June 25, 2011
— Ace 1. Gay marriage has been achieved in some states (and coming soon, to all states) through a series of tactical arguments, and by tactical arguments, I mean dishonest ones.
Scalia objected to Anthony Kennedy's claim that the Constitution forbade any distinction whatsoever in heterosexual and homosexual conduct, stating that this ruling would in short order be used as a basis for arguing a positive Constitutional right to gay marriage.
Pish-posh, the gay lobby said; it will do no such thing. It is simply the deletion of an odious and unjustifiable remnant of the law.
Flash forward just five or six years later and the removal of any distinction between gay and straight sex is used as the basis for arguing a positive Constitutional right to gay marriage.
Similarly we were told we had no need of a Constitutional Marriage Amendment, because DOMA would protect states from having gay marriage forced upon them by lawsuit. The lawsuit chain would be thus: gay marriage is granted in one state; the couple moves to a state where gay marriage does not exist; the couple sues the state on the theory that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution demands that one state respect the marriage contract of another.
Well, right now Obama is talking up repeal of that provision, which would in very short order impose gay marriage by lawsuit on all fifty states.
In addition, the claims that we do not need a Federal Marriage Amendment to preclude this possibility were always disingenuous. The gay marriage lobby always intended this one-state-leads-to-another plan and fought the Federal Marriage Amendment largely to leave this option on the table. The claims that DOMA would serve as protection against this were always dishonest. They knew DOMA could and would be changed on a whim, and if it couldn't be changed legislatively, it could be rubbished in the courts.
Without even bothering to look it up, I know that some people opposing gay marriage argued at some point that gay marriage in some states would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws in the several states, and that gay marriage should be resisted on these grounds. Without looking it up, I know that gay marriage proponents cried hogwash to this concern, and claimed that the states should serve as laboratories of democracy (even court-imposed non-democracy) and certainly the idea of "uniformity" was a trivial and silly matter that should not be used as a basis of argumentation.
However, I know this: Now that a small but nontrivial minority of states have implemented gay marriage, the gay marriage lobby will begin to argue that "uniformity of marriage laws" is a paramount consideration, and that we surely cannot tolerate a chaotic patchwork of differing marriage laws in the several states, and of course that means we must have nationwide all-50-states gay marriage.
Of course it will be ignored that just five years ago the states' marriage laws were quite uniform on this single point, and that the lack of uniformity was created by the gay marriage lobby, which will now seek to use that lack of uniformity to create a new uniformity.
That has been the game all along. It is a cunning game, designed, as it is, to boil the frog slowly so that he never jumps out of the pot.
But like most cunning strategems, it is entirely dishonest, and always has been so.
Do the ends justify the means? For those convinced this is a sacred right unfairly denied to gays, I suppose it must seem that the ends justify the means. Certainly the stratagem employed belies such a belief.
But dishonesty remains dishonesty, which I think most still consider a rather bad thing even in this rapidly-"evolving" world where apparently only One Single Thing Really Matters.
It becomes harder and harder to believe anything gay marriage proponents claim about their future agenda when every past claim about their next moves has been false (and false from the moment of utterance).
The claim is being made that "Of course we will not impose gay marriage on religious institutions."
Um, yeah. Because you've been so upfront and candid with me in the past.
2. There are two parallel agendas here, one I broadly support, one I basically oppose. They are gays' seeking of broader tolerance and acceptance (this one I support, generally), and gays' seeking to redefine marriage (which I oppose, basically).
The gay marriage lobby believes -- wrongly, to a large extent -- that changes in the legal code will effect changes in people's hearts. Or at least many of them seem to believe this.
That's not the only reason they seek gay marriage, of course -- they also believe it's an unjustifiable form of discrimination which should be overturned no matter what secondary effects doing so might (or might not) have.
However, there does remain at least something to this idea that once the state-sanctioned forms of divergent treatment of straight and gay marriage are eliminated, people will become more comfortable with homosexuality as a general matter.
What there is to this belief I don't know, but I think it's mostly wrong. "The law is a teacher" I think, but I'm not sure how much of a teacher it is. People are generally skeptical of government, and increasingly believe government and law are a crooked game which a Good Citizen ought to respect only to the extent necessary to avoid jailtime, and decisions like this reinforce that idea.
I think then that while the idea might be the state sanctioning of gay marriage shall lend the institutional prestige of the state to gay marriage, in fact there is more of the almost-opposite thing going on, gay marriage erodes whatever's left of the institutional prestige of sanction by the state.
There is a certain amount of counterproductiveness going on here, too, which erodes and undermines what is a real and inarguable tendency towards detente between gays (and their gay-friendly urbanite super-allies) and those generally uncomfortable with homosexuality.
The right sometimes castigates the left for its hypocrisy as far as hate and intolerance. We point out that while they claim to be opposed to hate and intolerance, in actual fact they wallow in it, directing true hatred at anyone who disagrees with it.
They reject the claim of hypocrisy here. They say, "I am entitled to hate them not because of what they are, necessarily because they're Christian or rural or white, but because of the odious politics they inflict on the country."
In other words, they use the tangible legislative/cultural preferences of the right as a justification for giving in to the irrational and frankly evil emotion of hate.
People are extraordinarily good at justifying to themselves what they wish to do anyway. People are amazing at this.
It takes a rare and keen intellect (you're welcome!) to be aware of the human ego's ability to knit together very convincing (to ourselves) "logical" arguments about why we should do what the id wants us to do.
And so with traditionalists and gays. Even while there is a growing rapprochement between the fair-minded individuals on either side of the debate, this furious agenda to Win At Any costs pushes fair-minded traditionalists away from their growing "Eh, what do I care if they're gay" sentiment.
As with the left, justifying its hate of traditionalists/religious folk based on their tangible agenda, so too the traditionalists/religious folk will justify a fresh dollop of animosity towards gays based upon their tangible agenda.
And you can't really argue with them. We generally say the rule is that you cannot despise someone (fairly) based upon innate traits that can't be changed, but it's fair to despise someone for their politics.
Our whole partisan rules of engagement are based on that idea.
Well, this would be a tangible agenda, then.
Now, for many gays or straight proponents of gay marriage, they'll probably say, "No matter what the consequences, this discrimination is wrong, and I'd rather be a hated first class citizen than a well-regarded second-class one."
I suppose. But we seem to be putting the cargo before the cult here.
The most important thing -- tolerance and acceptance -- cannot be state-compelled.
And the ever-reliance upon state compulsion for these purposes will end rather badly.
No one likes being bossed about. Gays included. And I think they'll find that as they rack up victories in the courts, they lose battles where it's more important, in peoples' hearts and minds.
I would still urge people to resist that on the basis of They know not what they do.
But this is a real thing. Tell people you're going to force them to accept something they don't care for and you're not going to actually breed more acceptance, but likely nearly the opposite.
3. Some conservatives are semi-praising the legislative decision by saying, "At least the legislature imposed this before the courts did."
This is a victory for democracy, then? Really? A legislature acted because they knew the courts would soon take an anti-democratic step and remove the issue from their consideration at all?
A thief may shoot you and pluck your wallet from your cooling body. Or a thief might put the gun to your chest, cock the hammer, and demand you hand over your wallet.
If you hand over your wallet, you won't get shot (probably -- see California where the thief decides he didn't like the manner of your handing over your wallet and decides to shoot you anyway), but the fact you've handed your wallet over does not in fact render this transaction voluntary.
It does not make it democratic. The victim of a mugging cannot be said to have had due process rights and voting rights in this exchange simply because he took prudent steps to avoid being left for dead.
4. The supposed libertarian "position" on this is not a position. It is a dodge. It is a feeble attempt to not decide. And as Rush said, "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." (Duhn-duhn.)
It's bullshit. The government must be involved in marriage because the government enforces all contracts and makes numerous rulings upon what sort of contracts are illegal or proper (no personal service contracts longer than seven years, contracts with minors are voidable by the minors' choice, a huge amount of jurisprudence on the "default" terms of any contract in which specific terms on the disputed thing were never reached.)
If you don't believe me, read Ann Coulter.
The government cannot say "We are entirely out of the contract-enforcement business. It's on you."
This is the whole point of government -- to provide working ground rules, with state enforcement, so that people do not resort to "self help" in vindicating what they believe are their rights. And by "self help" I mean anarchy or rule by personal ability to coerce/compel someone through force.
I know some people would like very much to have no opinion on this, and to say "Leave it to others to decide" or "I am tired of these relentless culture wars by two sides that plainly despise each other with all the hate a heart can hold and would like to signal my non-affiliation with either side."
That's fine. But if that's what you want, just say so. This libertarian dodge/non-position that in one area of contract law the government shall go strangely absent is intellectual bullshit. It's bumper-sticker thinking.
Go with the true, defensible position you really hold: You don't know. There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know." In fact, I'd say the ability to say "I don't know" is one of the most virtuous things an honest mind can do.
And, one day, if you're convinced of one side or another, join that side.
But the "government should get out of the marriage business" is not a side. It's a way to sound smart while saying "I don't know," overlooking the fact that saying "I don't know" is often a pretty damn smart thing to say.
5. On private contract, it is true that a gays, even absent a specific marriage contract, could secure almost all of the incidences of marriage by signing a contract with each other that enumerates the specific pledges made and the specific duties expected.
That's a fair thing to note but, going back to Ann Coulter, the reason we have a collection of contractual rights collected under the rubric "Marriage Contract" is for user convenience.
Given that, it probably would have been best, I think, for everyone to negotiate some off-the-shelf contract of civil union that was marriage-like enough for gay marriage proponents and yet not so like marriage as to upset traditionalists. That is, a series of contractual provisions collected up under a single header (like our laws of marriage are) so that people could grab this off-the-shelf ready-to-eat thing rather than cadging together their own do-it-yourself semi-marital contract.
It's a solution that would have actually pleased very few but in politics (and often in life) the object is not reach a resolution that is pleasing, but simply one that is livable for all.
Now I never pushed for this very much (though I have alluded to this being my basic position). But I never pushed for this, so I don't say this in a "Told you so" way. I say it retrosopectively, looking backwards, informed by current information that we didn't have previously.
But neither of the two sides most invested, emotionally, in this issue really ever considered that third path, because neither actually wanted it. Gay marriage proponents were gay marriage all the way. Oh, they did play around with civil unions for a year or two, before realizing "We can win and have it all" and discarding this negotiated solution for an open war they believed they'd be victorious in.
I'm not sure if they're right about that, but I have to admit, that gamble is looking wise. If all you care about is winning.
And the traditionalists never much wanted civil unions either.
So there was a third way available, sort of (but see California, of course, where the gay marriage proponents decided that civil unions, considered progressive state-of-the-art just five short years ago, were now the most evil, retrograde, freedom-destroying equality-killing thing they ever heard of).
This is often my consideration when you hear me talking like a "squish." My consideration is that we can gamble and try to win it all, but should note that when you play to win it all you can also lose it all, and sometimes I think there's a way to negotiate some outcome that kinda sucks for everyone but doesn't really suck for anyone.
This isn't to blame the traditionalists, though; just making a general point about tactics in political war and peace and negotiated treaties.
Civil unions never had a chance because within five minutes of the public growing comfortable with them the gay marriage lobby decided that they could not possibly endure under such a despicably discriminatory regime.
(Still More To Come.)
Posted by: Ace at
07:55 AM
| Comments (585)
Post contains 2530 words, total size 15 kb.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 25, 2011 08:01 AM (Wm4Mf)
Just sent this to a friend about a question they asked about gay marriage...
[begin cut and paste job]
You'll find some mixed thoughts from conservatives on the matter, mainly because you'll see those with libertarian leanings contrasted against the pure conservatives. That is to say, you'll find some people who simply do not care and want to be left alone, and would therefore reflect that for other people: seeking to leave the gay marriage supporters alone to do as they please. (aside, in case you didn't know: libertarians are different from liberals... google 'wikipedia libertarian' if you need to)
I can agree with that up to a point: I do not want to know what happens in "your" bedroom and could care less. However, this is not the point for the gay marriage supporters. They could always do that, without the endorsement of state law. They seek at least three other things: tax benefits reserved for married people filing jointly, the implied moral endorsement from state law, and to undermine traditional morality.
Related to that last point: the overwhelming majority of the 'gay rights' people are liberals, not libertarians simply seeking to be left alone (because the libertarians do not want gov't involvment in their life, they would not petition the government for more "rights"... see my point?).
Getting back to the top level here... For the conservatives who are less libertarian, they focus on the aspects related to traditional morality. Because this is so contrary to traditional views on marriage, and because it is an obviously immoral behavior in the bible, conservatives typically would resist the 'gay marriage' movement. As more and more components of traditional morality are wiped out by so called 'progress'/enlightenment/social acceptability, the remaining moral fabric of society is undermined.
The undermining of that moral fabric is the unspoken goal of the liberal/big gov't agenda. An immoral society cannot self-govern. A moral society does not require government to create rights for groups of people, because the moral society believes in God-given unalienable rights. By removing a traditional morality from society, liberals create the need for government to issue "rights" to groups of people (increasing the power of that government). Remember, a right issued by government/man can be taken away from man by government/man. A right issued by God cannot be denied to man by another man/government. (let that sink in)
Anyway, I can respect the libertarian view here, but gays can already be gay in the privacy of their own home. Therefore, I'm left to consider the impact to traditional morality, and it is a detriment to the moral fabric of society (because it is a sinful behavior). Plus, this just increases the number of "rights" granted by government.
(If I took this position to debate a gay rights supporter, typically this becomes "I hate gay people" - no, in fact, my libertarian leanings would allow me to say, "I'll not seek you out to impose my will upon you, do as you wish inside your own bedroom")
This is why I (personally) would support a constitutional amendment to either: 1) define marriage heterosexually, and/or 2) guarantee a state's ability NOT to recognize a marriage license between gay people from another state (aka, just like the Defense of Marriage Act <--google if you need to). Neither of those would bar gays from having gay relations, but it would protect that portion of traditional morality. The tax issue is totally separate, and should be handled by modifications to the tax code.
[end cut and paste job]
Critique or borrow ideas at will.
Posted by: knob at June 25, 2011 08:01 AM (qKPU8)
Posted by: Beagle at June 25, 2011 08:02 AM (sOtz/)
It is a waste of time and resources to fight this fight, because it is lost. The public opinion is firmly on the side of gay marriage (55%+ last time I checked).
Posted by: Dave in Fla at June 25, 2011 08:02 AM (cSkZ5)
The reality is, many in the "Gay Marriage Lobby" arenÂ’t going to be happy with ANYTHING:
In yesterday’s Times, Columbia Law School professor Katherine M. Franke opined that, while some gay couples may wish to get on board with marriage, others don’t see the “one-size-fits-all rules of marriage” as the ideal setup for the kinds of arrangements some same-sex relationships demand. She goes on,
Here’s why I’m worried: Winning the right to marry is one thing; being forced to marry is quite another. How’s that? If the rollout of marriage equality in other states, like Massachusetts, is any guide, lesbian and gay people who have obtained health and other benefits for their domestic partners will be required by both public and private employers to marry their partners in order to keep those rights. In other words, “winning” the right to marry may mean “losing” the rights we have now as domestic partners, as we’ll be folded into the all-or-nothing world of marriage.
After “winning the right to marry,” Franke argues, couples uninterested in marriage risk being “forced to marry” in order to keep their domestic partnership rights. She wonders further why couples should have to seek marriage at all if they seek mainly to have their relationships “recognized and valued.”
(I hope the formatting holds - if not, my apologies....)
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at June 25, 2011 08:03 AM (wtQcz)
Posted by: Jean at June 25, 2011 08:03 AM (TjgR9)
Thats what hear when I read this. Get over it, no one cares. Gay marriage doesn't affect straits AT ALL.
Posted by: getoverthegays at June 25, 2011 08:03 AM (Anl+W)
Posted by: Abdominal Snowman at June 25, 2011 08:04 AM (qITqt)
Posted by: Dave in Fla at June 25, 2011 08:05 AM (cSkZ5)
Love those unintended consequences.
Posted by: Dave in Fla at June 25, 2011 08:07 AM (cSkZ5)
The claim is being made that "Of course we will not impose gay marriage on religious institutions."
Yeah, that has always been utter bullshit. See re: Catholic Charities and adoption in MA.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 08:07 AM (sf+iw)
I have argued for years that marriage should never have been institutionalized by government. It is a religious construct. Short of divorcing (no pun intended) marriage from federal government by striking all laws from the books specifically targeting married persons, including tax laws, it is inevitable that gays will win marriage equality one way or another.
My thoughts are that a civil union should be the only thing the government recognizes.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 25, 2011 08:08 AM (Wm4Mf)
I'm with you, my stretchy, brown-eyed friend.
Now if I could just marry my cow and my father at the same time, I could have two hairy hineys, one for the free milk and one to beat the inheritance taxes. WINNAH
Who is with me??????
Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 08:09 AM (le5qc)
Gay marriage doesn't affect straits AT ALL.
Of course. Why would gay marriage affect narrow passages of water. Unless of course you are speaking metaphorically.
It does affect heterosexuals in that it redefines marriage as a nothing.
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 08:09 AM (5tl1Y)
Posted by: str8 outta at June 25, 2011 08:10 AM (ZJIX/)
I'm for having marriage be a religious construct and "civil bonding" or the like be a state construct. Just don't call the civil bonding "marriage" because it's not.
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 08:11 AM (5tl1Y)
I don't have any problem with government granting the same rights to gay couples as straight have, or recogniinzing them as married, but if you think it will stop there, like Ace said, you haven't been paying attention. Churches will be forced to recognize and marry gay couples eventually because that's what this is really about.
Posted by: booger at June 25, 2011 08:12 AM (9RFH1)
Posted by: ParisParamus at June 25, 2011 08:12 AM (QN76w)
The reason they (the "sexuality uber alles" crowd) love to scream "homophobia" at every one who disagrees with them, no matter what the issue, is that their "reasoning" can't withstand any scrutiny. Everything they want is a "human right" and everything you want is "bigotry", end of story. No point in talking to such rigid and fundamentally dishonest people.
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 08:12 AM (Z05lF)
It affects hetero people by undermining moral society.
Without moral society, no self government. (You get away from negative law and move directly into positive law.)
Posted by: knob at June 25, 2011 08:12 AM (qKPU8)
Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 08:13 AM (MtwBb)
Fuck off asshole. It already IS affecting heterosexuals. If it didn't, I wouldn't give two shits, but this is part and parcel of a gay supremacy movement.
They did this same bullshit with AIDS to cannibalize all the federal funding for it, despite the fact that cancer killed 50 times as many people a year. How is that fucking fair? Equality? Fairness? Never heard of it.
Fuck the gays.
Posted by: The Man Between The Cans at June 25, 2011 08:14 AM (TCyyS)
Okay, in this hypothetical Islamic state that is coming, can one have a polygamous marriage with both a man and a woman?
I love cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 08:14 AM (LH6ir)
Posted by: Mr Pink at June 25, 2011 08:15 AM (VbGDW)
Posted by: Andy at June 25, 2011 08:16 AM (DOi+Y)
Christians for years have been railing against gays, calling them sinners and saying they can be converted into being straight and gay marriage is all about gays using government to force Christians to validate their lifestyle.
I must have missed that. In fact the Catholic Church says to love the homosexuals and treat them well but not to confuse that with thinking that any kind of extramarital sex is not a sin. The Church doesn't consider homosexual butt/oral sex with one of the same sex any more sinful than heterosexual butt/oral sex extramarital or not.
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 08:17 AM (5tl1Y)
My view on this has evolved over the years... but I'm now to the point where the Government should not be in the Marriage business anyway...
It should all be contractual in nature... creating a household... with legal Powers of Attorney and Joint Property agreements involved.
Marriage should be between you, and your religion... not you, and the State.
As to the idea that the DOMA LAW would somehow bypass the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution... I just don't see how that works... its a Marriage LICENSE... given by a State...
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 25, 2011 08:17 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: The Law of Unintended Consequences at June 25, 2011 08:18 AM (1+CnU)
Posted by: booger at June 25, 2011 12:12 PM (9RFH1)
Yeah that's the problem with it. The supreme court has already decided that gay relationships isn't a moral issue.
The more the state takes away the rights of religions the worse society becomes. Europe is a shining example of this. Hopefully the first amendment will prevail and the government will be prohibited from making laws that affect religion but as we have seen before the constitution these days is only as good as the balance on the supreme court.
Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 08:18 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 25, 2011 08:19 AM (Wm4Mf)
lesbians...they always seem to have churns runnin around somewhere....that mental defense mechanism/anger/fear at the opposite sex has got to give them the runs sometimes i bet...
Posted by: str8 outta at June 25, 2011 08:19 AM (ZJIX/)
Thats what hear when I read this. Get over it, no one cares. Gay marriage doesn't affect straits AT ALL.
Posted by: getoverthegays at June 25, 2011 12:03 PM (Anl+W)
Anl? Really?
I don't care if NY does this. I'm glad they had a democratic, small d, vote on it instead of a creative reading of some constitution. Only the future ramifications in other areas concern me.
Posted by: Beagle at June 25, 2011 08:19 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: getoverthegays at June 25, 2011 12:03 PM
Nope, not at all
Posted by: Dire Straits at June 25, 2011 08:20 AM (so1xa)
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 08:20 AM (5tl1Y)
1) Abortion
2) Gay marriage
Issues that should matter a lot more than they do:
1) School choice
2) Deregulation
3) Getting rid of Marxism and its analogues within our culture, society, and government.
Posted by: Lee Reynolds at June 25, 2011 08:20 AM (5KnyG)
Posted by: The Man Between The Cans at June 25, 2011 12:14 PM (TCyyS)
You said it not me...
Posted by: getoverthegays at June 25, 2011 08:20 AM (Anl+W)
Posted by: Keith Olberman at June 25, 2011 08:20 AM (+otRH)
Posted by: The Law of Unintended Consequences
.......
jawohl mein herr!
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 25, 2011 08:21 AM (Wm4Mf)
Incidentally, one of my college-aged daughters is gay (and Conservative). She's been in a relationship with a nice young lady for several years now, and honestly the only thing that they worry about (in terms of the law) is being able to have similar access to benefits as a committed couple.
While she doesn't understand our views on gay "marriage", she does understand that we don't have a problem with civil unions between committed partners.
She attended a few meetings of the college LGBT group - she couldn't stand their myopic activism, especially when she realized that most of what they were doing was to draw attention to themselves (most of them honestly didn't realize that was what they were doing; when she tried to point that out, all she got were blank stares).
She realized they were a lost cause when they wanted to be SO inclusive that they were looking around for more "letters" to add to their acronym. Thinking it would be "cool" to add a "P" (for pedophiles) in the LGBT***** alphabet soup "inclusion" acronym was the last straw. She was flabbergasted that they would even entertain the idea of having the movement associated with CRIMINALS.
She told me, "I hate gay activists....."
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at June 25, 2011 08:22 AM (wtQcz)
Full disclosure: I don't have a problem with civil unions between anyone who wants to enter into one, but don't call it a marriage. Marriage comes from God, civil union from the State.
Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at June 25, 2011 08:22 AM (WKOe/)
Posted by: Unreconstructed Palecon at June 25, 2011 08:23 AM (nfn9A)
A wise man once said; "You can buttfuck your buddy on a streetcorner but you can't light up a Marlboro"
Posted by: kbdabear at June 25, 2011 08:23 AM (so1xa)
Posted by: sTevo at June 25, 2011 08:23 AM (VMcEw)
Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at June 25, 2011 08:24 AM (WKOe/)
Posted by: str8 outta
.........
Probably not gonna happen if marriage goes federal. These folks are probably raking in $20,000 a year in Earned Income Credits because they don't have to combine their salaries like married couples do.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 25, 2011 08:25 AM (Wm4Mf)
Posted by: InMeGo MountOhYa at June 25, 2011 08:25 AM (lQo3l)
Posted by: sexypig at June 25, 2011 08:25 AM (lGaUI)
Posted by: sexypig at June 25, 2011 08:27 AM (lGaUI)
If a dictionary falls open to the definition of marriage, does the word have a definition?
Posted by: Word Equality at June 25, 2011 08:27 AM (wOaLi)
Posted by: an erection lasting more than four hours at June 25, 2011 08:28 AM (1c0W9)
So, govt should just leave the field. Nice runaround that doesn't solve the problem of moral dissolution in this country. Libertarians are always good for that.
Posted by: jeanne at June 25, 2011 08:28 AM (qAAKD)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 08:28 AM (AZGON)
We as conservatives are still missing the point. Liberals play the long game. They call themselves Fabian Socialists for a reason, they will never give up, and they will win the battle of attrition. As others have already mentioned, the big targets are the religious institutions. Once they can fully undermine them, as they already are, buh-bye America. Collective salvation, social justice, are you kidding me? Just semantics to try and fill the God vacuum. Second part of the whole gay marriage thing, is the normalization of homosexuality. But it goes further than that. It isn't just about acceptance, it is about promoting the lifestyle. The reason? Simple mathematics. More gays means more potential sex partners. There is a vocal and active segment of the gay community that is highly promiscuous, and they will not take no for an answer. Just think SF bathhouses or Gaëtan Dugas. The left is working in concert with the gay lobby because they know that homosexuality makes a fine vehicle for destroying the pillars of a just society.
Posted by: Joefrog of the Stonecutters at June 25, 2011 08:29 AM (vKUhG)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry
How long until GLAAD and the rest of the MoveOn-dot-Gay organizations demand exemptions for gay couples? Reparations and all that good stuff. It has nothing to do with being equal, it has to do with being "special", and they're gonna need some other plaint to gain that status now.
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 08:29 AM (Z05lF)
Posted by: sexypig at June 25, 2011 08:29 AM (lGaUI)
SoCons and gays both living in Lala Land. Wishing/praying doesn't make it so.
There are so many real outrages this one isn't even top ten.
Posted by: The Depressive realist at June 25, 2011 08:31 AM (le5qc)
Posted by: sexypig at June 25, 2011 08:32 AM (lGaUI)
It does effect us all. It is all about the money. Surviving spouses receive benifits - like social security and pensions. That is a lot of money that WE ALL have to come up with.
Posted by: lan sing at June 25, 2011 08:32 AM (YHrQZ)
<blockquote>
Romeo13
My view on this has evolved over the years... but I'm now to the point where the Government should not be in the Marriage business anyway...
It should all be contractual in nature... creating a household... with legal Powers of Attorney and Joint Property agreements involved.
Marriage should be between you, and your religion... not you, and the State.</blockquote>
That is pretty much how I view the issue as well. The more I ponder it, the more puzzling the notion of state regulation of marriage becomes to me. Why people even choose to get a government marriage seems more to do with tradition and convention than anything else.
Posted by: Lee Reynolds at June 25, 2011 08:33 AM (5KnyG)
Gays already have just as much right to get married as straights, there is no discrimination. Straight men can not marry other men and gay men can not marry other men. The fact that straight men don't wish to marry other men is immaterial to the law.
The same goes for women.
Posted by: Vic at June 25, 2011 08:34 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 08:35 AM (Z05lF)
Posted by: tmi3rd at June 25, 2011 08:35 AM (WRtsc)
Posted by: an erection lasting more than four hours at June 25, 2011 08:35 AM (1c0W9)
Posted by: tmi3rd at June 25, 2011 08:37 AM (WRtsc)
Posted by: The Man Between The Cans at June 25, 2011 08:38 AM (TCyyS)
Posted by: Navy COP joe aka supercabbie!!! at June 25, 2011 08:38 AM (klsTp)
How long until GLAAD and the rest of the MoveOn-dot-Gay organizations demand exemptions for gay couples? Reparations and all that good stuff. It has nothing to do with being equal, it has to do with being "special", and they're gonna need some other plaint to gain that status now.
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 12:29 PMYep.
Posted by: huerfano at June 25, 2011 08:40 AM (izDdO)
As long as they aren't sticking shot in my ass or teaching my kid about dildos and fisting, who cares.
Then again I'm a dem Posted by: Navy COP joe aka supercabbie!!! at June 25, 2011 12:38 PM
Is your kid in public school?
Posted by: Kevin Jennings at June 25, 2011 08:41 AM (izDdO)
Desecrating holy symbols in the form of Jesus Butt Plugs or irrelevant cross burnings, for in stance, are a pretty good hint.
Posted by: Word Equality at June 25, 2011 08:41 AM (wOaLi)
As noted, this is much less about couples getting married than it is about a full frontal assault on religion, specifically Christianity, in this country. It's Western deconstruction 101, and it makes me really uncomfortable.
It's full-blown nihilism, and its purpose is to destroy life itself.
There are few corporeal acts more nihilistic than planting your seed in another man's anus, or using your birth canal as a receptacle for another woman's fist.
The ultimate goal here is the extinction of the species.
Posted by: Unreconstructed Palecon at June 25, 2011 08:42 AM (nfn9A)
"... or teaching my kid about dildos and fisting, who cares."
You're a Dem even though they support teaching that crap to your kids (and sneak it in wherever they can)? What are you waiting for? One of them to get sent home with a gerbil for a "class project"?
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 08:42 AM (Z05lF)
Posted by: Joycelyn Elders at June 25, 2011 08:42 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at June 25, 2011 08:42 AM (WKOe/)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 08:42 AM (aLloM)
tmi3rd,
the anti-religionists and anti-civilizationists will wedge their way into everything. So for that reason we keep government in the marriage business where it doesn't belong? That's handing them another victory of sorts.
Posted by: arhooley at June 25, 2011 08:43 AM (xjkGU)
Posted by: The Barefoot Contessa at June 25, 2011 08:43 AM (le5qc)
Posted by: packsoldier at June 25, 2011 08:44 AM (XAlr4)
Posted by: kansas at June 25, 2011 08:44 AM (mka2b)
Posted by: an erection lasting more than four hours at June 25, 2011 12:28 PM (1c0W9)
Nominee for early thread winner.
Posted by: Beagle at June 25, 2011 08:45 AM (sOtz/)
I am so stealing that.
The update about forcible "tolerance" is dead on. It's Gay, Inc. that makes me want to slam the closet door shut and bolt it behind me. I loathe the concept that queerness comes with the non-optional Leftist political beliefs action pack. I loathe it but I understand where the idea originates. What most people see on the news and read on the blogs, etc. etc. is militant leftist identity politics.
You know, there is a reason why I bring up being queer, other than attention whoring. It's to point out that conservative queers do exist and that not every queer believes in gay marriage (my position - don't give a crap about it other than marriage is a religious practice and the government needs to gtfo of it) and that Gay, Inc. does not speak for me.
I do not blame, at all, those who are being accused of hatred with no basis for deciding that they might hate if that's the accusation no matter what. I don't like it, but it's the inevitable consequence.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 08:45 AM (sf+iw)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 08:46 AM (aLloM)
Posted by: sexypig at June 25, 2011 12:29 PM (lGaUI)
I equate these with "moderate Muslims", that in their heart of hearts wouldn't give 2 shits if their radical brethren achieved some of their agenda. You wont see "moderate homosexuals" marching in the street when the radicals are forcing the Catholic Church to perform their marriages.
Posted by: TendStl at June 25, 2011 08:46 AM (GiF31)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 08:47 AM (aLloM)
1) I'm not religious or anti-gay marriage, I just didn't understand why we were so intent on legalizing non-illegal activity. To the best of my knowledge, any one can have a gay wedding ceremony and not end up in jail.
2) Many liberal proponents claim this is a civil rights issue, and I've even heard many chiding anti-gay marriage blacks over it. First, that is despicable and offensive. Second, they are not pushing for equal rights. They want a special right. Any gay man always had as much right to marry a woman as any straight man. Straight men have never had, or asked for, the right to a same-sex marriage. Not equal, new and different.
3) Some proponents whine that they just want their feelings for each other validated. I don't think I've ever heard a more pathetic argument than that of demanding the government validate your insecure feelings. Losers.
I asked him not to indulge these children, I hope he didn't. Gonna go check...
Posted by: mugiwara at June 25, 2011 08:48 AM (KI/Ch)
Here, by the way, is my favorite post ever on gay marriage and other social issues, which had a major impact in changing me from a libertarian into a social con.
Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 08:48 AM (PY4xx)
Posted by: MJ at June 25, 2011 08:49 AM (BKOsZ)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 08:49 AM (aLloM)
Oh, I don't know, I'm thinking suicide bombing in front of a maternity ward might just have that beat.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 08:49 AM (sf+iw)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 08:52 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: mugiwara at June 25, 2011 08:52 AM (KI/Ch)
Some man or woman is going to want to marry their adult son or daughter. Think about the pension/benefits the offspring will receive for a very long time.
Why can't other "groups" define marriage to be what they want?
Posted by: lan sing at June 25, 2011 08:52 AM (YHrQZ)
Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 12:13 PM (MtwBb)
Heh. Ditto.
Been enjoying the discussion on Twitter. Here's from Treacher: There's still time to block gay weddings, NY conservatives. Just convince Bloomberg they're fun.
Posted by: Theresa D. at June 25, 2011 08:53 AM (819f8)
Marriage in the Western world has become noting more than a meaningless public declaration of love. The social contract was ripped to shreds long ago by the feminists and their unwitting patsy's the white knighting social cons.
Posted by: GhostShip at June 25, 2011 08:53 AM (sbaXF)
Posted by: Trent at June 25, 2011 08:54 AM (+FDl5)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 08:54 AM (aLloM)
Posted by: The Barefoot Contessa at June 25, 2011 08:54 AM (le5qc)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 08:55 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: tmi3rd at June 25, 2011 08:55 AM (WRtsc)
I heard the Reverend Wright just got his.
Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at June 25, 2011 08:57 AM (4sQwu)
And the difference between democrats and republicans is? neither gives a flip about western civ
voting means nothing: one party is full-blown pro-degenerate and the other party will stab you in the back so that it will be liked and feted by the pro-denegrate party and it's allies.
Enjoy four more years of Baracky....
Posted by: unintended consequences at June 25, 2011 08:57 AM (VxqUc)
Posted by: Fritz at June 25, 2011 08:57 AM (p2IBw)
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Same sex unions are an aberration, end of discussion.
Let common-law or civil unions handle any questions of rights.
First, last and only time I post about the subject.
Posted by: irongrampa at June 25, 2011 08:58 AM (ud5dN)
Oh, I don't know, I'm thinking suicide bombing in front of a maternity ward might just have that beat.
Exactly, you cupid stunt - I was explicity thinking of MURDER as being one of the "FEW CORPOREAL ACTS" which would be even more nihilistic than homosexuality.
Posted by: Unreconstructed Palecon at June 25, 2011 08:58 AM (nfn9A)
I think you're right. I think some squishy Protestant sects will buckle, and there may be another minor schism within the Catholic Church, but in the end they'll stop doing official weddings first. What you'll likely see is Church weddings confined to practicing members of said church only and only after said Church's requirements have been met.
To be perfectly honest, there is something appealing about this concept...
Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at June 25, 2011 08:58 AM (WKOe/)
You know marriage was in trouble when the bride gets drunk and humps her previous boyfriend on her wedding night. Yea, I read it in Brides Magazine while sitting in the City of Las Vegas pre-booking room prior to my bond hearing.
Posted by: Ashley Dupre, Client #9's Main Squeeze at June 25, 2011 08:58 AM (cwFVA)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 08:59 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at June 25, 2011 08:59 AM (4sQwu)
Posted by: tmi3rd at June 25, 2011 08:59 AM (WRtsc)
Number of live births to unmarried women: 1,726,566Birth rate for unmarried women: 52.5 births per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15-44 yearsPercent of all births to unmarried women: 41%I have a hunch gay marriage will not have any effect on these stats. I'm listening, explain to me again why marriage is so important.
Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 09:00 AM (le5qc)
Oh bite me. It's a perfectly cromulent position to say that ultimately government should get out of the marriage business. It is not a dodge. It is not an attempt to play cute. It is a valid expression of a belief as to the proper role of the government on this issue.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and state that what you mean is that someone holds the position that the government should be out of the marriage business without expressing an opinion as to what should be done until that point is attempting to dodge the issue.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 09:00 AM (sf+iw)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 09:00 AM (AZGON)
What most of us - gays included - forget is that pastors, preachers, and priests always include that little phrase "By the power vested in me by the state of _______" at the end of the marriage ceremony.
I still remember my High School government teacher reminding us of that VERY important phrase. Those few words actually allow most of us to be married in the eyes of the Church AND the eyes of the State in one fell swoop. We forget that the church and the state entered into a convenient "relationship" for the marriage ceremony, more to kill two birds with one stone.
In many European countries, people have two ceremonies - a religious ceremony and a civil ceremony. If necessary, churches can "divorce" themselves from performing civil ceremonies in order to get away from the clutches of the state.
Couples can still have a religious ceremony in addition to a civil ceremony. The gay activists may not like it, but if they want to change it, they're going to have to fight a whole other battle....
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at June 25, 2011 09:01 AM (wtQcz)
"Discussion of [the ERA] bogged down in hysterical claims that the amendment would eliminate privacy in bathrooms, encourage homosexual marriage, put women in the trenches and deprive housewives of their husbands' support." N.Y. Times, July 5, 1981 (excerpt of a book by Betty Friedan).
Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 09:02 AM (PY4xx)
Either have the balls to call me a cunt or don't bother.
As for the rest of your position, hey, you've already opened your mother and removed all doubt.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 09:02 AM (sf+iw)
Whoah, dude, AT EASE! Totally unnecessary there, especially in response to a reductio ad absurdum comment rendered (unless I miss my guess) more than a little tongue in cheek. Don't turn this into Kos or some other shithole just because you don't like someone's tone.
Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at June 25, 2011 09:02 AM (WKOe/)
"What foes of ERA contend were valid arguments and what advocates claim were emotional scare tactics also seemed to sway sentiment among the women against the amendment [in North Carolina]. Opponents, for example, suggested passage of ERA would mean abortion on demand, legalization of homosexual marriages, sex-integrated prisons and reform schools -- all claims that were hotly denied by ERA supporters." U.S. News & World Report, Apr. 28, 1975.
Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 09:04 AM (PY4xx)
113 Get lost fucker.
No, FUCK YOU and your nihilistic desire to squelch freedom of speech.
We real people in the real world have just about had it up to here [gestures at ceiling] with you nihilists and your totalitarianism.
FUCK.
YOU.
Posted by: Unreconstructed Palecon at June 25, 2011 09:04 AM (nfn9A)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 09:04 AM (AZGON)
Tell people you're going to force them to accept something they don't care for and you're not going to actually breed more acceptance, but likely nearly the opposite.
Force me to accept something I'm inclined to go along with, and I'll be disinclined to go along with it any more.
Posted by: FireHorse at June 25, 2011 09:05 AM (jAKfY)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 09:05 AM (aLloM)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 09:05 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Gaybe Trivia at June 25, 2011 09:06 AM (NAmOv)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 09:06 AM (AZGON)
This is a good point. When I'm in a toy with the mouse kind of mood, I bat around some of my more extreme lefty friends with the concept that their position re: gay marriage and religion will result in the Phelps Phreaks being able to claim the same level of discrimination about which said lefty friends are currently shrieking. The attempts to sputter otherwise make me happy.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 09:08 AM (sf+iw)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 09:08 AM (aLloM)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 09:09 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Old Dog at June 25, 2011 09:10 AM (z/KTb)
Personally I couldn't care less about gay marriage. Life is hard and lonely and I wouldn't wish for anyone to have to traverse it outside of a committed relationship. (yes i know civil unions accomplish that but for them it "feels" like it no longer counts, so here we are) I would prefer to see it done on a state level but am skeptical if that's long term workable and it will be messy. Under federalism once you get down to the last few states as hold outs they would come under a severe and ugly media demonetization blitz. Bonus the whole world would get to see the how extremely intolerant is the party of "tolerance".
My concern as regards gay marriage, is that of religious freedom. There are already more then a few cases where a few radical gay couples target small church's demand to be married in them and then sue them into closure/submission for refusing. Since it would only take one radical gay couple in each state to create such a crisis its obviously going to happen. *We all know it will be but a heartbeat before religious protections put into gay marriage laws are labeled Jim Crow.
All churches and religious building including Jewish, Buddhist, Islamic, Mormon, and etc.. Temples and Synogogues that would refuse to perform gay marriages will be vulnerable. To:
-first and least, losing tax exempt status (close down the poorer and smaller religious groups)
-Onerous lawsuits that quickly close down all but the largest religious networks
-Eventually, plausible seizure by the state
-Eventually, plausible arrest of clergy
In short this cat is out of the bag, whole generations of children have been indoctrinated that helping to push through gay marriage is the civil rights struggle of their lives. All that argument about racism or sexism the last few years sounds like listening to an oldies station. Sane people have long acknowledge that in terms of laws and institutions equality has long existed. At this point its a lefty only crusade for special rights that obviously turns the public off. Hence the focus on gay equality on marriage.
I want to feel more for the religious people who will for this, but honestly it was all a perfectly predictable consequence when everyone stood by while the left wrested total control over education and academia, judges and lawyers, and news and entertainment media. Back then their were the numbers to stop them.
The only thing that would stop gay marriage now is the only thing that would stop immigration. If either group started voting republican by 60+%.
Posted by: Shiggz at June 25, 2011 09:10 AM (mLAWK)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 09:11 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 09:12 AM (PY4xx)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 09:13 AM (aLloM)
You're right, it is unfathomably stupid that I forgot to include get the government out of the marriage business except on a contract basis. Let me clarify, I am not being sarcastic, it was stupid of me to leave that out. I left it out because I assumed it was implied. It was an idiotic assumption of me to make. Mea maxima culpa.
Ace, I agree with everything you said about government of necessity being involved in contract interpretation. You were right. I expressed myself v v badly.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 09:14 AM (sf+iw)
From your mouth to the ears of the IRS
Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 09:14 AM (le5qc)
Apart from its clear legal implications, you may be largely correct about marriage. As an institution, society hardly affords it the public respect it once had. That does not mean we need to discard it, on the contrary it might be nice to take it more seriously.
The big thing here is the defamation and deconstruction of marriage is part of the Leftist project.
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 12:59 PM (AZGON)
I would like to marriage as an institution restored into society but I really don't see it happening.
The feminists are right when they describe marriage as a tool for enforcing patriarchy and for that reason I see feminists and social conservatives will fight any meaningful efforts to rebuild it.
Posted by: GhostShip at June 25, 2011 09:15 AM (sbaXF)
That's the ticket.
Posted by: Fritz at June 25, 2011 09:15 AM (p2IBw)
I'm going to be a pedantic literalist here and just say it's a useful club with which to beat their opponents in the culture war in our current climate of special interest politics and bend-over-backwards political correctness. It has, in the overall, very little to do with approval and much more to do with power. People who care strongly will never accept them, but the squishy, ignorant middle only hears "fairness" and "tolerance," words to which they have been conditioned for years to be responsive. Again, this fight was lost when religion was successfully removed from the argument by secularists of all stripes. After all, what relevance does religion have on a contract between two (or more) consenting parties?
Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at June 25, 2011 09:15 AM (WKOe/)
Marriage: religion
A couple of terms that the government needs to distinguish and put an end to the social upheaval.
Posted by: Word Equality at June 25, 2011 09:18 AM (wOaLi)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 01:04 PM (AZGON)
George Orwell, absolutely. Kathy Shaidle has been saying this for a long time, too, that pedophile rights will be the next thing, that in twenty years we'll be seeing plays about poor, misunderstood child rapists.
"People were shocked back in the 1990s, when little girls dressed up as “Pretty Woman” (i.e., a prostitute) for Halloween. These days, pre-pubescent girls dress like that to go to school every day. Movies from obscure festival prize-winners to Oscar winners like American Beauty are incrementally normalizing pedophilia. Glamor is a potent agent of erosion. (Which is why, incidentally, Catholics renewing their baptismal vows promise to “reject the glamor of evil.”)
As Mark Shea has observed ruefully: today’s progressives (rightly) condemn pedophile priests (although mostly as a stick to beat the Catholic Church with); tomorrow’s even “more enlightened” ones will be obliged by their own twisted, doctrinaire logic to hail them as poor, misunderstood victims of society’s “dark age” intolerance."
Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 09:18 AM (PY4xx)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 09:18 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 09:19 AM (aLloM)
Traditional morality can't end soon enough. Count me in as an atheist who has Old Testament values. Where did the Jews ever get such ideas, and why did they abandon them for what currently passes for law in America? In current American law right and wrong count for nothing.
Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 09:21 AM (le5qc)
Forgive the long Ace-like essay friendsÂ… Ace doesn't do the ban-stick for things like this, right?
IÂ’m a woman in NYC with quite a few close gay male
friends. I used to believe in the
so-called conservative case for gay marriage. Then I started having
serious conversations with said friends, who were quite candid in telling me
that gays (gay men) might get married, but will have little compunction toward
monogamy, confirming what I think a lot of you who are smarter than myself already knew. That was, if they even saw fit to get married in the first
place. One friend said he didn't want gay marriage to be passed so that
his partners would not, in turn, push him into monogamy. Another who was
very pro-gay marriage would follow up his rally cry by saying, "But, I
don't know why people get married anyway, it's a total bullshit
institution." Enough of these incidents changed my mind on the
subject completely. That and Stanley Kurtz's articles on gay marriage in
Scandinavia.
I'm a woman who's lived in NYC now for nearly 8 years.
In that time, in my extended social circle, I've met many cohabiting unmarried
couples, people who've married for green cards, numerous people with incurable
STDs (herpes & HIV), one person who has knowingly given his HIV to numerous
partners, and numerous straight couples consisting of the 30-something-year-old
woman and the 50-something-year-old man who was either married before or screwed
his way through 40% of SoHo before deciding he was getting old and should
settle down. I know lesbians with
babies, single women who decided to have children without any man in the
picture. I know of one - count 'em, one - straight married couple
comprised of two people of similar age who are on their first marriage.
There's a reason for this (and it's not that I’m some outlier with a fucked up social circle). If you live in place where the cost of living has been taxed and otherwise artificially jacked up to insanity (incentivizing early cohabitation), a place where straight women vastly outnumber straight men (disincentivizing monogamy, and pushing women towards early promiscuity in relationships and sexual competitiveness), a place where there is a welfare state that rewards people for being unmarried and where private workplace benefits systems often make no distinction between cohabitation and marriage, this is the end result. As if all these conditions didn’t take away much of the ability for straight women to persuade straight men into marriage, gay marriage will send stronger signals to straight men that marriage is either “a total bullshit institution,” or that monogamy isn’t all that serious of a requirement. Which might be all well and good, except, if Kurtz’s stats about Scandinavia translate to the U.S., and there’s no reason they shouldn’t, cohabiting unmarried couples with kids break up at rates 2-3 times that of married couples with kids. So cohabiting is not equal to marriage, marriage is not just “a total bullshit institution” and this will not bode well for family stability, nor for all the concomitant problems that arise with lack of family stability.
Posted by: La Mauvaise New Yorkaise at June 25, 2011 09:22 AM (LFxOm)
Yes, you would need to cease allowing or requiring church representatives signing any documents and have lawyers and notaries perform the contractual obligation. When the churches perform a ceremony as a religious rite as it was intended then no one can demand their ceremony as a right.
Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at June 25, 2011 09:22 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 09:22 AM (aLloM)
Because it isn't about marriage. There isn't going to be a flood of New York gheys chomping at their bits the bit to get marriage licenses, outside of the initial vanity rush of (short-lived) ghey weddings officiated by George Takei.
And they don't desire approval, they desire validation. Validation via the police power of government. Anyone who doesn't approve, well that's just too damn bad, because if you run anything from a church to a bridal dress outfit to a catering service in the state of New York, and are not down with all imaginable permutations of perversion the fags are going to try to bring through your doors (to prove a point, not because they're really interested in marriage), you're about to be sued and/or run out of business.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 25, 2011 09:24 AM (cOkIN)
Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at June 25, 2011 09:24 AM (lpWVn)
A statistic I've never seen is how many gays actually line up to get married in states where gay marriage has been legalized. I've only heard anecdotal accounts, but they suggest that the number of gay marriages is pitifully small. Why, it's almost as though all those passionate advocates of gay civil rights really had no interest in taking advantage of the right that they fought for!
So what's the motive here? Allow me to adjust my tinfoil hat.
What motivates the gay marriage movement is the destruction of traditional Western society. I'm serious. Look at the hatred that the Left bears for all things Western. The destructive ideology (maybe not even ideology; more like a visceral, unthinking hatred) that motivates middle class college kids to help smuggle weapons into Gaza also motivates the gay marriage movement.
Choose your own metaphor, but I'll say marriage is the bedrock that supports traditional Western society. When the definition of marriage is extended to any relationship that somebody might prefer, it has no meaning at all. By destroying the meaning of the institution, you destroy the institution. When marriage is denatured, one huge pillar of society has been kicked out from under it. Chalk up a big win for the pseudo-intellectual anti-Western nihilists.
I have no personal animus at all toward gays. My stepbrother is openly gay and a friend I've kept from a job decades ago is gay. I recognize what gays have contributed, especially in terms of art and literature and society is a better place for it. But I also understand the gay marriage movement has little to do with "gay rights." It's a Trojan horse for the bindly anti-Western impulse that motivates much of the Left today, and I will never support it.
Posted by: Cicero at June 25, 2011 09:24 AM (Txl/u)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 09:24 AM (AZGON)
And it will continue to rise as there is a lot of free money in having no husband - the state pays for all and the father runs free with no responsibility or repercussions.
Posted by: lan sing at June 25, 2011 09:24 AM (YHrQZ)
Posted by: Militant Bibliophile at June 25, 2011 09:25 AM (WKOe/)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 09:26 AM (aLloM)
Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at June 25, 2011 09:27 AM (4sQwu)
Posted by: MJ at June 25, 2011 09:27 AM (BKOsZ)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 09:27 AM (aLloM)
From your mouth to the ears of the IRS
Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 01:14 PM "
I love when poseurs lift the curtain...
Posted by: Nora at June 25, 2011 09:27 AM (VxqUc)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 09:27 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Navy COP joe aka supercabbie!!! at June 25, 2011 09:28 AM (klsTp)
Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 09:29 AM (hZs9Q)
Posted by: MJ at June 25, 2011 01:27 PM "
How dare someone be free enough in America to make moral decisions for himself. Why yes I'll cater your wedding to a nine year old, Mohammad.
Posted by: Nora at June 25, 2011 09:30 AM (VxqUc)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 09:30 AM (aLloM)
Posted by: emaugust at June 25, 2011 09:31 AM (E8wmM)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 09:32 AM (nj1bB)
In other words, gay marriage started with activists yelling "Stop being like the other states! Allow it!!!!"...
...and it'll end with the very same group yelling "Stop NOT being like the other states! Allow it!!!!"...
cnredd
Political Wrinkles
http://politicalwrinkles.com
Posted by: cnredd at June 25, 2011 09:32 AM (XdXvF)
Traditional morality can't end soon enough
Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 01:21 PM (le5qc)
Tree, do you know the number one predicting factor for poverty, homelessness, drug abuse, crime, depression, suicide attempts, sexual abuse, illiteracy, and just about all other manner of serious dysfunction? It's being born to a single parent family, ie to an unwed mother. Marriage matters, and the destruction of marriage since the 60s has had a terrible effect on the social fabric, the social capital of this country. You don't have to be religious to believe that, you just have to think happy, well-adjusted people are better off than homeless junkies. If you're not willing to make that cruel, judgmental leap into the harsh waters of traditional morality, then there's nothing I can say to convince you, sorry.
Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 09:33 AM (PY4xx)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 09:33 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: emaugust at June 25, 2011 09:34 AM (E8wmM)
Posted by: Bill R. at June 25, 2011 09:34 AM (ekWve)
Posted by: Navy COP joe aka supercabbie!!! at June 25, 2011 09:35 AM (klsTp)
Posted by: Truman North at June 25, 2011 09:35 AM (K2wpv)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 09:35 AM (nj1bB)
1) Abortion
Issues that should matter a lot more than they do:
3) Getting rid of Marxism and its analogues within our culture, society, and government. You don't see the irony here? Fascinating.
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 09:36 AM (5tl1Y)
Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 09:38 AM (hZs9Q)
Tax exemption is crony fascism, sweetie. Get the Gov out of all social engineering. If you want your religion, then cough it up. Don't ask me to pay for your Mohel, Priest, Pastor, abortion, education, horse or home. Fair enough?
Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 09:38 AM (le5qc)
Posted by: Steve C. at June 25, 2011 09:39 AM (V3oL8)
Those issues are some of the ways the Progressives can enact their long term goals. Reduce the population of "undesirables", Margaret Sanger's words not mine.
Several years ago GW Bush was talking about Social Security going into the crapper and he gave a number of missing tax payers. It was roughly the same as those who've been aborted.
Gays can't reproduce. More gays means less people in the long run. Simple math. Just look at Algore's recent comments about empowering women so they basically stop or minimize reproduction.
Meanwhile your friendly neighborhood Islamist is going buckwild in the sack and pumpin' babies galore. See Europe.
So this we got bigger fish to fry than these "petty" social issues is going to hurt us.
Posted by: Lou at June 25, 2011 09:39 AM (Q8eRK)
Posted by: Grok the Fullness at June 25, 2011 09:39 AM (Qs0Qk)
But the more I get pushed around, the more I get accused of being some right-wing nazi, the more I want to push back. Fuck 'em.
Cause what they want is not tolerance, but celebration. That I'm supposed to be just as happy to see to young gay dudes holding hands as when I see a young couple in love.
Well, that's never gonna happen. It's just not. Homosexuality is abnormal. Always has been, always will be. And most people are always going to be at least mildly weirded out by it. The best they are ever gonna get is for normal people to pretend not to notice. Which I've done my whole life.
Increasingly I just think of gays as more left-wing trash incessantly calling me a racist, or sexist, or homophone -- even though I haven't done a goddamn thing. I'm just sitting there, minding my own business. But that's not good enough for them. So fuck 'em.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at June 25, 2011 09:39 AM (QcFbt)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 01:18 PM (AZGON)
George Orwell, I have no idea what the issue is like in China, the stats I'm using refer only to America and Britain since 1800 or so, got them from a great book called The De-Moralization of Society: From Victorian Virtues to Modern Values, by Gertrude Himmelfarb, though they are widely available from other conservative sources.
The scariest part about the devastation of the black family? When Moynihan warned about the black illegitimacy rate in his famous report that got him exiled from polite society and that thus of course turned out to be 100% right, the black rate he was concerned about is the illegitimacy rate among whites today. So just give it a few years...
Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 09:40 AM (PY4xx)
Posted by: Grok the Fullness at June 25, 2011 09:41 AM (Qs0Qk)
Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 01:38 PM "
1. don't call me sweetie - I am not one. oh, and fcuk off
2. you don't like religion - it's has nothing to do with fairy tale libertarianism
you are a poseur - and not a very good one.
Posted by: Nora at June 25, 2011 09:42 AM (VxqUc)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 09:42 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 09:43 AM (AZGON)
Nice scribe Ace.
My two cents.... and I think this supports the Ewoks musings....
What two consenting adults do with/to each other in the privacy of their domicile is actully none of my goddamned business.....
.... but I am goddamned sick and tired of said consenting adults not only asking.... but demanding my ...... blessing and approval.
You.are.wearing.thin.
Posted by: fixerupper at June 25, 2011 09:43 AM (ffV1/)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at June 25, 2011 09:43 AM (eOXTH)
181 When we talk about marriage law, we're talking about the same damn thing, but applied to marriage contracts.
I was the head cantor at a big catholic church (super wealthy parish) and performed at dozens of weddings. I was almost always there in the planning and organization and as the years went by the prenuptial contract was becoming standard with detailed obligations as to fidelity and support and dissolution terms contracted. So yes, the state is inextricably involved.
Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at June 25, 2011 09:44 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Grok the Fullness at June 25, 2011 09:44 AM (Qs0Qk)
Posted by: Navy COP joe aka supercabbie!!! at June 25, 2011 09:44 AM (klsTp)
Also, I have long thought that churches should stop trying to own the government version of marriage. If they want to stick it to the gays, they should start pumping the fact that a "real" marriage is one consecrated in the bounds of the church (whatever the denomination) - and that government marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper.
The Church has no wish to "stick it to the gays" (WTF?) Believe me there are PLENTY of gays in the Church. In fact, I'm pretty damn sure most of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are gay.
The Catholic Church holds that marriage is a Church Sacrament. It has absolutely nothing to do with the state. The Church politely signs the state marriage license as a service to the participants in the sacrament, noting more. It does believe that govt marriage is a piece of paper, nothing more and, in fact, doesn't recognized govt divorce either.
However, there is absolutely 0 chance that it will recognize gay marriage as a sacrament. Yet, it knows that the govt will try to insist that it recognize it and attempt to make it an active participant. Since gay marriage is incompatible with the sacrament, it can't happen.
How the upcoming battle against the Church on this topic is different than Stalinism, I don't know.
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 09:45 AM (5tl1Y)
Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 09:45 AM (hZs9Q)
Posted by: Sandy Salt at June 25, 2011 09:46 AM (iGZkF)
Posted by: mantuaBill at June 25, 2011 09:46 AM (96j+b)
You always lose.
Posted by: oliver sipple at June 25, 2011 09:46 AM (xRTH5)
Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 09:46 AM (PY4xx)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 09:47 AM (aLloM)
Where? Where did I fail to realize that? When, exactly, did I make such statements? Please stop making huge assumptions about my position based on things that *I have not said*. Please stop imputing your assumptions about my position into this discussion.
And, seriously, given that I've spend over a decade doing litigation, including commercial litigation, I think I'm well aware of the underpinnings of contractual disputes.
Obviously, we have a serious disagreement as to whether or not there is a solid philosophical basis for the belief that marriage, on the civil side, should be recognized by the State on a contract basis only. You have made your view that there is none perfectly clear. I will consider any further discussion of this topic to be moot.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 09:47 AM (sf+iw)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at June 25, 2011 09:47 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 09:47 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 09:47 AM (aLloM)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 09:48 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 09:48 AM (nj1bB)
This is the traditional argument for 'traditional morality'. My point is that tradition is bullshit. I question everything. I agree with you entirely about the societal benefits of marriage, but reject the idea that we should somehow force people to stay together if they decide differently. I believe people should be responsible for their own shitty lives and decisions. Live or die, sink or swim. Get gov out of societal engineering.
Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 09:49 AM (le5qc)
I have a belief that traditional marriage, its defense and recognition is critical in holding societies together. Now anybody can find historical references to disagree, but marriage did not come about through history accidentally. Part of being a conservative is not throwing away things that work on a whim. Someone may also argue divorce rates and marriage rates, but neither of those is an outright attack on traditional marriage and its recognition.
None of the previous paragraph had to do with religion, but there is no doubt in my mind that there will be never-ending attempts to force gay marriage in churches.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 25, 2011 09:50 AM (ldUCK)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 25, 2011 09:51 AM (r4wIV)
Many? I doubt that. Besides we've spent the last thirty years beating into mens heads how mean, stupid, useless and unnecessary they are then are surprised when they start acting that way.
Posted by: lowandslow at June 25, 2011 09:51 AM (GZitp)
Loo-hoo-serrrrrrs!
Posted by: Gaybe Trivia at June 25, 2011 09:52 AM (cOkIN)
La Mauvaise, 161: I used to believe in the so-called conservative case for gay marriage.
Funny thing -- my trajectory on this has been the opposite.
I used to believe in the liberal/progressive case for gay marriage. I figured that a person should get to pick who's kin once in their life, but mainly I kept my thoughts to myself.
Whenever a discussion arose, that'd be my position, reluctantly expressed. Invariably, I'd get bombarded with other people's opinions: That people who don't actively and enthusiastically fight for gays' rights on this are like those Europeans who let the Holocaust happen; that I'm a bigot because I don't instinctively know what to call a gay person's relationship (partner, life partner, companion, husband, wife, etc.) even though the term used varies among couples and seems to be different every time; and, of course, that marriage is a bullshit institution.
As a married guy, I find that last argument alienating. But even if these points weren't so offensive to me personally, I'd still be suspicious because they seem so adament and desperate to have me on their side. People who use nastiness, whether directed at me or not, to persuade me of something usually fail.
So now I'm against "equality of marriage" and the logic behind any of the arguments, pro or con, has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: FireHorse at June 25, 2011 09:52 AM (jAKfY)
When can I settle down with my Burro?
Posted by: Man Donkey Love Assoc. at June 25, 2011 09:52 AM (yQWNf)
Posted by: Sandy Salt at June 25, 2011 01:46 PM (iGZkF)
That's hardly an obstacle. All you need are a few judges who really really really want to be able to force the churches to do something and they'll work backwards from there to find some legal reasoning to make it happen.
Posted by: Dan K. at June 25, 2011 09:52 AM (BFm2s)
Posted by: Truman North at June 25, 2011 09:52 AM (K2wpv)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 09:53 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 09:53 AM (le5qc)
My point is that tradition is bullshit.
Because you are more brillant that 10,000 years of every human experience. Got it.
Read Sowell's "The Vision of the Annointed". The Marxists believe the same thing and their little experiment outside of tradition has led to endless murder, famine, plague, and death.
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 09:54 AM (5tl1Y)
Posted by: the guy in oliver sipple's ass at June 25, 2011 09:54 AM (cOkIN)
Whence the saying "You cannot legislate morality."
Posted by: dad29 at June 25, 2011 09:55 AM (Xrozh)
Posted by: Sandy Salt at June 25, 2011 09:56 AM (iGZkF)
Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 09:57 AM (hZs9Q)
Wow that's so funny. After fear mongering about Sharia Law, the Right's only option against gay marriage is..wait for it... Sharia Law!
Basing law and "morality" on the Bible is no different than Iran or Saudi Arabia basing their laws on the koran. We just don't do that here. And hopefully never will.
The bottom line here is this is about freedom.If you can identify an injury done to you by gay marriage then maybe it should be illegal. But you can't. What happens to you when two gay people get married? Not one single damn thing. Not a thing. That's why it is so perplexing to see the right try to use government to step into people's lives and tell them how to live.
It reeks of hypocrisy and really makes your side look like a total joke.
There's actual immorality abound in our system causing actual injury to people that we hear nothing about from the right. Not all Americans are conservatives and republicans. Don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay married, idiots. That's all you need to do.
Posted by: Jimmy_joe at June 25, 2011 09:57 AM (/LqDJ)
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 09:57 AM (5tl1Y)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 09:58 AM (AZGON)
This is a nice semantic formulation, and I'm sure there are SOME gays who really really want a Gold Star for Being Awesomely Gay, but I doubt it's true that many really seek the sort of full-spectrum celebration and validation you're talking about.
I disagree Ace.... this is entirely about acceptance and validation. I think you've split a hair here between wanting a Gay Gold Star and normalization. At the end of the day..... the gay community really wants a "Yeah.... you're OK and we approve" And as you pointed out.... they are using the State to enforce that acceptance....with all the pertinent repercussions backlash you illustrated in the post.
Posted by: fixerupper at June 25, 2011 09:59 AM (ffV1/)
Posted by: oliver sipple at June 25, 2011 09:59 AM (cOkIN)
Please, I'm not being snarky. Why should your plate contributions be tax deductible? I'm a lapsed PCUSA, so I know what great records we kept to send in with our tax returns. Exemption is a poison in our system, home, child, makes no difference, it is a gov attempt to give someone a favor at the expense of you and me
Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 09:59 AM (le5qc)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 10:00 AM (nj1bB)
They've done it with everything that's been granted them, but in that respect they're no different from any other liberal who does likewise.
Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 10:01 AM (B60j2)
Posted by: alexthechickhelper at June 25, 2011 10:01 AM (YlfqW)
Posted by: Fox News at June 25, 2011 10:01 AM (M9Ie6)
Oh for pity's sake, what the hell, ace? You did notice the two sentences after what you quoted, right? That was the v v polite way of stating that I do not want to get into a hugely drawn out discussion of the precise nature of what governmental recognition of marriage on a contract basis only means for domestic and contract law writ large.
Yes, there are huge implications. Yes, it would be a bitch to implement. Yes, that's why I admit that my position on this, and I can only speak for me, is an extremely radical one. No, I do not agree that it's a tissue thin position.
We do not, and will not, agree that the aforementioned position is without philosophical merit. I fail to see how continuing to disagree about this over and over and over again leads anywhere.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 10:02 AM (sf+iw)
Why should your plate contributions be tax deductible?
Because it's a chartible contribution, you idiot. That's what churches do, you fool.
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 10:02 AM (5tl1Y)
Posted by: Pete at June 25, 2011 10:02 AM (8FSgk)
Well again, it's just one more path to validation. Gheys are basically sad, fucked-up people. They have to piggyback on the genuine historical grievances of the past, because they don't have any valid ones of their own.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 25, 2011 10:03 AM (cOkIN)
Basing law and "morality" on the Bible
You've got it backwards. Law, morality, and the Bible all represent the distillate of millennia of human living and finding out what works, and what doesn't.
The law doesn't ban, e.g., murder or theft because the Bible says to. The law and the Bible agree that murder and theft undermine the social fabric, and therefore are to be discouraged.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 25, 2011 10:03 AM (7CHWu)
I'm from CA. I did not vote on Proposition 8 because I did not care.
If I had it to do over again, I would vote, and the vote would be yes - meaning anti-gay marriage. What changed my mind was the reaction to the vote, i.e. the gigantic temper tantrum. Screeching Gay/Leftist street mobs vandalizing churches, businesses, and passing cars. Organizing boycotts and harassment against anybody who public records showed had donated money.
Discovering that the measure was passed due to a large majority of Black and Hispanic voters, and that a majority of white voters voted against it, made me wonder why the boycotts, harassment, and vandalism were limited to whites only; it could be reasonably surmised that the mob went after soft targets due to not wanting to get their asses kicked. There was some overt racism on a couple of gay issue blogs, but nothing in person. Soft targets only.
And it was pointed out at the time, on conservative web sites, that gays regarding marriage as a corny, laughable thing that breeders and Christians did, had been the norm until just a few years before, when it suddenly changed. And that civil unions already did just about evverything marriage did. Like, maybe gay marriage wasn't really about marriage
Since then, a gay activist judge has invalidated the measure, which we should recall, was an amendment to the state constitution. He just didn't like it, that's all.
I thought, if this is how you react after a political set-back, then maybe I do care after all. Fuck you screamers. God damned children. Cowards.
I don't believe I am alone in having reacted this way.
There is an another aspect - the irritation that some married people feel about the issue now, especially men. Marriage is often difficult, even a soul-crushing burden at times. About half of marriages end in divorce. A combat unit that lost 50% casualties would be considered destroyed and unfit for battle. And the idea of this being trivialized by validation tourists sticks in our craws. It's an emotional reaction. Think of a bunch of grown men at an Army theme party, with miniature helmets set on their heads a jaunty angles, camoflage pattern shorts with pink army boots, sipping tropical drinks dipped from a punch bowl modeled after the battle of Tarawa and so on. Then imagine them wanting benefits from the VA. Like that. I'm not asking anybody to say this is an admirable way to react - but perhaps it can be understood.
Posted by: Anthony Weiner, Ready for Hire! at June 25, 2011 10:03 AM (C0Z3w)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 25, 2011 10:04 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 10:05 AM (hZs9Q)
Judge Blackstone and western history disagree.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 25, 2011 10:06 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: alexthechickhelper at June 25, 2011 10:06 AM (YlfqW)
It currently is, many of believe that gays are trying to re-marry church and state in this instance.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at June 25, 2011 10:07 AM (ldUCK)
I don't even care much about this issue. But now I kinda hate a couple of my cousins.
As the saying goes:
Twitter makes me like people I've never met.
Facebook makes me hate people I already know.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at June 25, 2011 10:07 AM (QcFbt)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 10:08 AM (AZGON)
Facebook makes me hate people I already know.
That's awesome.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 10:08 AM (sf+iw)
Posted by: Sandy Salt at June 25, 2011 10:09 AM (iGZkF)
Posted by: Homer Simpson at June 25, 2011 10:10 AM (Tj88Z)
The claim is being made that "Of course we will not impose gay marriage on religious institutions."
The destruction of religious institutions through litigation regarding the performance of gay marriage ceremonies has always been a part of the end game.
Posted by: lurkerdelurked at June 25, 2011 10:10 AM (JbdnV)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 10:10 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 10:10 AM (AZGON)
Every gay person I've ever known has been self-loathing and insufferably vain. Every. Single. One. It goes with the territory and it's at the root of the ghey-"marriage" push.
And we as a generation have been subject to relentless cultural brainwashing in the attempt to get us to normalize and celebrate their psychological problems.
Well, fuck that. Gays are fucked in the head. Period.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 25, 2011 10:11 AM (cOkIN)
Most of them will not admit this but they ALREADY have that from the vast majority of people. If not "we approve" - because heterosexuals will never fully approve what homosexuals do - they DO get "Okay, fine, you're gay. Congrats. Here's a party hat. Now just go live your lives and don't always be in our faces with it, okay?" is the best they can hope for. And they should be happy to get it; who among us can really expect more from others?
Problem is, what I assume and hope is only an asshole minority of homosexuals INSISTS on defining approval as everyone else stopping and watching the most ENDLESSLY flamboyant idiocy they can contrive. The majority of homosexuals who know the assholes among them make them all look bad need to step up and tell the assholes to SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP. ALREADY. Have they done so? Doesn't look like it.
You homosexuals want more than mere tolerance? You want approval? Fine -- start by dealing with the assholes who make you all look bad, since we aren't allowed to without being called homophobic and risk being sued.
DO IT ALREADY.
Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 10:11 AM (B60j2)
This is a nice semantic formulation, and I'm sure there are SOME gays who really really want a Gold Star for Being Awesomely Gay, but I doubt it's true that many really seek the sort of full-spectrum celebration and validation you're talking about.
Gotta disagree, ace. Here in California they're pushing teaching homosexuality in schools. Homosexuals (as a pressure group, not necessarily every individual) don't want tolerance - they've got that - they want acceptance, they want to be considered normal, which they're not.
The real problem is not with female homosexuality. It does not undermine society significantly, and basically is irrelevant. It's with male homosexuality, because guys want to screw anything and everything, and when there are no women involved to put the brakes on, they will do just that. Then all it takes is a virus or bacterium and poof! Disease runs rampant through the homosexual community, and jumps into the normal community through bisexuals. AIDS is, of course, the classic example, but homosexuals are a major reservior of STDs and hepatitis B as well.
So the problem with mainstreaming male homosexuality is the public health threat. In this connection, a recent study in California showed that 1 in 4 male homosexuals are HIV positive. One in four.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 25, 2011 10:12 AM (7CHWu)
Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 10:14 AM (hZs9Q)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 10:15 AM (nj1bB)
What's to stop the growing Muzie population from demanding multiple wives? Nothing, that's what.
I am sick and tired of atheists lecturing on morals, homos lecturing on normalcy, traitors lecturing on patriotism, etc, etc. We are no longer being ASKED to accept these individual deviates, we are being TOLD to accept and even embrace these deviate lifestyles or suffer the consequences.
And the consequences are becoming more severe all the time.
Posted by: Cooter at June 25, 2011 10:15 AM (KJ2wJ)
The homosexual lobby does not want marriage--they want to force you to follow their beliefs. Because they sincerely believe you are forcing them to follow yours.
That's why Andi Sulli can say a Christianist Theocracy runs America with all candor. Because if a society does not actively condone, nay celebrate!, his personal life choices and decisions it is an oppressive regime of evil.
They have to destroy religion and the most sacred practice of religion--after baptism-- is marriage. It was the evil religion that first made them feel bad 'cause they had homosexual daydreams. It is the evil religion that still makes them feel bad. And they will destroy it or all of us--either way, they don't care.
Posted by: Jimmuy at June 25, 2011 10:15 AM (+Fmdb)
Posted by: Sandy Salt at June 25, 2011 10:15 AM (iGZkF)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 10:16 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 10:17 AM (nj1bB)
No mention of tax deductions
Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 10:17 AM (le5qc)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 01:53 PM (nj1bB)
Actualy, private Marriage contracts are more the norm throughout history, than our modern cookie cutter approach. Dowries? Land Inheritence? Titles? They were all done via Contract... which was then approved by their religion, then whatever secular authority there was.
IMO Legal Zoom should come out with a State Specific Contract, with various Options which you could check off, to create your "Paternership"... including such things as Property, Powers of Attorney for Medical, Child custody... even alimony or such.... enough volume and the internet would make it cheap...
And open it up to ANYONE who wants some type of Lifetime Partner... whether there is Sex involved or not.
But for that to work, the State (Governments) would have to get out of the failed Social Engineering business of trying to favor one lifestyle over another, and allow We, the People, to decide how to live our lives.
Note.. last weeks realese of Calif. Census data where only 23% of Households were nuclear families.... people are already making choices as to how they want to live.... and the State should NOT be favoring one choice over another.
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 25, 2011 10:19 AM (NtXW4)
Family members and close friends. Their vain, navel-gazing selfishness is their common trait.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 25, 2011 10:21 AM (cOkIN)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 10:21 AM (AZGON)
The real problem is not with female homosexuality. It does not undermine society significantly, and basically is irrelevant.
1)
You love lesbian porn is how I read that.
2)
Who needs fathers anyway, right?
You're right about fathers (not so much about the lez porn!). But, seriously, lesbians aren't the destabilizing factor that male homosexuals are. Look at zombie's coverage of the Folsom Street Fair. Scarcely a woman in sight.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 25, 2011 10:21 AM (7CHWu)
Maybe if we just change the language from "gay marriage" to "government-sanctioned gay monogamy" then everything will be okay?
Posted by: Fritz at June 25, 2011 10:22 AM (p2IBw)
Are there any polls with statistics of support of gay marriage?
Posted by: FireHorse at June 25, 2011 10:24 AM (jAKfY)
(Regarding Single Mothers: )
How do you express support for the CURRENT cohort of people who have made poor decisions, while also attempting to reduce the COMING cohort of those who would make the same poor decision?
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 01:42 PM (nj1bB)
Unfortunately, I don't think you can. The two positions are irreconsilable.
You sacrifice the current single mother in order to prevent future single mothers.
Call it triage, if you like.
Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 10:25 AM (Y2WVW)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 10:25 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 10:26 AM (hZs9Q)
And the consequences are becoming more severe all the time.
Posted by: Cooter at June 25, 2011 02:15 PM (KJ2wJ)
I find myself agree to this position on morals from someone with the nick of "Cooter". Only on AoS.
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 10:26 AM (5tl1Y)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 10:26 AM (nj1bB)
and the State should NOT be favoring one choice over another.
I couldn't possibly disagree more. This is not about the individual and hedonism; it's about the stability of society, and protecting its weakest - but arguably most important members - its children.
Liberal policies shattered the black family. How has that worked out for blacks? Public policy should encourage strong nuclear families to avoid society as a whole experiencing the same social disintegration - and its attendant crime, gangs, drugs, illegitimacy, and misery - that blacks have had to endure.
So the State should most certainly favor one choice over others. Just as it should favor productive labor over idleness and theft.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 25, 2011 10:27 AM (7CHWu)
Okay, I think I see where the major source of my frustration lies. I react so strongly to the idea that my statement about wanting governmental recognition of marriage to be via contract only as being glib because I have thought about it and I have considered the alternatives and I do recognize that it's radical. Thus, I do believe that it is incumbent about me to have a position that deals with the current state of affairs because what I want is not going to happen. My position is not glib or a dodge, it's the product of long, hard thought on my behalf. To have that dismissed as unutterably stupid is deeply insulting.
Sadly, however, I fear that most people who say that haven't thought it through and are using it as a dodge, making your comments hold more weight than I care to admit.
It's a shorthand that conceals, whether knowingly (for those who have considered the full ramifications and don't feel like talking about them) or unwittingly (for those for whom this is just a cute get-out-of-jail-free card on this whole issue), exactly how unworkable and/or radical the position actually is.
I don't intend to do it knowingly, perhaps more unconsciously. I've had these arguments so many times, for so many years, with so many people that I just assume that a. people know what I think and b. I forget that I am not that damn important that people would remember.
if you don't want to discuss it, fine, I will drop it.
Thank you. I have v v important tennis watching to continue (GO BAGHDATIS).
Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 10:29 AM (sf+iw)
This is the traditional argument for 'traditional morality'. My point is that tradition is bullshit. I question everything. I agree with you entirely about the societal benefits of marriage, but reject the idea that we should somehow force people to stay together if they decide differently. I believe people should be responsible for their own shitty lives and decisions. Live or die, sink or swim. Get gov out of societal engineering.
Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 01:49 PM (le5qc)
To quote Chesterton, tradition is the democracy of the dead. What about all those people responsible for their lives and decisions over the past 10000 years who, rather than live in their own filth, managed to come up with a pretty darned decent civilization? We should ignore all their personal choices and any possible reasons for them, figure they were all morons, and just start from scratch? And ditto our children, and their children, and every ensuing generation, just start over from birth each time?
You really think you're the first person intelligent/brave enough to question tradition? Or perhaps it is slightly more likely that there have been millions of skeptics like you in the past who questioned everything, and had their debates with the morals of the times, and lost, which is how those apparently arbitrary moral rules ended up sticking around long enough to become tradition.
Do you realize how much easier it is to tear things down than build them up all over again? Like, if you live in a nice house, and you decide to live your own life and question architecture, and tear down your house, fine, that's your choice, you were able to choose between tradition and skepticism and you freely chose skepticism, fine. But if you have a kid you then raise on the empty lot the house used to be on, he is no longer free to choose! That is, if he really really really wants a house, he will have to start from scratch, invent the very idea of what a house is, invent architectural principles on how to construct such a strange alien structure, invent building materials, chop down the wood and mine all the rock, etc, etc, etc, and do it all from zilch. Good luck to him with that. Even if he manages it, it'll be a freaking wobbly tent, not a nice suburban home. Far more likely, he will just grow up soaking wet and shivering in an empty field. A victory against tradition!
Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 10:29 AM (PY4xx)
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at June 25, 2011 10:29 AM (GKQDR)
Family members and close friends. Their vain, navel-gazing selfishness is their common trait.
* * *
He's right. I was in the Navy -- was acquainted with 2 there, and a few others I suspect were closet -- and later was in the Theater department of a particularly liberal college. Unavoidably for that setting, I knew several homosexuals, staff and students...a few I got to know very well (I dated one of their "fag hags" for awhile).
One thing they all had in common: they were the most profoundly sad men and women I've ever met, even in a setting (theater department, liberal school) where they basically ruled the roost as The Favored, and they knew it. Let me repeat that: EVEN IN THEIR OWN ELEMENT, if you got to know them outside of work and whenever they turned off the gay "act" (I've seen them do that, too, like a light switch), they were always pitifully sad. Without exception.
Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 10:30 AM (B60j2)
Yes, that seems radical and ridiculous to me.
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:16 PM (nj1bB)
You wouldn't want to do that but I am not sure that allowing gays to marry does that, at least no one has made that arguement to me.
If I decided to marry again the last thing I would take into concideration is whether or not gay people marry, in fact I wouldn't think about it at all.
What I am worried about is the long term affect on peoples freedom of religion. I understand that argument and agree with it.
Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 10:30 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 10:30 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 10:31 AM (hZs9Q)
Posted by: Sandy Salt at June 25, 2011 10:31 AM (iGZkF)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 10:33 AM (nj1bB)
Opposing the homosexual agenda is presented as antediluvian and uncool. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Working hard, saving, keeping your nose clean, taking care of your family, being patriotic, paying taxes, and generally doing more than looking out for #1 are generally considered pretty uncool too. Yet those behaviors are the bedrock of society. The "cool" are worthless. All of them.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 25, 2011 10:33 AM (7CHWu)
That's not really celebration per se. It's normalization/routinization, which some have a problem with.
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 01:47 PM (nj1bB)
The ones who want normalization act normally and have for hundereds of years.
The ones prancing in feather boas in parades want something else.
Posted by: Oldcat at June 25, 2011 10:33 AM (CN+Qv)
The Marxists believe the same thing and their little experiment outside of tradition has led to endless murder, famine, plague, and death.
You can't grok Marxism until you realize that "murder, famine, plague, and death" are the goals of the nihilism which fuels "Marxism" - that the Gulag was not an unfortunate side-effect of Bolshevism, but rather that the Gulag was the PURPOSE of Bolshevism.
Unfortunately, it seems to require a great deal of time staring into the abyss before the truth of it all really sinks in, and what with the saccharinized, prozac-ified, unicorns-pooping-skittles culture of adolescence* in which we find ourselves, there just aren't many folks who are willing to suck it up and face the underlying horror of this nihilism.
And, as I indicated above, the very same nihilism propels the sodomites - there is no more futile, purposeless, nihilistic act than planting your seed in another man's rectum: Taking your God-given ability to create new Life, and wasting it instead on the unleashing of Eternal Death.
These people aren't about "discrimination" or "acceptance" or "rights" or "codifications" - they're about driving the species into extinction.
They do not love life; they are infatuated with Death.
*A culture imposed on us by the very same nihilists promoting "gay marriage" BTW.
Posted by: Unreconstructed Palecon at June 25, 2011 10:34 AM (nfn9A)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 10:34 AM (nj1bB)
Say Ace, I thought it was Folsom Street Fair.
Like in the old song
"I'm struck with Folsom jism
And flashed with rigid dongs"
Perhaps you subconsciously want it to be "Fulsome Street," and be Lesbians only.
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at June 25, 2011 10:37 AM (C0Z3w)
Posted by: ace
I don't know if that was intentional or not, but it was one of the funniest things you have ever written.
And yes, this is another toll of the bell of our social gotterdammerung.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes..... at June 25, 2011 10:37 AM (sJTmU)
Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 10:37 AM (hZs9Q)
2) I know a lot of gay men (and several lesbians--some of who were married and had kids). There is no such thing as monogamous homosexuals. They will play house, even live together for decades but, every single one I know and have heard of have played around--multiple times--even the long-term "committed" ones. They want to take the same oath before God that I and my wife made and pretend they have done the same when there is no way they will ever give it the sanctity or respect it deserves.
Posted by: Jimmuy at June 25, 2011 10:38 AM (+Fmdb)
Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 25, 2011 02:27 PM (7CHWu)
Then you are in Favor of some mythical Personified "State" having control over its Citizens? and not Vice Versa?
The whole idea of "State Interests" is canard thrown out there by those in power, who wish to tell the citizens THEIR view of how to live.... and has been used time and again throughout history as an excuse for Limiting the Freedoms of people.
Note... it is now in the 'State Interest' to have Green Energy... and so the Government is pushing it, even against the will of the People.
Note... it is now in the 'State Interest' to go bomb Libya, even though the vast majority of people don't want to.
Since when is it OK, in America, for the STATE to tell its free people how they should live??? through either reward, or punishment? (because rewarding one group over another, does put that other group at a disadvantage).
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 25, 2011 10:39 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:34 PM (nj1bB)
Oh, yeah I agree you need marriage laws, you could get by with some of the existing laws not regarding marriage but it would put an unfair burder on the weakest economic contributor to the marriage. On second thought it would never work you need marriage laws, marriage is it's own unique situation.
Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 10:39 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: alexthechickhelper at June 25, 2011 10:40 AM (m7mGc)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 10:40 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: KG at June 25, 2011 10:40 AM (LD21B)
I'll think about it and let you know. That's not (entirely) a dodge, I have family stuff to do later today and tomorrow and I'd want to take time to tl;dr it. Plus, well, you summed up the reasons why I would be loathe to do so in your discussions about Gabe posting about Fulsom. I'm not remotely as tough as I like to play at on ye olde internets.
I cannot tell you how horrified I am that you've never heard anything but that. I don't mean by you, I mean that it brings up yet again how few people actually think things through. I really need to stop thinking that they do.
I don't say you should guest post to convince me (you won't)
Oh, I don't think I'll convince anyone. That's another reason I wanted to drop the discussion, almost everyone is convinced of a position on this topic and it is not often amenable to pure theoretical discussion.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 10:40 AM (sf+iw)
Now, what to do about it? Simple: Get government out of the marriage business. Contrary to Ace's statements, this is a valid position, just not the version he's talking about. Yes, the government has to be involved in all contracts, but why does marriage have to be a contract? Why not separate the two components of marriage entirely? Remove "marriage" from all government documents (homo- and heterosexual), replace with "civil unions" or whatever you like (again, for both), and relegate the title of "married" purely to religion. If two homosexuals want to be "married", then they can find a willing church of some sort and have their ceremony and whatnot. If heterosexuals don't like it, they can argue that said "marriage" isn't Biblical (Torah-ical, Koran-ical, whatever), ergo it isn't a real marriage. This puts the argument back solely in the realm of philosophy and religion. The two sides of the morality-of-homosexuality argument can have at without either one being able to use a government-power redefinition of the terms... until the next plan is cooked up, I suppose.
In my opinion, the best tactical move in this sort of situation is one that undercuts the opponents' objective while looking like an concession. Hence, the bill should be phrased in such a way as to be confined purely to removing the concept of "marriage" from government purview, replacing it with whatever other term you like, and opening that institution to homosexuals. The end result, taking away the pro lobby's objective of government-redefined "marriage", will be a natural effect of the legislation, so it won't require any special legislative language and should not be advertised. The con side can claim, honestly, to be giving the pro side everything it wants: The homosexual lobby gets the "win" of equal standing, by the same words, under the government. I've got no problem with that "concession", and I doubt most folks do, either. On the other hand, it also takes a powerful weapon in the war to restructure morality out of the hands of those who want to suppress Christian principles through government force.
Posted by: Cortillaen at June 25, 2011 10:40 AM (brMcr)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 10:42 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 02:40 PM (nj1bB)
But nobody fell for it, right?
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at June 25, 2011 10:42 AM (C0Z3w)
War Between, something happened to gays in the past few years. From Oscar Wilde to the San Fran bath-houses, I always got the impression they used to revel in underground counter-cultural rebellious status, and they mocked the lame straight squares. And now they whine like any run-of-the-mill victim group. Unlike Jay, I blame the lesbians (except Camille Paglia, she's brilliant), they ruined gay men for the rest of us. They used to be so happy and fun!
Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 10:42 AM (PY4xx)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at June 25, 2011 10:42 AM (KOAYS)
Posted by: alexthechickhelper at June 25, 2011 02:40 PM (m7mGc)
That's basically what marriage laws do, the only difference is that in most states they deem both partners equal contributors to the estate after marriage. Contract law doesn't do that.
Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 10:45 AM (MtwBb)
This sort of conduct undermines respect for American institutions and THAT is a problem.
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at June 25, 2011 02:42 PM (KOAYS)
The Democrats in a nutshell.
Posted by: KG at June 25, 2011 10:46 AM (LD21B)
If it helps any, homosexuality was more-or-less publicly socially acceptable, an open secret that wasn't really all that secret, in Classical Greece (~350BC and before). And Classical Greece seems to be the only civilization of any stature that treated the behavior as being this socially acceptable; all others treated it as (usually very much) less acceptable.
But, publicly, men married only women. And no one, at least in the mainstream of society, saw any other alternative. This also seems to be true for just about every culture known, and in all times and places. There were exceptions of course; certain cultures had shamans who were held in high regard and behaved differently (and were accepted), others had the very less reputable districts ....
Somewhat more importantly, the social acceptance in Greece died out towards the end of the Classical era: even Athenian playwrights made fun of the practice, and at a time when the Greeks considered themselves to be the paragon of human civilization. Why?
Fast forward to today: there's evidence that a very large percentage of gay brains are wired this way, from potentially more than one cause, and there's effectively no way to change the wiring. Ok, I believe this.
But we're still dealing with a behavior, one that is of the sort that is not really a public activity. I see no reason to deny gays any of the usual rights; contracts, voting, equality before the law, etc. ....
But there are a couple of things that come up ... should we award minority status, special legal protections/rights, etc., to a group that is differentiated by behavior? And eventually, the subject of children comes up ...not just adoption, but certain activists, pedophiles. This is a major problem, and it even gets mentioned (even in print) when discussing activist gay rights stuff and political platforms.
I think NY made a big mistake. The outcry here in CA about the (latent) judge's ruling on Prop. 8 is not trivial. I think 2012 will see more than a few NY state legislators out of jobs, and perhaps legislation to change ...
Posted by: Yogi Yorgesson at June 25, 2011 10:46 AM (HlMmB)
Posted by: Sandy Salt at June 25, 2011 10:46 AM (iGZkF)
Yeah, I like Soderling though so I was a little bit bummed. Tomic does look like the real deal. He and whatshisface, the wee baby Canadian player who got hurt the other day, they both look great.
I'm a Rafa girl, through and through. I soooo want another Rafa Roger final.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 10:47 AM (sf+iw)
Hmmmm.... interesting question...
Could you create a legal contract for Polygamy today? But NOT call it a marriage, and thus be legal?
Child custody and such is not really a big deal, and you can have full parental rights and never be married.... Three adults living together and having Sex is not illegal...
Heck, you could even do a Legal name change without being legaly married...
Add in Powers of Attorney for Medical, Legal, and Financial reasons... and an unlimited Partnership for Property...
Heck, you could even have a Religious Cermony as long as you Never got a Marriage License, or stepped over the Common Law barriers (which could be a problem, but I think you have to ask for that status, it can't be forced up on you)...
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 25, 2011 10:47 AM (NtXW4)
Easy. Reasonable people - the majority, I like to think - SHUN them and let them know why. Eventually, the pressure works, in all settings. All it takes is numbers and consistency.
You know that Bill Cosby is one black American who has tried, publicly, to call out the elements of black culture that embarrass most blacks. He's not alone; other less visible than Cos have finally begun to stand up and say out loud what everyone knows and sees, but only certain people can SAY. Has it had a positive effect in those communities? Some say it's started to. I'd choose to believe that.
I see your point about not confusing rainbow freaks with the majority of homosexuals but, seriously, which type is the rest of the country almost always shown? Even on TV, "respectable" homosexual characters are almost always flouncy, snarky types; even if not, sex is always forefront of the mind and suggestiveness is always a subtext (see Doogie Howser's recent ad for that award show where he references, needlessly and tastelessly, his own ass...he is now a gay role model. If you know of any homosexual writer or commentator who has decried this as not only unrealistic but counterproductive, please link me, I'd love to read it. The stereotypes exist for a reason; it's up to the people unfairly painted with them to prove their not true.
I likewise see your point of wondering what in the world a reasonable, embarrassed gay man could do when two sneering leather boys try giving each other cotton candy enemas on a public street corner at noon "because that's who we are," but it's got to start somewhere and -- as Cosby showed -- it's got to start with THEM.
Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 10:47 AM (B60j2)
Posted by: alexthechickhelper at June 25, 2011 10:48 AM (m7mGc)
Posted by: Sandy Salt at June 25, 2011 10:49 AM (iGZkF)
Frankly, this doesn't just piss me off at gays, who are a very small minority, it pisses me off at the politicans who allow this small minority to dictate what the rest of us have to accept, and how this country has to change to accomodate them.
I don't give a flying fig about gays one way or the other. They can do whatever they want. Doesn't matter to me. What does matter to me is their insistence that they are somehow better because they are different. By that I mean, they deserve some kind of special status based on who the hell they fuck.
One woman years ago won her legal battle to take prayer out of schools. Because of that one woman, anything with a Christian label has been under assault from that day forward.
The people that we have put in power to represent us have listened to those small minorities and shoved their bullshit down the throats of the rest of us. Because of those small minorites screaming & yelling and throwing temper tantrums this country is on the verge of ruin. Activist progressives, gays, and atheists have inflicted on this country a hell of a lot of destruction. They don't care about freedom, as they insist. What they care about is making all the rest of us, the majority, give up our freedoms and morality to appease them.
They just want their way, and the rest of us be damned. They are like little children in the toy aisle when they are told no. Show your ass loud enough and long enough and maybe you'll get your way. Then, next time you scream for bigger toys, and throw bigger fits to get your way. It's not really about the toy. It's about control. Fuck 'em.
Posted by: Steph at June 25, 2011 10:50 AM (AkdC5)
Actually, from the long game cynical standpoint, once gay marriage is decreed by Justice Kennedy to be the law of the land (shut your mouths those pointing out that supposedly he's indicated otherwise), and the SSA has to pay to gay spouses, then there will be sudden and massive support for privatizing Social Security. Now that I can support.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 10:50 AM (sf+iw)
Posted by: Ellen at June 25, 2011 10:52 AM (rY7F+)
Posted by: Sandy Salt at June 25, 2011 10:53 AM (iGZkF)
Societies whose institutions strengthen the connections between men and their child's mother, do better. The children do better (better survival, higher status, more likely to reproduce). The men also benefit, as does society in general.
It seems to me that gays are grasping for some external change that will accomplish some mystical change that will magically improve their lives.
Men and women often find themselves in marriage like relationships without seeking any ceremony or recognition, sometimes without intention & will get generally treated as "married".
So legal marriage strengthens & supports a natural human tendency that has proven to be socially beneficial.
If 'gays' are seen to live in committed exclusive relationships, accepting legal and responsible obligations towards their partners, this would be recognised and respected. If they had their own name for this relationship, this term would be adopted. There would be little real opposition to legal recognition.
However, the liberal agenda seems to try to make distinctions impossible. So we have to use code to express unfashionable realities.
Posted by: Trudy at June 25, 2011 10:54 AM (g72QS)
Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 10:54 AM (PY4xx)
It is same-sex pseudo-marriage.
Posted by: Chuckit at June 25, 2011 10:56 AM (3tscI)
Yeah, but he has his wife as a consolation prize. I think he wins.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 10:58 AM (sf+iw)
Posted by: alexthechickhelper at June 25, 2011 10:59 AM (m7mGc)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 10:59 AM (nj1bB)
I have a close gay friend (had, I suppose -- our friendship didn't really survive the Obama Regime) who was very much this way until the gay-marriage movement really picked up steam over the last decade. It became his most passionate cause, and he was otherwise all about the rejection of societal norms (especially in the Deep South, where we came from). Except for this societal norm, which for some reason had to be completely appropriated and adapted to fit his lifestyle.
Because for him it was all about state-sanctioned validation, whether he realized it or not. (He had no interest in getting "married" himself.) I'm sure he's celebrating today, and damn the consequences he either doesn't see or doesn't care about. His philosophy about Americans, regarding every one of his liberal pet issues from ghey marriage to ethanol, always was a smug "well, they'll just have to adapt." (Why does that sound so familiar....)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 25, 2011 11:01 AM (cOkIN)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 11:01 AM (nj1bB)
No mention of tax deductions
Posted by: The Tree of Woe at June 25, 2011 02:17 PM (le5qc)
I only use the OED. However, the US tax code allows for tax deductions for money or goods given to charity. But of course you statists don't want that, you want money taken by the govt to be dispersed to those it sees fit to disperse it to.
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 11:02 AM (5tl1Y)
Posted by: cheshirecat at June 25, 2011 11:02 AM (KDuam)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 11:03 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 11:04 AM (PY4xx)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 11:05 AM (aLloM)
Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 11:06 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 11:07 AM (5tl1Y)
Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 11:08 AM (PY4xx)
First, I like the way you run things here. If anything, last week or two (whenever it was) you were to lenient with the Hammer of Ban; too many threats and warnings. Examples needed made, but that's just my opinion. Your house, your rules, cool with me.
Would reasonable homosexuals be dismissed as "house fags" or whatever by the freaks among them for asking the freaks to stop embarrassing the fuck out of all homosexuals? Yes, probably, just like Cosby was dismisses as a house you-know-what. That's what adults with the emotional minds of children do. It's to be expected.
All the same, Cos was RIGHT to say what he said and -- my point -- only a black man could dare say it.
Call it scolding if you want; I suppose that fits. But I maintain: what we need -- no, what the homosexual community needs -- is for a very brave homosexual to stand up in front of cameras and do what Cosby did...instead of "Pull your damn pants up," make it "Keep your shit in the bedroom, idiots, you're EMBARRASSING yourself and us." And then KEEP saying it. Because most people already agree with him.
That's not an unreasonable wish, is it?
Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 11:13 AM (B60j2)
Very well said!
Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 11:14 AM (PY4xx)
Posted by: archie bunker at June 25, 2011 11:14 AM (2PsGd)
Posted by: docweasel at June 25, 2011 11:14 AM (G92eR)
This whole thing has me very pissed off. If we can't agree as a nation about what marriage is then we're in very big trouble. And I never had a problem with gays before all of this started sprouting up out of the blue.
The gay marriage movement is going to create more "homophobic" people than it ever imagined.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 25, 2011 11:14 AM (cOkIN)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 11:14 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 03:07 PM (5tl1Y)
Being 52 and single... its amazing to me the amount of single ladies who end up divorced as soon as the kids are out of the house.
Once that common goal is done, once that 'glue' is gone... they often suddely figure out that the benefits do not outweigh costs (and it could be either party who does this, it takes two to make a marriage, only one to cause a divorce).
Marriage is already evolving... people are making different choices than they did a couple of generations ago..
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 25, 2011 11:15 AM (NtXW4)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 11:15 AM (aLloM)
ace at June 25, 2011 02:59 PM (nj1bB)
I hear ya, but I don't agree that shaming/scolding doesn't work.
That is what we did with public and private displays of racism. Shamed and scolded the shit out of it. Now it is almost (almost) unheard of.
Same thing is happening with...expressions of homophobia/anti-gay bias/support of traditional marriage, etc.
If you make an off color joke about homosexuals, or express support of traditional marriage, you will catch a shit storm of shaming and scolding. Depending of course on where you are. In your catholic church, if you support traditional marriage, not big whup.
If you are a public figure...or speaking at a public venue...very, very big deal.
Just ask that Miss America contestant.
The pro gay marriage crowd is counting heavily on being able to shame / scold gay marriage into existance.
Yeah, you may say it is the courts and legislature that are actually doing it. But the threat of the never ending shaming and scolding is a big driving factor in many of these decisions.
Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 11:16 AM (Y2WVW)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 03:14 PM (nj1bB)
Yeah I know, that's why I made the comparison. Watch some you tubes of the wisconsin protests sometime.
Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 11:18 AM (MtwBb)
Let 'em. They'll be that way no matter what happens, or doesn't happen. They're emotional children.
As long as whatever adults exist in the homosexual community stand up, at long last, and draw the "them/us" line (something no one outside their community can do), they'll benefit from it.
Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 11:18 AM (B60j2)
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 25, 2011 03:15 PM (NtXW4)
Probably true. I happen to also be wildly in love with my security which works well for me personally but I don't inflict that on others.
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 11:20 AM (5tl1Y)
Posted by: Tom in Korea at June 25, 2011 11:21 AM (OXB7R)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 11:22 AM (nj1bB)
That is what we did with public and private displays of racism. Shamed and scolded the shit out of it. Now it is almost (almost) unheard of.
Think again. My son is in high school and the racism and anti-semitism is so out in the open that I found it shocking.
Posted by: Truck Monkey at June 25, 2011 11:22 AM (yQWNf)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 11:25 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Tom in Korea at June 25, 2011 03:21 PM (OXB7R)
Yes, this is my take, too. I'll drop any opposition to gay marriage if it comes with a reinstatement of no-fault divorce.
Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 11:26 AM (PY4xx)
#355 Adrian
" great moral thinkers throughout history, ... ..... ....., etc, etc - and yet not one of them, not ever, thought to mention gay marriage."
Interestingly, if you read enough about events in Europe, for example, there is a mention at the Wiki site concerning The Bonfire of the Vanities (IIRC) that indicates that all the gays were driven out ... the implication being that they were ignored / tolerated by society.
I take this to mean that, historically, everyone has understood "gay".
What we are seeing now is an attempt to change people's beliefs and values. I think it will backfire badly. This may be unfortunate, as there are certain countries that are truly over populated AND hae an excess of men; China: perhaps 10,000,000 extra, perhaps 30,000,000 extra, and the 10-30M women no longer exist. What to do? This I think will get real ugly, and If I'm lucky, I will only have to watch, not participate ...
Posted by: Hogarth de la Poubelle, The League of Ugly Shirted Gentlemen at June 25, 2011 11:28 AM (HlMmB)
Truck Monkey at June 25, 2011 03:22 PM (yQWNf)
Interesting. What sort? Whites denigrating blacks? Or vice versa?
I'd expect the later. The former would surprise me. As for the anti-semitism, is it related to left wing hatred of Israel?
I'll be honest, I don't have a good handle on high school environments.
Care to elaborate?
Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 11:28 AM (Y2WVW)
Yes, this is my take, too. I'll drop any opposition to gay marriage if it comes with a reinstatement of no-fault divorce.
Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 03:26 PM (PY4xx)
And by reinstatement, naturally, I mean getting rid of it. oops...
Posted by: Adrian at June 25, 2011 11:29 AM (PY4xx)
And the traditionalists never much wanted civil unions either.
Civil unions never had a chance because within five minutes of the public growing comfortable with them the gay marriage lobby decided that they could not possibly endure under such a despicably discriminatory regime.
Getting into this late, but I'll say this ace. I think your second portion explains the first part of these two statements. I also saw that you said "get the government out of marriage" is a dodge but its one I think was the "correct" method. In that I think marriages under the law should all be called civil unions under the law. Remove marriage from the legal versions and you cannot attack it through the law. Gays would no longer have their arguments about equality under the law because they would actually have equality under the law and marriage would still have its traditional marriage.
And really if you want to call your partner your husband or wife and even say you're married even though you only got a civil union under the law I don't think most would raise a stink anyways.
But this has never actually been about equality. Its not a gay marriage agenda. Its a liberal agenda wrapped up in a rainbow.
Posted by: Billy the Kid at June 25, 2011 11:29 AM (oVQFe)
* Neither have I, for that matter, but at least I've read people who quote de Toqueville.
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 03:25 PM (nj1bB)
I think it's mostley about outrageous outrage with the left, whether your gay or not.
de' who?
Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 11:31 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 11:32 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: PETA at June 25, 2011 11:32 AM (aLloM)
Posted by: happyfeet at June 25, 2011 11:32 AM (Xne72)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 11:33 AM (aLloM)
Posted by: Bob Saget has not been banned yet at June 25, 2011 11:34 AM (NLWij)
Posted by: guy who wants to marry his sheep, one step closer at June 25, 2011 11:34 AM (BARAe)
Care to elaborate?
Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 03:28 PM (Y2WVW)
From what I have seen the High School he goes to is completely Balkanized. Whites openly hostile to blacks. All openly hostile toward asians. Everyone against gays. It is really sad. So tangled and sad. Most of the kids do not know any better other than they don't like the "other". No reason why. The open anti-semitism is what bothers me most. I think that so much PC crap has been force fed to these kids that it has just magnified the differences of those that are "not like us", and it has desinsitized this generation.
Posted by: Truck Monkey at June 25, 2011 11:35 AM (yQWNf)
Ah, the tolerance of the gaming community. Let me put it this way, whenever I hear teabagger I think of Halo, not the Tea Party.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 11:35 AM (sf+iw)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 11:35 AM (aLloM)
"Gay thoughts on straight marriage"
You assholes keep your mitts off Sarah Palin's reproductive organs. That's my beat.
Posted by: Andrew Sullivan at June 25, 2011 11:35 AM (XtpDT)
PETA at June 25, 2011 03:32 PM (aLloM)
Yeah, it seems like the anonymity of the internet with throw away tags and personas is the exception to the rule of my shaming / scolding.
"Meat-space" is mostly what I am refering to.
Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 11:35 AM (Y2WVW)
Posted by: Bob Saget has not been banned yet at June 25, 2011 03:34 PM (NLWij)
about the time you feel froggy enough to go up against the USMC and find out you made a big mistake.
Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 11:37 AM (MtwBb)
From what I have seen the High School he goes to is completely Balkanized. Whites openly hostile to blacks. All openly hostile toward asians. Everyone against gays. It is really sad. So tangled and sad. Most of the kids do not know any better other than they don't like the "other". No reason why. The open anti-semitism is what bothers me most. I think that so much PC crap has been force fed to these kids that it has just magnified the differences of those that are "not like us", and it has desinsitized this generation.
I agree with the younger gen being DONE with PC. In our experience, the whites are terrified of the blacks and avoid them at all costs. It's not H8tred. It's fear.
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 11:38 AM (5tl1Y)
Truck Monkey at June 25, 2011 03:35 PM (yQWNf)
Now this is interesting. Does the balkanization of this high school student body and attitudes reflect itself in the larger community?
What state and city is this?
Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 11:38 AM (Y2WVW)
There is only one way to protect religious institutions from government attempts to coerce them into gay marriage recognitions.... civil unions for all, gay or straight. Yes, your priest, minister, rabbi or whatever would lose his or her ability to change one's legal status, but then the lack of just that means the government has no say in the rite.
The real problem is this is one of the few areas where church and state are not separate and since the state is changing its views, churches that do not agree with the new view are now vulnerable.
Break the link... civil unions for the legal status and religious ceremonies for those who wish them.
In case it matters, I support gay legal marriage and my faith (Wiccan) has no problem with them. However, I do agree that religious institutions have the right to define marriage as they see fit and not perform ceremonies against their beliefs. They have the first amendment on their side here, but the fact that someone's religious rite has legal implicatons also makes them vulnerable to state interference and rules.
Posted by: Leigh T at June 25, 2011 11:39 AM (nJMhY)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 11:42 AM (nj1bB)
Then you are in Favor of some mythical Personified "State" having control over its Citizens? and not Vice Versa?
Nice straw man, on so many levels.
Let me turn it around, sans the curious 18th century orthography: are you in favor of the State having no control over its citizens? Anything goes?
No. Of course not. The State can, does, and should exert some control over its citizens. See "murder, theft, rape, incest, drug dealing," not to mention at various periods, "the draft."
In any case, I wasn't talking about State control over citizens so much as encouraging socially useful behavior. And yes, that can be carried too far, but on the other hand, the ideal amount of State influence is not zero, either.
True?
Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 25, 2011 11:43 AM (7CHWu)
Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 11:43 AM (hZs9Q)
Did not know that. I'm guessing he quit scolding altogether after that.
2, which leads to the observation that the gay left is a particularly smug and self-satisfied thing that is so convinced of its sacredness that any awful behavior is not only justified, but demanded.
No argument there.
3, I'm not sure we have too many gay spokesman who are not captured by the gay left. In other words, we on the right, or the more traditionalist camp, have not nurtured nor embraced many "Normal Gay Spokesmen."
Like I said before (or thought to type it in case I didn't), the person wouldn't necessarily need to be a self-identified conservative. You and I know such men and women exist but, as you say, they're either locked into lefty orbit, don't have the bravery or/and platform to do it. But they're out there, somewhere. One of these days, they'll surface.
4, as I said, it's a no-win proposition if the gay left will wind up savaging you,
A given,
and the gay center-liberal/default liberal/just likes to think liberal thoughts majority will also savage you for speaking out against other gays as an uncle tom homo,
Very probably,
AND on top of that the right will also not really super-have your back either, but will sort of have your back, but only with a lot of chatter about you being a goddamned homo too.
That may be a bit unfair. There'd be a lot of that but, at the same time, there'd be the usual glomming on to this person a la the glomming on by many cons to Hitchens just because he is anti-Jihadist, even though he's still a devout Marxist and even devouter (for the moment) atheist. You've surely read more about him than I, but I do not recall hearing any con say "You know, I'd like to agree with Hitchens about the need to obliterate jihadists wherever they're found but, goddamit, he's a commie atheist, so I just can't." No, they took truth where they found it. I think most would do the same with a scolding, finger-pointing homosexual.
Any advocate needs an audience to advocate to. Is there a big enough audience for this kind of thing?
Given the right exposure? You damn well know there is: the vast majority of Americans (sorry to repeat) already know what they know and see what they see, but in today's atmosphere they're forbidden to utter the truth very loudly. A homosexual could, and would have instant credibility BECAUSE we already know what he's saying is truth.
Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 11:43 AM (B60j2)
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 11:43 AM (5tl1Y)
Posted by: buzzion at June 25, 2011 11:44 AM (oVQFe)
DOMA was pandering by Bush. Im sorry you fell for it.
Posted by: Leigh T at June 25, 2011 11:44 AM (nJMhY)
What state and city is this?
I am in MD. No, it does not spread across the community at large. That is what is also very worrisome. We are integrated and get along in almost everything, but yet we see our kids coming home after having to deal with some real vile shit. I haven't really talked to a cross section of parents to see if they see it too. I think that the internet has made a lot of these attitudes easy as well. I check my kids FB and the back and forth from the kids that are on it is enough to curl my hair.
Posted by: Truck Monkey at June 25, 2011 11:45 AM (yQWNf)
Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 11:46 AM (hZs9Q)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at June 25, 2011 11:48 AM (yQWNf)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 11:49 AM (aLloM)
DOMA was pandering by Bush. Im sorry you fell for it.
Posted by: Leigh T at June 25, 2011 03:44 PM (nJMhY)
You mean Clinton.
Posted by: buzzion at June 25, 2011 11:49 AM (oVQFe)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 25, 2011 11:49 AM (kmmGJ)
DOMA was pandering by Bush. Im sorry you fell for it.
Spare me. Even marxist Bambi paid lip service to it. There isn't general acceptance or they could win by referendum not judicial fiat. It's just one more marxist ploy to destroy society and make the state supreme.
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 11:50 AM (5tl1Y)
Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 11:50 AM (hZs9Q)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 11:50 AM (AZGON)
So we'll basically move to a society where we'll have religious couples called "married", non-religious couples called "in a government contracted union" and same-sex couples called "gay married"?
Or everyone who isn't religious being in a contracted union.
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 11:51 AM (5tl1Y)
Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 11:52 AM (hZs9Q)
Look at the comments to this post. Look at the things that are said about Gabe in nearly every post he makes here. Now, consider that and then tell me why anyone would bother.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 11:52 AM (sf+iw)
What about people who want to get married, but are not religious or part of any religion? Are they no longer to be considered married?
So we'll basically move to a society where we'll have religious couples called "married", non-religious couples called "in a government contracted union" and same-sex couples called "gay married"?
Interesting...
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 25, 2011 03:49 PM (kmmGJ)
I said it in another comment. They can call themselves married for all I care if all they have is a civil union. It can't be that big of a deal. I mean what is it with people thinking that they need a piece of paper from the state to legitimize their love.
Posted by: buzzion at June 25, 2011 11:52 AM (oVQFe)
Hah!
One of my oldest friends is gay, and he is about as far from being up on fashion as I am. Maybe even farther.
And you know something? It's a pleasure to talk with him because he has lots and lots to talk about besides his gayness. I have told him before that I actually don't give a rat's ass about his sex life; the only sex life I care about is my own.
But...he is at least as conservative about most things as I am. Does he want gay marriage? Yes, but it isn't a burning issue. His issues are national defense and domestic fiscal policy and the destruction of our intellectual underpinnings in this country.
Do I disagree about some things with him? Of course -- but because he considers himself a man first, rather than a GAY man, and an American first rather than a GAY American -- it's easy to work around our disagreements. And that's the point; he, and many (if not most) gays are other things as well. But the media and our politicians have decided that the only gays who count are the aggressively out, politically hard-left, in-your-face fags.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 11:52 AM (LH6ir)
I remember being told that my kid wouldn't be preached at about oral, fisting and anal sex or asked survey questions about it in grade school.
There was also an absolute assurance that incest, pedophilia, bigamy, bestiality, and a host of other perversions were not waiting in the wings to be legitimized.
So far that isn't working out to be true.
Doesn't matter to me where people want to put their little private parts or what they want to rub them against. Lie to me and the shit isn't so funny.
But it matters a great deal to me that my lifestyle is demeaned and mocked on a daily basis. And that my child is destined to be encouraged in public school to engage in this behavior in the name of tolerance and going with the flow.
Future 7th grade union teacher: "Oh, all seventh grade boys are taking it in the keester these days. It's a trend. It was even on Twilight IX: The Sparklening. We encourage students to expand their horizons."
And if we forbid it we will be ostracized and perhaps prosecuted by the State.
If "anything goes" is the ultimate goal, just fuckin say so. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 11:52 AM (BARAe)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 11:53 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 11:53 AM (B60j2)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 11:53 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at June 25, 2011 11:54 AM (yQWNf)
Posted by: Hrothgar at June 25, 2011 11:54 AM (yrGif)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 11:55 AM (nj1bB)
Sure. Why not? the complaints from the marriage proponents have all been legal. Why not make marriage a purely religious construct? It removes a contentious topic from the public debate, and allows all religions to act as they see fit.
I don't have any problem with one rump-ranger wanting visitation rights and power-of-attorney for his gravely ill partner. And default inheritance for your bugger-buddy as a matter of civil union contract? Sounds fine to me.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 11:56 AM (LH6ir)
I am so blindly jealous that I didn't come up with that.
Sorry, I'm not here often enough to know who Gabe is. Please explain so I can understand?
Gabriel Malor aka Gabe is a cob-logger. He happens to be out. Nearly all, if not all, posts he makes end up having comments left about his sexuality and not in a positive light.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 25, 2011 11:57 AM (sf+iw)
Thanks. One further questions: does it take the form of give-and-take friendly banter, or is it one-sided assholery entirely at his expense? I'm guessing #2 from what you're saying.
Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 12:00 PM (B60j2)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 12:00 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 12:02 PM (AZGON)
Only if the practitioners are hip neo-pagans, urban swingers, or Muslim. Pasty white Fundamentalist Mormons need not apply.
Posted by: J. Random Dude at June 25, 2011 12:02 PM (72afg)
It eases the pain of living in the fourth circle of hell.
True. Gabe could post on The Law of the Sea Treaty and someone would call him a homo for it.
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 04:00 PM (AZGON)
Yeah but we'd call anyone else a homo for that too.
Posted by: buzzion at June 25, 2011 12:02 PM (oVQFe)
Posted by: CAC at June 25, 2011 12:03 PM (hZs9Q)
No, you're right. I have no desire to allow my temper to paint myself or anyone else into the Group 1 category.
But while I don't hate gays; I don't hate anyone; I do firmly believe that there is a common strain of narcissism at the root of all homosexuality, and that it is what's fueling the relentless drive toward government-imposed Acceptance. Yes, it may be overgeneralizing, but I've seen it in all of the gays I've known in my life. I've managed to cultivate friendships with some of them anyway and have been anguished over the strain politics has put on (and in one case destroyed) those friendships.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 25, 2011 12:04 PM (cOkIN)
You know what "houndstooth" is?
You are clearly gay.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 12:04 PM (LH6ir)
Got it. I'll pay attention to that from now on.
sheesh, that was confusing
yes
Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 12:04 PM (B60j2)
foguere at June 25, 2011 03:53 PM (B60j2)
Gabe is Gabriel Malor. Used to post here a lot. Now he still does, but much more infrequently.
Gabe is gay. He came out of the closet after he had been posting here for a year or so.
Prior to that, Gabe was liked by some and disliked by others. The ones who liked him considered him smart and astute. The ones who didn't like him considered him to be smug and condescending.
Most peoples opinion of him didn't change after he came out of the closet.
Hope this helps.
(If yer interested in "Changes in International Law of the Seas and How This Relates to You", Gabe is your man.)
Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 12:05 PM (Y2WVW)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 12:05 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: NumberTwo at June 25, 2011 12:06 PM (S2Mn5)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 12:07 PM (Z05lF)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 04:02 PM (AZGON)
Actually I liked it very much.
Gabe can be a bit pompous and condescending (sort of like, um, all of us), but the vitriol is just ridiculous.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 12:08 PM (LH6ir)
Actually used to have an aquaintance who managed to work atheism into a discussion about growing tomatoes at a barbecue.
We all stood our drunk asses up out of our lawn chairs and clapped for him.
Last barbecue he ever attended.
Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 12:09 PM (BARAe)
Posted by: Fritz at June 25, 2011 12:10 PM (p2IBw)
Billy Crystal made that movie back around 1980. Disney, I think.
Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 12:10 PM (B60j2)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 12:12 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 12:13 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: apodoca at June 25, 2011 12:13 PM (C4Y9x)
Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 12:13 PM (B60j2)
Or maybe a right that all latex double-siders shoot real juice?
I probably don't want to know.
Gay, I sorta understand, lesbianism....not so much. I can't figure out the point.
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 12:13 PM (5tl1Y)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 12:14 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: dagny at June 25, 2011 01:57 PM (5tl1Y)
This. We are deliberately regressing into feudalism, and liberals are leading the way, backwards through history. The fascination liberals have with "the commons" and "it takes a village" is telling. Back to the dark ages, peasants.
Posted by: Boots at June 25, 2011 12:14 PM (neKzn)
Hard to be surly on a beautiful day like today. My cold is going away, the Sam Adams is cold, and I can smell the pork on the smoker wafting into my office from the window.
Got my first tomato off the vine this morning. 3/4lb of awesomeness.
http://tinyurl.com/6ku5vdo
Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 12:16 PM (BARAe)
Well, I had heard that he did, right before he clicked the wrong button on twitter. That sort of killed that rumor dead though.
Posted by: Tom in Korea at June 25, 2011 12:17 PM (OXB7R)
Posted by: Dominique Strauss-Kahn at June 25, 2011 12:17 PM (AZGON)
Got my first tomato off the vine this morning. 3/4lb of awesomeness
You don't live here then, mine are just starting to bloom. Of course it's only been over 70 twice this year.
Posted by: robtr at June 25, 2011 12:18 PM (MtwBb)
I suppose some people may have "gay genes", but certainly millions of others have been "converted". By desire for gratification, other propensities, or even force, whether in the Royal Navy, Prison, Ye Olde Boarding School, or wherever. Not hard to believe that many of them had no such chemical signal and developed a taste for it all on their own. There's a lot more to sex (and sexual deviance/gratification) than reproduction. Immersion gayness, as it were.
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 12:18 PM (Z05lF)
Posted by: Rick Perry at June 25, 2011 12:18 PM (AZGON)
How many of those advocating the pseudo-libertarian position of "getting the government out of the marriage business" really want government to get out of the child-rearing business? The schools are basically big day-cares with two hot meals a day in select areas, I understand. It's the enforcer to all the varied forms of Child Support, and also provides Aid to Families With Dependent Children on top of all the other forms (like the schools).
Before they tear down the last little bits of traditional society, in the name of "libertarianism," can I at least get a dollar figure on how much socialist money we spend a year to make up for all the other parts of traditional society we've abandoned?
Posted by: Abdominal Snowman at June 25, 2011 12:18 PM (rVfMa)
Gay men are often in a different sort of thing because they're attempting to attract the same sex, and, besides, I think they have brains that in some ways are more feminized in some areas. Like, I'm guessing, personal grooming and pride in appearance. More female traits.
True, except for the bears/leather types. Which is the exact oposite.
Gay men seem to diverge into two camps. One very macho. One very femmy.
Gay women...not so much. Yeah, you got the bull dykes. But the lipstick lesbians? Mostly just made up by the media/straight chicks looking for attention.
If you a lesbian and you aren't bull dykey, yer probably more mainstream looking.
So their split is "very macho vs. normal looking."
Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 12:19 PM (Y2WVW)
Burbank. We have a perfect micro-climate for tomatoes. I picked new potatoes yesterday morning.
Those fuckers are living on borrowed time until America Day on July 9.
Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 12:20 PM (BARAe)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 12:23 PM (Z05lF)
Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 12:25 PM (BARAe)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 12:26 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 04:23 PM (Z05lF)
Just what are your plans for these baby watermelons? You do know that they are raised in inhumane conditions until they are ripped away from their mothers don't you?
Posted by: Vegetable Rights Action League at June 25, 2011 12:26 PM (yQWNf)
I do not believe anyone decides to become gay because they're so into themselves.
Christ no. Who would "decide to be gay" for Gods sake? It's not a choice. Period.
Posted by: jewells45 at June 25, 2011 12:26 PM (Z71Vg)
foguere at June 25, 2011 04:13 PM (B60j2)
I think he tends to be embarassed by it. In many ways his morality views are pretty conservative.
On the other hand, I remember one of his comments in a thread, he said he didn't usually talk about what happened at gay parties/gatherings/soirees, because it tended to freak out the straights.
It could be because straights would be freaked out by the idea of gays holding hands. Or it could have been more...explicit.
But I think it was leaning more towards the later. Not necissarily crazy so. But leaning that direction. More so than straights did.
Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 12:27 PM (Y2WVW)
I hate you.
I live in NJ, supposedly the home of great tomatoes. That is such a blatant falsehood that I struggle with my temper every time someone mentions how wonderful Jersey tomatoes are.
I used to live in California. A friend brought me tomatoes from his dad's house in Bakersfield one summer. This was 13 years ago. I still vividly remember the taste.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 12:29 PM (LH6ir)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 12:32 PM (nj1bB)
ace at June 25, 2011 04:26 PM (nj1bB)
Yes, of course. Just like with the mention of lesbians a bit earlier.
However, we're talking about trends, noticeable trends. There are always exceptions to the rule.
By the way, I don't live on a dirt road in Alabama.
I've been arround gay people aplenty.
Also, you can't keep saying that gays are only 1% of the population, and also say that hidden gays are all around us.
Especially when gays tend to very much congregate in certain metro areas (SF, NY, Austin, DC)
Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 12:33 PM (Y2WVW)
ace, this should be axiomatic, but for some reason many people are convinced that being gay is a choice.
For most of history, and in many places to this day, being a homosexual was very bad for one's health. Like beaten to death bad or hanged bad or stoned to death bad. Yes, some societies tolerated homosexuality, but most didn't up until very recently. So arguing that it is a choice makes me think that people are confusing homosexuality with masochism.
Who would choose to be ostracized, denigrated and hated, with a side of brutality?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 12:33 PM (LH6ir)
Posted by: MJ at June 25, 2011 12:33 PM (BKOsZ)
Posted by: Kathy Griffin at June 25, 2011 12:34 PM (AZGON)
An ex-girlfriend told me I was supposed to encourage him, and maybe I was "supposed" to, but honestly, I didn't really want to hear about it.
Exactly, but I also don't want to hear about the sexual escapades of my straight friends either. Some things just don't need to be discussed. I always wondered about some people I know who had to let me know every detail of their sex life. I just. don't. care.
Posted by: jewells45 at June 25, 2011 12:35 PM (Z71Vg)
I hate you.
Welcome to the party Pal!
They've got commemorative shirts in the gift shop.
lol
Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 12:36 PM (BARAe)
I know one of my best friends brings up his gay romps some times and I cut him off and say "that's gay, dude."
An ex-girlfriend told me I was supposed to encourage him, and maybe I was "supposed" to, but honestly, I didn't really want to hear about it.
Holy crap, that is hilarious. Man, I can totally see getting lectured by some chick about that...and the discomfort that would cause.
Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 12:37 PM (Y2WVW)
Posted by: Mandy P. at June 25, 2011 12:37 PM (vGmv/)
Posted by: tmi3rd at June 25, 2011 12:38 PM (WRtsc)
Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 03:52 PM (BARAe)
But "some people are different and we treat each other with respect" isn't what's being taught, is it?
We finally thought we found a form of government that didn't expand like an explosion to take over everything in your life, only to find that it did, it was just a little slower than the others.
You can dodge, you can bob and weave, but you can never run quite fast enough to get away from it.
I am waiting to see what happens when the European-style "enforcement of government-approved social norms on the churches" comes. They don't care about the 10th or 2nd Amendments, why should they really care about the 1st?
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 25, 2011 12:38 PM (bxiXv)
An uncontrollable desire to jump off cliffs.
An uncontrollable desire to leap into oncoming traffic.
An uncontrollable desire to not engage in breeding behavior.
All end in the same thing.
But because people can still get a nut off of it, it becomes something different or more important somehow.
Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 12:40 PM (BARAe)
I just ask him which is better: a clip-on tie or one of them new fangled zip-up ones. That ends the conversation right there and I can go back to thinking about Yvonne Craig.
Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 12:40 PM (B60j2)
Posted by: cinyc at June 25, 2011 12:42 PM (JWnXR)
Sexuality is more easily discussed with my friends if it starts clinically (which, of late, has been more common). In any event, the various social subsets that I've had a chance to have conversations about have typically been very critical- most of my colleagues regard the Berkeley-type acting out as making their lives more difficult. They won't speak out against them because they regard them as allies of convenience (and usually easy lays), but the tone of disapproval is impossible to miss.
It does make their lives more difficult. Both my kids are embarassed as hell by these boa wearing, thong wearing, in your face gays. They both went to one gay pride event here several years ago and never went again. They were completely disgusted by the behavior.
Posted by: jewells45 at June 25, 2011 12:43 PM (Z71Vg)
Posted by: George Orwell at June 25, 2011 12:44 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: ParisParamus at June 25, 2011 12:44 PM (QN76w)
Posted by: tmi3rd at June 25, 2011 12:44 PM (WRtsc)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 04:33 PM (LH6ir)
Queers For Palestine?
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 25, 2011 12:45 PM (bxiXv)
Instead, straight guys now have role models: Levi Johnson, got two teen girls pregnant, Mike the Situation Sorrento, and Johnny Knoxville from Jackass.
So, that's the marriage situation. Its for gay men (congrats elites!) and kids are for single mothers who have a different kid by a different father each time (congrats elites for making family like a nest of scorpions!)
Congrats elites!
Posted by: whiskey at June 25, 2011 12:45 PM (L03mw)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative)
Devil's Advocate/ my position on the topic of gay predestination, abbreviated...
The problem with the absolutist genetic view, as I see it, is that it flies in the face of reality. Obviously, there's juvie/prison sex. Does it never carry over to the outside? And we all know about the girls who "experiment' in college. And the "happily married" fathers of four whose genes magically switch at age 45, what to make of them?
As far as Rights go, none of this matters until you start assigning special status. Are you assigning it based on a behavior? A gene? A state of mind?
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 12:46 PM (Z05lF)
Posted by: tmi3rd at June 25, 2011 12:46 PM (WRtsc)
To establish my bona fides, as many of you know, I'm an opera singer (used to being the only straight man in the room) and moving into medicine (and one of my more recent "accomplishments" was diagnosing a yeast infection in a friend's goatee after he'd been tossing salad).
Heh. Maybe medicine wasn't such a good idea? Opera...not so bad in comparison.
Speaking of medicine, what is up with the lack of female protologists? I mean, I gotta get my stuff checked out. Ladies get lady gynocologists (or at least have the option) Me? I'm stuck with the male doctor who decided that looking up asses all his life was A-OK.
I mean, if if gotta have a hand up my ass, couldn't it least be a petite lady hand? It'd feel less gay.
I'd be willing to pay extra for that. Seriously. The thought of having to look some man doctor in the eye and talk to him after he's had his hand in my ass is kinda bringing me down.
God forbid I see him on the street afterwards... "Hey, there's the guy who just had his hand up my ass."
Who needs that?
Forget it. I don't need a protologist that bad. I mean, the odds of colon cancer aren't that high.
Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 12:48 PM (Y2WVW)
Mmm.
The most attractive I've ever seen her was in an early episode of Man From U.N.C.L.E. Weird, yeah, but she was stunning.
Posted by: foguere at June 25, 2011 12:52 PM (B60j2)
the freaks are regarded as exactly that- freaks- and there is a real hypersensitivity about the notion of being judged by the company you keep.
Yep. Both of my kids wish that any strides made towards acceptance of gay marriage or even just gays in general could have been done more "under the radar" so to speak. Speaking about it in a civil tone, laying their case before friends and family etc. in a rational way. The freaks have set their cause back 50 years. Of course some people will never accept it. Hell I have a BIL who thinks all gays are going straight to hell. He's great with my son and daughter and of course would never say that to their face, but his strict catholic upbringing won't let him think otherwise. But at least he keeps his opinion to himself.
Posted by: jewells45 at June 25, 2011 12:54 PM (Z71Vg)
I used shorthand, which was obviously not a good idea.
I believe, and there is evidence to back me up, that there is a genetic component to homosexual behavior in humans.
But human behavior is unbelievably complex, and genetic effects in general range from miniscule to profound. So it is reasonable to assume that there is a range of homosexual behaviors that may be minimized or maximized by the environment.
This genetic component, even if proved by science, has nothing to do with marriage as I see it. Marriage has been defined by society as the legal and spiritual union of a man and woman. I see nothing in society that requires that this definition be changed.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 12:57 PM (LH6ir)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 12:58 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ace at June 25, 2011 01:03 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 01:04 PM (BARAe)
I'm not sure that XYY is implicated in violence. There were studies done in the 1960s that showed some mild increase, but they were superseded by a larger study in Scandinavia that showed no link.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 01:07 PM (LH6ir)
Posted by: alexthechickhelper at June 25, 2011 01:08 PM (m7mGc)
Speaking of medicine, what is up with the lack of female protologists? I mean, I gotta get my stuff checked out. ...............................
I mean, if if gotta have a hand up my ass, couldn't it least be a petite lady hand? It'd feel less gay.
................................
Forget it. I don't need a protologist that bad. I mean, the odds of colon cancer aren't that high.
Posted by: ed at June 25, 2011 04:48 PM (Y2WVW)
ed, FWIW, if you have the digital test, female doctors have smaller fingers ... as opposed to to the guy who is 6'3" with a pinkie th size of your thumb ... I vote female in this case.
However, if you have the periscope test, all 6 feet plus (and there are VERY MANY BETTER WAYS to die than colon cancer), you might be better off with a guy. I failed my first test, specifically by not saying "NO Doctor, excise ALL of it", but I will point out that we had journeyed all the way down the Yellow Brick Road, so I was somewhat otherwise occupied at the time. When we went back, again, all the way down the Yellow Brick Road, it seems that the Wicked Witch of the West had moved and left no forwarding address. This is unlikely to be a source of embarassment only for me. Had the doctor been female, well, there's the whole FemDom thing, and it seems freaky enough, but there has to be som action for me ... but probably not in this situation, so no.
But for other medical procedures, female doctors and nurses can be quite reassuring. Getting a dental crown really is a bit easier ....
Posted by: Arbalest at June 25, 2011 01:10 PM (HlMmB)
On the other side are liberals, many of whom are gay. I'm a straight woman who does not understand gay men, and I had no preconceived notions about homosexuality at the outset. Have met a bunch of gay men by now, and have never found any common ground; it's like their identities are wrapped in liberalism first, their sexuality second (or the reverse?) and I can't relate to either of those. Essentially I would like to see normal, loving couples recognized as normal, loving couples without giving mobs of effete, snarky, self-celebratory crotch-focused hornballs some kind of victory. Unfortunately, that's not possible.
Posted by: Tee at June 25, 2011 01:12 PM (nJfqR)
ace and CBD, I see exactly what you both mean, and those are the reasons are why I don't have a 100% declaration of my position on the issue. Still haven't figured it out.
Back to one of my earlier points, if we're going to be Legislating around something then we should be able to define it. Is it a behavior? A condition? In short, are all homosexuals created equal? Might sound petty and semantic, but ultimately we're talking about real things ranging from property rights to college scholarships to discrimination suits.
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 01:15 PM (Z05lF)
@39: "My list of political issues that don't matter:
1) Abortion - with us forever, so yeah, it doesn't matter any more. It simply is.
2) Gay marriage - will be with us until Sharia takes over, so it's not an issue either way. Won't be stopped until the Crescent rises, won't last 5 minutes after it does.
Issues that should matter a lot more than they do:
1) School choice - Teachers unions will never yield. "For the chilluns" agitprop will always work. Should matter, but as a practical matter, never will.
2) Deregulation - Dead issue for a good while. People will not soon forget 2008. Maybe not the fault of deregulation, but tough to sell deregulation after it.
3) Getting rid of Marxism and its analogues within our culture, society, and government - Never happen (short of genociding its adherents). Marxism and its analogues ARE our culture, society and goverment now.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at June 25, 2011 01:15 PM (2xfbm)
Bullshit.
Riiiight.
Prison rape doesn't exist. My bad.
Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 01:16 PM (BARAe)
Posted by: mike at June 25, 2011 01:16 PM (KsI1l)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 25, 2011 01:29 PM (kmmGJ)
Ladies and gentlemen, Dostoevsky! Performing right here at our own AoSHQ!
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 25, 2011 01:38 PM (bxiXv)
Shame and shunning are awesome (dictionary sense, not surfer dude speak) cultural players which we have mostly abandoned.
For a glimpse into the possibilities, check out the people in Canada who, after the riot, are currently being named and shamed.
Considering the internet and its potential, I believe shaming will come back into vogue. The problem is, in many cases it will be lefties shaming and outing traditionalists.
Posted by: kdny at June 25, 2011 01:48 PM (C4bBq)
Posted by: kdny at June 25, 2011 05:48 PM (C4bBq)
In the larger and more organized sense, yes. Kind of like how reporters would pretty clearly *love* to do Keef Olberdouche's "worst person" routine every day but get reined in by their editors (they still do sometimes, especially small papers/stations).
But to an extent I think once that ball gets rolling it will be everybody with time on their hands shaming everyone they don't like.
Kind of like 50% of the "funny pictures" industry is today.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 25, 2011 01:52 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 01:08 PM (aLloM)
Narcissism.
Another attempt to fill up the emptiness - this time, with government-mandated approval, because what narcissists can't abide is guilt. And it's destined to be another failure.
The only thing all your past failures have in common is YOU.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 25, 2011 02:07 PM (lGFXF)
Overlooked, per usual, as in the tiresome "check one" choice: Married, Single, Divorced.
Posted by: Widowed with Children at June 25, 2011 02:13 PM (wOaLi)
You are probably gone, so this is going nowhere...but you didn't specify which tough, horny men you were discussing.
I have been horny for as long as I can remember, and I can certainly handle myself in a fight. But that doesn't mean that I take what I want sexually.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 02:17 PM (LH6ir)
I meant men in a confined space for long periods of time. Ship, prison, summer camp, broken elevators, long car trips, porta-potties. Stuff like that.
We cool.
Posted by: sifty at June 25, 2011 02:39 PM (BARAe)
30 Ways the IRS Controls Churches
http://tinyurl.com/yrr5y9
Posted by: Shiggz at June 25, 2011 03:08 PM (mLAWK)
--- it is a choice. nothing so far has proven otherwise. science hasnt either.
Posted by: str8 outta at June 25, 2011 03:22 PM (ZJIX/)
He's an emotional lawyer. They're the -second- worst. The worst being emotional judges. (See Prop 8.)
Honestly, when I did some digging on NY's bill (now law) yesterday, I found that they had broken the usual 72 hr posting procedure (sound familiar?) and I also read that the conscientious objection protections were weak. I was unable to find the text of the bill.
I assumed that our resident legal beagle (Gabe) would have found it, analyzed it, and posted it.
Instead, I found a victory dance of a post with no analysis and a snotty concluding statement about "marriage equality" that clearly was intended to stick his finger in our eyes. (And I know which finger.)
So I'm basically done with this guy who claims to be a lawyer. I find no evidence that he has a legal mind. I only find evidence that he has an emotionally immature nature.
Posted by: Y-not at June 25, 2011 03:40 PM (TFxd0)
Posted by: Y-not at June 25, 2011 03:41 PM (TFxd0)
Posted by: buzzion at June 25, 2011 03:45 PM (oVQFe)
Posted by: Y-not at June 25, 2011 07:40 PM (TFxd0)
IANAL, so the fact that he never deigns to defend any of his gay-related posts against legitimate criticism is what tells me his analysis isn't worth much.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 25, 2011 03:46 PM (/t9t1)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 25, 2011 03:47 PM (kmmGJ)
---BINGO.
homosexuality in my opinion derives from this and also a mental-defense mechanism, the lifestyle built up around it entraps them. so their 'identity' forms through this and its hard to break away from. kind of like how aging hippies never can let go of the 60's.
Posted by: str8 outta at June 25, 2011 03:51 PM (ZJIX/)
Hey, where's that troll shivas irons from the thread last night on this one? I mean, the guy said he was only gonna pimp the blog but steer people clear of the comments section due to the inordinate amount of Pant-Shitting Fear the commentariat here held toward Teh Gheys.
Forget seeing 150mil uniques now man. Game over.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 25, 2011 03:51 PM (/t9t1)
Yep. You know, DrewM catches a lot of crap here, but I hope his opponents appreciate that fact that at least he stays on the threads and defends his position.
Of course, I'm a dirty RINO, so I agree with DrewM half the time anyway -- but I think my point is still valid.
I've said it before, but I will remind the pro-gay marriage crowd that they took this little black duck from an position of agnosticism on the issue (personally opposed, but...) to being firmly opposed to gay marriage. I have never read a valid argument for why it is needed. And I certainly agree with those who recognize that polygamy is next.
Now you can say "why should I care? does that affect me?" But from what I've read of the situation in Europe, especially the UK, the drain on their welfare system from supporting Muslims' multiple wives is pretty bad.
Posted by: Y-not channels a certain segment at June 25, 2011 03:54 PM (TFxd0)
So I don't think it's out of the question for people to decide to be 'the other' even when it comes with negative attention, since they take the negative attention as a sort of badge of pride or something.
This is absolutely true. Anyone should recognize this from their own experiences and certainly mental health professionals know this to be true.
Posted by: Y-not at June 25, 2011 03:55 PM (TFxd0)
--- they tell me "equality"........bwahahahahaha
its a validation of themselves. they want to 'feel' normal...because deep inside they KNOW theyre not.
put a gay man around 10 hot chicks oiled up in bikinis...watch em sweat.
theyre scared/awkward around the females.
Posted by: str8 outta at June 25, 2011 03:57 PM (ZJIX/)
Posted by: Diver at June 25, 2011 03:59 PM (o7a02)
Why Lesbians Aren't Gay.
Gay Gene Or Gay Germ?
Posted by: ranger117 at June 25, 2011 04:00 PM (LxMIe)
I notice that homosexual men tend to act like old biddy aunties in work settings. They get in everyone's business and dispense advice to moronic women about their love lives and expect it to be followed. The women who enable these guys by fawning all over them and following their (invariably terrible) advice irritate the heck out of me.
The homosexual women I've worked with fall into two categories: aloof (which is fine by me) and dominant bitches. But at least they are not given any special rarefied status by straights as having superior judgment (and fashion sense).
Posted by: Y-not at June 25, 2011 04:04 PM (TFxd0)
Posted by: str8 outta at June 25, 2011 07:57 PM (ZJIX/)
Can't tell you how many gay men I've known who have no problem going straight when given the right circumstances.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 25, 2011 04:05 PM (/t9t1)
I think it's hard for the gay lobby to acknowledge even the slightest possibility that homosexuality is anything but a genetic certainty. The moment they acknowledge even extreme examples of that being the case, they have to examine the lesser examples. Do the "Joe Camel" cartoon rules apply, where mere exposure increases propensity? Is a kid who grows up in P-town more likely to be gay than a kid in Dallas? If so, why? These are bad questions when seeking special status, good questions when looking for real answers. Which ones do they ask?
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 04:07 PM (Z05lF)
the burning hatred of men, alot of em have the chirrens and family thing goin...man cheats/leaves...she gets pissed, determined not to be done wrong again...boom lesbian...
...the other type i think is jealous of the male strength, and strength of character (sense of honor, compatriotism etc ) with other males. its a bonding they dont feel as much with other catty women...so they become bull dykes....
gay men are more inclined to be trapped within the homo-lifestyle-identity politic moreso than the womenseseses.
straight men have shed all caring for their awkwardness around hotties when reaching a certain age. weve all took one for the team, weve all had the one hottie we'll never see again, and have mostly satisfied themselves sexually. its really not rocket science...
Posted by: str8 outta at June 25, 2011 04:10 PM (ZJIX/)
Don't know if this was brought up before but all the arguments for gay marriage I've heard all inevitably lead up to the laws we used to have in this country about prohibiting misegnation and how unfair all those were.
I shoot back; those were unfair, but interacial couples usually didn't force the issue as much. The one couple who did and got it legalized; the Lovings, were just ignoring the law and living however they pleased. It was when the government tried to arrest them THEN they took it to the courts.
Posted by: Serena at June 25, 2011 04:11 PM (44LEs)
As a biologist, I have never understood how that argument gets them anywhere. Lots of schizophrenics have a genetic pre-disposition to that syndrome. They get treated.
I know that there are folks in the deaf community, the Asperger's community, and others who have decided to embrace their condition and elevate it into some kind of culture. They're proud of their conditions and resent it when the majority tries to offer cures.
I think this is the same thing.
But, hey, if someone doesn't want a cochlear implant. That's fine. However, I am not going expect the world to turn itself upside down to reinvent reality so that somehow deafness isn't an abnormality. If you want to live with it, fine. But don't make me pretend you aren't different.
Posted by: Y-not at June 25, 2011 04:21 PM (TFxd0)
Basically it goes like this: being gay makes you feel like a weird outsider and feel guilty because you desire what everyone around you thinks is repulsive at the very least. In order to fix these feelings of estrangement and guilt, some gays are loudly demanding everyone stop saying they're weird, normalize their behavior - no matter how strange - in society, and shun anyone who dares disagree with this agenda.
Its an attempt to fix what's inside by making everyone else act differently. Its sort of like Black Adder when the Old Wise Woman suggests BlackAdder kill everyone else on earth to fix his problem.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 25, 2011 04:23 PM (r4wIV)
How do you know someone's not going to take marriage and child-rearing seriously, before the marriage and the children actually happen?
Posted by: Tee at June 25, 2011 04:26 PM (nJfqR)
I'll take one more chance at being banned by the software here (2 times so far) and comment.
"The worst being emotional judges. (See Prop 8.)"
This is one of the major points about gay marriage that I have a big problem with.
The particular judge in question was apparently an active homosexual, an in a relationship at the time of the ruling, but this information was not public.
It has only recently been made public, and rather than accept it as a reason to reverse his ruling and retry, the claim has been made, in public print, that to expect his decion to be simply reversed and that he should have recused himself in the first place is like saying a minority judge should not rule on discrimination cases.
On the face of things, this is bullshit, and the judge should be removed from the bench for not either recusing himself, and/or not fully disclosing his behavior and current relationship(s).
Homosexuality is a condition caused / identified by behavior, rather specific behavior(s) in fact. If you do or engage in certain behaviors, then you are, if you do not, then you are not. After all, you cannot be a master of kung-fu simply because you say you are; you need to be able to show some moves.
This is unlike race or sex or age or ... where you are what you are, simply by existing.
In a subversive manner, this judge advanced his cause. Rather than make his situation and implicit biases public, up front, he allowed the general public to believe that he was like anyone else, or at least 96% of everyone else, and forced a change in ... culture ... societal norms ... acceptable behavior ... on everyone else in California.
So, we have couple of problems here in California: a rogue, activist Federal Judge, answerable to almost no one, is legislating "... culture ... societal norms ... acceptable behavior ..." his way, by deriving rights, assuming meanings that clearly were not intended, etc., and the CA State government will do nothing to protect the citizens.
This situation generates various questions, like: What rights do we, individual citizens, really have? What guarantees do we have that these rights will be respected / enforced against the government? Who will do the enforcing? What guarantees do we have that these rights will not be suddenly taken away, perhaps by some off-the-cuff judicial ruling?
If a judge can simply derive meanings, rights, etc., by his own will, what's to stop him from abrogating existing (and, implicitly, inconvenient) rights, on the spur of the moment?
Suddenly, I see gay marriage as now suddenly much less of an issue.
Posted by: Arbalest at June 25, 2011 04:27 PM (NhL36)
We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build the new society. Getting from here to there is a process of coming together in a disciplined way around ideology and strategy
Posted by: Cherry π at June 25, 2011 04:29 PM (OhYCU)
Our intention is to disrupt the empire ... to incapacitate it, to put
pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning
against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from
the inside.
Our intention is to engage the enemy ... to wear away at him, to
harass him, to isolate him, to expose every weakness, to pounce, to reveal his
vulnerability.
Our intention is to encourage the people ... to provoke leaps in
confidence and consciousness, to stir the imagination, to popularize power,
to agitate, to organize, to join in every way possible the people's day-to-day
struggles.
Our intention is to forge an underground ... a clandestine political
organization engaged in every form of struggle, protected from the eyes and
weapons of the state, a base against repression, to accumulate lessons,
experience and constant practice, a base from which to attack.
Posted by: Cherry π at June 25, 2011 04:31 PM (OhYCU)
---/agree. kind of like when a gay man who hits on you says "how do you know YOURE NOT GAY!" as if a light will suddenly go on and you agree to a date.
a male's instinctual hunter-gatherer compatriot disposition is why homo-men have it harder "leaving" the gay circle. itd be like trying to ask a cowboy fan to don a steeler shirt for day.....aint gonna happen.
Posted by: str8 outta at June 25, 2011 04:34 PM (ZJIX/)
The particular judge in question was apparently an active homosexual, an in a relationship at the time of the ruling, but this information was not public.
It has only recently been made public, and rather than accept it as a reason to reverse his ruling and retry, the claim has been made, in public print, that to expect his decion to be simply reversed and that he should have recused himself in the first place is like saying a minority judge should not rule on discrimination cases.
Yeah they use that argument because they think its the best bet they can go to and win.
This follows more of an example of say a lawsuit being brought against a specific church and the judge being a member of that church. He could stand to directly benefit or be harmed by the decision and should not be the one on that case.
Posted by: buzzion at June 25, 2011 04:36 PM (oVQFe)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 05:02 PM (Z05lF)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 25, 2011 05:07 PM (Z05lF)
Posted by: Rondinellamamma at June 25, 2011 05:37 PM (165ZM)
Posted by: tolerance does not imply approval at June 25, 2011 05:48 PM (4zYjy)
We are absolutely cool. I will defer to your superior knowledge about homosexual sex, coerced sex, and sex in prison!
[And please reassure me that I don't need a stupid "Joke" emoticon]
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 25, 2011 05:59 PM (LH6ir)
In this sense this gay marriage agenda is truly an assault on our society and should be resisted vigorously.
Posted by: Iblis at June 25, 2011 06:02 PM (37NT4)
In the larger scheme this is a relatively small thing.If the country weren't fucked six ways to Sunday I'd be hopping mad at this.
Posted by: steevy at June 25, 2011 12:46 PM (aLloM)
This is part of the reason the country IS fucked six ways to Sunday.
Our elections keep being decided on the basis of "social issues" -- the lefties keep scaring everybody with their crap that conservatives are gonna re-institute the Salem witch trials -- and that is why the damn socialists keep winning the elections -- and then imposing their will on us about everything, not just "social issues" but economic and foreign policy issues, too.
Plus, the artificial separation of "moral" and "economic" issues reflects the erroneous premise that they're not all part of the same social fabric. Classic political thinkers would be scratching their heads at our stubborn obtuseness on this. As many on the thread (along with John Adams, Ben Franklin and a bunch of other wise people) have pointed out, self-government is only possible when you're talking about a moral, self-disciplined people, which is both cause and effect of strong, generationally-connected families.
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at June 25, 2011 06:11 PM (2AfqM)
Posted by: Clyde Shelton at June 25, 2011 06:13 PM (kmmGJ)
Posted by: Richard at June 25, 2011 06:14 PM (qSBEX)
Speaking as a Christian/conservative, it's not so much that we believe homosexual behavior is a choice, we believe that it is a sin. And given that biblical doctrine tells us that the heart is wicked without God, then everyone starts in that state. The first concern of a fundie should be that these people are unsaved, not that their behavior or inclinations speak to that. Now, a lot of people will tell me that having that belief is hateful and intolerant, but I disagree.
If not for the threats to free speech, threats of liberal indoctrinational creep, I doubt most Christian people would be so up in arms over this issue.
On the surface, I really could care less about gay marriage or people being gay or whatever. I believe it's wrong, but I also believe a lot of other things that go on in this world are wrong too. Believing something is a sin does not mean I hate gays or want them to be beaten, or any other ridiculous thing I have heard some activists spout off. However, it does concern me that if asked if I or my church believes homosexuality is a sin and we answer truthfully, that that will land us in jail for hate speech sometime in my lifetime. Or have the church burned down by a mob while the cops look the other way.
I know some will claim that that is silly and that it's born out of fear or intolerance. However it's hard to circle that square when my attitude around the gay people I associate with (including a few I consider friends) has pretty much been that they know I'm a fundie and hope they would convert, but most of our interactions are "Hey, let's go have coffee and talk about movies."
Sorry for such a stream of consciousness type of post, but I think the slippery slope fear is very real for some of us and with good cause.
Posted by: Stella at June 25, 2011 06:16 PM (80vm5)
Megadittos.
See the brilliant Ann Coulter making this same point:
http://tinyurl.com/6hqnx7n
Also, see this great article about the Frankfurt School, and how openly they talked about how the quickest, most effective way to destroy society -- and therefore, their number-one most important tactic -- is to destroy the family and sexual morality.
http://tinyurl.com/3bxekqw
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at June 25, 2011 06:18 PM (2AfqM)
You'll also notice that traditional morality was tossed aside in the soviet union. That's why to this day, they have negative population growth, and massive problems with prostitution.
Posted by: Iblis at June 25, 2011 07:21 PM (37NT4)
You totally rock.
I wanna join your fan club!
There are so many, many good commenters on this thread, I almost hate to single one out -- but you do stand out.
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at June 25, 2011 07:48 PM (2AfqM)
However, there is absolutely 0 chance that it will recognize gay marriage as a sacrament. Yet, it knows that the govt will try to insist that it recognize it and attempt to make it an active participant. Since gay marriage is incompatible with the sacrament, it can't happen.
How the upcoming battle against the Church on this topic is different than Stalinism, I don't know.Perhaps you've seen this very disturbing (but very possibly accurate) statement by the Archbishop of Chicago:
"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr." --- Francis Cardinal George, 2010.
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at June 25, 2011 08:04 PM (2AfqM)
Lots of great comments here.
You know what happens when the state does not sanction marriage? You get a lot of impoversished single mothers and lot of messed-up kids. You get stuff like a Muslim man being able to divorce his wife by saying "I divorce you" three times, and immediately marrying her sister because she is younger and more fertile. Men are pigs who are not naturally monogamous, while women want one mate for life. This puts women at a disadvantage in the relationship, unless the state imposes and enforces the marriage contract. It puts children at huge risk of poverty and dysfunction if Dad can just walk out when he feels like it.
The state has an absolute interest in securing the rights of women and in promoting stable families with both biological parents present. This is worth a tax break for married man/woman couples, just as owning a home gets you a tax deduction because homeownership is beneficial to society.
What is the state's interest in sanctioning and enforcing a commitment between two people whose motivations are the same and who cannot produce children? Why should they get a tax break? Who gives a shit if Steve walks out on Gary? They are equally likely to stray and tire of monogamy, and there is no greater chance of either being impoverished by a divorce.
This is really important stuff which neither supporters nor opponents of same-sex marriage generally want to discuss. I don't care what the Bible says, I care that we need monogamous man/woman couples raising children in a stable environment in order to avoid massive poverty and societal dysfunction. Because this is most assuredly not a natural state for heterosexual men, the state needs to encourage it and enforce it by sanctioning marriage.
We need same-sex marriage like a fish needs a bicycle.
Posted by: rockmom at June 25, 2011 08:04 PM (u8gFC)
Homosexuals do not want marriage for the same reason heterosexuals generally want it. They simply want what is not theirs because it's denied them. Like little children, the reason why it's denied them doesn't matter. No reason is acceptable. And like children, when given something they do not deserve they despise it and treat it with contempt. They know only that they want and tend to destroy what they're given.
Bingo.
They're throwing a petulant, nihilistic temper tantrum.
The real rage is against their own condition -- which is why they overcompensate so much in the matter of "gay pride."
It reminds me of the "I am woman, hear me roar" type feminists, who hate their own biology so much that the only way they can see themselves as being able to stay competitive with men is to kill the children they conceive in their own wombs.
It's ironic that many people in the abortion-"rights" and "gay"-"marriage" movements are also ardent environmentalists, because, deep down, they HATE Mother Nature.
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at June 25, 2011 08:24 PM (2AfqM)
Even Obama, who embraces the most leftist of issues, dare not piss off the black churches by backing gay marriage.
Nor his Saudi benefactors and Iranian pals.
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at June 25, 2011 09:46 PM (2AfqM)
You support "gay tolerance" but you oppose gay marriage. What did you think was eventually going to happen to society once the sin and perversion of homosexuality became "tolerated?" Did you think they would stop making demands for validation of their deviancy once you gave them their "tolerance?" Or did some voice in the back of your head say "they won't settle for this", just as Christians and social conservatives had warned you?
It's now become a crime to criticize homosexuality as immoral or perverse. It's fashionably chic to praise homosexuality as normal and valid, even though faith and culture and basic human anatomy tell us otherwise. And it's still not enough. Gay marriage is no different from all the other issues that led up to it--- they don't want to get married, they just want to use the law to beat every person into silence who pricks their conscience.
Posted by: RealityCheck at June 25, 2011 10:01 PM (zcgPp)
Actually they're already in conflict; the Left's just in total denial about it.
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at June 25, 2011 10:53 PM (2AfqM)
"My list of political issues that don't matter:
1) Abortion - with us forever, so yeah, it doesn't matter any more.
Yeah, it doesn't matter. When you've already murdered 50 million people, what's another million or so a year?
I nominate you for this thread's Uncle Joe Stalin award.
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at June 25, 2011 11:12 PM (2AfqM)
Doom to them.
Let me finish this by saying that as I observed the "Coming OUT" in the S.F region 1978-1981. The carnal deprivation evidenced in the Castro district was nothing short of Roman Fall! So much so that the mayor closed down ALL the bath-houses because they were nothing more than SUPER incubators for AIDS. Which in hind-sight was a gross error in judgment given todays headaches. Even without religious conotations the very simple biology of male/ female anatomy stands in mute testament to their overwrought argument and screaming meme to ACCEPT them as normal?
Not until natural biology births us all with 2 sets of reproducing organs.
REALLY.....was that so hard?
Posted by: Richard at June 25, 2011 11:43 PM (qSBEX)
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at June 26, 2011 01:49 AM (jn3w5)
Posted by: Eric S at June 26, 2011 04:49 AM (GPwIb)
Posted by: Jaynie59 at June 26, 2011 05:54 AM (4zKCA)
Moral decay and a deliberate, systematic corrosion of virtue is why we are seeing the problems pile one on the other. This is a direct, one to one causation, you trace the present problems to the past corruption of basic ethical values and traditional virtue.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2011 07:10 AM (r4wIV)
So by the standards of evolution we know homosexuality is not genetic. Thus the behavior is either a choice, conscious or subconscious. Now some would argue in favor of it being a biological condition: "Who would choose to live as a homosexual given all the negatives (social, health, mental etc) experienced by homosexuals? Its insane to do that, so it must be genetic." But we know its not genetic, so the only logical alternative is that its a form of mental illness.
So the question to us is, why are we upending our society's building blocks to satisfy a mentally ill group? What does that say about our sanity?
Posted by: Iblis at June 26, 2011 07:30 AM (37NT4)
In the 80's the narrative of the left was 'Dont force your values on us rightwingers!"
Facts:
Marriage is a religious institution. It existed long before this (or most) government existed. This government decided at its inception (as do all governments) to recognize that institution. That does not give this government, or any special interest group, the right to change the rules, or very nature, of an institution that existed thousands of years before the founding fathers were born.
I wish the left would live up to it's own principles,ha-ha, what am I thinking, that will never happen!
Posted by: hughie at June 26, 2011 07:47 AM (+56Bh)
A "gay gene" is a self destructive dead end, and would have wiped its self out billions of years ago by this scheme. The fact that some argue it persists suggests a serious flaw in the entire theory.
But if you accept that, you have a choice between "gay is natural" and "evolution is truth" and which will people pick?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2011 08:17 AM (r4wIV)
I know. Why do you think I framed it they way I did? Delicious isn't it? They have to choose which is more important to them.
Posted by: Iblis at June 26, 2011 08:36 AM (37NT4)
Schizophrenia has familial genetics and has persisted for fucking ever. Recessive genes get passed along by the "lucky" ones with differing dominant genes.
Posted by: Word Equality at June 26, 2011 08:47 AM (wOaLi)
Posted by: Word Equality at June 26, 2011 08:53 AM (wOaLi)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2011 09:04 AM (r4wIV)
Agreed. It would be up to government to decide if a religious ceremony would include the rights of a civil contract or if those wedded in marriage would have to seek a separate civil contract.
Posted by: Word Equality at June 26, 2011 09:09 AM (wOaLi)
It's clear that things evolve, but the "theory of evolution" is ridiculous as an answer to life itself.
Posted by: Word Equality at June 26, 2011 09:16 AM (wOaLi)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2011 09:20 AM (r4wIV)
Ace is right though, the more the government pulls stuff like this, the more it de-legitimizes itself.
Posted by: Iblis at June 26, 2011 09:24 AM (37NT4)
Trust me, it's still the narrative, even as they take away our incandescent lightbulbs, make it impossible for us to smoke, jack up the price of gasoline (and force us to use lousy toilets and washing machines that don't clean laundry) in order to save the environment, and foist same sex marriage on us and demand that we approve it.
Posted by: Kensington at June 26, 2011 09:30 AM (uaEZS)
Posted by: Eric S at June 26, 2011 04:10 PM (GPwIb)
"... The left is working in concert with the gay lobby because they know that homosexuality makes a fine vehicle for destroying the pillars of a just society. ..."
============================
Well, that, and ORGASMS!! They want to make sure that everybody from infancy on is exposed to sex and lust and more sex. Let's start in grade school and teach the kids that their bodies are capable of really good sensations and that they have a RIGHT to do anything they want, with anybody they want, in any WAY that they want. Sex is natural and healthy and important --but not sacred and not special-- and as long as the Left can provide bread and circuses and SEX, the slaves won't care that they're slaves.
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at June 26, 2011 08:12 PM (RkQ5v)
Posted by: adc at June 27, 2011 09:00 AM (VCCe8)
Posted by: Steve at June 27, 2011 05:26 PM (/68PJ)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3179 seconds, 713 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Uddercha0s at June 25, 2011 07:58 AM (sWBlL)