/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Monday, January 09, 2006

I told you so

--posted by Tony Garcia on 1/09/2006

It is only a matter of time before the slippery slope is embarked upon. If you warp the definition of marriage to include homosexuals because you should not stop people who love each other from being allowed to marry then where does it stop?

I have said for a long time that the talking points from the pro-gay marriage can easily be used for polygamy, incestual relationships and any other type of union that you can think of.

The pro-gay marriage group contends that there is no way. People are not advocating for polygamy, etc. and thus it is stupid to say those would even want to be allowed to marry.

Well, in the trail that gays used to normalize gayhood through Will & Grace, Ellen and other Hollywood vehicles we have this from Newsweek:
Bill Henrickson (Bill Paxton) pops a lot of Viagra. A lot, as in one every day, which he pulls from a bottle he keeps in his pants pocket. That seems like a heap of thrill pills for a happy, healthy, fortysomething married man. The problem isn't his libido—this isn't a supply problem. It's a demand problem. Bill is a polygamist with three wives: Barbara (Jeanne Tripplehorn), Nicki (Chloe Sevigny) and Margene (Ginnifer Goodwin). They live in adjacent houses with a common backyard, so Bill's on a regular rotation—one night Barb, the next night Nicki, the next Margene. He's like the only batter on a baseball team, and he's expected to hit a home run every night.

The Henricksons are the main characters in a show called, appropriately enough, "Big Love," which debuts in March on HBO. The network's biggest dramas have all focused on unorthodox families, from mobsters to undertakers. But polygamy? "In my career, I've pretty much seen it all, but I can honestly say I've never seen anything on a polygamous family," says Tripplehorn. Though she was intrigued by the concept, Tripplehorn wasn't sure she could handle it. "I had a hard time finding a connection as to why a woman would share her husband. I didn't think I was up to the task. I didn't think I could make it real."
And do not try to fool yourself into thinking that this anything beyond an effort to normalize the next assault on marriage.
"It's everything that every family faces, just times three," says co-creator Mark Olsen. "The yuck factor disappears and you just see human faces. We found it to be a mother lode."

And on top of all that, it's taboo. Mormons are extremely sensitive about being associated with polygamy, and HBO is considering a prologue explaining that the Mormon Church disavowed the practice in 1890. Controversy, of course, never hurts in Hollywood. "People really need to see it before they make an opinion," Tripplehorn says of the family in question. "You can't help but be fascinated by how they do this. It's an incredible feat of organization. How does he keep it up?" And on so little sleep!
Now two things here.

First, the next step in the assualt on family AND on marriage has begun. Why? Because the pro-gay supporters realized they need to add more people to their militant ranks in their attack on marriage. Who best to do this? Hollywood. They have advanced the gay troops far enough in attacking marriage that the exposure of polygamists (and the inclusion of them) is acceptable now.

Second, the gay marriage crowd has been highly disingenuous in the whole debate. They should have acknowledged the fact that their talking points could be applied to polygamists, intra-familial couples, animal lovers, etc and dealt with that. Instead they tried to get their assault on marriage completed hoping to keep secret the truth. The truth that pro-gay marriage talking points are the exact same that can be used by every other combination. They have always known that, they just would not admit it because they know the mainstream would not tolerate that reality to occur.

Liars.

And I told you so.

********** UPDATE **********
Welcome to the readers of Digital Warfighter. Enjoy, observe and learn. Debate and be respectful...or at least hold me to the same standards that you hold to yourselves. :)

10 Comments:

Blogger Charles H Darrell said...

Read my latest column in today's issue of the Star Tribune. It should mention the slippery slope argument. Unless they hacked it out of the original.

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/168478.html

Also, visit our website and volunteer.

www.minnesotaformarriage.org

Chuck Darrell
Director of Communications
Minnesota for Marriage

January 09, 2006  
Blogger Tony said...

It is still in the article. I would also like to direct you to this post which addresses gay marriage by itself and why it is a bad idea.

January 09, 2006  
Blogger lloydletta said...

And Craig Westover cleans Chuck Darrell's clock over on Craig's blog.

January 14, 2006  
Blogger Hasty Typist said...

What does it matter what Hollywood shows and what others feel is correct and moral or not. How does this affect you or your own family in anyway? You will raise your kids the way you feel is correct, and will probably actually use all this "gay-friendly media" to teach your children what is and is not acceptable. I support gay rights and find what you say about gay individuals to be really disturbing and bordering, if not over, the fence of homophobia. You can hold whatever views you would like, but I have to say that turning someone's moral lifestyle against them is absurd. When I talk about morality, i'm not talking religion, but rather the ability of a person to do good and live a productive and healthy life. Nothing hinders these people in that respect. The media, in its increased acceptance of gay images (like will and grace) is simply showing (even if poorly) a section of the population that has every bit as much right to tv time as shows such as Everyone Loves Raymond and pointless other "family" comedies.

January 17, 2006  
Blogger Tony said...

First, I should point out that I do not have any conclusions based on religion.

I would advise you to rethink your attack and try again.

January 17, 2006  
Blogger Hasty Typist said...

I didn't mention religion, I only used the word to clarify my stance on morality. Your move.

January 17, 2006  
Blogger Tony said...

Hollywood has an incredible influence on culture. Take Geena Davis for example. By the time an election roles around with a woman candidate the country will already be used to the concept of a woman President.

Sometimes this influence is good. Sometimes it is not. The overwhelming amount of violence in the media has made people more numb to violence. The number of movies that justify adultery also makes the culture numb to the act and thus more frequent. Likewise with divorce.

Why is it that for years Hollywood has been railing against smoking? To influcene society. Why do you think Hollywood tries to make politically charged movies or movies with messages like Schindler's List, Munich, Syriana and Runaway Jury?

Because of all of the CSI types of shows there are now juries that expect THAT kind of evidence or they vote not guilty.

With that I restate that the gay was advanced through Hollywood. Knowing that, understanding that, lets people who are of a different belief system (basically not of moral relativists) can fight back.

The logic of "use it to teach your kids one way or the other" is a bit dangerous. Would you say the same about sex? Drug usage? What is the definitive bright line that you present to say "yes" to gay marriage being a teaching moment on television while saying "no" to hard core sex being a teaching moment on television during prime time?

Finally, I would like to understand your claim that my opposition is "disturbing". Please explain this one...or was it simply a chance to engage in labeling?

January 18, 2006  
Blogger Hasty Typist said...

Well, you certainly do bring up some excellent points about Hollywood’s influence, and precisely the reason art (if we want to extend Hollywood into art, which you or I may not apply to all that emerges from the sandy coast, but honestly is an expression of creativity) is poignant in the first place. Art that doesn’t move forward in some way dies. But that isn’t what we are discussing, really. I wonder what exactly your last comment-post is debating. From what I understand (I may be misinterpreting this – by all means let me know), it is the right of “Hollywood” (in general. Vancouver produces a lot in the way of North American media too) to promote an agenda. In this specific case, of “the gay” as you so put it in your last post. Where do the broadcasters draw the line, what should be allowed on television and what shouldn’t?
That is my understanding of your response about my comment, which implied shows promoting notions of gay-tolerance (and well, in my opinion – since there are so few out there, those illustrating various gay-identities that exist today, even) should find homes on television and in film. And that it is your responsibility as a parent to educate your kids on these matters (which, I may add, are a very real part of the world and those kids will be exposed to everything you listed – hardcore nude sex scenes and all – no matter how much you shelter them) to allow them to make choices that you would approve of. Ok. So, now that I think we are on the same page (and it is a very important thing, understanding):
It is true that certain lines do need to be made in the world of public broadcasting – it would be highly disruptive for a six year old to see a nude couple in coitus during their afternoon snack. In our culture that sort of thing is not generally considered acceptable. The fact of the matter, there are lines that society draws. In the 1940’s it wouldn’t have been acceptable to be openly gay either. Now, the notion of “the gay” at least finds acceptance, despite the fact that many are more comfortable keeping it under the rug and not paraded around like a Mardi-gras float. The fact of the matter is that, by and large, the general media in the U.S. are pretty conservative in what they do show. Despite agendas from filmmakers and directors, which everyone has - and which many artists argue is the whole point of art, networks and studios also have agendas. Of course, it is to turn a profit. So the notion that hard-core sex will make it onto prime-time is an absurd example. It won’t ever make it on until there is a profitable market for it, and by that point public opinion will have spun widely in that direction. Violence is on television, sex is on television, and I went and saw what I would argue to be a ground-breaking movie about gay-cowboys last week (garnered some awards too, I might add) all because it is deemed acceptable by many Americans who will put their earning power behind it. But you already know that. And I think that my statements are still sidestepping the issue you bring up. Where do we draw lines? I seem to be implying that it is a process led by the populace. Generally, the FCC does serve that purpose as an organization within this supposedly democratic gov. we have here.
Ok. So I have my right to see gay-cowboys and their love affair, just as much as you have the right not to see those cowboys. How do we resolve that? Art is always going to push the envelope, by its very nature (read Gertrude Stein sometime, look at Picasso, and of course go read some of the Beat-Poets if you want some old, old examples of things that pushed boundaries and had so many effects we still try to comprehend now), how are you going to tell someone to stop? You can’t. I’ll personally take up the cause if suddenly society stops – and it can’t.
The problem with my argument, is that it is a way of viewing the world as an expanding and even cyclical thing, which can never stop and won’t. Even when I’m old and think some television show has gone too far (and it will probably happen someday, I’m young yet to this world), I’ll still weigh the issue of a human’s right to have that experience and push that agenda. I love the notion of your blog, for that very reason. Are my kids going to be reading it – no I wouldn’t let them until I could explain how conservatives and republicans differ from liberals and democrats and what falls between. As a parent, I would express my judgment on the matter, and enforce that until it was clear my child was old enough to be exposed to such notions as a group of individuals who are willing to deny basic privileges like marriage (see below). Inherent are the safeties of society protecting our kids – it is called the love of a parent. Beyond censoring art, I don’t know an answer to this question of a line. The FCC censors already, it supposedly represents the people. I can always right into my senator and tell him or her how I feel. I can always lobby. That is all you can do. I won’t pretend there is an easy answer. How can there be? We will always see differently, and so then, because society has willed shows such as “Will & Grace” and “Queer as Folk” into existence, perhaps they serve some need, function in our society?
“And with the privileges there must be an encouragement for the benefit of the society or that privilege is moot. With marriage it is the encouragement of healthy nuclear families in which procreation exists” (Tony, Nov. 23, 2005. “Marriage Response”).
We disagree on what marriage is. Why can couples who cannot conceive allowed to marry? If we deny “the gay” the privilege, we must deny the infertile heterosexual the privilege as well. Who needs happiness when procreation is what matters? No. The agenda of “the gay” is salient for many aspects of society, including me – an assumedly fertile, unmarried, heterosexual woman. Which brings up why I find your language, or more importantly notions of censorship, disturbing. To me, “Will & Grace” goes a step in the right direction of protecting my rights and yours. So it is a label, but one that describes my own emotional state.
As you can see, I need some practice in debating, so thank you for giving me this opportunity.

January 18, 2006  
Blogger Tony said...

By far, you are the most engaging debater I have seen here. Most importantly you address the questions head on. I love that. Keep it coming.

Now, we agree on the influence of Hollywood on society. You bring out of my discussion a very interesting distinction that I was not considering...the rights to see or not see. As I read your response I realized something: the movie you saw was 100% voluntary. Television, despite how we like to think so, is not 100% voluntary. Once you turn on the television you become a captive audience. Even while watching the "safe" program you will still have the advertisements for "unsafe" programming, the "unsafe" advertisemensts from sponsors, etc. There is more of a reason for the FCC to err on the side of caution rather than on the side of popular opinion here.

Regardless, my initial point is that because of the way Hollywood does influence, or as we agree, because of the nature of "art" to push the envelope there is no reason to seriously believe any type of societal change is not possible.

So, to hold up "societal barriers" as a prevention of the slippery slope of any kind is simply not holding to reality. Do we agree on that? I think we do.

Around the time of the earlier post (that you read and quoted) I heard from many pro-gay marriage people that it was ridiculous for me to mention similarities between gay marriage and polygamy, intra-familial marriages and a whole host of other combinations.

Is it really that ridiculous? You mention the societal change from decades ago to today with relation to gay acceptance.

To me the debate comes down to two levels...the first has yet to be addressed adequately and thus I find it irrelevant to consider the second.

The first is this: What rationale is there to change the definition of marriage to basically "any two people"? Why can this rationale NOT be applied to "any two people including family members" and "any group of people" and "any species of beings"?

Once this is resolved then I believe it makes sense to engage in the "should gay marriage be allowed" debate.

January 18, 2006  
Blogger Charley Foster said...

In Utah the polygamy debate rages with or without gays and talk of marriage. From here, Big Love is the new Will and Grace, polygamists are the new gays, and gays are the new polygaphobes.

January 30, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home