me they all run, screaming “baaaaab! Baaaaab!”
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:04 pm——————————————————————————–
ralph the wonder llama Says:
——————————————————————————–
GeeDubs Says:
Why do conservatives always go to these talking points to reject my love for another man who in every respect is a productive, smart, rational thinking person? Why do you go there?
I have no problem with gay marriage. Once I did, but after much thought I just couldn’t figure out why I should care; I suspect there are lots of Americans like me. At first blush, it’s like, “Hell no”, but if you think about it enough it becomes clear there is no rational objection. It is a departure from all of history, but that isn’t good enough.
I do have one question though; how does this affect polygamy? And I am not talking the coercive Yearning for Zion statutory rape type. I am talking 3 or more consenting adults wanting to enter into a marriage contract. Would that be okay too? I understand the two are not the same, but can you see the conflation?
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:05 pmoops…..I meant, I’m willing to bet against bandwagon in that t*t-for-tat.
pffft. Need more coffee…..
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:05 pmActually, the “aristocrats” all married their first cousins. It was a way of keeping their blood “pure” so to speak. As for Rich, well, he is an example of what eventually happens with this “first cousin” marrying thing… the weaker genes begin to manifest themselves and “viola!”, you have Rich.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:06 pmIt doesn’t affect polygamy at all. It’s a completely different issue. Same-sex marriage is still a marriage between TWO people.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:07 pmCats r Flyfishn Says
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Huh? How is same sex marriage and incest the same? Rich needs to go back and count the branches on his family tree.
__________________________________________________
The same way that interracial marriage is the same as marrying your dog (an argument used for decades by those opposed to allowing people of two different recognized races to marry). It’s not, of course, but that doesn’t stop bigots from saying it is.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:07 pmLiberal Traitor Says:
With gay marriage: Repeat after me, maybe it’ll sink in:
THERE
IS
NO
VICTIM
Do you get it now?
The victims in this case are the hopelessly repressed republicans who are too afraid to come out of the closet and are tormented when they see other people happy.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:07 pmWow! Daryll’s not yet weighed in with his usual bucketfulls of crap?
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:07 pm.
Look Y’all, first bandwagon needs to prove that animals have legal status in the justice system, THEN he can argue the legality to marrying one, or not.
The incest and first cousin argument is more cultural than anything. However so, gay marriage is NOT about incest or first cousins, even if Loyal Christians(R) think it is. In and of itself, the presentation of such baseless arguments is quite revealing of one’s character, “I don’t have a good reason why I don’t like something. The book told me so, and therefore, I sink so low.”
.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:08 pmbobcat_grad Says:
——————————————————————————–
Well, legally pets are considered property, so I guess if you allowed me to have sex with your cat it would be legal. Just like if you were to ask me for permission to have sex with a can of chili I owned.
Except the cat would feel pain and there are laws against animal abuse. Cans of chili can’t feel pain (they inflict it) and there are no laws against sex with chili. Although I would question the act from a sheer intelligence standpoint. Chili powder and hot chilis are getting no where near my areas.
Damn this is a fun thread. Silent giggling is good for the soul.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:08 pmSo, the duo Big and Rich is about to add another member, Whitey?
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:09 pmRe 80:
I’ve pondered that question Keltoi, and after a lot of soul searching, I’ve come to the conclusion that if there isn’t corecion, or abuse, if everyone enters into the marriage understanding what’s involved, it’s non of my buisness. I’ve got my hands full with one partner, but that’s my buisness and no one elses.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:10 pmMcCain really is a McBush. Gee, maybe Bush and McCain have a “thing going on”.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:11 pmRalph and GeeDubs - dayyum!! I have 4 cats - and I swear, I’ve been wondering what exactly those looks mean…
*gulp*
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:11 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi Says:
I do have one question though; how does this affect polygamy? ?
It doesn’t affect polygamy at all. It’s a completely different issue. Same-sex marriage is still a marriage between TWO people.
Right, I’ve got that, but giving legal recognition to one alternate vision of marriage does - I think - open the door to other victimless interpretations of marriage. At least, the argument could be made, IMHO. Who is victimized in adult polygamy?
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:11 pmI am talking 3 or more consenting adults wanting to enter into a marriage contract. Would that be okay too? I understand the two are not the same, but can you see the conflation?
An honest question; an honest answer.
I guess it depends on what you are looking for out of the situation. One of the main goals for equality for homosexuals to be able to marry/civil unionize is to have the same legal rights as normal spouses. This involves insurance issues, health decisions, adoption rights just to name a few. If you introduce a third party, all sorts of legal situations that aren’t a problem with two people pop up. Should an insurance carrier have to carry two spouses? How to decide on health issues when two people have an equal vote? Who gets the kid if one of the three dies and the other two split?
It’s a completely separate issue from if TWO people want to enter into a union and should not impact the discussion on homosexual marriage/civil unions.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:11 pmRUC - is that Darryl as in this is my brother Darryl and my other brother Darryl and my other brother Darryl? Hee, hee.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:13 pmI was recently thinking about this, too, Keltoi, and I came to the conclusion that it should fit into the same category as gay marriage. Consenting adults, no inherent harm in the relationship, and it’s an arrangement that is at least as natural as a homosexual relationship.
Good point. Did you take your vitamins today? Maybe your acai juice?
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:13 pm.
PRESERVE MARRIAGE
…OUTLAW DIVORCE
.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:14 pmUm, bandwagon…? I double dare you to have sex with a cat.
Really. Let us know how it goes, k?
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:14 pmThis just proves that we don’t need The Performance Artist Known as Daryll™ to push a gay-themed thread to 100 posts!
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 pmOh dearie dear.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 pmToday will be one of our busiest days, and when I take a quick “TP” break, I come across this thread, and am laughing my arse off!
And have no idea (nor willingness) to explain my sporadic out bursts to my technicians.
Thanks all, for the comic relief during a very hectic day!
I really don’t know if there is a “victim” in polygamy. I have never known a polygamist, to the best of knowledge, so I cannot speak to that. I do know many, many gay couples, have been to a gay “wedding”, and they are just as loving and committed to each other as my parents are to each other and as I am to my finance.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 pmBobcatgrad says:
If you introduce a third party, all sorts of legal situations that aren’t a problem with two people pop up. Should an insurance carrier have to carry two spouses? How to decide on health issues when two people have an equal vote? Who gets the kid if one of the three dies and the other two split?
What is the difference between an insurer having to cover a spouse and 3 kids and an insurer having to cover three spouses and 1 kid?
What happens to kids who are in blended families and one of the spouses dies? What if they’re legally adopted and then one of the spouses dies?
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:17 pmAnnie, you are devious.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:17 pmErrrr, “fiance”.
:)
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:18 pmOK, if we hear a really loud REAAAAEEEEEEEEEEERRR!! followed by excrutiation screams of pain, we’ll know Annie’s advice has been taken…
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:18 pmexcrutiating, excrutiative, ok, real bad….
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:19 pm.
Does Keltroll seek polygamist rights to marry a THIRD?
Because I only seek to marry one man, and no other.
.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:20 pmDr. Matt, it’s ok to be loving and committed to your finances, I just love my 401k…{;>)
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:20 pmKeltoi is not saying that polygamy is the same as gay marriage or straight marriage. There are obviously issues unique to that situation. But what he’s suggesting, and I think he’s right, is that the arguments against legalizing polygamy are not much different, and no stronger, than the arguments against gay marriage.
Do I have that right, Keltoi?
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:23 pmGay polygamists?!?! They must be some sect of Unitarians from Massachusetts.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 pm——————————————————————————–
bobcat_grad Says:
How to decide on health issues when two people have an equal vote? Who gets the kid if one of the three dies and the other two split?
It’s a completely separate issue from if TWO people want to enter into a union and should not impact the discussion on homosexual marriage/civil unions.
Hm. Good points. Very good points. I can envision “Polygamy Divorce Lawyers” rubbing their weasly little hands together.
It is kind of a personal thing with me, I am a polygamist of the Pagan not Mormon variety, and that is one of the reasons I changed my thinking on gay marriage. I am not hurting anyone, neither are gays who want to get married. It seems like society could affort to take a more flexible view of people’s living arrangements. I think that in a decade or so the gay marriage thing will have disappeared as an issue, or so I hope.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 pmegad, even though the thought of having sex with more than one wife is at least intriguing, the thought of being nagged twice to three times as much eliminates that idea immediately.
(…and if my wife is reading: I’M KIDDING HONEY! HONESTLY! IT WAS A SARCASTIC JOKE! Can I sleep on the bed tonight? please???)
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:28 pmIt’s been said before but, the issue with most polygamist marriages- at least in my eyes- is not the number of spouses but the age of the spouses… I have no problem if three adults decide they would like to try and live together and be married, I would even support their right to get married… as long as they are all adults.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:29 pmToo often, in polygamist marriages, one or the other is underage and pressured into the marriage and therein lies the problem…
Keltoi,
More power to you. As i said earlier, if each party is of age and gives their consent then it’s no one’s buisness really. The issue of insurance and parental rights aren’t really that complicated, and I don’t think we need to be deciding these important matters on legal convienience.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm-ralph the wonder llama Says:
Keltoi is not saying that polygamy is the same as gay marriage or straight marriage. There are obviously issues unique to that situation. But what he’s suggesting, and I think he’s right, is that the arguments against legalizing polygamy are not much different, and no stronger, than the arguments against gay marriage.
Do I have that right, Keltoi?
Precisely. And for the Gay among us, I totally understand why any conflation of anything else to gay marriage is troubling. I get the two are distinct. But as a legal issue, under Equal Protection, it will likely come up.
ralph the wonder llama Says:
Good point. Did you take your vitamins today? Maybe your acai juice?
Rather the opposite, but sometimes a vicious hangover brings a clarity all its own, however painfully won.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:32 pmBig deal.
Obama for over 20 years has participated in on-going diatribes against the very country he professes to want to lead, and a simple apology from his mentor/pastor was sufficient for him (and readers of ThinkProgress.
Funny how you turn the arguments around on yourself.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:40 pmbandwagon Says:
So if you want to be democratic about it let adults marry minors and first cousins marry.
Why do you want to marry your young cousin?
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm“JT Says:
Big deal.
Obama for over 20 years has participated in on-going diatribes against the very country he professes to want to lead, and a simple apology from his mentor/pastor was sufficient for him (and readers of ThinkProgress.
Funny how you turn the arguments around on yourself.”
This is the best argument to date for the outlawing of multi-generational inbreeding…
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:42 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
…and they are just as loving and committed to each other as my parents are to each other and as I am to my finance.
___________________________________________
You’re loving and committed to your money?
(sorry, just couldn’t resist!)
:-)
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:49 pmkeltroll says:
Now wait a second…
I seek to marry only one person. You conflate it with polygamy. YOU made the jump to polygamy, not any of us “gay” on TP.
How typical, keltroll. Blame others for what YOU do.
.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:51 pmJT-
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:52 pmI’d rather have a President who was willing to question his country’s direction and wanted to fix it than one who could brook no critisism of his country and wanted to make sure the fix was in for him and his buddies… wouldn’t you?
The true disloyalty to the USA I love is blind obedience to the blatantly un-American policies of unequal justice and illegal discrimination practiced by our current administration…
Keltoi Says:
Right, I’ve got that, but giving legal recognition to one alternate vision of marriage does - I think - open the door to other victimless interpretations of marriage. At least, the argument could be made, IMHO. Who is victimized in adult polygamy?
I believe that the critical question is whether there is coercion involved or not and that one is very careful about the definition of “adult.” Many of the religious polygynists rely on heavily-indoctrinated young people, especially girls, and they are often below what most of us consider the age of consent.
In general, I’d say there’s nothing at all wrong with polygyny or polyandry, and the former is far more common among humans than fundies would have us believe. In fact, given the behavior of the tribal Hebrews, the constant yapping about “traditional marriage” from these people is pretty amusing. In a creepy way.
Cultures tend to produce marriage models that make sense, and reject those that don’t fit the economic conditions. “Traditional” marriage is all about the distribution of goods, especially land. Robert Heinlein, who none would describe as “liberal”, proposed a number of variants, including a very detailed line marriage system in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. If it works, do it.
I think it’s interesting that one of our trolls want to have sex with a can of chili. As far as I know, there is no law against it and it harms no one, as long as he doesn’t later serve the chili to family or friends.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm——————————————————————————–
Max-1 Says:
——————————————————————————–
keltroll says:
And for the Gay among us, I totally understand why any conflation of anything else to gay marriage is troubling.
Now wait a second…
I seek to marry only one person. You conflate it with polygamy. YOU made the jump to polygamy, not any of us “gay” on TP.
How typical, keltroll. Blame others for what YOU do.
Oh, relax, I said multiple times I understood there was a difference, I was asking a question. Ralph is just smarter than you, I guess.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:55 pmObama for over 20 years has participated in on-going diatribes against the very country he professes to want to lead
YEAH!! And the Easter Bunny brings me chocolate every year. And it’s important that you don’t step on a sidewalk crack. And Pete Rose was railroaded. And the hokey-pokey really is what it’s all about.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:55 pmgummitch Says:
I think it’s interesting that one of our trolls want to have sex with a can of chili. As far as I know, there is no law against it and it harms no one, as long as he doesn’t later serve the chili to family or friends.
Blugg. Secret Ingredient?
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:57 pm… also JT, McCain seeks out these people BECAUSE of their opinions not in spite of them. But his desperation to appease the far right wing of the Republican Party won’t convince them to show up on election day, in my opinion, only alienate the independants and moderates who will be casting there votes for the Democratic candidate anyway. This election will really be a referendum on the Bush Admin. and Bush seems to be doing everything in his power to drag the Republican Party down with himself.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:57 pmkeltroll,
Yes it WAS just a question.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pmyellow Says:
In the Case of the 1st cousin who is the victim? what about the minor? How can you judge the maturity level of a person by them just being a certin age? Assuming that is the reason you think minors or victimized by older people.
The “victim” is the potential child of inbreeding, which is why the somewhat arbitrary rule about first cousins exists. It did not, of course, apply to European royal families and you can observe how that turned out.
We make constant decisions about maturity based on age. In case you hadn’t noticed, there are laws governing drinking, driving, voting, owning property, as well as consenting to sex (especially with someone older). These age guidelines are also arbitrary but they have a sound basis in most cases.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pmkeltroll,
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:03 pmYes, you understood the difference…
Is this why YOU conflate the two?
Keltoi, I think that the biggest problem with recognizing polygamy would be burdens placed upon employers and the government if they must recognize more than one spouse for a person.
To an employer who provides benefits for a worker’s spouse (such as health care), it really doesn’t matter whether that spouse is a member of the same sex or a member of the opposite sex, as long as there is only one to a customer. Many employers already provide benefits to domestic partners. But if an employee has multiple spouses, this can easily add up to a financial burden that the employer would ultimately have to pass on to other employees, or eliminate benefits altogether. (Of course, once we get to a universal health care system, the employer would be removed from the health care chain, making this point moot.)
Social Security would be another matter, unless all widows in a polygamous arrangement would split the deceased’s SS benefits. And then there’s the issue of filing taxes.
There are no doubt other benefits given to a singular spouse that might be impractical or burdensome to extend to multiple spouses. These would have to all be addressed before any kind of marriage involving more than two people could be recognized.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:03 pmJohn Rich, well, they don’t call you guys “Cow Pokes” for nothing, now do they.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:04 pmBuckie Boy Says:
John Rich, well, they don’t call you guys “Cow Pokes” for nothing, now do they.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I hope you’re happy. I laughed so hard, I coughed up a lung. What a mess….
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:07 pmI think the guy is totally wrong, but he apologized as well. I can’t exactly sit around and lambast people for things they admit to regret doing… I mean, who here hasn’t said or done something stupid and later apologized? I’d kind of hope I’d not get it thrown into my face at every future opportunity.
But I guess I’m not a huge star or appearing as someone of note at a political rally lol. So perhaps that is enough of a difference for some people.
It’s not like Republicans are trying to win over homosexuals. What do they really care if someone like this is on stage? It helps their cause lol.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:08 pmThat moustache looks totally ridiculous and the hat ain’t helpin’
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:13 pmLesse, let’s employ some ‘ol time conservatives cliches here….John Rich, 34 and unmarried…likes to wear tight clothes and is apparently very fastidious, handlebar mustache…sings songs like “Save A Horse (Ride A Cowboy)” and, oh, did I mention he’s 34 and unmarried? Plus his “partner” is called *ahem* “Big Kenny.”
“Pub of Love??” Lawsey! Not that there’s anything wrong with that…. ;)
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:15 pmAnother toughi with a big hat.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:16 pmhanshiro Says:
Plus his “partner” is called *ahem* “Big Kenny.”
I’m guessing “Big Kenny” wears the chaps.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:22 pmTo those of you who are having trouble distinguishing gay marriage from polygamy, allow me to inform you that I was born gay. Homosexuality is my orientation, just as heterosexuality may be yours. You (nor I) can no more change our orientations that we can change our race, our skin color, our eye color, our genetic predispositions, or our parents.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:24 pmNo one was ever born a polygamist. There is no polygamic orientation. Polygamy, whatever else may be said of it, is a choice, like religion, career, and dildo size.
Get it?
10 to 1 odds he is gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that! Really, the guy is an idiot singing type person. Who would give one little pffft about what he says or feels? I did hear he is famous for his ‘reach-arounds’. Thats what he, Bush, and Rove all have in common. God Bless America!
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:24 pmJT Says
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Obama for over 20 years has participated in on-going diatribes against the very country he professes to want to lead, and a simple apology from his mentor/pastor was sufficient for him (and readers of ThinkProgress.
______________________________________________
Huh?
First, what “on-going diatribes” are you talking about? Are you talking about Jeremiah Wright and the snippets of video on YouTube that amount to about 20 seconds of 35 years’ worth of his sermons?
Second, what evidence do you have that Obama “participated” in these “diatribes”? Does merely sitting and listening to a sermon equal participation? If so, I’m in trouble. I haven’t always agreed with everything my pastor has said. Does this mean I’m somehow accountable for all his sermons?
Third, I don’t recall any apology from Jeremiah Wright. Please provide a link.
Fourth, Obama has distanced himself from Wright and has resigned from that church. This hardly constitutes acceptance.
Fifth, I don’t recall ANYTHING uttered by Obama that he wasn’t entitled to say about this country according to the first amendment of the constitution. Criticizing what’s wrong with this country and noting what needs to be changed is one of the most American things we can do.
But what does this all have to do with Rich and McCain? Are you making the point that we condemn the people McCain hangs out with while giving a free pass to those Obama associates with? That’s a bit of a stretch, since only a few of us are condemning McCain for making an appearance with Rich. I’m sure that one could find a piece of dirt on anybody that makes any appearance with any candidate, and it’s pretty easy to escalate this into utter silliness.
What most of us have been condemning here is the mindset of those who make comments like Rich did, McCain’s general opinion about gay marriage, and ignorant attitudes about same-sex marriage in general.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:25 pmshoeless Says:
hanshiro Says:
Plus his “partner” is called *ahem* “Big Kenny.”
I’m guessing “Big Kenny” wears the chaps.
In his lap… *rimshot*
er..let me rephrase that sound effect…
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:26 pmC’Mon, It’s Big n’ Rich!
Coupla asswipes.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:45 pmNo offense to guys who really earned a big rodeo belt buckle. However, for this guy, his big belt buckle represents a tombstone for his dead-dick.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:48 pmPlease tell me he doesn’t tuck his thumbs in his belt!!!!
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:51 pmForTruth Says:
No offense to guys who really earned a big rodeo belt buckle. However, for this guy, his big belt buckle represents a tombstone for his dead-dick.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Ouch! :-D
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:57 pmmyroro Says:
To those of you who are having trouble distinguishing gay marriage from polygamy, allow me to inform you that I was born gay. Homosexuality is my orientation, just as heterosexuality may be yours. You (nor I) can no more change our orientations that we can change our race, our skin color, our eye color, our genetic predispositions, or our parents.
No one was ever born a polygamist.
You’re saying that someone can’t be in love with more than one person at a time just because you can’t be in love with more than one person at a time? Really? Cuz that’s sounding mighty republican of you, maybe even “Larry Craig” republican.
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:20 pm104 - Why, thank you, Ralph! ;o)
~ A
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:25 pmActually Keltoi, polygamy is more common than monogamy globally - then again women are also more typically property than equal partners in those societies which is why they exist. Many traditional societies developed all sorts of rules to either support or suppress the parties involved, based on their cultural norms. Even gay/bi-sexual relationships were established in those. I personally don’t have a problem with polygamy if the parties involved are not being exploited - however they often are as the situation in Mormon cults demonstrate. Too often polygamy in practice is exploitation of women in general. Demonstrate clear protections to avoid that - and perhaps people wouldn’t care so much about your ’sinful’ lifestyle! ;)
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:25 pmmisshusseinmolly,
Obama joined his church because of the bigoted/racist rhetoric, not despite it. His own biography documents this - try reading it sometime… He then chose to stick with it despite that rhetoric for 20 years until it became a public liability when the truth was known.
As for your claim that it was only a 30 second statement - baha, what a silly claim! He had a reputation for commonly doing this sort of hate speech, and was even responsible for letting a PLO terrorist publish a letter in the church newsletter! If you say just because your church leader says things you disagree with are equivalent to a church representing a consistent a clear message of divisive racist rhetoric - then I’m sure McCain’s reverend problem means nothing to you and that you’ll apologize for your hypocrisy?
See for me, both McCain and Obama suffer from the same affiliation with religious extremism - and that’s unfortunate because if Obama is the nominee he will need that advantage against McCain. I fear he’ll need that and the support of Hillary supporters to win the General Election. I can tell you that like many Hillary supporters, I will only vote for Obama if he’s the nominee and if it’s required for him to win my state! And I hope I won’t have to, and that he’ll do fine without me, because I’ve never voted for someone that I KNOW is a bigot, racist, sexist and homophobe before - and unfortunately Obama appears to be ALL of those things! Especially after this weekend’s use of a technicality rules committee to disenfranchise voters in Michigan and Florida that had no control and no say over the primaries, Obama’s characteristically uncompromising tactics leave a bad taste in the mouth of voters that he’ll need in November. When you consider that they actually took away delegates from Hillary that she secured in Michigan by the vote - it’s a disgusting subversion of the will of the people and a complete sham of a process! Obamaheads are acting like Bushies, using RULES as an excuse to not count votes - a disgusting subversion of democracy!
All I can say, is once again dum bass democrats are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by so pissing off party loyalists (like myself) that we are very tempted to set on the sidelines and not vote if all. If McCain weren’t such an insane old fool I would guarantee you I’d not vote for Obama then. But that’s OK, molly, if it’s so important for you to BE RIGHT about Obama, you can keep your right-eousness, at the cost of losing at least a third of the Democrats this fall! I personally know several Hillary supporters that say they will never vote for that bigot - you better hope he can convince them that he’s not as crazy and off his rocker as his supporters like yourself are by then! Otherwise you will have guaranteed your own worst fears, by your arrogant and hateful treatment of Hillary and her supporters over the last few months. Yeah, yeah, I know, you are now going to whine about it being Hillary’s fault - whatever… Get over yourselves, arrogant Obamaheads! Without us you don’t win this fall, so either you reach out, or you lose. Your choice!
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:40 pmGive it up, RHF. Hillary’s toast.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:51 pmI’m not a country music fan, but I did enjoy Jeff Foxworthy’s “Blue Collar” comedy show when it was on. One episode, “Big & Rich” performed. It was the first I’d heard of them.
“Big” was clearly gay. Wearing a sparkly “blouse” with puffy sleeves, opened to his navel. It always struck me funny on a “country” show that everyone seemed so oblivious to something so obvious. :)
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:27 pmToo many responses to read.
Let me guess Daryll damned the “fags,” Keltoi made sense for a bit (half a post) and then showed his/her true colors, a couple of trolls Gi_gi came in and pooped all over the place, and RHF came in and called Obama some awful name and Zooey the c word.
Just guessing, but am I close?????
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:23 pmThat photo is Brad Paisley, not John Rich.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:29 pmblue state bob, you’re close — you got the Keltoi bit (actually he had a good day, made sense repeatedly and came up with some good lines), troll bandwagon called for legalizing incest and pedophilia, and of course, RHF made his appearance. But no Drywall, and gigi has been scarce.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:48 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
Obama joined his church because of the bigoted/racist rhetoric, not despite it.
…blah, blah blah…
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Let’s see some proof for that ridiculous statement. Thanks.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:10 pmblue state bob Says:
…RHF came in and called Obama some awful name and Zooey the c word.
Just guessing, but am I close?????
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Not yet!! :D
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:11 pmI loved that guy when he was in The Village People!
Macho, Macho, Man… I Want to Be a Macho Man! Mucho, Mucho Macho, baby! Big and Rich are Macho!
– SCAM
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:59 pmso-called “Austin Mayor”
http://austinmayor.blogspot.com