<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Al Gore: I&#8217;m for marriage equality</title>
	<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:23:17 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: roula</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-484171</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:01:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-484171</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;    I am never getting married but I still do not plan on being ‘zomg a slut!!’.

    I do. (*ducks*) 

I do plan on getting married and I still plan on being zomg a slut. &lt;/i&gt;

see, this is what i love.  no reason we can't de-couple and re-permutate (?) all the options.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>    I am never getting married but I still do not plan on being ‘zomg a slut!!’.</p>
	<p>    I do. (*ducks*) </p>
	<p>I do plan on getting married and I still plan on being zomg a slut. </i></p>
	<p>see, this is what i love.  no reason we can&#8217;t de-couple and re-permutate (?) all the options.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: cantabridgian poet</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-484008</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-484008</guid>
					<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;i&gt;I am never getting married but I still do not plan on being ‘zomg a slut!!’.&lt;/i&gt;

I do. (*ducks*) &lt;/blockquote&gt;

I do plan on getting married and I still plan on being zomg a slut. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<blockquote><p><i>I am never getting married but I still do not plan on being ‘zomg a slut!!’.</i></p>
	<p>I do. (*ducks*) </p></blockquote>
	<p>I do plan on getting married and I still plan on being zomg a slut.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: smartalek</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-483993</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:35:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-483993</guid>
					<description>atheist woman
January 23, 2008 at 6:33 pm
&quot;I am never getting married but I still do not plan on being 'zomg a slut!!'.&quot;

I do.   (*ducks*)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>atheist woman<br />
January 23, 2008 at 6:33 pm<br />
&#8220;I am never getting married but I still do not plan on being &#8216;zomg a slut!!&#8217;.&#8221;</p>
	<p>I do.   (*ducks*)
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Peter, High Sea Lord of the Order of the Golden Rubber Duck</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-483973</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:14:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-483973</guid>
					<description>I think that in a soundbite world, he needs to speak in fairly broad strokes.

The fact is that there are plenty of gay couples who already do conduct their relationships in line with the way most people think of opposite-sex marriage.

In a lot of ways, it is like trying to address the &quot;gay people can't get married because marriage is a religious thing&quot; argument with pointing out that there are respected denominations that have been conducting union ceremonies that they consider in all religious ways equal to marriage for ages now.

It doesn't address the valid discussion point of whether religion belongs in charge of marriage, because the point of the argument is to highlight the flaw in the argument being addressed.

Whether or not monogamy or promiscuity is good, better, best, etc, is a different discussion. The point at hand is that a lot of people support marriage specifically because it (supposedly) reduces promiscuity among straights who couple up. The question he is asking is &quot;if that is such a good thing for straight people, why are we refusing to allow it to the very people we are accusing of being the worst offenders?&quot;

Personally, I'd be more tweaked about the fact that he is using the gay MALE stereotype as the basis for his refutation. Not that their aren't promiscuous lesbians or monogamous gay men, but reality does seem to skew the other way.

Pesky stealth lesbians!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I think that in a soundbite world, he needs to speak in fairly broad strokes.</p>
	<p>The fact is that there are plenty of gay couples who already do conduct their relationships in line with the way most people think of opposite-sex marriage.</p>
	<p>In a lot of ways, it is like trying to address the &#8220;gay people can&#8217;t get married because marriage is a religious thing&#8221; argument with pointing out that there are respected denominations that have been conducting union ceremonies that they consider in all religious ways equal to marriage for ages now.</p>
	<p>It doesn&#8217;t address the valid discussion point of whether religion belongs in charge of marriage, because the point of the argument is to highlight the flaw in the argument being addressed.</p>
	<p>Whether or not monogamy or promiscuity is good, better, best, etc, is a different discussion. The point at hand is that a lot of people support marriage specifically because it (supposedly) reduces promiscuity among straights who couple up. The question he is asking is &#8220;if that is such a good thing for straight people, why are we refusing to allow it to the very people we are accusing of being the worst offenders?&#8221;</p>
	<p>Personally, I&#8217;d be more tweaked about the fact that he is using the gay MALE stereotype as the basis for his refutation. Not that their aren&#8217;t promiscuous lesbians or monogamous gay men, but reality does seem to skew the other way.</p>
	<p>Pesky stealth lesbians!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: ummeli</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-483910</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:40:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-483910</guid>
					<description>I'd like to see President Obama, Hillary, or Edwards (still keeping my fingers crossed) give this man a cool job, like U.N. Ambassador, or create a Global Warming Czar position for him.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I&#8217;d like to see President Obama, Hillary, or Edwards (still keeping my fingers crossed) give this man a cool job, like U.N. Ambassador, or create a Global Warming Czar position for him.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Samantha Vimes</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-483883</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:42:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-483883</guid>
					<description>&quot;And of course, as has been said, conservatives want gay people to be promiscuous, because it fits their message of hate.&quot;

Or, you know, to have somebody available when they want a quickie. The constant &quot;wide stance&quot; style scandals make me think that's the real reason. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8220;And of course, as has been said, conservatives want gay people to be promiscuous, because it fits their message of hate.&#8221;</p>
	<p>Or, you know, to have somebody available when they want a quickie. The constant &#8220;wide stance&#8221; style scandals make me think that&#8217;s the real reason.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: roula</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-483857</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:12:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-483857</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;being promiscuous because the option of being monogamous is socially and legally unworkable.&lt;/i&gt;

yeah but isn't that second idea total bs?  i think even this &quot;unwanted promiscuity&quot; is a little more complicated than not having access to legal marriage.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>being promiscuous because the option of being monogamous is socially and legally unworkable.</i></p>
	<p>yeah but isn&#8217;t that second idea total bs?  i think even this &#8220;unwanted promiscuity&#8221; is a little more complicated than not having access to legal marriage.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Grumpy</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-483839</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:27:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-483839</guid>
					<description>Obviously, Al Gore is itching to earn the Gay Nobel Prize.

Or would that be a Tony Award?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Obviously, Al Gore is itching to earn the Gay Nobel Prize.</p>
	<p>Or would that be a Tony Award?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: realityfighter, Pretender to the Salsa Throne</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-483836</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:06:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-483836</guid>
					<description>I don't think, in this context, you can say &quot;promiscuity bad, fidelity good&quot; is an accurate reflection of his position.  He's talking about a debate over &lt;i&gt;marriage rights.&lt;/i&gt;      You know, for people who &lt;i&gt;want to get married.&lt;/i&gt;

There's a big difference between being promiscuous because you want to and being promiscuous because the option of being monogamous is socially and legally unworkable.  I think we can agree that in that situation, promiscuity &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; a bad thing.

And of course, as has been said, conservatives &lt;i&gt;want&lt;/i&gt; gay people to be promiscuous, because it fits their message of hate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I don&#8217;t think, in this context, you can say &#8220;promiscuity bad, fidelity good&#8221; is an accurate reflection of his position.  He&#8217;s talking about a debate over <i>marriage rights.</i>      You know, for people who <i>want to get married.</i></p>
	<p>There&#8217;s a big difference between being promiscuous because you want to and being promiscuous because the option of being monogamous is socially and legally unworkable.  I think we can agree that in that situation, promiscuity <i>is</i> a bad thing.</p>
	<p>And of course, as has been said, conservatives <i>want</i> gay people to be promiscuous, because it fits their message of hate.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: CBrachyrhynchos</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-483824</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/23/al-gore-on-marriage-equality/#comment-483824</guid>
					<description>The devil is always in the details.  This is critical for looking at Gore's history.  International press sources in 1999-2000 were frustrated that the Clinton administration was talking big about environmental issues, but was a stubborn and obstinate bear at the negotiating table demanding consessions which would have required only token changes by U.S. industries.  So yeah, big talk, saying the right thing.  That's a world of difference from actually doing the right thing.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>The devil is always in the details.  This is critical for looking at Gore&#8217;s history.  International press sources in 1999-2000 were frustrated that the Clinton administration was talking big about environmental issues, but was a stubborn and obstinate bear at the negotiating table demanding consessions which would have required only token changes by U.S. industries.  So yeah, big talk, saying the right thing.  That&#8217;s a world of difference from actually doing the right thing.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
