Bill Maher on Gay Marriages
[I know there's already many gay-related threads, but thought I'd put up a separate thread for this article]
From the Boston Globe
BILL MAHER
Valentine's Day, that great state holiday
By Bill Maher, 2/14/2004
NEW RULE: You can't claim you're the party of smaller
government, and then clamor to make laws about love.
If there's one area I don't want the US government to
add to its list of screw-ups, it's love.
On the occasion of this Valentine's Day, let's stop
and ask ourselves: What business is it of the state
how consenting adults choose to pair off, share
expenses, and eventually stop having sex with each
other?
And why does the Bush administration want a
constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey,
birthdays are important, too -- why not include them
in the great document? Let's make a law that gay
people can have birthdays, but straight people get
more cake -- you know, to send the right message to
kids.
Republicans are always saying we should privatize
things, like schools, prison, Social Security -- OK,
so how about we privatize privacy? If the government
forbids gay men from tying the knot, what's their
alternative? They can't all marry Liza Minnelli.
Republicans used to be the party that opposed social
engineering, but now they push programs to outlaw
marriage for some people, and encourage it for others.
If you're straight, there's a billion-five in the
budget to encourage and promote marriage -- including
seed money to pay an old Jewish woman to call up
people at random and say "So why aren't you married,
Mr. Big Shot?"
But when it comes to homosexuals, Republicans sing "I
Love You Just the Way You Oughta Be." They oppose gay
marriage because it threatens or mocks -- or does
something -- to the "sanctity of marriage," as if
anything you can do drunk out of your mind in front of
an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas could be considered
sacred. Half the people who pledge eternal love are
doing it because one of them is either knocked-up,
rich or desperate, but in George Bush's mind, marriage
is only a beautiful lifetime bond of love and sharing
-- kind of like what his Dad has with the Saudis.
But at least the right wing aren't hypocrites on this
issue -- they really believe that homosexuality,
because it says so in the Bible, is an "abomination"
and a "dysfunction" that's "curable": they believe
that if a gay man just devotes his life to Jesus,
he'll stop being gay -- because the theory worked out
so well with the Catholic priests.
But the greater shame in this story goes to the
Democrats, because they don't believe homosexuality is
an "abomination," and therefore their refusal to
endorse gay marriage is a hypocrisy. The right are
true believers, but the Democrats are merely
pretending that they believe gays are not entitled to
the same state-sanctioned misery as the rest of us.
The Democrats' position doesn't come from the Bible,
it's ripped right from the latest poll, which says
that most Americans are against gay marriage.
Well, you know what: Sometimes "most Americans" are
wrong. Where's the Democrat who will stand up and go
beyond the half measures of "civil union" and "hate
the sin, love the sinner," and say loud and clear:
`There IS no sin, and homosexuality is NOT an
abomination' -- although that Boy George musical Rosie
O'Donnell put on comes close. The only thing
abominable about being gay is the amount of time you
have to put in at the gym.
But that aside, the law in this country should
reflect that some people are just born 100 percent
outrageously, fabulously, undeniably Fire Island gay,
and that they don't need re-programming. They need a
man with a slow hand.
Happy Valentine's Day everybody!
Bill Maher is host of "Real Time with Bill Maher."
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company
From the Boston Globe
BILL MAHER
Valentine's Day, that great state holiday
By Bill Maher, 2/14/2004
NEW RULE: You can't claim you're the party of smaller
government, and then clamor to make laws about love.
If there's one area I don't want the US government to
add to its list of screw-ups, it's love.
On the occasion of this Valentine's Day, let's stop
and ask ourselves: What business is it of the state
how consenting adults choose to pair off, share
expenses, and eventually stop having sex with each
other?
And why does the Bush administration want a
constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey,
birthdays are important, too -- why not include them
in the great document? Let's make a law that gay
people can have birthdays, but straight people get
more cake -- you know, to send the right message to
kids.
Republicans are always saying we should privatize
things, like schools, prison, Social Security -- OK,
so how about we privatize privacy? If the government
forbids gay men from tying the knot, what's their
alternative? They can't all marry Liza Minnelli.
Republicans used to be the party that opposed social
engineering, but now they push programs to outlaw
marriage for some people, and encourage it for others.
If you're straight, there's a billion-five in the
budget to encourage and promote marriage -- including
seed money to pay an old Jewish woman to call up
people at random and say "So why aren't you married,
Mr. Big Shot?"
But when it comes to homosexuals, Republicans sing "I
Love You Just the Way You Oughta Be." They oppose gay
marriage because it threatens or mocks -- or does
something -- to the "sanctity of marriage," as if
anything you can do drunk out of your mind in front of
an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas could be considered
sacred. Half the people who pledge eternal love are
doing it because one of them is either knocked-up,
rich or desperate, but in George Bush's mind, marriage
is only a beautiful lifetime bond of love and sharing
-- kind of like what his Dad has with the Saudis.
But at least the right wing aren't hypocrites on this
issue -- they really believe that homosexuality,
because it says so in the Bible, is an "abomination"
and a "dysfunction" that's "curable": they believe
that if a gay man just devotes his life to Jesus,
he'll stop being gay -- because the theory worked out
so well with the Catholic priests.
But the greater shame in this story goes to the
Democrats, because they don't believe homosexuality is
an "abomination," and therefore their refusal to
endorse gay marriage is a hypocrisy. The right are
true believers, but the Democrats are merely
pretending that they believe gays are not entitled to
the same state-sanctioned misery as the rest of us.
The Democrats' position doesn't come from the Bible,
it's ripped right from the latest poll, which says
that most Americans are against gay marriage.
Well, you know what: Sometimes "most Americans" are
wrong. Where's the Democrat who will stand up and go
beyond the half measures of "civil union" and "hate
the sin, love the sinner," and say loud and clear:
`There IS no sin, and homosexuality is NOT an
abomination' -- although that Boy George musical Rosie
O'Donnell put on comes close. The only thing
abominable about being gay is the amount of time you
have to put in at the gym.
But that aside, the law in this country should
reflect that some people are just born 100 percent
outrageously, fabulously, undeniably Fire Island gay,
and that they don't need re-programming. They need a
man with a slow hand.
Happy Valentine's Day everybody!
Bill Maher is host of "Real Time with Bill Maher."
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company
Comments
but not like that
*ahem*
He is very funny
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I think it great to take marriage advice from a confirmed bachelor who visits the Playboy mansion weekly.
Nick
Almost as ironic as taking sexual advice from a celibate octogenarian in a white dress who only kisses airports.
Maher has his very funny moments... nice to see his wit return from 'unpatriotic' blacklisting.
Originally posted by trumptman
I think it great to take marriage advice from a confirmed bachelor who visits the Playboy mansion weekly.
Nick
Attack the argument, not the person.
Originally posted by bunge
Attack the argument, not the person.
Your right, I don't have probably 100+ posts discussing civil unions vs. homosexual marriages. Obviously I'm avoiding the issue.
Even you are familiar with the endorsement fallacy. This is an example of it. We've discussed everything Mahler has mentioned. It isn't any more right because he is Bill Maher.
Mahler's main arguement is that the left is being a bunch of hypocritical poll pushers. I'll be very happy to discuss that issue if you like.
The only thing I was teasing about with Maher is that he doesn't endorse marriage for heterosexuals. He is very stridently antifeminist at times and obviously does not mind the objectification of women at all.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Your right, I don't have probably 100+ posts discussing civil unions vs. homosexual marriages.
Nick
yes . . . and with, as this post continues to show, all of them irrelevant
Who cares about Maher's antifeminist stance?!
I think it great to take marriage advice from a ***CONFIRMED*** bachelor who visits the Playboy mansion weekly.
Originally posted by pfflam
yes . . . and with, as this post continues to show, all of them irrelevant
Who cares about Maher's antifeminist stance?!
Try harder.
Maher's stance on women, I said it was a tease. If you can't understand it, then at least quote it instead of posting your misinterpretation of it.
Nick
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
I'm confused. Is this thread about gay marriage or Bill Maher's opinion?
It is about Bill Maher's arguing that gay marriage is right. It is known as an endorsement fallacy. It is like saying Nike is better than Converse because Kobe Bryant wears them.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
It is about Bill Maher's arguing that gay marriage is right. It is known as an endorsement fallacy. It is like saying Nike is better than Converse because Kobe Bryant wears them.
Nick
Wrong . . . and trite as usual
It is a thread stated to highlight an eloquent, punctilious and spot-on arguement in favor of gay marriage
i think it was originally started because it is written so well and is funny, it is a little long for those who don't like to actually read things . . . but at least Maher can write long multi-paragraph thoughts and keep them coherent while still managing to keep to the issue at hand
so I say that it is a thread about a well written piece about gay marriage
Feel free to explain what is wrong with what Bill Maher said. I saw not a thing wrong with his statement.
Fellows
Originally posted by Fellowship
I agree with pfflam here and have to question what Nick is so hung up over. I mean after reading the attempts to question the integrity of Maher etc. I just find Nick to be fearful of gay marriage or some such thing. I am just not sure I understand the arguments he is trying to advance.
Feel free to explain what is wrong with what Bill Maher said. I saw not a thing wrong with his statement.
Fellows
yeah to fellows...short, to the point, well said and well thought out...
you have grown sooo much as a young man, fellows, and i am very proud of you in a fatherly kind of way...
we may not always agree, but i will always respect your thoughts and comments
g
ps...i thought the bill maher's speech was both well written and humorous...score
From Bill Maher's article:
But the greater shame in this story goes to the Democrats, because they don't believe homosexuality is an "abomination," and therefore their refusal to endorse gay marriage is a hypocrisy. The right are true believers, but the Democrats are merely pretending that they believe gays are not entitled to the same state-sanctioned misery as the rest of us. The Democrats' position doesn't come from the Bible, it's ripped right from the latest poll, which says that most Americans are against gay marriage.
Well, you know what: Sometimes "most Americans" are wrong. Where's the Democrat who will stand up and go beyond the half measures of "civil union"...
I so agree with the sentiment of this... but at the same time, sadly have to take into account the real world.
For the most part, I appreciate it when people stand up and say what they honestly think. I also suspect deep down that more than a few Democrats really do support gay marriage, but won't honestly say that's what they think.
The harsh, cold reality is that speaking up for gay marriage might earn you some respect in some quarters, but in most elections it will not earn you a net increase in votes.
So, what's better to have? Honest martyrs going down in flames while strongly anti-gay candidates win instead, or is it better to have less-than-candid candidates playing politics, carefully minding their words, getting elected, and pushing for what they can practically accomplish to improve gay rights?
I think only in movies would candidates who stood up proudly and said, "Most Americans are wrong" have much of a chance of winning.
Or maybe in elections in countries other than America.
Originally posted by pfflam
Wrong . . . and trite as usual
It is a thread stated to highlight an eloquent, punctilious and spot-on arguement in favor of gay marriage
i think it was originally started because it is written so well and is funny, it is a little long for those who don't like to actually read things . . . but at least Maher can write long multi-paragraph thoughts and keep them coherent while still managing to keep to the issue at hand
so I say that it is a thread about a well written piece about gay marriage
Maher makes three points. I wouldn't call any of them an argument, more like observations.
1. Homosexuality is genetic. - There is very questionable science on this, and even then we don't endorse other traits that may be related to genetics like say predisposition toward drug abuse or violence.
2. Republicans are true believers who believe homosexuality is wrong because of their faith. Maher thinks this silly since it basically makes them work against the principles they usually stand for regarding privacy and government. However Republicans aren't really pressing to federalize this issue. That is just a Democratic talking point regarding state's rights because groups are suing to overturn what the states themselves have already decided. Additionally since the court (not state) recognition does affect private enterprise, the Republicans are not on the wrong side of what they believe.
3. Democrats are poll reading hypocrits who have no reason to oppose homosexual marriage, but still do. This of course assumes that no one, Republicans, Democrats, anyone else has the right to define the words they use.
I do believe people have the right to determine what words like marriage mean. We determine what legal voting age means. What adult means, and what legal age of sexual consent means. There isn't anything more than consensus views on those issues. It isn't science. It isn't necessarily in the Constitution (voting is) but the people have the right to self-govern, promote, protect and enforce the rights, rules and responsibilities of the society they wish to live in. The arguments for homosexual marriage basically say they can't.
Nick
Originally posted by Fellowship
I agree with pfflam here and have to question what Nick is so hung up over. I mean after reading the attempts to question the integrity of Maher etc. I just find Nick to be fearful of gay marriage or some such thing. I am just not sure I understand the arguments he is trying to advance.
Feel free to explain what is wrong with what Bill Maher said. I saw not a thing wrong with his statement.
Fellows
Well I would suggest you read my statements a bit more carefully then.
I spent a post explaining my views to ppflam, you can look at that for what is argued or not argued in Maher's statement. He actually doesn't argue much of anything. You are welcome to correct my view by restating what you think he does argue.
People must be able to define the words they use. If I declared "public works and infrastructure" to mean that the city should sell bonds to build my private football team a new stadium while school roofs are leaking, people would not be hateful or bigoted in complaining that a football stadium isn't a true public works project or necessary infrastructure. In fact they would be pretty right in arguing against it in my view.
That is an example of the problem with letting definitions get away from you. People are not upset that homosexual unions occur. (myself included) They are not upset that those unions would have equal rights to marriage. (myself included) They are upset that they cannot define what a word means for them. (marriage = man and woman)
Remember Fellowship, when I define income to be that which you have left over after I take out all the taxes I want, don't be upset. That's just my definition and you aren't allowed to dispute it.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
. It isn't necessarily in the Constitution (voting is) but the people have the right to self-govern, promote, protect and enforce the rights, rules and responsibilities of the society they wish to live in. The arguments for homosexual marriage basically say they can't.
Nick
Seems to me it is the arguments against Gay Marriage that say that we can't