Why no comic today? Today is the Day Without a Gay. Gay people are encouraged to skip work and do some sort of volunteer work instead. It’s a boycott of sorts meant to raise awareness.
It’s well known that I don’t do politics. That doesn’t mean politics is irrelevant to me. On the contrary. All it means is I don’t believe we can achieve positive ground in the long run for liberty by working through the system. I believe the only way to achieve true freedom is by opposing the machine; not becoming a part of it. And we can persuade others to do the same. Speaking out against harmful political action is more than okay. In fact, I do it all the time when I make fun of politicians and stupid legislation in my comics.
Libertarianism should not be confused with apathy. It’s a misguided stereotype that sees libertarians as not caring what people do. We just don’t believe in using violence to control people. Just because I don’t believe in using government violence to ban discrimination doesn’t mean I’m ok with it. There are plenty of means acceptable to a libertarian for dealing with bigotry. I won’t advocate violence against bigots but that doesn’t mean I have to like them, hang out with them, do business with them, or speak kindly of them.
I got some flack from my last comic that made fun of the people pushing for prop 8 in California. Do I want the government to recognize gay marriage? Hell, no. I want them out of marriage and everything else and I wouldn’t get a government marriage even if I could. But I’m certainly going to make fun of the of groups using government violence to get or maintain a monopoly on marriage, sanctioning some relationships while banning others between consenting adults, just as I frequently make fun of government violence in many other areas. The marriage tyrants aren’t helping us with the goal of getting government completely out of marriage.
That said, there will be no comic today. That’s my small statement on this Day Without a Gay. Instead I’ve volunteered to help at the Community Kitchen in Keene.
Hmm. I oughta do a “day without a hetero” sometime. Equal opportunity protest.
When the government bans hetero marriages, you absolutely should!
I might as well orchestrate a “day without a brain cell” and attend the Obama inauguration.
I’d like to see Galt’s Gulch for a day.
Huh, what would this bi do, take off for both?
And since I’m self-employed, what do I tell my customers, “fuck your computer, since I like da cawk you gotta wait while I do some charity work today”? Heh, well, I already scheduled a computer repair today and can’t afford to take a personal day at this point. So *shrug*
Besides, while I acknowledge the horrific fact that the state has been trying to incentivise marriage, including eliminating the so-called marriage penalty and making all kinds of other legislative advantages for married couples, I am not in favor of the institution of marriage as it stands at all. Everybody will probably protest this, but biologically humans don’t pair-bond. Otherwise we wouldn’t have to have rituals and religious and legislative pressure for pair-bonding. We’d just do it and wouldn’t have to think about it much. STDs couldn’t have their current set of activity, not enough exchange of bodily fluids among the populace. Plus both history and anthropology say monogamy is ridiculous as the most natural pattern for humans.
As for the most beneficial pattern, the clarification of symmetric polygamy would seem to work. Not polyandry, not polygyny. Letting go of that sense of owning the other people. Essentially a minitribe family. The larger such a family would be, the more stable. More incomes, some members of able to stay at home for built-in childcare. And nobody gets neglected in the sack because it’s not like the harem pattern all the patriarchies seem to generate. Harem pattern is a very warlike pattern for the simple fact that it creates an artificial scarcity for the heteros. You have to end up raping and pillaging, killing off other male populations and much of your own to end up with enough women in a society for most surviving males to have harems. To say nothing of ignoring any women who are *not* into the cawk.
Not forcing people, mind you. Just getting rid of the institution of force that ensures that our natures don’t have a chance to flourish. Maybe when a free medical profession (not to be confused with gov-paid medicine of course) figures out how to actually cure all the remaining STDs the last barrier goes away. One of the things that seemed to kick off the “sexual revolution” in the first place was the invention of a successful treatment for syphilis. It was kind of the HIV of its day. When HIV came around, it’s like the entire syphilis scare started from scratch with a new pathogen.
What about all of the other days there has not been a new comic? What was the reason for not drawing a new comic on those days? Outside of Sanfrancisco and the Key West I wounder if this day without a gay was noticeable. I am not gay and thus I did not participate.
$ ‘Tis the season for reason.
$
I don’t get it. Common Law marriages are perfectly legal. Two people just declare they’re married and file joint tax returns.
Oh, you want GOVERNMENT to declare the marriage valid? To grant legal protections under the GOVERNMENTS laws? To force your employer to provide benefits to your spouse? To get GOVERNMENT benefits from the Social Security system?
Government can’t stop you from being married. They can only refuse to grant you a GOVERNMENT LICENSE.
Common law marriage is not recognized in every state. The same holds true with divorce as well. In some states two people who were married but never legally divorced and have not even seen each other for 10 years are considered married by the state.
Bob Robertson, I’d have to agree with you. I’d rather everyone kick the government out of all aspects of marriage/civil unions, for straight and gay people. What are they fighting for, as you said? I don’t want anyone to get any special favors because they’re married. Nobody should get special breaks, whether they are straight or gay.
I’d have to agree. If employers want to give benefits for significant others, they shouldn’t be forced, whether the people are straight or gay. Forcing other people to pay for things is wrong, and forcing them to do it for one more group is not making things “better,” or “equal,” it’s making it worse. Kind of like forcing stores to have handicapped parking spots and special accomodations. If they don’t want to make such provisions, they shouldn’t have to. If they do want to of their own volition, it’s all well and good. The market has a way of punishing jerks and rewarding the generous.
But this whole “gay marriage” craze is, as you said, seeking the approbation of the government for voluntary interactions, and another attempt to force other people to give them special favors because of this recognition. It’s wrong, gay or straight. Gays say they want “equal rights.” Straight people don’t have a right to other people’s money, and the State already has no right to say who may raise children. Gays (especially supposed anarchist gays) are seeking their goals using flawed means.
Let me say again that while I do not approve of homosexual behavior, neither will I enlist shaved-head State goons to force them to not perform consensual sexual acts.
Violence, as a physical entity, can only be used to defend oneself or others from actual physical harm.
-Sans Authoritas
Agape, I would hesitate to say that multiple sex partners is an essential part of what it means to be human. Which is what you are saying in your statement, (and I paraphrase) “it would allow our nature to flourish.”
I think the act of procreation is intrinsic to our nature. Homosexual activity, while it flourished in some societies, been an exception throughout the whole of human history, not the rule.
Multiple sexual partners invariably results in jealousy. This jealousy is natural, because it is natural to want the whole of another person. If you are giving yourself to many different people, you are not giving your whole to that one person.
You will be hard-pressed to find many women who, all things being equal, will say that they want to share their bodies with lots of different men, when offered the opportunity to be married to one man. And deep down, I think most men really want one woman who will be totally faithful to him, as well. Has not “faithfulness” and the tragic lack thereof been a staple of poems, songs, and stories throughout all human history? In light of this fact, do you not think it reasonable to assume that this desire for faithfulness from one man or one woman is, in fact, the real intrinsic part of our human nature, while your notion of multiple partners is the exception to human nature?
-Sans Authoritas
I hope things went well at the Community Kitchen. Great pic – it almost makes up for not having a new comic.
“Gays (especially supposed anarchist gays) are seeking their goals using flawed means.” – Sans Authoritas
I would agree that liberals are using flawed means by trying to broaden the government’s definition of marriage, but who are these “supposed anarchist gays” you speak of and what is their “flawed means”? Every anarchist gay person I know wants government out of marriage completely. The whole reason government licenses anything is so they can deny licenses to some. The entire “gay marriage craze” has it’s origin in the fact that government took over and then discriminated, thereby creating strife amongst the serfs. As long as government is involved in marriage, education, health care, or anything else, there will be strife in a pluralist society over how they run it.
“Oh, you want GOVERNMENT to declare the marriage valid? To grant legal protections under the GOVERNMENTS laws? To force your employer to provide benefits to your spouse? To get GOVERNMENT benefits from the Social Security system?” – Bob Robertson
No and no and no and no, to your four questions. Do me a favor and read what I said before making a smart-assed reply to what appears to be someone else’s post. I’m guessing you’ve argued with a lot of liberal gay people and you have a canned response for them, but it doesn’t fit here.
Dale, I think a supposed anarchist gay is one who wants to enjoy the same violently-gained loot that straight married people have. In other words, not an anarchist at all. I would say the flawed means is trying to work from the top down: seeking state approbation and state-forced financial benefits, rather than trying to convince individuals to voluntarily give benefits.
What are you seeking when you say you want the government to lift the ban on gay marriages? What do you mean by the government’s ban?
-Sans Authoritas
Serious question here. “What is the definition of “man” & “woman”, in *LEGAL TERMS*???…think about it….anybody else asking that question? If so, I haven’t seen it asked anywhere…let alone *ANSWERED*…
Sans, I didn’t ask you to define what a “supposed gay anarchist” is. I asked you who these supposed gay anarchists were who were using flawed means. It ain’t me and it ain’t any gay anarchist I know.
As tedious as it’s becoming, I will quote myself from the 2nd to last paragraph since you apparently missed it:
“Do I want the government to recognize gay marriage? Hell, no. I want them out of marriage and everything else and I wouldn’t get a government marriage even if I could.”
How much clearer can my answer be than “Hell, no” ? Did you even read my blog post before spouting off some canned replies to generic liberal gay marriage arguments?
Dale, I understand that you want the state out of marriage.
No, I didn’t read your blog post, to be honest. I read Bob Robertson’s post and must’ve had a synaptic infarction about who was supporting what, based solely upon his post. Mea culpa.
But I still don’t know what you mean by saying we should have a strike if the state bans heterosexual marriages, just as the gays should be doing it because the state is currently banning marriage. Precisely why?
-Sans Authoritas
I was just poking fun at the idea that we need some kind of heterosexual counterpart to an event which is meant to raise awareness regarding gay bigotry. Don’t read that comment too literally. I’ve had friends say that if we have a gay pride day, there should be a straight pride day. And my response is “Every day is straight pride day”, meaning there aren’t culture wars being fought to make you feel ashamed for being straight. At the same time, the government isn’t trying to prevent straight marriages. When the government decides to license something, anything, it’s so they can deny that license to some. DWaG is just an awareness campaign.
I have no problems with trying to create culture shifts absent the violent (government) aspect. That’s what DWaG is trying to do only in a better direction toward recognizing the pluralism of societies. In fact, I think the only way to achieve more freedom is to create a culture shift away from using government violence to solve our problems and that means reaching individuals and opening their eyes to the true nature of monopolistic authoritarian governments.
When governments attempt to run anything, e.g. marriage, education, healthcare, they will create strife over how they run it. Look at the strife public schools are creating over curriculums that get forced on everyone. It’s the same with marriage.
Sans A:
Yeeeah. Two points. One, that “gay anarchists” are clamoring for gov to get involved in their couplings? I’ll say that it’s blatant favoritism and religious bias that all the excuses for what marriage is “for” aren’t checked for heteros. Married couples sometimes never have kids. Others haven’t actually had sex at all in years. Plenty of people get married solely for citizenship issues. Yet their unions are given favors by the state even so. It’s hypocritical. But my answer, Dale’s answer, the answer of those few who haven’t bought into daddy/mommy gov stepping in to save them from the “bigoted masses” image, is to be rid of gov. Not to expand gov so it covers another union type.
Two, you’re referencing the romantic literature for the poetry. As in, the movement that tried to change marriage from an institution of property sharing and government imposition on the populace (historically marriage was not a choice by those affected by it, whether it was the wealthy constructing alliances or the poor being bred by their masters) into a loving relationship whereby people voluntarily entered into the slave contract. Historically, really historically, the most common union type has not been monogamous pair-bonding. Societies where males were the only ones considered human, harems of women to one male were predominant. Matriarchies, however, reverse the trend. Multiple males, one female. Some societies don’t have enforced relationship at all. Regardless of the socially or governmentally accepted guideline, infidelity rates are known to be high. To give an example from modern society, roughly 50% divorce rate. The median number of partners people will admit to having is 7 for males, 4 for females. The numbers are probably still skewed. A third admit to 15 or more for males, one in ten admits to it for women. The rarity is actually people who only have one partner. As for having more than one at a time, it’s not a societally accepted pattern at present and government is specifically pushing marriage. So humans adapt to this condition by having partners in sequence rather than simultaneously. But monogamy isn’t in our natures, it’s hard to put the facts of that one much more plain.
As far as homosexuality being the exception rather than the rule? Are you on CRACK? There were entire armies who were encouraged to fraternize with each other in ancient times. Homosexuality, even under the cover of social or even governmental stigma, has been with humanity the whole time. Hell, bonobo chimps engage in quite a bit of sex with same gender and they’re the genetically closest simian to us. Homosexuality has been with us since ancient times. Homosexuality will be here long after you’re dead and gone. Whether a society accepts it or not, it’s happening at roughly the same rate. Just because the institutions and government end up in opposition doesn’t make you get any more hot and bothered for the opposite gender or any less for the same.
While I accept that you, personally, can say (to paraphrase) “No to all four questions”, I did read what you wrote, and re-read just now, and as far as I can tell you still write in support of a strike advocated by people specifically to protest that the government won’t grant them a license.
Let’s celebrate, rather, a perfect example of the arbitrary and ignorant nature of government itself.
As to natural or normal interpersonal relations, those issues are irrelevant to the subject.
well since it’s the 1th now i guess i can post.
i just have one thing to say: “CAWK”, LOL!!! likes da cawk.. i never heard that one before, love it
… i just realised you were saying “cock” with a drawl, but up til just now i thought you were saying “caulk” :p
what can i say i’m easily amused
and fuck state relationship licensing and socioeconomic engineering..
that’s a real spiffy new avatar dale! very dapper.. makes me wanna marry someone just so i can have you follow ‘em
Agape wrote: “I’ll say that it’s blatant favoritism and religious bias that all the excuses for what marriage is “for” aren’t checked for heteros. Married couples sometimes never have kids. Others haven’t actually had sex at all in years. Plenty of people get married solely for citizenship issues. Yet their unions are given favors by the state even so. It’s hypocritical.”
It certainly is hypocritical. We all agree, the State needs to disappear. Once violence is taken out of the equation, truth can do its own fighting. If it can’t, it’s nothing that violence can change anyway.
Agape, I may have read you wrong, but it appears that you call marriage a “slave contract.” It’s not slavery if either party can leave without violence being inflicted, is it? That does not make it less of a contract, or rather, a covenant. In order for there to be a real marriage, it must be wholly voluntary at the outset. Otherwise, it is coercion. And either party should be free, on the physical level (not moral level) to abandon the contract at any time without fear of violence.
If it’s voluntary, it’s not slavery, is it, Agape?
As for homosexuality being the exception, as I said, in some societies, homosexual behavior was prevalent. It has never been predominant throughout the whole of human history. Heterosexuality has. If homosexual behavior is such an intrinsic part of human nature, why has it been condemned as much as it has, while heterosexual behavior has been overwhelmingly accepted? (This is not to say, again, that violent suppression of homosexual behavior is justified.)
-Sans Authoritas
Somebody mentioned the tax consequence of marriage. In many instances married couples pay less in taxes than the two would individually. As a single taxpayer, this enfuriates me! End government social engineering! Another shameful practice in taxation is the child tax credit. Parasites who accept this, after all the free edukashun their children receive should renounce it and spread that money among their childless friends. (Exception made to home schoolers and tuition-based private school parents.)
I guess I’ll stay home today and celebrate an unscheduled “Day without a Single/Childless/Heterosexual/Caucasian Taxpayer.” Think anyone will notice?
I missed ya Dale.
It needs to be said that just because someone participates in a protest doesn’t mean they agree with the motivations of everyone else participating in that protest. I think prop 8 and measures like it and all the media and rhetoric supporting them were very harmful to the noble goal of getting government out of marriage completely, and that’s all part of a bigger goal of making government less intrusive in our personal lives in general.
Agape, love the poly support! For us bis, it’s kind of a necessity. In any event, this subject just cries out for a lot more sanity and a lot less dogma.
it amazes me how much bigotry the world harbors, especially to homosexuals. For starters the media encourages anti-gay mentality, trying to degrade the term “gay” to one of the worst insults you can use on someone. Then you have the government making a fucking LAW against it (not that its any of their buisnes who I want to spend my life with) further enforcing the idea that gays are deviants and social lepers. And then people wonder why we have so many hate crimes and organized hate groups like the Westboro Baptist Church. All government is good for is mooching money and breeding hate like a virus. I don’t know why they do half the stuff they do. Maybe they don’t have YouTube so they get their jollies by playing political jokes on the American citizens.
“hur hur hur, they still think their free, even after all the rights we’ve been taking away from them. What should we do next?”
“Hmm… I know! Lets start another depression, that’ll be fun!”
That was a good day when there were no gays insight.
You know, up untill they started doing “charity”, and by doing charity I mean doing little boys.