August 11, 2010
-
Rush and Gay Marriage
Photos have been released of Rush Limbaugh and his marriage. It has been pointed out that conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been married 4 times. He is 63 and his new wife is 33. Here is the link: Link
What do you think is the bigger threat to traditional marriage?
This marriage?
Or a gay marriage?
Comments (80)
this marriage
Rush is a comedian. He’s not supposed to make sense.
Wait? He’s serious?
BAHAAHAHA! That just makes him funnier!
Gay marriage is much sexier. He’s kinda old.
Neither. Maybe George Clooney.
He’s a hypocrite.
She’s desperate.Gay marriage is hot.
Neither is a threat to marriage -.-
Traditional marriage? Didn’t Soloman have like 300 concubines? Hell, in North Carolina where I live, if a married woman buys property, even if her husband didn’t pay a dime of the cost, her husband’s name has to be on the deed.
Screw traditional marriage.
At least gay couples are socially and legally equal to one another…. unless they are an interracial couple, I guess. *sigh*
Neither
TheologiansCafe and ShimmerBodyCream. That one still confuses me.
Neither. Why does there have to be a threat? Marriage was never in any jeopardy.
The age difference has to go be a problem! You gotta remember Dan, when you’re over there in in the shit, it ain’t gay. I don’t know how to explain it, but if you’re around a bunch of guys, things just don’t seem as gay. One room with 10 shower heads, you know what I mean man!
I believe the way that people jump around from marriage to marriage is way more harmful to the sanctity of marriage.
Tradidition for tradition’s sake alone? No thanks. Now having said that, let me also say this – Limbaugh is a first class ass.
What does it, matter if you take the institution that lightly. It matters not to marriage as an institution it is a joke in both cases
Neither. And I can’t believe 4 woman married that man!
When I marry, I’ll let you know if Rush Limbaugh or any homosexuals pose any threat to it.
Neither should be, but gay marriage takes way more heat, which is wrong.
Gay men are hot, perverts marrying women young enough to be their daughters are not.
Rush is a threat to me keeping my lunch down.
@maniac_rose - Agreed.
I think Rush’s marriage is worse just because he’s been married so many damn times…it’s not a matter of whether or not the marriage is straight or gay. It’s how many times you’ve been married and divorced. That’s where the problem lies!
@MyJudas - Community property. It’s common in a lot of states. Missouri is the same way. If you don’t want to share/have a problem sharing your property with your husband then why in the hell did you(not you specifically, you plural) marry him in the first place? I always ask that to people who have a problem with certain things like community property. Marriage (to me at least) is about being an equal partnership team based on love. If you aren’t willing to share everything, property and money included, with your partner, then what was the point in marrying them to begin with?
@Lydia_Lynne - 1) Marriages don’t always work out, so it’s always good to have your own stuff in case something goes wrong. You can trust someone totally, but that doesn’t mean they are the person you think they are. Besides, marriage should be about love and commitment, not combining assets. 2) If the husband buys property, the wife’s name doesn’t have to be on it. Heterosexual couples aren’t inherently equal in a partnership because of our society’s irrational obsession with gender roles.
Why should anyone’s marriage be a threat to someone else’s marriage?
Neither is a threat; Rush is an insult to everything regular marriage should stand for, though. Actually, he’s just an insult to conservatives. And educated people.
Neither marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. o.O If you want to have a traditional marriage, go have one? It’s not like either of those couples is preventing you from having a traditional marriage.
There is no threat to traditional marriage. People should manage their own relationships and lives apart from whatever is going on outside their homes.
Both.
I think Rush’s is worse because it is all about ego and the money….Old man/younger woman relationships usually are.
OMG I was gonna get married tomorrow, but I found out that gay people could get married and somehow I can’t get married for reasons I can’t explain.
I fail to understand the logic of people that feel marriage is be threatened. Neither is a threat.
Both are bastardizations of the Sacrament of Marriage.
@MyJudas - “At least gay couples are socially and legally equal to one another”. That’s a valid point. It’s 2010 & traditional marriage still has points that arent fair to women. They should make marriage an equal playing field for everyone. It’s not fair how a woman has to have her husband’s name/signature/permission on alot of things. Just because someone is married doesnt mean they’re owned. Hell I even say it’s not fair for a man or woman to automatically have to share stuff by law because their SO can screw them over & take advantage. It’s happened. I think it was somewhere in the 1970s when they FINALLY repealed that law that when a woman goes to the bank for a loan or something, her husband has to be there.
To answer the question though, I never did see how gay marriage is a threat but people who get married often show they have commitment problems I think. After the second wedding, I start to wonder. It’s funny how we could go out & marry our cousins tomorrow here if we wanted to but gay marriage is taboo.
@trunthepaige - It’s not a joke if two people love each other.
He sure puts the “Rush” into “Rushing into things”!
No, but seriously, he’s crazy.
Bigger threat to “traditional marriage” would def. = the latter. What a silly question. The def. of “traditional marriage” pretty obviously gives that one away. You’re not asking about which we feel is more right, whether you meant to or not. You asked which is the bigger threat to “traditional marriage.”
I find it difficult to believe anyone would marry someone who has been married 3 times before them. Seriously. There must be SOME kind of issue with that person and their ability to adapt and/or get along with another party. Come on now. Anywho. That bothers me more than the age does, I think. I’m not too big on the age thing, so long as each person understands what they’re getting into and are committed. You know?
<3, ~*Akarui Mitsukai*~
Can I just make a remark to this? Despite the contrary some women (and men if it’s the wife who’s popular) can’t handle all that fame and glory? Some people aren’t meant to handle that much publicity. We have no right to accuse anyone. There are always 2 sides.
@roxics - Seriously love is good to have in marriage but marriage has never been about love. Marriage is not and government stamp of approval on your love life. If love is what it is all about, what right does the government have in licensing who you love?
@trunthepaige - Well if you want to look at it like that, then marriage is about two people taking responsibility for each other. In which case it doesn’t matter what the genders are.
that marriage. yay for gay marriage.
@roxics - That is called a partisanship, not a marriage.
@trunthepaige - Well then define marriage for me.
either or. neither.
@roxics -
A social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies.
That is the official definition. The instution also has served as an means of joining families, clans, tribes and kingdoms.
The institution is licensed by the state due to it being the means by which society reproduces. Personally I think that is a weak excuse and the state should get out of the business all together
I don’t think either is a threat to the institution of marriage, but I do believe that Rush’s marriage is more of a sham than the gay marriage.
Niether is a threat. However I think gays and lesbians should form civil unions and heteros should have marriages. I have no problem with them reaping all the benefits that married people have. I just think marriage is a religous thing and civil unions aren’t. For that matter, straight people who aren’t religous go to the justice of the peace which is more of a civil union than a wedding. But then again I come from the bible belt.
Oh that second picture is adorable.
I still don’t understand how marriage can be “threatened,” really. I mean if anything, celebrities and their 22-hour marriages are the most degrading.
Why does it matter? When I get married, I won’t love my partner any less because of who someone else married.
Homosexuality is digusting…Rush’s failed marriages is on himself and on the other women. We don’t know the circumstances of their divorce either way. Yet two men or two women is a disgrance on The Heavenly Father’s Will and this society. I don’t care about who they love. Keep the word “marriage” out of it. A man with a man or woman with a woman is just disgusting and wrong.
@roxics - You homo…Even if you think in terms of evolution, why would you assume the it’s natural to have a “sexual” relationship with the same gender? You are a sick fool.
Divorce is the biggest threat to marriage. Let’s outlaw it.
@Celtic_haven - Lots of animals display homosexuality. It’s nature’s way of controlling populations.
Meh, I’ll sound biased. Both demean the institution
@Celtic_haven - Yes it is natural, because it exists in nature. Do you really believe your Heavenly Father didn’t create homosexuality? The world is not as black and white as you may want to believe.
@trunthepaige - But here is the great thing. We created the concept of marriage, we can change it. It’s just a word. We can expand on it. As society changes, definitions of things can change.
Neither is a threat. Hypocrites like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh will always do their thing, and now gay people will finally be able to marry. Know what? It makes no difference whatsoever to any marriage outside their own.
It doesn’t change marriage, it doesn’t destroy marriage, it doesn’t even affect any marriage but their own.
False choice. Rush is awesome. A force to be reckoned with which is why Liberals hate him. It certainly isn’t because he’s been married more than once or that he’s a recovering drug addict.
Rush is an incredible political commentator, in this, his analysis is beyond relevant; he’s brilliant. Having said that, I don’t take marriage advice from anyone with that kind of track record. They’re 2 separate issues.
Adultery, Gay marriage and multiple marriages are all a threat to the sanctity of marriage. You don’t soften the impact of one by comparing it to another.
@roxics - No it is an institution with a meaning behind it that no same sex lovers can ever be. But you are right about one thing, the original meaning of the word has already been lost.
@trunthepaige - Paige, things change. We don’t live in the same world humans used to live in. Humanity has evolved. There is this certain set of humanity that blindly believes that just because something is old, that makes it more “right” and “true.” As if humans in the past made less mistakes and understood the world better than we do today. But we know that’s not true. If anything it’s the reverse. We understand the world way better today than any generation before us. We are the sum of all past human knowledge and culture. So if we choose to evolve the concept of marriage, so that it works today in the modern world, that’s a good thing.
@roxics - Really do humans change in less than 20 years? That is certainly not evolution as the desire for homosexual marriage did not exist less than a generation ago. This is more of a trend. Marriage was not even an institution that interested homosexuals less 20 years ago. It is not some right that has been denied them. 20 years ago a homosexual wedding was comic in their eyes an amusing oxymoron.
@trunthepaige - Something tells me you don’t really know the desires of homosexuals 20+ years ago. I have a feeling you’re guessing here. Why wouldn’t a loving homosexual couple want the same benefits as a straight married couple? That doesn’t make any sense. Maybe you should talk to some older homosexual couples.
That said, society has changed in the last twenty + years. What you’re calling a trend is not a trend, it’s societies stand on a subject evolving. Just like women gaining more rights was not a trend, but a shift in views for a better future.
@roxics - They must have keep very quite about this desire. Oh but so many of them sure wrote a lot about the absurdity of the institution they so want now
@trunthepaige - My hunch is that some probably didn’t care for the institution of marriage and thought it was silly. A lot of this probably came from their disdain for pop society at the time. The same society that was rejecting them. But hey, there are a lot of people in the straight world who have a problem with marriage as well. Just because some do doesn’t mean all do. But if your claim is that they didn’t want it because they didn’t voice it, that’s not very solid. That community has been fighting for one right at a time. Back then they were just fighting to be accepted period.
If you base marriage on sex than it’s a threat to marriage, period.
Gay marriage is based solely upon sex and therefore is a threat NOT only to marriage, but to family values as well!
why is everyone so anti-family/family values these days?
There should be a law against divorce then people would think twice about marriage but the murder rate might go up as well.
No marriage is a threat to any *other* marriage you dumbfuck.
Drugs Limbaugh is on his 4th. That makes him a bonafide moron and hypocrite for being against gay marriage and calling it a threat to “traditional” marriage. Anyone who’s failed at 3 traditional marriages should SHUT THE FUCK UP about marriage completely. The end.
@MyJudas - Well, if someone enters into a marriage knowing that it won’t last forever and already has a way out…again, what was the point in the first place? Yes, marriage should be about love and commitment. But people obviously aren’t very committed when they have a problem committing *everything* they have (again, including money and property and combining assets and every single thing else) to the marriage to create an equal partnership. “Kay, so I’m gonna marry this guy…but I’m not gonna give it my very bestest all that I can. I’m gonna keep shit for myself, ‘just in case’. This way, when (not if) it does hit the fan, I’ll have a way out easily.” This is my whole point with the part about being married so many times and getting divorced. People aren’t taking marriage seriously. I don’t care if the people are straight or gay or tri-sexual or what the fuck ever. People are getting divorced too much because they aren’t *completely* committed to the marriage and partnership. They throw in the towel too easily. When something goes wrong, they just give up instead of taking the time, effort and commitment to fix the problem. In response to #2 of your reply…in Missouri, yes the wife has to go on the deed/title/whatever if the husband does buy something. Everything is community property no matter who bought what, unless it is specified otherwise by *both* parties. So, that’s probably a state difference thing. When my parents bought their vehicles, they opted to leave my mother off of the title for my dad’s van. And vice versa for her SUV. But again, it was a mutual agreement from the both of them and had to be clarified when they bought the vehicles. Otherwise, they would have been equal owners by default. Again, probably just a difference in different states’ laws.
@the_evil_tamica - I agree other than for a few instances. Such as any form of abuse (spousal, child, emotional, drug, alcohol, gambling…etc.) and extreme infidelity (a la Tiger Woods and Jesse James). Because both are a threat to the spouse’s and childrens’ well-being and life. Those are the only two reasons I can ever see anyone getting a divorce for really. Just my opinion though.
Hey now….Gay or straight, you will come across lots of people who run through relationships and whatnot getting married and divorced. Or in a gay person’s case, committed and then broken up. The thing is, hetero people seem to take it for granted. And I mean WAY more because they’ve got the power to marry and divorce whomever they choose. Honestly, I never thought anyone would be willing to marry this man. But then again, I just think he’s full of snot and it’s hard to avoid him on the Southern stations on car trips. One can only house a certain amount of cds and iPods to fix that. It’s probably very natural for him to switch wives like their coats or something. If one wrinkles, get a new one! Whee! =D
What is tradition, anyway? Is it gender-specific? Some kind of socio-economic thing? The good old binary opposition on what partner does what! So that means the gays are out automatically, right? See, tradition is very different for each person and neither one is a threat. It’s just….interesting that he’s married and re-married. It’s ALWAYS like that when a person has a lot of mates or something.
@roxics -We didn’t create the institution of marriage. God did. And this is why we can’t change it. This conversation leads into a completely different discussion. One of World Views. It’s an important discussion to have but not one most people aren’t interested in having or willing to take the time to understand. One of transcending moral values vs. subjective moral values.
You have to know where you are “coming from” before you know where you are going to. Our differences on this particular question of gay marriage stems from where we are coming from. If I had your perspective, I would agree that things do change and should change; but I’m not coming from your world view.
@bakersdozen2 - Yes, our point of view is based on where we are coming from. But in this situation you must first prove that your god did in fact create the institute of marriage. Simply claiming this is not a valid enough reason to stop other people from pursuing happiness, especially when it harms neither you nor me in letting them do it.
Gay marriage.
Oh, of course 90% of xangans are going to gang up on old Rushbo.
Rush’s marriage IS traditional marriage lololol.
Look at the middle east. 30, 40, 50 year old dudes marrying 12 year old girls.
Here- Hugh Heffner marrying hot ladies all the time!
Ya’ll just jealousss. lol.
@roxics - Except that the laws of our country were based on the assumption that the God of the Old and New Testament does exist. The foundation of our system of jurisprudence was established on the “laws of nature and nature’s God”. Blackstone’s commentary of the Law set forth the framework of this country and our system of justice. The Founding Fathers drew more heavily from his legal text than any other source. A casual look at Blackstone’s work will convince the most hardened secularist of their intentions.
Since the clear intention of our original laws and codes were based on The Od and New Testament, we can assume that the relevance of scripture has already been established. Your unconventional views are the ones that are contending for primacy. This puts the burden of proof on your shoulders. We began, and continue to be, a nation of religious people. We can’t scrap the blueprint or the basis of the blueprint because of a strong political lobby.
@bakersdozen2 -
Except that the laws of our country were
based on the assumption that the God of the Old and New Testament does
exist. The foundation of our system of jurisprudence was established on
the “laws of nature and nature’s God”.”
Whoa hold the phone, the laws of this country define us to be a secular country. Not based on the old/new testament AT ALL. I happen to know this well because I’m a deist myself and so were a few of the influential founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson was careful to use the word “creator” and “nature’s God” for a reason. These are very deistic words. Don’t believe me? Run a google search for “nature’s god” and the results from top to bottom are filled with deism.
Deists don’t believe in a creator that judges us. If that creator didn’t want us to do something, it would have made it impossible for us to do it. We follow the laws of nature. We believe the creator speaks to us individually through nature, something that all can see and witness. Not through some confusing book written 2000 years ago.
Rush Limbaugh’s is worse. I’m all for gay marriage. As for people who don’t know when to stfu….that’s different.
Don’t care either way!
@roxics - Thomas Jefferson was in fact a Deist (up until just before his death) but not the only Founding Father. Having said that, he most certainly believed in a transcendent moral framework and his writings bear this out.
At any rate, He had nothing to do with the drafting of our Constitution. We were absolutely NOT a secular nation and any historian who says otherwise doesn’t know American History. These men were not secular humanists. Many of the Founders who were Deists (and contrary to popular opinion many were not) had a more Biblical world view then many Christians do today. There’s an arsenal of direct quotes that support this point.
Isn’t there a quote that says “marriage is a relationship, not an institution”? Neither of these marriages are hurting anyone, so no. I’m not really sure what consitutes a “traditional” marriage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puI4pfRB0w0&feature=player_embedded
@bakersdozen2 - absolutely. thank you for speaking reason.
Whose tradition are you talking about? Marriages have different traditions depending on what country you are in. Anyone should feel free to marry as long as they respect the marriage and what it means.