This cartoon from ’04 is making the rounds again on the Interwebs and I’m happy about that. I’m no historical brainiac but I can say with confidence that this scene took place as soon as democracy of any kind began. As long as there are voters making decisions based on superstition and fear, there will be politicians willing to scare the hell out of them. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
Among the past “bogeymen” in U.S. elections have been minorities, criminals, immigrants, and terrorists. This year one of the bogeymen seems to be gay marriage.
Denying a sector of the population their rights to participate fully in society is un-American. (Not in terms of what we’ve actually done, but in terms of what we say we stand for in our constitution.) I can think of no logical reason to continue this bigotry. The reasons I’ve heard have all been based on superstition or fear––”Who are we to redefine marriage as The Bible states it?” “It will erode the traditional family.”
The Bible has several definitions of marriage, most of which involve either multiple wives (King Solomon) or buying and selling your daughters like property. Clearly, American Christians and our government have already redefined marriage as The Bible states it. Regarding “eroding the traditional family,” if that’s really our concern it is divorce that should be outlawed, not marriage. We heterosexuals have already made a travesty out of what same-sex marriage opponents are currently defining as “marriage,” with more than half ending in divorce long before “death.” How many opponents of gay marriage are on their second or third hetero marriage?
I’ve always believed that there can be no crime where there is no victim. No studies or statistics that I know of show that gay relationships harm anyone. They don’t cause crime to go up, kids to be molested (or “warped” by same-sex parents), economies to fail, property values to drop, jobs to be lost, the sky to turn black, or rivers to turn to blood. Where is the victim? What studies do show, however (as does common logic), is that our sexual orientation is hardwired from birth. I can’t control who or what I find sexy and neither can you. Punishing me for liking redheads makes no more sense than punishing women for liking women.
There was a time when it was illegal to marry outside of your own race or religion. This seems preposterous and grossly unjust to us now. I’m looking forward to a time when we can say the same thing about same-sex marriage.
Pingback: Gay Marriage « Humor
I agree that there are no good reasons to deny homosexual couples the legal benefits of marriage. But I also think there are no good reasons for marriage to be a legal or political issue at all. From the Wikipedia article Marriage license:
Maybe instead of extending the legal and political benefits of marriage we should just get rid of them completely.
I would agree with that wholeheartedly.
Just because there have been governmental abuses in the past on an institution should not make that institution null and void.
wow it has been so long since i commented here that i had to type in all my info again…feel like an old man…anyway my brother was left handed and he was beaten in first grade for trying to use it to write with…and that was in 1961 in mason city illinois…so do not think it was the dark ages…and again i am confused…there are somany places to comment on your stuff…it was kinda like the “old days” doing it here…
Dan,
Stick to drawing.
Drawing often comes with words when it comes to cartoonists vanderleun. Why tell an artist what constitutes art?
vanderleun: a fascist command from the Boss of the World, perhaps? What would you stick to, if you could stick to something?
I will. And on I’ll add my personal opinions to it when I’m posting on my own blog.
Dan,
Stick to exercising your first amendment rights…. Oh yeah, I guess that’s what you are doing. Cool.
vanderleun;
Re-read Dan’s cogent words. Maybe the message will sink in for you this time. If not, then stick to not spreading your bigotry.
I knew there was a reason I’ve loved your comic since my high school days … it’s ’cause I respect your intelligence, pragmatism and clever wit more with every one of your blog entries. Now that I think about it, you’re kind-of like the Mr. Spock of professional cartoonists: half Human (artistic and with a sense of humor) and half Vulcan (keenly dispassionate and logical).
A great compliment, Tom. Thanks!
Regarding logic: I’m atheist but I would ask believers why their concept of god would give us such a powerful brain if we were meant to stop using it in the first century A.D., and blindly follow the opinions of others.
I have nothing to do with them (apart from enjoying listening to them). Can I give a push for the “Atheist experience” (search for that expression in youtube).
They have a weekly program where listeners (generally devout christians) get to ring in and they debunk their “proofs”.
I also remember the teacher trying to get me to stop writing left-handedly at the end of the fifties so appreciated your “religious” cartoon above.
I often like to play a mind-game. Imagine you’re transported 600 years back in time. You can take ANY “toys” with you (laptop, AK47 or whatever). How long before you’d be burnt at the stake as a witch/warlord because the religious nutters would be saying “it’s not technology – it’s the work of the devil” ???
Good point.
There was a good short story by ?? wherein a math student from the future used his time machine to go back and try to give a digital calculator to Isaac Newton to help him with his work. It was one of the old ones with the glowing red led display. Once Sir Isaac saw the device with the glowing red eyes, he immediately declared it a work of evil and went off to devote the rest of his life to religious pursuits. The latter part actually happened, so who knows?
Making people face their utter stupidity has been raised to an art form here (nod to the artist. I have yet to hear a rational explanation why a secular Republic should deny a right to millions of its citizens, based on writings performed at a time when people thought seizures were caused by demons, that a literal heaven floated above the earth and, if not careful, you could fall off the planet. If anyone reading this is against gay marriage does that mean you also have to deny others the right? I’m against stupidity, but I don’t tell people they can’t be stupid!
Beautifully said.
Agree
Up here in Canada we also thought same-sex marriage would be “the ruination of society”. Frankly it’s been legal for years and all that ever happened was that it became mainstream. Same-sex marriages allow couples to claim spousal health benefits, tax deductions and even adopt children. It’s really a non-issue.
We’re all in this together just trying to get along.
PS – I’m a hetero if anyone cares.
PPS – We also believe cartoonists are allowed to draw – an opinion.
Nicely done!
This whole debate, and the Chick Fil A nonsense, is something I file under The World’s Gone Mad, Part XXIIVI.
Thanks for your even-keeled (though wonderfully skewed) sanity, and the laughs. Keep it up!
Are left-handers more accepting of gay marriage? I think most who grew up “different” are more accepting of everything that does no harm. – Lefty Steve
Good question, possibly so.
I actually changed my opinion about gay marriage when I realized how badly left-handers have been treated through the ages on the basis of confused religious beliefs. I’m left handed, so it really hit home for me. That cartoon is a perfect tie-in between the two and should be posted on bus stops, billboards and bald men’s heads. Civil unions are probably good enough if they convey all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage, but if you want to actually be able to use the word “marriage”, then hey that’s fine by me too.
That said, I don’t really think gay marriage was an issue related to this election until the Prez brought it up. Sure it’s an issue of the day, and will continue to be no matter who is elected. But the real issue for this election is the economy. Everything else is a distraction.
Funny how having a tattoo is also proclaimed to be a sin but I have yet to see any thumpers protesting infront of a tattoo parlor.
This is a refreshing way to begin the day. My thanks, Dan.
I, too, was forbidden to write with my left hand in the long-ago 1960s – my right-hand penmanship is understandably atrocious.
25 years ago in Halifax people threw insults (and worse) at participants in the first pride parade. Now the parade is one of the most popular events of the year. A lot can change in 25 years. Same-sex marriage is legal in Canada, and we have survived quite nicely. (Though perhaps having Harper as our Prime Minister is a measure of the fates’ revenge.)
Thanks for your wit and humour and sense, Dan.
Actually, I think twin studies have found the genetic contribution to be about 50% for sexual orientation and about 25% for handedness. It’s not either 0% or 100%, like many people assume.
I’d have to see the studies to believe that but I can’t say I’m an expert.
Dan,
Ask and you shall receive. A little, anyway. You usually have to pay to get the actual scientific papers, but our friends at Wikipedia will get you started on the issue of genetics and sexual orientation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
And I found at least this one full scientific paper on the genetics of handedness. It does reference the twin study I was thinking of before, showing that 18% of monozygotic twins are discordant for handedness:
http://www.genetics.org/content/165/1/269.full
Reading this stuff gets boring fast, but you will discover that no (reputable) scientist would argue that either sexuality or handedness is 0% or 100% genetic. They’ll just quibble over which number it is in between.
Thanks, Jim.
Quick reminder: Gary Johnson is the only presidential candidate who supports gay marriage equality. Obama thinks it should be left up to the states, Johnson says it’s a matter of national importance.
It’s a shame that we can no longer have principled discussions about these things, instead resorting to name-calling and dismissive caricature.
Well-said, Dan!
Thank you- for your cartoons *and* your words of wisdom.
Dan, full disclosure: I am a Christian who enjoys your work very much. I am open to hearing your or anyone else’s opinions. I do wish to challenge what you said about the Bible having many definitions of marriage. It has many “examples” of marriage, but nowhere does it say God approved of those examples. It really has only one definition of marriage.
Thanks for your civil tone, Mike. Where is that definition? I’m asking seriously and not sarcastically. :o)
Dan, like a lot of things in Scripture, it’s implied rather than spelled out implicitly. As in when God created Man He made one woman for that man. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh”. Later when Paul is giving the requirements for a man to be a deacon in the church he says he must be the husband of one wife. Verses like that lead to the logical assumption that God’s design was one man, one woman. At least that’s how I see it. Thanks.
But you’re forgetting something…not all of us believe in your mythology, Mike. That’s fine if you believe that, but why should the law reflect archaic religious beliefs?
I too appreciate Mike’s civil tone, but as the son of a minister who grew up studying the Bible, I have to disagree with his assertion that the Bible just “gives examples” of the types of marriage Dan cites. There are laws in the Old Testement that clearly require living brothers to take their deceased brothers’ wives as their own, and laws requiring men who commit rape to marry their victims.
On a separate note, regarding the twin studies: there is a difference between what is “genetic” and what is “prenatally determined”, based on my recollections of research that I read (on left handedness and sexual orientation) way back in my college years. This allows for identical twins with the same genes to have different dominant hands, and (this study was with mice) also different sexual orientations. Again, its been a while, but that’s my recollection.
Doug, thanks for your comments. I believe you missed my point, probably due to my inability to make myself clear sometimes. I was trying to explain to Dan the Biblical definition of marriage, the way God thought best, which is one man, one woman. You are correct that there are various examples of marriage in the Bible, based on various circumstances as you mentioned, which are correct. I personally don’t see these as the ideal situation, the way God intended marriage to be. Just my opinion.
Hi Mike,
I understand but agree with Dan – to me its really hard to argue that the Bible says the ideal marriage is one man/one woman when it specifically requires (orders) polygamy. The current American view of marriage isn’t a biblical one, it’s a cultural one – and a cultural one that discriminates against gay men and women. I think that Dan was just trying to point out that one of the most common arguments against gay marriage (“marriage is defined by the bible as one man/one woman”) is not at all correct. I agree with Dan completely on the issue of gay marriage, and think it is discriminatory to keep it illegal. I also agree that it brought up by the Republican Party to ignite conservative Christians to support their candidate. I find it sad that anyone who identifies as a follower of the teachings of Jesus would rally around discrimination (I’m not directing that at you, I don’t know if you are opposed to legalized gay marriage or not – I’m saying that in general). That’s my opinion.
Doug, you’ll have to show me where the Bible requires polygamy. The Bible relates stories of people who engaged in polygamy, but nowhere does it say God approved of it, except in the cases where one’s brother dies without having offspring and he is commanded to marry the deceased’s wife. This was instituted to continue his line and was intended to prevent her from marrying outside of the Jewish nation. This is the only place I can find where polygamy is acceptable in that culture.
Pingback: Mike2.com » Blog Archive » Time-Tested Campaign Tactics