483 – The Lizard King: 10


With all the hoopla about the “redefinition of marriage,” it is somewhat surprising that it has taken six years for anyone to notice that Merriam Webster had done just that. 


Apparently while the anti-gay marriage activists were waving their placards and making snide comments about Ryan Seacrest they quietly lost the war. Now that the battle is done and marriage has been redefined where will these brave little haters go? Wandering the earth in search of a spite-filled home, I’d assume… there is no rest for the weary… or the hateful bigot. I hear Texas is talking about seceding from the nation again. 

Too bad it’s so close to Mexico.


(It has been correctly pointed out to me that not absolutely everyone who disagrees with gay marriage is an evil troll diseased with the rot of hate and the cancer of intolerance. Some of them are regular people who think they are fair and open-minded, just as long as gays can’t get “married.” This probably doesn’t make them actual bigots and I’m sorry for being so ready to trot out the bigot-brush to paint everyone who wrongly disagrees with me on this subject.)   😉 

37 Responses to 483 – The Lizard King: 10

  1. That’s the problem with this country! All those educated people making decisions for us. What’s next?!?!

  2. But it still explains same sex marriage in terms of traditional marriage rather than “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex or same sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.” i.e., it is providing two different and commonly used definitions. Then it refers to the term “same sex marriage”, the common term for gay marriage. So it seems that the dictionary is, as always, defining terms already used in common speech. And that’s supposed to show…?

    Let’s start arguing for the way ever philosophy defines something because it exists in the dictionary. Or we could leave the definition of “same sex marriage” out of the dictionary and pretend that no one uses that term, then leave people scratching their heads when they someone really does use it and someone else goes to look it up. Thus Websters remains impartial on a controversial matter, while providing both definitions for those who need them in real life.

    Or we can base our life philosophy on the supreme intellect of pot shots, let the other side of the argument do the same, and wonder why neither will come to any agreement with the other.

  3. This probably doesn’t make them actual bigots…

    No, no, it does. Wanting to deny a right you have to a group of people because of some trait common to that group? That’s pretty much what bigotry is all about.

    • Firstly: Marriage is not a right. It’s a few other things, a state of legal partnership, a sacred pact. a responcibility to another person.. but it’s actually not a right. Complaining that it’s denying a right is like saying “That doctor gets free medical insurance! I should get free medical insurance, it’s a right!” (Yes, I am aware that there are countries wherin medical care is free for all, but the entire populace pays increased taxes for it- not REALLY free at all)

      Secondly: There is no reason a gay man and a gay woman cannot be wed. In fact, such has happened before, is propably currantly happening, and is forseeable into the future. Any time such a partnership could be seen as beneficial, mutually desireable and sustainable.

      There is no denial of a basic right to anyone going on, and claiming so will only serve to inflame the topic and undermine more rational discourse.

      • Okay, fine. Wherever you see the words “denying the right to marriage,” try instead to read “denying the ability to be married.” Whether it’s a “right” or not is totally beside the point if you are a person not being allowed to marry the person you love for immaterial reasons.

        “Allowing” a gay man to marry a lesbian woman is akin to only permitting straight men to marry each other. There’s no real point. Why would you say “I know you’re in love with that person, but I’m only going to let you be married to this one”? Can you see how maddeningly frustrating that would be? Can you even imagine someone saying that to you?

        In my opinion there is no “rational discourse” on this subject. (Though there can certainly be polite discourse.) Discourse needs a two way street, and the folks who believe they are protecting something by disallowing loving people to marry are not rational on the subject.

  4. im pretty sure that mexico would take us back being the fact that we have abundant resources and like 500 miles of “touristy” coastline.but the real fact of the matter is that mexico can go suck an egg. if they want us back they will have to fight every “good ol’e boy” here for it and i dont think they’ed want to do that. we’re not nice down here about things like that. and just so yall know (not saying this assholishly) texas retained the right to secede when we were asked to join the union in 1846 and still have that right today.a friend of mine wrote a short story dealing with an apocalyptic scenario in the u.s. and every gun toting texan(you can be sure theres alot of us) in south texas (which is where i live) all went to san antonio to protect the alamo from the invading mexicans.the mexicans lost that time.

    as for the marriage thing i wish they would just make it legal so everybody would just shut up. if you want to spend the rest of your life with someone (be it gay or straight) then no one should be able to tell you that you can’t especially the right wing conservatives that put this country in the position that its in right now

    fire up the pick-up boys and grab your shotguns its time we had a politition drag

  5. “fire up the pick-up boys and grab your shotguns its time we had a politition drag”

    Oh yeah! A person right up my alley! We folks from southern Illinois THINK we’re rednecks, but Texans are the best! Love everyone of you, and especially the strip clubs outside Houston. Yee-haw!

    “Lizards taste like Cornish hens…” You rock Kevin! And is Jim, our Lizard King, modeled after that “famous” lizard creature Kirk fought in the original TV series Star Trek? Are you planning something? Hmmm? 🙂

  6. dammit i spelled politician wrong sorry about that hee hee i just got up

    tastes just like chicken……..
    oh and thanks byron for the plug love your comic too

  7. Three months from now, when everyone forgets the particulars of this comics thread…

    Enkidu is in charge of a village of half orc’s and his assistant prepares a feast for a band of adventurers. Last line should be “Hey Kronk, Nuzzyfuts says the baby half orcs taste like suckling pig! You want us to save you any?”

    I’m a big fan of juxtaposition.

  8. @Ysabel: I’m afraid I must respectfully disagree. I do see daylight between bigots (acting out of hatred) and the merely misguided. (Acting out of a misaligned notion of do-goodiness.) Now you would be correct to point out that the net effect is identical, and thus do the misguided but “loving” align themselves with the bigots… but there are probably some pretty reprehensible people who share some of my views and I’m not going to take responsibility for them either.

    @ lord clavdivs: Not to be assholish, but I promise you that NO ONE has EVER forgotten that Texas has maintained the right to take it’s ball and go home. That is because no one from Texas can pass up an opportunity to bring it up. It’s as if they’re actually proud of having less faith in the whole of America than anyone else. (Not that I have any more faith than they do, I’m just sayin’.)

    @Byron: I didn’t intentionally make King Jim look like a gorn, but reviewing the results, that was obviously lurking somewhere!

    @ Rieve: Me too!

  9. @Byron – that would be a “Gorn” you’re thinking of – TOS episode: The Arena

    @ lord clavdivs – actually, Texas doesn’t have the right to secede (see: “The Truth About Texas” by Anne Dingus (IHNW, IJLS “Anne Dingus”) ISBN 0-87719-282-0) It DOES however have the right to break up into as many as 5 individual states should they wish

  10. @Texas in general: Y’know, the last time someplace thought they had retained the right to secede, there was a costly and destructive (to -both- sides) war fought to convince them otherwise… I’m pretty sure it would happen again if Texas tried. Which would suck massively for all involved.

  11. I really don’t think the U.S. would go to war with texas. And if they did it would be a lot shorter than the last civil war on American soil. At least until several other states joined the cause and it turned into a huge bloodbath. Wait and see I guess.

    @Lord Clavdivs: I want to read that story your friend wrote. It sounds entertaining.

    @Kevin/Kroneg: You know what a Gorn is. NERD!! Said the guy who can name almost any race from Star Wars. *sigh*

  12. A Gorn? I get those on my feet from time to time…

    Yeah, I pulled an old guy brain fart and forgot what he was called… I also pulled the old guy is too lazy to Google it to find out. But then again, I not a huge fan of the original series (oh, TOS, sorry…).

  13. Here in California, a year ago, we outlawed gay marriage. The Hispanic bloc voted for the first time ever, with all the money the Mormons in Utah had.
    I am not making this up.
    The Devil’s Dictionary: (Ambrose Bierce)
    Marriage: An institution. Consisting of a Master, a Mistress, and two slaves. Making in all two.

    Make of it what you will. It’s all true. Oh yeah. Mistress is the equal of Master if you look it up.

  14. @Elfguy: Wouldn’t that be Enkidu? Seems like his style, anyway…

    @CthulhuHungers: Bierce’s definition doesn’t necessarily contradict any of the other definitions I’ve heard so far. This, in its own right, is ppretty cool. Then again, I’ve always found Bierce’s insights to be at the very least highly entertaining.

  15. @ Kevin

    That is because no one from Texas can pass up an opportunity to bring it up.


    Really? Cause, I’m from Texas and don’t bring it up.

  16. Arrgh… any honest and meaningful debate about the changing definition of marriage should address the current socio-economic purpose of marriage: Family formation and formalization, to provide for the creation and support of children and overall stability of society. Nobody meaningfully talks about that so everybody arguing over the issue fails to be relevant (or just generally fails).
    I could explain early industrial child exploitation, unionization, the creation of the public education system and how early industrialists shaped it to train children to be factory drones, etc. I could do that… but if you didn’t already know about all that shit you’re too ignorant to have anything worth saying about the definition of marriage.

  17. @Kevin

    You are trying to trick me and I won’t fall for it! Thuuppptttt!

    And if I was going to say anything about the definition of marriage, anonymous coward has stopped me in my tracks. LOL.

  18. But of course, you anonymous coward, from the point of view of those who disagree with you, your position is entirely useless.

    As an example I offer myself and my wife, Lena. For us, Marriage meant not having to explain to our friends that we were really committed to one another… and that’s pretty much it. We will never create children, and don’t really give a fig about supporting any. And I do not believe that society derives any particular stability from me being able to produce comics and blogs and not having to really work for a living. Therefore, my definition of marriage is markedly different from yours already in simply what I get out of it.

    I am perfectly aware of all of the social ills you mention, but I say that they are not germane to this conversation. The exploitation of children has got fuck-all to do with whether or not gays can marry. Homosexuals aren’t getting hitched to more easily start up underaged sweatshops.

    Now, the only thing that is truly “ignorant” here is the idea that you are so smarter than anyone who would disagree with you that you just can’t be bothered to explain yourself, and that their opinions are so beneath your notice as to not be worth the reading. I would opine that EVEN YOU are worth taking the time to consider, even if only as an example of how bull-headed and unformed are the positions of some people to who the rest of the world gives fair hearing.

  19. Hi
    “civil union ” n.
    1) A voluntary union for life (or until divorce) of adult parties of the same sex; “parties to a civil union have all the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under Vermont law as spouses in a marriage”
    2) legal recognition of the committed, marriagelike partnership of two individuals. Typically, the civil registration of their commitment provides the couple with legal benefits that approach or are equivalent to those of marriage, such as rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, medical decision making, differential taxation, adoption and artificial insemination, and employee benefits for partners and dependents.

    (MY NOTE: Civil unions are available to persons of different sexes who find no credible evidence of the existence of a Supreme Being, as well.)

    “Marriage,” as such, is an union of persons, blessed by a church and recognized by the state. As long as the phrase, “and now, by the power vested in me by the State of Indiana and Almighty God,” is still part of the service, you’re going to catch flack from people who think that a sacrament is something important and so should be protected for the exclusive use as a sacrament.

    If you’re happy with, “and now, by the power vested in me by the State of Indiana,” and all you want is the legal union and incorporation, don’t call it, “marriage,” but rather a, “civil union.” Give the word, “marriage,” back to the churches and let ’em do with it what they will.

    If you want both the civil and sacramental union, some churches will bless a same-sex union. Go find one. (the Religions Society of Friends [Quakers] are open to that kind of thing, if you can make it through the Clearness Committees.)

    Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, right?

  20. @Misha:

    It’s a reference to an old PC game: “Liesure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards” – 1987

  21. I’m leaning after endkiou with this one, all intelligent races seem to taste like some kind of foul probably because the amount and types of proteins we share with or are at least similar to our more aerodynamically inclined animal companions.

    gay marriage meh take it leave it.. do what you will with it love it and always will make people do stupid things whether they are gay, strait,stronger or fairer sex included.

  22. @Elfguy: I know. I remember the game, with varying levels of fondness (depending largely on my own level of current inebriation, I suspect). Having wasted many an hour trying to get Larry laid, I still say, Enkidu -is- Leisure Suit Larry, at least the version of him that appears in the HOLE universe. (-: His outfit looks the closest to a leisure suit, any way…

    @everyone else: Yep. I’m abandoning the blog topic as being too emotionally charged to get much rational discussion out of. Understandable, I suppose, but unfortunate.

  23. You’re right Misha. I’m sorry. I shouldn’t have let myself get that irate. (And Gromire, and Lena…) I try not to do that, I just got bugged with how dismissive anonymous coward seemed to be with everyone else’s opinions. Lena read coward’s post afterwards and told me she didn’t get that out of it.

    So if I misinterpreted your intentions, anonymous coward, I apologize for crawling up your ass about it and being a jerk to you. Seriously.

    On other subjects… Leisure Suit Larry? Enkidu? Wow!

  24. Eh… Seems to me he ticked you off cause he made a good argument and refused to stand behind it. I think he’s got a point about the robber barons sticking their fingers into the modern definition of marriage. Seems like the kind of thing they’d do. Personally, I think John Travolta summed marriage up in that annoying movie. “You shoulda seen em. People were running around, fucking everyone, then getting angry, they didn’t know what to do. So I said: Have a ceremony.” OK he didn’t say it like that. But you get the point.

  25. Sorry, I didn’t mean to piss you off Kevin–I have nothing but respect for the fact that you are willing to entertain alternative views and admit to when you haven’t thought something through, to say nothing for your work on this website.
    I also didn’t mean to dismiss the fact that this is a civil rights debate–it is and, from what little I’ve seen, most or all folks opposed to extending the legal definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships are demonstrating bigotry and intolerance.
    My point is that there’s more connected to the issue than a civil rights debate and nobody talks about that except for Christian advocates who–deceptively or not–whine about the damage to children that they believe results from the visibility and apparent acceptance of homosexuality. The economics of child rearing is a topic I’ve heard nothing said about amongst commentators on the definition of marriage; I argue it ought to be the primary concern of people who would alter and reform the way society handles marriage.
    Of course I may be wrong that a discussion on marriage is the right place to insert a discussion of the current state of the economics of child rearing. Problem is I don’t know where else to insert meaningful discussion of that issue either if so.

  26. Actually, Kevin, I wasn’t specifically referring to you, or even just to those of us who post here. In our society, and by “our” I mean the entire world, there are very few people who can discuss marriage without the topic getting too emotionally charged for rational discourse. As a species, we’ve put entirely too many unrealistic expectations into it, and built it up into this huge all-important thing. It’s crazy, really. We -expect- for it to be forever, because we’re told all our lives that it should be, but it involves people, and people aren’t the same people forever. We change and evolve over time, and after a while, are very often completely different people than who we were. When this happens to people who are married, the people they have become may have no common ground with the people that the people they were had married, much less with the people who the people they married have become. Why should they still be married? On the other hand, if they grow into people who do still have common ground, or better yet, have even more common ground than they initially had, great! No reason why they should separate. Then some of us feel that marriage should be tied to gender, but what the hells is gender? Is it biology? Okay, maybe, but if I change my biology, be it through surgery or hormones or whatever, does it change whether I can marry a given person? What about if I do it -after- I’m already married? Is that marriage no longer valid? If gender isn’t biology, but rather psychology, then who can say who’s actually male or female, or even neither, on the inside? Should we require psychological testing to determine the marital viability of any given set of people? (Actually, we probably should, but not for gender reasons, but that’s a whole different thread…) What happens if my psychology changes? If I no longer identify as male, can I no longer marry a woman? And again, what happens if that change comes upon me after I am married, does it render the marriage null? Too many things involved in marriage require the assumption that everybody believes the same set of rules, and in general, nobody believes the same set of rules as anyone else, so having societal rules about marriage is a concept doomed to argument and fighting. Hells, if there is an afterlife, then… are we -still- married when we get there? Are we married to everyone we were ever married to during life? WTF? Too many issues, to little memory space on the server… It all leads to the same thing: people -will- get emotional over the issue. It’s inevitable. It may not be everybody, but it will be someone at least, and then other people will react, and then other will respond in kind, and it just escalates.

  27. @Misha–(31,32) ….Hmm, so your point is that I’m asking for the impossible? You’re probably right.

    Damn, that’s depressing.

  28. At least, extremely unlikely. And I agree, it is depressing, but it’s human nature. Changing that is a daunting (but not impossible) task, but it will take a very long time. We can hope for it, though.

  29. @anonymous coward: Again, I’m the one who should apologize. But let me say how happy I am that I misinterpreted your intent. Thank YOU for clarifying.

    @Misha: Yes. When you die and go to heaven you are still married to everyone who you were ever married to. You have to make up schedules for who you are going to have angel sex with and the homeliest wife inevitably gets stuck with all the washing-up and cooking.

    (Actually, it doesn’t matter WHO you’re married to, because you’re stuck singling god’s praises 24-7 in an eternal choir of everybody who has ever died and been judged “worthy.” That’s why I refuse to take singing lessons.)