Bat-Man and Mr. Right, by Michael Davis

Michael Davis

Master Of The Universe, Lord Of All Media, Most Interesting Black Man In the World, Sexiest Man on Earth, Mentor, Writer, Artist, Producer & Uppity.

You may also like...

18 Responses

  1. Anonymous says:

    You had me right up until "I'm not gay. I have no desire to be with a man." :)I kid, I kid!That was a great little story at the end about meeting these guys in the park and I loved the "flat ass" joke your new friend made.

  2. Vinnie Bartilucci says:

    "What are we missionaries"Well, usually, but, there's the occasional time I…oh, sorry…There's a good number of people on the anti-side of the argument that are just plain anti-gay. If you asked if there should be a brand of lemonade that catered to gays, they'd say no. But a lot of people are just used to the definition of "marriage" as a man and a woman, and changing that just rankles. I've made the analogy before – it's the same reaction if a female ruler of a country asked to be called "King" – the reaction is That's Not What The Word Means.Until the new state-sanctioned marriages are recognized nationwide, I forsee a number of unpleasant situations and a lot of loopholes crawled through. I expect to hear about a case of a gay married couple travelling outside their state, getting into an accident, and one not being able to sign the approval of medical treatment for the other. OTOH, I also expect to hear about a couple getting a divorce, and one claiming that the marriage was done in another state, and since THIS state doesn't recognize it, they shouldn't have to pay alimony at all. Until that happens, whether they call them civil unions, same-sex marriages, or just plain marriages, they're just lip service, and a way to increase tourism. If a particular state doesn't want to perform the ceremony, that's up to them, but making them hold only limited jurisdiction is just plain dangerous.

    • mike weber says:

      An acquaintance once said that if he were God, there's be a strain of AIDS that would be spread easily but would only effect homophobes.It would be cureable, though.The cure would involve vigourous young black men…

  3. Russ Rogers says:

    Maybe you can't regulate morality. But you can try. And there are lots of moral reasons and practical reasons for the government to encourage people to marry. Reasons that go beyond procreation. We don't regulate procreation. We don't insist that every married couple try to have kids. We don't do what China does and limit the number of children a couple can have.Married people tend to live longer. There is a built in support system in a marriage. You don't have you hire somebody to bring you chicken soup when you're sick in bed. Shared expenses and sometimes double-incomes makes good economic sense. Monogamy is a good way of preventing the spread of certain social diseases, one of which (although treatable) is still deadly and incurable.I believe in the conservative values of monogamy. I believe in the conservative value (and romantic notion) of trying to make a life-long commitment to have, hold, respect and honor in sickness and in health. I think that this commitment is not just good for ME personally. I think that this commitment is good for society as a whole. So I see nothing wrong in society recognizing that and extending to my partner and me certain benefits, like shared medical insurance. Hey, in the end, I think it's good for the insurance companies knowing that I have somebody else in my life working to maintain my health for FREE!Marriage is a CONSERVATIVE VALUE. I am MORALLY opposed to random and anonymous sex and see nothing wrong with the government writing laws trying to discourage it. For instance laws that criminalize prostitution and laws that promote and service marriage as an ideal are perfectly fine by my book.That is why I can't fathom why CONSERVATIVE people would not want to extend the ideal of marriage to homosexuals. If it makes sense (from a public health and moral standpoint) to encourage long-term, monogamous relationships, why would we want to discourage a small but still significant portion of the population from having those relationships.But … but … but … GAY people will want to adopt children! If we ALLOW gayness, our children will become gay! Yes, gay couples might want to adopt. And we try to find homes that are an ethnic or cultural match for children, we try to place black kids with black families and we try to place Jewish kids in Jewish families. We give preference to certain couples over other couples. In the end it would be wrong to deny a little Jewish kid a loving home just because a gentile family could be found to love and raise them, but a suitable Jewish family couldn't. Or vice versa. In the same way, I think heterosexual couples should be given preference when placing adopted children. Because we live in a mainly heterosexual society and children are generally born from heterosexual relationships. But, that does not mean I would DENY a child a loving home, just because a gay couple could be found to love and raise them, but a suitable straight couple couldn't. Frankly we have too many children in foster care, looking for loving families. There are more children in need of adoption in the world than loving homes ready to take them. It makes no sense to deny gay families the right to love and raise children. To some people, I might be speaking double talk. I want to extend equal rights to gay couples, while still maintaining that there are differences between gay and straight couples. To some I have declared that all are equal but some are more equal than others. Maybe my logic is flawed. I can live with that.Now, I don't think society will see an increase in homosexuality or homosexual activity if gay couples are allowed to be recognized and celebrated formally with marriage. I don't think gay couples who adopt kids can turn those kids gay. You can walk into and out of a gay bar and not turn gay. You can spend the day in the park surrounded by gay men and still feel uneasy at the thought of passionately kissing somebody of the same sex.Frankly, I think allowing gay marriage will decrease homosexual activity. Maybe it's counter intuitive. But think about it. If society denies your gayness and you are gay, the only way you have to assert who you ARE is by having sex. It's an act of rebellion. And it's a way or preserving your very nature. Society's repression of gayness and committed gay relationships has led to dangerous stuff like random, anonymous sex from pick up bars, in public restrooms or in public parks. It's a cruising culture. It's icky. It's dangerous and icky. And yes, heterosexual cruising is just as dangerous and icky.This is a very conservative viewpoint. But, I think sex implies or should imply a level of commitment from both partners. I don't think sex is just some random, biological imperative like eating. Having sex with someone should mean more than just sharing a sandwich. I don't think that you can legislate that sex outside of marriage should be illegal. You could try, many have, but it's not practical. And frankly, that's an invasion of privacy. But I do think that sex should imply a level of commitment that could at least potentially lead towards marriage. Sex should be seen a serious deal, not just random bodies in motion. Society should encourage people to take sex seriously. Society should encourage long term, stable relationships.If gay couples are encouraged to view sex as potentially leading toward marriage, that there is an implied commitment to sex, I think you will see a decline in random and anonymous sex. If you make sexual preference LESS important as a defining characteristic of who you are and what you are legally allowed to do, then you don't force people who are gay to reassert themselves and their gayness by just having SEX. Sex will mean something more if it actually CAN mean something more.Finally, recognizing gay marriage removes some of the stigma of being gay. And there is still too much stigma, misunderstanding and hatred, both subtle and institutional against gays in our society already. It's time we remove this one institutional bias against homosexuals and allowed loving gay couples the chance to celebrate that publicly with marriage.Rock on in peace.

    • Mike Gold says:

      "We don't do what China does and limit the number of children a couple can have."Why not? The fact of the matter is, we have no energy shortage. We have no food shortage. We have no clean water shortage. We have no problem with greenhouse gases and pollution and emissions. We have no spread of disease problem. If every automobile in the world were to instantly become a hybrid, our long-term situation would not improve.We have a population problem. Quite clearly, this planet cannot sustain six and one-half billion people; we added that last 500,000 in the past six years. It's too late for zero population growth. We can stop supporting people after a certain age (the Logan's Run solution) and we can stop fertility clinics and we can stop supporting cancer patients and we can ban organ transplants and other live-prolonging procedures that, when they were first conceived, were usually defined as "playing god." Or we can regulate the number of live births until we get the population under control — and we keep the population under control.Or we can starve and suffocate and pollute ourselves to death. Which is what we're doing. The planet will survive, and so will cockroaches and probably Keith Richards. But the human race and our babies will not.

      • Alan Coil says:

        I just read that the population will hit 7 billion by 2012 or so. And that India will soon have more people than China.China limits the number of children because THEY realize their population is too big.

      • Russ Rogers says:

        Mike, I agree. We are overpopulated, we are overpopulating even more. But … can a democracy find the will to legislate the number of babies a family can have? The government MIGHT be able to provide incentives. I can see having a diminishing return on the tax credits families get after the first one or two children. But you would have to "grandfather in" all the children currently living until they reach the age of majority. You might be able to make vasectomies 100% tax deductible. But a country that can legislate one child per married couple and none for single mothers would be by definition a totalitarian regime.By the way, I have four daughters. I'm glad I don't have to select which two's names will go into the "Harvest Day Lottery." I wasn't trying to say that "America is better than China." I was trying to say that America doesn't care either way how fertile a married couple is, so the argument that gay people shouldn't be able to get married because gay people can't procreate is specious.

        • Mike Gold says:

          Yeah, I don't exactly foresee a time when parents are going to have to pick and choose. Or even choose between twins.However, even if we do take all the outrageous steps I suggested above — close fertility clinics, stop supporting cancer patients, ban organ transplants and similar procedures — we're still going to have this massive overpopulation problem and it's still going to grow like hell. It's not a matter of making difficult choices, it's a matter of simple math.And, hey, I'm willing to say that America is better than China. Compare the pollution in our largest city to that of theirs. And we have more respect for copyrights. And we're more likely to have a government that believes in its constitution, hopefully, some day soon.

  4. Rick Taylor says:

    Michael,I admire the tenor of your article.I question some of the stereotypes.All gay men are not speedo- wearing, buff bodied, GQ catalog models. I know you're not asserting that but always seems to be the image that folks paint first. Just like the drag queen the TV news show at every Gay Pride parade. We all come in may shapes, sizes and genders.The thing I find most ironic is that when it comes to denying anyone else what I consider civil rights as a person, if you are of any other persuasion (african america, asian, etc) or of any gender (male or female) it has become taboo in society to deny those people/persons anything. The harassment/fair treatment web training I took just today at my job makes it clear. It also states sexual orientation is covered under that umbrella but witnessing what happened to one of our art directors about a year ago, I don't believe it. It's like corporate 'don't ask don't tell'. Just someone please tell me I don't have any rights as an American and I'll move to Canada.The thing I find saddest is that most folks don't feel one bit guilty about trying to legislate what to a certain degree what I consider my civil rights. Try doing that to a person of color or a certain race to ANYONE else today.The weird thing is that compared to my heterosexual counterparts I'm not ANY of the things they stigmatize. My partner and I have been together over 20 years. A figure that beats the CRAP out of the 50% married divorce rate. But I'm a dirty faggot to bigoted heterosexuals who probably have at least one failed marriage.No, Bill and I haven't discussed getting married. We consider the house, the dog and all our stuff commitment enough. We wear wedding bands but because of the commitment we made to each other, it's our symbol.I'm just saddened by the demonization of two people who want nothing other than to love each other.I don't flaunt but no threatened bigot is going to force me back in the closet. We live in a largely blue collar neighborhood and we know all our neighbors and party, live and die together. We're members of an organization that supports the local little league teams and give a hell of a Christmas party that I helped chair. Every kid got what they wanted and it gave me a great feeling. God knows I love to buy toys. If most people could see this cohabitation it might melt their stone cold hearts a tad.Shit, I thought this was America.Guess I was wrong,

    • Mike Gold says:

      "The thing I find saddest is that most folks don't feel one bit guilty about trying to legislate what to a certain degree what I consider my civil rights. Try doing that to a person of color or a certain race to ANYONE else today."I appreciate what you're saying, Rick. I'd like to point out that the last law prohibiting miscegenation wasn't repealed until 2000 – that would be Alabama, which held out two years longer than South Carolina. Even then, the Alabama repeal only managed to attract 59% of the vote.That was in 2000. Eight years ago. In the land of the free, the home of the brave.Bollocks.

    • Michael Davis says:

      Rick,The 'speedo' was what the guy was wearing. And he did have the best body of any human being I had ever seen. I was not trying brand a stereotype this is what he had on. BUT-to your point I could have pointed out that the other two guys were in shorts and a regular bathing suit. So with that in mind I can clearly see your point. Thanks for your other insights it was a great post.

  5. John Tebbel says:

    Marital law, we'll recall, was set up by men to regulate the disposition of their property and chattel, including their wives and children. Down with all that. The sex/morality business is a silly overlay that the middle classes worry about instead of doing something productive. The parenthetical classes aren't so troubled, q.v. Mr. Doolittle's famous speech on the matter in Pygmalion/My Fair Lady.

  6. Martha Thomases says:

    Heterosexual monogamy doesn't work for everybody, but that's not what marriage is about in the long term. It's about sharing day-to-day life, with all the petty annoyances and life-changing joys. Every dyad is different, and every dyad should get to make their own rules about stuff like sex and money and chores. The state gets the benefit of stable households, and we each get to live the lives that work for us.Those who want to get their church involved are welcome to do so, but please leave the rest of us alone.

    • Rick Taylor says:

      Hey baby,How are things going.The first couple lines of your post remind me of Henry Fonda's speech to his teenage daughter about what love is in 'Yours Mine and Ours'.Kissnoise.

    • Russ Rogers says:

      I agree, sex is only a small component in what marriage is about. But it's the only real difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples. If we want to extend marriage benefits to homosexuals we need to show how the arguments against that are generally specious, based more on prejudice and fear than fact. And we have to show how homosexual marriage will benefit society. As far as Mike is concerned, the fact that homosexual couples have a harder time procreating, that is a benefit of homosexual marriage, in that it places less of a burden on our overpopulated planet!Monogamy is definitely an ideal that is promoted by marriage. Sexual affairs are certainly seen as grounds for divorce. Medical Doctors and psychologists can give many reasons why long term monogamous relationships are generally healthier. I see this as a good argument in extending marriage to include homosexuals. But, every dyad is different, and I see it as an invasion of privacy for the government to tell married couples exactly how they should run their bedrooms. Beyond laws forbidding sex with children, incest, bigamy (pluralism, meaning multiple spouses not multiple partners) or prostitution, most other stuff is fair game in my book.After we recognize the rights of homosexuals to form legally recognized and formalized dyads (to marry), should we be willing to extend that benefit to other couples? What about close friends that live together but have no romantic or sexual interest in each other? Should they be allowed to "marry" and get the legal benefits that come from that or will we need to have proof that there is a sexual bond? Do Felix and Oscar have to share a bedroom before Felix can get on Oscar's health insurance? What about family members that live together and don't have a sexual relationship? I don't think we are willing to open the doors on incestuous marriage, but are we willing to extend the rights and responsibilities of marriage to say "Spinster Sisters" who live together? Should sisters be allowed to adopt a child together?