Lisa Benson by Lisa Benson

Lisa Benson

Comments (77) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    This is hilarious, but maybe the way Benson intended. So many philandering, divorcing Republicans… not to mention the ones that are married but closeted homosexuals.

    Who is threatening traditional marriage values again?

  2. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    ^ Shhh. Don’t tell the ‘conservatives’. They want to elect Sanford to Congress.

  3. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @Uncle Joe

    Before the grammar police arrive, that should be, “maybe NOT the way Benson intended.”

  4. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat said, over 1 year ago

    @ Uncle Joe, I don’t think Lisa knows how good the cartoon is. The Republican Party is deeply divided, but also in deep denial. The denial is all that holds their voters in line. Democrats are divided too, but not so deep and not in denial about it. Republicans have old line (limited government, except on social issues – where the meddling should be done “locally”) and Neoconservative (new world order folks who want corporations to supersede democracy).

    What would help both parties (to the extent that they want democracy to succeed and their goals actually embraced by the American people, would be to do away with winner take all elections for the House and local government. (Yes more like a Parliament.) Unfortunately, I don’t see a way to move in that direction, but without it there will never be more than two parties and they will always be internally at odds.

  5. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 1 year ago

    Well….“traditional” family values . What IS that exactly?

    Lots of opinion out there. But what does the government have to do with it? Is a “family” not " a social unit consisting of parents and the children they raise?

    Are two females together or two males together unable to have (adopt) children? Are they then incapable of teaching those children the “values” needed to “grow and function” in the world?

    Would a man with 4 wives or a woman with 3 husbands not be able to do those things?

    While not my personal way to approach the “family” why should I care if my neighbor has the inclination to collect wives ( and the related expense …. think of the holiday gifts to arrange) or if some female loves other females ( I love females too) or a couple of guys. As long as they provide for themselves and their family WHY should I care?

    PLEASE SCOTUS pass this law so we can move on……

  6. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 1 year ago

    @Bruce4671

    For me it’s an issue of gender identity and gender roles, and less an issue of “are they capable?” I’m sure gay couples make great parents. There are likely to receive better treatment from their gay parents than their straight ones, since there are a lot of abusive, maltreating, disfunctional hetero couples. But… here is my quandary:

    Two fathers raising a girl. What happens when she hits puberty and gets her first monthly visitor? There is no “understanding” that a man can provide to a girl in that situation. Men can’t possibly understand the hormonal changes that occur at that stage. (I’ve been married for 13 years and I still don’t.) And while you may say, “well, I’m sure they have friends,” those friends aren’t there 24/7 to assist a girl during this time of confusion. A Mom is. Men are ill-equipped to deal with this issue.

    Conversely, when two women are raising a boy, there’s no “Go talk to your father,” that can go on. You know those moments. Mothers raise boys. Fathers raise men. I’m a firm believer in this. A strong, disciplined, and respectful adult male can only come from a strong, disciplined, and respectful father. My boys have the nurturing my wife provides, but they have the tough skin, the respect for women, and the “fear of God (aka Dad)” because I provide a firm and fair disciplinary structure.

    Kids know that hidden within the penal code is a caveat that allows fathers to kill their children and make new ones that look just like them (I jest). Can you honestly tell me that two mothers can provide that rigid, and sometimes harsh, disciplinary structure that boys need when they step out of line? Hell, half the fathers out there can’t do this, so why should I believe two mothers can?

    And then we get into the roles issue for the kids. If you are a girl with two mothers, how can they give you advice on what to look for in a man? Because if what everyone says is true about gay being something you are born with, that child is highly unlikely to have the “gay” tag in her genetic code (since I would argue maybe 1/2 – 1/4% of the human population is gay). And conversely, how can two fathers tell their son what to look for in a wife? And what happens to those children who are ostracized at school for having same-sex parents (because it will happen)? Will those children learn to resent their parents for who they are (or choose to be)?

    I’m not saying I have the answers to these questions, because it is a minefield of problems. You run the risk of tromping all over their constitutional rights. But, at the same time, do you risk the social structure on which this country was founded by enabling people to go down this road? Who is right? Needs of the many vs. needs of the few? How can we reconcile these issues, because they are issues out there, regardless of if people wish to see them?

  7. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst said, over 1 year ago

    Oooooh, can we get Newt Gingrich to lecture us on the sanctity of marriage? Or Rush Limbaugh? Ooh ooh ooh- how bout Bob Barr? I mean, it was hilarious that one of the early objections to Mitt Romney’s candidacy from the right was that voters wouldn’t accept one of those “weirdo Mormon cultists”- Romney at least has walked the walk when it comes to treating marriage seriously.
    I think more than a few Republicans who speak out against gay marriage are terrified that gay couples may just prove to be better examples of fidelity and love than them. They fear the inevitable question: “You denigrated them as deviants for years, but they’re turning out to be more faithful than you… what’s that say about you?”

  8. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 1 year ago

    @Bruce4671

    Actually, homosexuals have a lower fidelity rate on a massive magnitude than straight couples (males are 4.5% gay compared to 75% hetero). Try again Wolf.

  9. exoticdoc2

    exoticdoc2 said, over 1 year ago

    @Uncle Joe

    Then I guess it’s a good thing the Republicans are not the standard for morality…the democrats/libs most certainly are not. Often, but sadly not always, what is referred to as “traditional values” is God’s morality, which is as it should be, for he is the only source for objective morality.

  10. Alc7

    Alc7 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Wow. “Father knows best” is alive and well. At least you guys didn’t pull the old slippery slope to bestiality and the, I wouldn’t want my sister to marry one. As long as we are trotting out platitudes, how about, Live and let live, or MYOB. I personally don’t care if my neighbors are gay or inclined to collect tea cozies, so long as they trim their hedges and keep their yards clean.

  11. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, over 1 year ago

    Wraithkin said, 40 minutes ago

    “@Bruce4671

    Actually, homosexuals have a lower fidelity rate on a massive magnitude than straight couples (males are 4.5% gay compared to 75% hetero). Try again Wolf."

    try comparing straight het males with homosexuals. then couples to couples.

    not sure where you would get objective numbers about this. not likely people would answer, or answer truthfully, even if you had a study.

  12. Nancy

    Nancy GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @dannysixpack

    You are absolutely correct. According to research, the average time/ years of commitment for same sex union/marriage is 7 years.

  13. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 1 year ago

    @Wraithkin

    OK, I see you opinion and ask what is the point?

    I’m a father of three ladies. I’m married, had a mother, had grandmothers, Aunts (no sisters) and female cousins. Believe me when I say I am familiar with what occurs during puberty. So while your opinion is valid for you perhaps it isn’t for the vast majority of others (after 13 years you have NO idea?). But, if you only have what is “portrayed” as “normal” male behavior in that circumstance – say as represented on TV – then you would be (not saying you are ) a bumbling idiot that can’t find a box of Feminine napkins on the store shelf and would be too embarrassed to touch them.

    I also have a son. Oh yeah, we “bonded” over “traditional male” activities. Funny thing about that, the girls were there as well. Now why is that? Well, isn’t it better if young ones are exposed to and understand ALL aspects of life regardless of “gender” identification? Consequently, my son can change a diaper as well as anyone and has no fear of washing a dish or his clothing (cooking is not his strong suit thought it IS mine). I find this statement rather curious. You say “Mothers raise boys. Fathers raise men. I’m a firm believer in this. A strong, disciplined, and respectful adult male can only come from a strong, disciplined, and respectful father.”

    I suppose you discount that a female can “be” strong and disciplined and that teaching respect for others – women included – is not in their wheelhouse.

    How does a “parent” teach their children what to “look” for in a mate? Isn’t it true that small children imitate their parents and by age six or so have developed many of the traits that will guide them the rest of their life? Is the “family” a loving, supportive, peaceful, respectful environment? If that is true won’t the child develop those traits as well and in looking for a mate look for a “partner” that reflects those qualities?

    And if sexual orientation is genetic and NOT a learned trait, then being raised by homosexuals will not matter. Personally, I don’t care because we have enough people now anyway. Procreation and species survival is not a problem at this time due to sexual orientation.

    So, while I am of the same mind that you are on some topics, I find that the constant fight to restrict freewill (which is a gift from god that even god does not legislate. God only issues a user’s guide complete with a warranty violation penalty list that you are free to ignore) is a drain on productivity and progress.

    Let it go and then (if you believe) let God sort it out.

  14. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 1 year ago

    @DrCanuck

    You make a very compelling argument. I won’t deny your question raises a very valid point. Of course not, would be the answer. My comments above were simply pointing out the unintended consequences of those actions.

    For example, it is the right of any woman to have a child at any age of her choosing. However, women over 40 who do have children frequently have either birth defects in those children or they have a much more difficult pregnancy. It is their right to have that child, but with it comes consequences. That’s what I’m getting at with the idea that same-sex couples are raising children. It may be their right to have a child, but its impact on those children is still unknown, and we don’t know what will happen next. But what we do know is that nature designed us (god or not) to have male + female to create life. Male + Male or Female + Female = genetic dead end.

    @ Bruce:
    Fair arguments as well. I guess I look at another piece of culture when I’m making my comments. The black community has a notoriously high illegitimacy rate (bear with me on this one), and most of those are single mothers.

    What we have seen happen is that daughters raised by single mothers (especially young single mothers) perpetuate the cycle and become single mothers themselves. This wreaks havoc on the social structure of our country. There is a statistic that (yes, even) Bloomberg is trying to leverage in New York that if you graduate high school and get married before you have children, you only have a 3% chance of ever touching the poverty line.

    We have also seen that males raised by single mothers are very in-touch with how a female acts, but when it comes to fidelity and supporting their dependents, the fathers of these children are missing. They are missing because they don’t have solid “father” figures in their lives telling them what is right and wrong, and providing a solid and firm structure for those boys.

    So when you combine the social morays stated above, you get a volatile combination of lax control by the girls and lax discipline in the boys that creates a 70% illegitimacy rate inside a community.

    So how does this tie into the same-sex parent discussion? Well, it’s because the absence of a gender role in a specific group has already proven to cause problems for that group. So we very likely could see the same problems (or similar problems) in another group with the same lack of gender roles. While it’s not certain, it’s hard to argue that it can’t happen.

  15. cjr53

    cjr53 said, over 1 year ago

    @The Wolf In Your Midst

    Many gay and lesbian couples already are more faithful, loving and are better at upholding many traditions of marriage over that of sanctimonious republicans.

    Marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults. Let’s keep other peoples’ religion out of our marriages.

  16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (62).