Jeff Danziger for April 05, 2009

Nice drawing Jeff, as usual. The cat’s a nice touch.

I like how he even got the smaller guy standing on his toes. Nice detail.

Here’s the original: http://eu.art.com/asp/View_HighZoomResPop.asp?apn=13212056&imgloc=22-2207-Z00DAZ5R.jpg&imgwidth=746&imgheight=805

Why does every discussion of gay marriage start off with child molestors? How about the adults who happen to be gay and want to publicly announce their love?

Alex Campbell, not sure what you’re talking about. I don’t see any comments about child molesters. Am I missing something?

Hm, I knew someone would scream “child molestation” on this one. Jeff has captured the original, which shows the female as short enough to has the stand on her toes, which makes the shorter male here look like a child. I am sure Jeff did not intend this, but was just duplicating the detail of the original. Borderline.

I think you’re right geoff. He’s just replicating the picture closely.

I Think the whole idea is borderline- and NAMBLA is laughing their heads off. Less than ten percent of society is driving the rest of the mindless masses along the road to perdition/destruction.

Yes, by hewing so closely to the original, Danziger replicates the infantilization of the woman. In this case, it plays into the hands of the anti-gay hysterics who equate homosexuality with pedophilia. I certainly hope this wasn’t Danziger’s intention!

As a single, straight man who nonetheless believes in marriage and would like someday to be married (to a woman), I have yet to hear anyone explain why allowing two men (or two women) who love each other to (a) commit to their love in a public ceremony and (b) receive the same rights of inheritance and joint ownership of assets as any other couple IN ANY WAY minimizes or demeans any marriage of my own. Every argument that I’ve heard opposing same-sex marriage can be easily dismissed, until all they have left to fall back on is “God Hates F*gs.” Of course, very few people want it pointed out to them that this is what they’re relying on, and they preface all of their letters to the editor with “I’m not a bigot, but…” Guess what. You’re a bigot. At least Rev. Fred Phelps and his followers are honest about the venom they spew.

fritzoid, two thumbs up for your honest and straightforward comments! It does all boil down to some believing we, as a country, should all prevent their idea of God’s idea of sin from happening. If they are correct, and that’s what God does believes, then God will let those people know in his own time. The righties need to stop playing God, especially when they so often cherry pick words from the Bible for their own use.

God doesn’t hate “f#gs”. But the question is how we define things legally. Why should marriage be defined by which orifices two consenting adults choose to manipulate in the completion of their sex act? I’m afraid that heterosexual and homosexual people are a little to confused by their own shame and privacy issues to realize that a marriage is based on the legal custodialship of dependents, and not who you have a twinkle in your eye for. Government should not be in the job of validating peoples lifestyles and philiosophies - that so many want this done shows that we all have much to fear from government increasing its reach and eroding our personal right to privacy. The government has no need to supervise sexual proclivities, but does have a need to regulate and enforce questions of citizenship (by birth) and wardship.

Puppy, puppy, puppy … Since, as you say, marriage shouldn’t be defined by orifices, then you must agree with the decision that it is unconstitutional for govt to ban marriages for some people, but endorse marriages for others. You say: ”Government should not be in the job of validating peoples lifestyles and philiosophies.” But the government does validate lifestyles by recognizing marriage, forbidding polygamy, forbidding those under the age of 18 to marry without parental permission, etc. So if you support banning same sex marriage, seems to me your concern is with orifices. Marriage is love, commitment and responsibility. Same sex couples should have an equal opportunity to succeed or fail at it like the rest of us.

Big Gorilla, I’m going to assume you are a seculsar-humanist…because you do not accept the precepts concerning morality that are contained in the Holy Bible. I include this to showcase the diversity of origins of morality and what should succeed from those beliefs as a result… Because you have to assimilate any number of illogical things into a cogent whole…you assume Gay people are motivated by the same passions and priorities as heterosexuals, therefore they deserve the “same rights”(or legal priveleges other than those attributable to them by their by their common humanity). Besides the case that this may not be true (we are only assuming as a society that their behaviour is not aberrant and equal to normal heterosexual procreation and child-rearing) the fact that this has no bearing on the definition of Marriage escape4s you… You believe that Gay people have a biological need for marriage because immorality and just plain being wrong is not something that your secular-humanist philosophy can accept. So by fiat, you want government to enact a culture norm when that is not government’s job. Bearing all this in mind and much,much more that is impossible to go into right now, The traditional definition of marriage should be retained because not every phenomenon occurring in a society needs to be overseen and judicated upon by some ad hoc advisory board and made amenable to every concern; hence the prohibition against polygamy and bigamy. The government has a legal reason to maintain a definition of marriage as between one man and one woman if for nothing else , then for the maintenance of the powers and rights of biological parents and their offspring, and also as paramount in the disposition of property. I chose not to get graphic in my earlier post in deference to whomever might be reading this…but I will re-iterate and hope you understand, that defining a legal status based on which and whom’s errogeneous zones are being gratified is not the purview of government. What you outraged Libs are doing is straining out a gnat and swallowing a Camel or throwing the baby out with the bathwater…if you make marriage mean everything it will eventually mean nothing. Which is a goal of the more radical on your side.

Puppy, if you want to know what I think, ask me. I reject the label secular-humanist and won’t label you. Far too often, labels get in the way of civil discourse. I believe I have no right to tell others whether God approves or disapproves of their choices or lifestyles. It is not up to me, and it is not up to you, nor up to any government to act in God’s stead. I believe homosexuals are born homosexual. I have a hard time believing that they are abhorrent to God since he made them that way. I have not been a proponent of same-sex marriage. Maybe too much of the good little Catholic girl remains. Maybe that’s a cop-out and gay people will be offended by this, because I believe gays deserve complete and total equality. After all, it took Supreme Court decisions to end many egregious forms of discrimination against blacks in this country, it took court decisions to declare unconstitutional laws prohibiting marriage between different races. So my position is that if our courts, ultimately determine that it is unconstitutional to deny the right to marriage for same sex couples, it will be OK with me.

Pup and bcs posts show the importance of the separation of church and state. We live in a pluralistic society and have freedom to worship as we please. The belief in some Biblical interpretations is a religious belief that should not be used to disinfranchize gay people.

Thanks, deadheadzan. I think that you explained your name on another toon post; but don’t know which … why did you pick that name?