July 27, 2010

At the National Organization for Marriage rally on the Capitol steps in Madison, Wisconsin today...

... the counter-protest was much more visible:

P1010060

P1010062

P1010066

But the speakers plugged away nonetheless:

P1010098

The National Organization for Marriage attracted a very small crowd, including the touching smallness of children, who can't know which side they will want to be on...

P1010091

... even as the speakers proclaimed themselves on the side of the children, who — all the science shows! — need a mother and a father.

P1010100

"Everyone loves a gay boy":

P1010113

In the end, Madison spirit prevailed:

P1010110
(Enlarge.)

Now, what's next?

P1010111

I love therefore I am!

P1010117

UPDATE: Video.

166 comments:

Methadras said...

Stupid sentimentality follows stupid people. If you want to be a homosexual, then you should gird yourself to the fact that you won't be a participant in certain activities. If you don't like that situation, then change your situation and use the powers of your choice to find someplace that will cater to your indulgences. You can still get married, just not to the same gender. If you don't like that argument, then logic eludes you.

El Pollo Real said...

That last could be adapted to read: Ammo ergo sum for a 2nd amendment rights rally.

El Pollo Real said...

I'll bet that speaker has a short memory.

Ann Althouse said...

"If you want to be a homosexual, then you should gird yourself to the fact that you won't be a participant in certain activities."

Oh, come on now. Did you choose YOUR sexual orientation? And who participates in everything?

It's not about "logic." Everyone gets that you could still marry someone, someone you aren't sexually attracted to. So what? This is about fairness and equality. It's not that hard.

Ann Althouse said...

"I'll bet that speaker has a short memory."

LOLOLOLOL.

Jason said...

The last woman, holding the sign, is the only pro-gay marriage person I saw that didn't totally turn me off to their cause.

It's like the gay rights movement has been overwhelmed with mobys or something, except that they're not moby's. They really are that off-putting.

If gay rights demonstrators looked more like that beautiful young woman in the hat, and less like the refuse from a Village People concert, they'd have passed their legislative agenda by now.

Quayle said...

Could there be a bigger collection of false dilemmas and straw men knock-downs than is displayed here?

Nobody thoughtfully against gay marriage is denigrating your love or your person-hood; what we're against is the easily predictable second and third generational ills that will arise from your current social experiments.

Quayle said...

"Did you choose YOUR sexual orientation?"

Did the alcoholic choose her insatiable urge to drink?

Did the pedophile choose his proclivity for children?

MayBee said...

I am absolutely 100% pro gay marriage.

I wish the guy wasn't wearing the white dress in the pro gay marriage protest. I think pro gay marriage people forget, sometimes, that they/we still need to convince people to come to our side. To do that, they/we have to remember to appeal.

mesquito said...

I'm just grateful we have federal judges to figure this stuff out for us so we don't have to worry our pretty little heads.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

I don't think I will ever understand why gay people think it is so important to get married. As it was popular to say back in the sixties (I'm sure you'll remember this Professor) You don't need a piece of paper from the man to sanctify your love. Gays seem to want to create a paradigm where they're special (read different) but at the same time they're exactly like everybody else.

I predict the following: within ten years gay marriage will be legal in all fifty states, (but not Puerto Rico!). Following that it will be discovered that the marriage rate among gays is below ten percent, and of that ten percent, fewer than half stay married longer than five years. Gays love the idea of marriage-- the reality not so much.

Flexo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Palladian said...

I stand by my position, articulated in the pages of this website many times before, that the state has no business telling anyone, gay or straight or otherwise, who they can and cannot marry, because marriage should not be subject to government regulation. Marriage is a religious/romantic compact between persons and not the business of the state. If two people wish to enter into a legal bond, then there should be a neutral contract available to them regardless of sex.

If the institution of marriage is as ancient, in-grained, strong and sacred as traditional marriage proponents claim it to be, then why does it need the irrational protection of a temporal government? The legislation of morality, be it from utopian left-wingers or right-wingers, speaks of a weakness of the morals in question.

Leave the definition of marriage up to individual churches and other institutions, and leave the state out of it. Then we can all be happy.

Anyway, this thread is going to turn into an ugly hate-fest.

A preemptive fuck you to anyone who deserves it.

Quayle said...

Flexo is right - I didn't choose my anti-gay-marriage orientation, I was born with it.

So why are you haters out in front of my religion's temples hurling your hateful language at me?

Palladian said...

"I don't think I will ever understand why gay people think it is so important to get married."

Why do straight people think it is so important to get married?

Palladian said...

"So why are you haters out in front of my religion's temples hurling your hateful language at me?"

Because you're an asshole and we hate you!

Flexo said...

Did you choose YOUR sexual orientation?

The underlying premise of such a question is that those who call themselves "gay" lack free will. They are mere puppets of biological determinism. They did not choose their "orientation," they do not choose who they have sex with or how they have sex, they do not choose the "gay" lifestyle that fairly frequently embraces stereotypical effeminate affectations, they do not choose their political activism, they do not choose to do any of these things. It is all part of their unchosen "orientation." They do these things even as against their will. They are compelled to do so by their DNA.

(Of course, any biology that compelled one to be homosexual, a "gay gene," is a pretty piss-poor biology since, by its very nature it is destined for extinction (damn that Darwin!) given that a man cannot reproduce with another man, and a woman cannot reproduce with another women -- the only way that homosexuals can reproduce is through heterosexuality.)

Now, could we say the same thing about those who dissent against the gay agenda? Of course not! That would be absurd! An orientation against militant gay activism? How irrational -- the "orientation" canard only runs one way, don't you know?

Palladian said...

"Now, could we say the same thing about those who dissent against the gay agenda?"

We certainly could. Mental retardation and stupidity are also often biologically determined.

mesquito said...

I'll take my stand with Quayle, Elton John, Rush Limbaugh, and Barack Obama.

Mrriage should consist of one man and one woman.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Palladian said...

Why do straight people think it is so important to get married?


Exactly.

wv: wifidess-- a female wifid

Walter said...

I see Methadras is still on here passing on his/her limitless bigotry and disdain for logic.

Quayle said...

"Because you're an asshole and we hate you!"

Is your urge to hate also driven by your DNA?

Because right now that seems more defining and shaping of you than your homosexuality.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Palladian said..

I stand by my position, articulated in the pages of this website many times before, that the state has no business telling anyone, gay or straight or otherwise, who they can and cannot marry...

"So why are you haters out in front of my religion's temples hurling your hateful language at me?"

Because you're an asshole and we hate you!


Does anyone else here perceive a contradiction in Palladian's (ahem) thinking?

Ann Althouse said...

"I don't think I will ever understand why gay people think it is so important to get married. As it was popular to say back in the sixties (I'm sure you'll remember this Professor) You don't need a piece of paper from the man to sanctify your love."

I certainly remember that, but:

1. A lot of benefits are determined by marriage, so it becomes a matter of fairness.

2. I object to private clubs that only accept male members, even when I don't want to belong to those clubs. The exclusion is an expression of rejection.

I realize some of you think gay people should be rejected -- like rapists and pedophiles. If that's what you think, you should be clear that is what you are saying. I think most Americans do not feel or do not think it's right to feel that kind of animosity toward gay people.

Meade said...

Laura Bush got it right:

"I think that we ought to definitely look at [gay marriage] and debate it. I think there are a lot of people who have trouble coming to terms with that because they see marriage as traditionally between a man and a woman, but I also know that when couples are committed to each other and love each other that they ought to have the same sort of rights that everyone has."

Lem said...

I find Palladian's arguments @7:36 very persuasive.

Except that I cant find our "state" staying out of anything. Specially with regard to thorny issues such as this.

mesquito said...

Althouse objects to private clubs which accept only male members.

Is she saying that the power of the State should be used to break up such clubs?

If that is what she means, she should be clear that that is what she is saying.

sonicfrog said...

I don't think I will ever understand why gay people think it is so important to get married.

Why does anyone want to get married? There you go!

Gays love the idea of marriage-- the reality not so much.

How exactly do you come by this fact? What is your proof to back up this statement?

Signed:

Mike aka Sonicfrog, who has been with the Sonic-Mate for 14 + years but can't get married.

PS. I recognize this isn't an easy topic for many to deal with, including my would-be mother-in-law. She treats me and her son with great respect, yet she also gave money and organizational support to both Prop 22 and Prop 8. Do I consider her an enemy???? No! Of course not. We just have a disagreement on this issue.

sonicfrog said...

Oh, and yes, I agree. If so many of the rallies didn't look like freak shows, they might win a few more hearts, enough to make a difference.

Palladian said...

"Does anyone else here perceive a contradiction in Palladian's (ahem) thinking?"

Life is heated by the friction of contradiction.

Palladian said...

"Do I consider her an enemy???? No! Of course not. We just have a disagreement on this issue."

See? Contradiction! It's the basis of our humanity.

Trooper York said...

I don't care if gays get married. They should suffer like everybody else.

But I really don't want the blogger lady in my club.

AJ Lynch said...

"A lot of benefits are determined by marriage, so it becomes a matter of fairness."

Have you ever wondered why the gay rights groups have not sued the fed govt re social security's unequal treatment of married vs. single? I think that would be a good place for them to start but they don't because it ain't about "benefits", it's about wanting what someone else has [aka marriage] IMHO.

And like most every liberal grievance group, it is never ever really over. They won't stop asking for more and more no matter how much the govt & society gives in. Do you think Justice O'Connor was accurate and /or corect when she said affirmative action would be unnecessary in 20-25 years?

bagoh20 said...

"This is about fairness and equality."

That's only one side's argument.

The problem with gay marriage is that to legalize it, you must accept that anyone should be able to marry anyone simply because they are attracted to that type of relationship, which is no standard at all.

The logical basis for marriage being exclusively heterosexcual is a thin but stark line. So much so that no society has ever condoned it officially.

I would prefer it just not be a function of governemnt at all. It's a private religious/spiritual union.

Single people should not be discriminated against like this.

I demand equality. I was born outside of every legally protected class, which should be a protected class itself. No body is discriminated against like the single-normals. We are invisible.

ironrailsironweights never had a choice and yet he suffers at the hands and razors of a fickle modernity.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Ann Althouse said...

2. I object to private clubs that only accept male members, even when I don't want to belong to those clubs.


Object all you want. I for one think it is a basic right to associate with whomever I wish. If I want to go to a club where I can behave as I want without fear of offending those who think ill of such behavior, I think I should be allowed to. What gives you the right to intrude? You say "...even when I don't want to belong to those clubs" and by saying so you fall in line with my original argument. Gays don't really want to belong to the marriage club, they're just pissed off that they're not allowed to. I say that if you don't want to belong to my male-only club, then your rights are not infringed by not being allowed to.

AJ Lynch said...

Do you object to the NAACP Althouse? How about NOW? or DAR?

Lem said...

..but they don't because it ain't about "benefits", it's about wanting what someone else has [aka marriage].

You make it sound like marriage is some kind of inheritance (private club) that gays are illegitimately claiming.

AJ Lynch said...

Lem:

Well hasn't it been been passed down from generation to generation by virtually every culture known to man?

Meade said...

"But I really don't want the blogger lady in my club."

Then shut it down, big boy.

No blogger lady, no club.

IT'S THE LAW!

Tyrone Slothrop said...

sonicfrog said...

How exactly do you come by this fact? What is your proof to back up this statement?


No, I have no proof. You have no proof that I am wrong, either.

peter hoh said...

Nobody thoughtfully against gay marriage is denigrating your love or your person-hood

The "No true Scotsman" rises again.

Ignore all the nuts on my side, while I make a great deal about the nuts on the other side.

Pogo said...

NOM?

nom nom nom

Marriage is a chewy topic, nearly indigestible. It is better left on the bedpost, like gum, to be taken up later and chewed all over again.

nom nom nom

Lem said...

Well hasn't it been been passed down from generation to generation by virtually every culture known to man?

Then maybe its time for a makeover ;)

El Pollo Real said...

@Meade @Trooper York

You guys used to love each other!!

Well not love-love but you know what I mean.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Before I get flamed any more, I just want to make it clear that I don't have any visceral objection to gay marriage. I just find the pro-gay-marriage agenda to be long on payback and short on sincerity. Like Ann, you only want to belong to my club because you can't. Once an all-powerful state decrees that Ann must be permitted to join my club, she'll lose interest. Hell, straights are losing interest in marriage at an alarming rate.

Trooper York said...

Hey Meade is invited to join anytime.

It's just that the blogger lady likes to boss everybody around. You can't have that.

I mean if they have seperate beds they can have seperate clubs right?

Quayle said...

"I realize some of you think gay people should be rejected -- like rapists and pedophiles. If that's what you think, you should be clear that is what you are saying."

I want to be clear that I am not saying that. The appropriate magnitude of social rejection is not at issue, and I am certainly not advocating an absolute magnitude of opposition for every social expectation.

The issue I was raising is whether urges, 'orientations' or proclivities are sufficient on their own to require the surrender of the one feeling the urge, and mandate societies' acceptance and support.

You certainly agree that to many urges, orientations and proclivities our society expects resistance, and/or condemns them as immoral. Yet with homosexuality, many advocate surrender and acceptance.

Why? What is the difference? Is it fad? Is fad a rational basis for sound societal morality?

"I think most Americans do not feel or do not think it's right to feel that kind of animosity toward gay people."

I agree, just as we don't have that animosity for other people that suffer with, for example, excessively strong urges to gambling or abuse drugs.

But the magnitude of society's opposition is wholly independent of its direction.

You can't argue the direction is wrong because some might advocate an improper amount of force in that direction.

Pogo said...

"Hell, straights are losing interest in marriage at an alarming rate."

Mission accomplished.

Trooper York said...

Look how mean she is being to Ezra (Alfalfa) Klein and Ollie (Fred Berry)Willis and Andrew (Louie Anderson)Sullivan.

She is a big old meanie-pants.

Michael said...

I belong to a once male only club that ultimately capitulated to the demand by women that they be allowed to apply for membership. Much ado. Then much much expense to provide locker and bathrooms for women where once there were none. Then more ado. Then admissions were open to women properly sponsored and seconded. Many applications, many acceptances, many new members. Actual use of the club by women? Not so much. I think that about half the women who joined were disappointed to learn that no business was conducted in the club contrary to their initial bleating that they were being excluded from the opportunity to participate in these clubby deals and elbow rubs with the powerful. The other half were disappointed in the food. Having broken down the gates they all mostly moved on.

bagoh20 said...

Couldn't you have a private club that didn't permit bitching or makeup?

Trooper York said...

bagoh20 said...
Couldn't you have a private club that didn't permit bitching or makeup?

No we can't do that. I want Palladian to belong. Just sayn'

AJ Lynch said...

Lem:

Every culture before us has excluded same sex people from this particular ritual.

I support civil unions and, when I am Emperor, I would do away with benefits tied to marital status.

But I don't agree with you when you say it is time for a makeover IMHO.

Trooper York said...

To tell you the truth letting women in destroyed McSorleys as a joint you could hang out in. It became a frat house after that.

Revenant said...

"Did you choose YOUR sexual orientation?"

Did the alcoholic choose her insatiable urge to drink? Did the pedophile choose his proclivity for children?

That's an amusing follow-up to:

Nobody thoughtfully against gay marriage is denigrating your love or your person-hood

You're not denigrating their love or person-hood. You're just suggesting that if they wanted to, they could suppress their urges and pretend to be "normal", the way pedophiles and alcoholics have to.

I wonder. If I owned a restaurant that banned Mormons from eating there, would you accept my claim that I wasn't denigrating Mormons? After all, you could choose to repress your religious urges, like a pedophile represses his sexual urges. If you can't come into my restaurant, why, whose fault is that but yours?

The whole "thoughtfully against gay marriage" schtick would work better if the people presenting it showed evidence of having thought about the subject.

bagoh20 said...

If this continues and exclusive clubs disappear, exclusivity will become the most valuable and sought after condition. It will be a powerfully addictive and illicit drug of the future with a government war on it and political fights of unprecedented violence, yet it will never be quelled because it is a basic human desire.

The desire of the big government mind is to scrub humanity from the human...and then tax the shell.

Revenant said...

Gays seem to want to create a paradigm where they're special (read different) but at the same time they're exactly like everybody else.

Substitute "Opponents of gay marriage" for "gays" and doesn't that exactly describe the whole "I'm in favor of civil unions but you can't call it marriage" camp?

Trooper York said...

Plus the gays aren't fair either.

I mean when you get in line at the hottest clubs in New York the gay doorman at the velvet rope won't let us bridge and tunnel guys in. Just because we have the wrong haircuts and we bought our suits at Robert Hall. I mean is that fair I ask you?

shoutingthomas said...

The artsy sophisticates of Madison versus the gray dumb farmers.

Same scenario 40 years ago at the University of Illinois when I was an undergraduate.

Something about people who live and work at a college that they love this little drama. 40 years from now, in college towns they'll be playing it out over another childishly contrived controversy.

Ann, sometimes you are just too childish. Take a trip out of Madison to some very unfashionable small town.

I like theater too, Ann. But, I know that the fact that one side puts on better theater means nothing except that they put on better theater. Well, it means that the drama queens like a lot of attention. And, they always think they're better than the quiet folks who don't crave attention.

It all amounts to what?

Trooper York said...

By the way nobody would ever want Mormons in their restaruant. They don't drink and that is where you make all the money.

Quayle said...

"You're not denigrating their love or person-hood. You're just suggesting that if they wanted to, they could suppress their urges and pretend to be "normal", the way pedophiles and alcoholics have to. "

"I wonder. If I owned a restaurant that banned Mormons from eating there, would you accept my claim that I wasn't denigrating Mormons? After all, you could choose to repress your religious urges, like a pedophile represses his sexual urges. If you can't come into my restaurant, why, whose fault is that but yours?"

So are you arguing that one should never oppose or resist any urges they may have?

No - of course not. You merely advocate selective resistance.

So it should be simple for you to just tell me which urges should be resisted and which one's not.

And tell me what is the basis for the delineation.

Trooper York said...

I also have my doubts about couples who share a hamburger and a glass of beer, but that is a discussion for another day.

Quayle said...

By the way nobody would ever want Mormons in their restaruant. They don't drink and that is where you make all the money

Tis true - and the primary reason Utah doesn't have many, if any, good restaurants (and, therefore, one reason I refuse to live there.)

peter hoh said...

I realize I am treading on thin ice, suggesting that Althouse's analogy could be improved, but here goes:

Imagine if the government gave certain privileges to members of the males-only private club.

That's the situation with marriage. The state grants certain important benefits to married couples.

Perhaps there's still time for a civil union compromise. I'd welcome it, but I suspect that there will be no such compromise.

Trooper York said...

You know who you want in your restaurant?

Garage Mahal.

I hear he makes six figures.

He would probably go for that expensive bottle of wine

bagoh20 said...

Most of my friends are gay, and I'm on the fence about the issue. The pro gay marriage argument is simple and obvious - treat us all the same.

But, I also share a concerne with those against gay marriage. It is such a huge departure from the history of mankind, and we have often seen disastrous unintended consequences from much smaller changes. I want gays to have all the same rights, but also think there should be a special place for the union of the different sexes. It is undeniably a different thing and absolutely necessary for everything else we are, and is so for a large part of the living planet. That should count for something and at least cause us to pause before dropping it like bell bottoms, halter tops or doo-wap.

Trooper York said...

That's doo-wop pal.

It's invented by the Italians after all.

Dion. Frankie Valli.

Get with the program.

GMay said...

There is no debate here, just like there is no debate on abortion. There are only sides.

AJ Lynch said...

Peter:
Obamacare, if not repealed, will lad to single payer universal healthcare which would make most spousal benefits redundant except for social security inequity.

So pray for continued penetration of Obamacare into all of our lives and you may get what you want. But by then spousal benefits won't be worth anything!

Meade said...

AJ Lynch said...
"...Do you think Justice O'Connor was accurate and /or corect when she said affirmative action would be unnecessary in 20-25 years?"

AJ, Apparently, in that case in which O'Connor authored the majority opinion and made that prediction, it took less than 4 years for a majority of Michigan voters to decide they no longer needed affirmative action.

shoutingthomas said...

The movie "And the Band Played On," the classic gay propaganda movie, sets out the game in all its glory.

On the one side, we have the gay, clever, colorful and loving gay folks who want to push the boundaries of human freedom.

On the other side, we have the wicked Ronald Reagan, who refused to drop all of the other business of the nation to attend to the demand of the beautiful San Francisco Gays.

In this fairy tale, evil enters. Where is comes from nobody knows. The wonderful, colorful, and loveable gays are suddenly dying from, of all things a terrible disease!

Ronald Reagan, the despised Big Daddy, must respond immediately to save the wonderful, colorful and loveable gays. After all, he's a stiff, colorless Big Daddy. It's his job to take care of things when everything goes bad for the kiddies. They may hate him. But, he must do the job of Big Daddy when they call upon him.

And, then, the horrible Big Daddy... doesn't rush to the rescue of the wonderful, colorful and loveable gays! He must want to kill them! Yes! He hates them and wants to kill them!

So, we must hold a gay pride parade. That's what killed all of us! Lack of pride! And, who's responsible for that terrible lack of pride! That Big Mean Daddy! He's the one. Big Mean Daddy!

Question: Who did more for the cause of human freedom? Ronald Reagan or the kiddies?

Quayle said...

But, of course, my references to alcoholism when talking about gays and relationships are entirely ridiculous and comletely far afield, right?

ht instapundit

peter hoh said...

AJ, what about spousal inheritance?

Michael said...

I am all for gay marriage. Anything to stop these "protests." Next, of course, will be the protests against each of the religious denominations that does not wish to sanctify these kinds of marriages. That will be next. After that surely something else, surely some slight that will have to be righted and some more vile costumes swanned around public places to make some kind of point. For fairness and equality.
But I am in favor of marriage sanctioned by the state for gays, lesbians and the transgendered. Heteros too, of course.

MayBee said...

I don't think I will ever understand why gay people think it is so important to get married.

Why does anyone want to get married? There you go!

Gays love the idea of marriage-- the reality not so much.

How exactly do you come by this fact? What is your proof to back up this statement?

Signed:

Mike aka Sonicfrog, who has been with the Sonic-Mate for 14 + years but can't get married.


This this this.
This should be what all the pro-gay marriage discussion should be like.
No reworking the entire way the State deals with marriage.
No hate.

All about gay people who love each other being able to be married because the State grants them a marriage license. Other people might not qualify for a marriage license, but gay people should.
It's so simple to imagine.

bagoh20 said...

"affirmative action would be unnecessary in 20-25 years?"

It's necessity is now political and thus has a life of it's own.

peter hoh said...

Question: Who did more for the cause of human freedom? Ronald Reagan or the kiddies?

Ronnie, when he signed California's no-fault divorce law in 1969.

For an interesting, long-view of the issue, take a look at this Fukuyama essay, The Great Disruption.

Today many people have come to think of marriage as a kind of public celebration of a sexual and emotional union between two adults, which is why gay marriage has become a possibility in the United States and other developed countries.

Palladian said...

"You know who you want in your restaurant?

Garage Mahal.

I hear he makes six figures."

Then why won't he fork over a measly 40 bucks for one of my beautiful prints like he promised?!

Trooper York said...

"Palladian said
Then why won't he fork over a measly 40 bucks for one of my beautiful prints like he promised?!"

Well you didn't do one of roadkill.

I told you I would buy one if you did one of the Althouse commenters as dogs playing poker on Velvet. And did you do it. NO!!

The customer is always right.

bagoh20 said...

"That's doo-wop pal."

Yea, but the doo-wap was a short-lived variant in Jewish-Mormon neighborhoods of Madison from July 4th to 7th, 1958. It was very hip.

edutcher said...

Homosexuals don't want equality, they want special privilege to be or do anything they want, whether it's available to heterosexuals or not - or does anyone really believe heterosexuals regularly get away with orgies in public parks and public displays of lewdness the way homosexuals do?

The big panic over homosexual marriage came only after the AIDS epidemic so the infected partner could use the other's medical benefits. Otherwise, the 'gay' lifestyle was and is about being as promiscuous as they want.

Palladian said...

I stand by my position, articulated in the pages of this website many times before, that the state has no business telling anyone, gay or straight or otherwise, who they can and cannot marry, because marriage should not be subject to government regulation.

Baloney! Marriage is also an economic and legal union and marriage statutes protect wives (and husbands) and secure the rights of the children of those unions - something that has been in force for hundreds of years. Denying this economic aspect is like saying illegal immigrants are simply 'undocumented Americans'.

Ann Althouse said...

1. A lot of benefits are determined by marriage, so it becomes a matter of fairness.

OK, do you want those same protections for people who live together? That's fairness, too.

2. I object to private clubs that only accept male members, even when I don't want to belong to those clubs. The exclusion is an expression of rejection.

Do you object to the many women-only organizations and colleges?

Scott said...

This is Maggie Gallagher's outfit, isn't it. Did they finally kick her off of The National Review Corner?

Oh, btw, if you didn't know already, I'm a raving homosexualist. I'll be happy to answer any of your questions about my lifestyle.

Don't be shy.

peter hoh said...

OK, do you want those same protections for people who live together? That's fairness, too.


edutcher, hetero couples who live together already have the option of getting married.

shoutingthomas said...

Oh, btw, if you didn't know already, I'm a raving homosexualist. I'll be happy to answer any of your questions about my lifestyle.

Please keep your fucking mouth shut about your fucking lifestyle.

I keep my fucking mouth shut about my fucking lifestyle.

Why won't you?

You should watch Hank Hill. There's a great episode about the wonders of keeping your fucking mouth shut, instead of dumping your shit on anybody in your immediate vicinity.

Palladian said...

"Homosexuals don't want equality, they want special privilege to be or do anything they want, whether it's available to heterosexuals or not - or does anyone really believe heterosexuals regularly get away with orgies in public parks and public displays of lewdness the way homosexuals do?"

Are you kidding?? Have you ever been out of your house?

But I like your line of reasoning: we faggots want to get married because we also want special rights to fuck in public parks!

"Baloney! Marriage is also an economic and legal union and marriage statutes protect wives (and husbands) and secure the rights of the children of those unions - something that has been in force for hundreds of years."

What other economic/legal union in the United States is regulated/restricted by the sex of the parties to the contract?

And: if opposite-sex marriage is such a fundamental, innate part of the human experience, why does it need regulated by the government?

RLB_IV said...

My personal experience tells me that behind the desire for gay marriage is the cry for acceptance.
Acceptance by the family and society at large is the major issue. Secondly, the financial consideration is desired for the reward of government largess. Many will be suprised in 2011 when the "Bush" tax cuts expire and the marriage penality is reinstated.

Once again, we are back to accumulating wealth. Gay couples who are financially sucessful have always had ways to be as one couple... power of attorney, joint saving, a trust, etc. But to do this requires trusting your partner, interesting, yes? But then, in a straight marriage you can really be screwed when you don't sign prenupial agreement.

Why do I keep hearing, "life's a bitch and then you die". If people are looking for peace, love and happiness, why do they look to government?... only to turn freedom to surfdom..

Scott said...

First question, from Shouting Thomas:

"I keep my fucking mouth shut about my fucking lifestyle.

Why won't you?"


Good question!

I don't buy the premise that you keep your fucking mouth shut about your fucking lifestyle. But let's assum, in arguendo, that it's true.

When you do open your fucking mouth, so much fucking belligerant ignorance comes flooding out that answering it is irresistable.

You cunt.

Thanks for asking! Next question, please.

Jason (the commenter) said...

bagoh2o: I want gays to have all the same rights, but also think there should be a special place for the union of the different sexes.

That the state enforces? The people who want marriage to only be legally recognized when it is between a woman and a man are only attached to it for religious reasons. This is a religious issue and the government is practicing religious discrimination.

Palladian said...

"OK, do you want those same protections for people who live together? That's fairness, too."

Yes, it is. Any two people should be able to enter into a domestic contract.

If marriage is about fucking and producing children, why don't you require a fertility test and a proof of sexual intercourse before the issuance of marriage licenses? If you want to restrict civil marriage to opposite-sex couples then what's wrong with further restricting it to "qualified" opposite-sex couples? Why should an opposite-sex couple who aren't having intercourse and/or are disinclined or unable to produce children be allowed to marry. It makes a mockery of the institution!

"Do you object to the many women-only organizations and colleges?"

Not at all, as long as they aren't publicly funded. If the State was forced out of the marriage regulation business, I also wouldn't object to churches being able to refuse to marry same-sex couples, or interracial couples or ugly couples, as long as said churches were privately funded.

Quayle said...

"This is a religious issue and the government is practicing religious discrimination."

There is such a thing as public morality and norms for public good that are unrelated to religion.

Otherwise why do we even have laws. Let's just let people do anything they want, and you can resist the impact to you and yours with any force you are able to muster.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Quayle: There is such a thing as public morality and norms for public good that are unrelated to religion.

I agree. People using the power of the state to cause harm to a minority for purely religious reasons is against public morality and the norms for public good. I'm an American and in this country we are supposed to have religious freedom.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Anecdotal, to be sure, but if you can read the following without laughing, you must have a heart of stone.(http://www.loveandpride.com/informationcenter/tips.aspx?categoryid=8)

2. Massachusetts Gay Divorce Gay couples began seeking gay divorce around seven months after same sex marriages were legalized in Massachusetts. The concept of gay divorce was so unprecedented in the state that couples had to fill out obsolete forms that still read "husband" and "wife." The first gay divorce case in Suffolk County, which includes Boston, was filed a male couple who married five days after same sex marriage was legalized. The couple, a 33-year-old religious educator from Boston and a 39-year-old professor, were based in Washington. The couple cited that their relationship had 'irretrievably broken down' as the reason for divorce, stating that their interests had grown in different directions. The settlement focused on custody of their three cats, who will live exclusively with the professor. As part of the settlement the professor agreed to provide his ex-husband with regular updates on the cats 'in recognition of the emotional hardship of such relinquishment'. Hampshire County reported a divorce filing within two months of the first gay weddings. The state's largest county, Middlesex County, had its first gay divorce three months into the legalization, involving a 38-year-old and a 27-year-old. The older partner cited 'cruel and abusive treatment' as the reason for the break-up.

Palladian said...

"There is such a thing as public morality and norms for public good that are unrelated to religion."

What, in its currently degraded, illogical state, does the State-enforced institution of marriage contribute to the "public good"?

And further, why do you assume that a natural role of the State should be to enforce "morality" and uphold "norms for the public good"?

Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States of America is the institution of marriage mentioned. If the government regulation and control of this institution is of such vital national importance, why isn't it established in the founding document of our Republic?

Perhaps it's because the Founders were wise enough to understand that it was a question better left to churches than to the State?

Scott said...

I'm trying to figure out why any legislation or court case would keep me from loving or having sex with my partner.

Y'all live in your heads too much.

Quayle said...

I'm merely trying to point out that all law, in its essence, is public morality.

What should and shouldn't be moral is open for discussion.

But all morality isn't religion - that's my first point.

Methadras said...

Ann Althouse said...

Oh, come on now. Did you choose YOUR sexual orientation? And who participates in everything?

It's not about "logic." Everyone gets that you could still marry someone, someone you aren't sexually attracted to. So what? This is about fairness and equality. It's not that hard.


Ann, I'll allow myself to get drawn into a discussion about the merits of sexual orientation. I can only view homosexuality in 1 of 2 possible ways. Considering that heterosexuality is the normal orientation for 96% to 98% of the worlds population, then homosexuality is either a biological diversion of some kind which I would view as a disability or it's a selection based on some kind of stimulus on the person that results in their selection of the same sex as the preferred gender of choice. Which I ultimately view as a choice. In either case, it isn't the norm.

I don't expect anyone to participate in anything. I was just making the point that certain people can't participate in certain activities for whatever reason. Be they, physical, cultural, psychological, or social. I simply don't understand the need for homosexuals to make marriage their final stand as a function of wanting to participate in an activity that they have been excluded from participating in for a long long time.

As to the question fairness and equality. Meaningless, there are many things that aren't fair/equal in life. I've learned to live with them, so have millions more, but to ask the vast majority of people, who are and would actively seek to exclude certain people from engaging in certain activities as a matter of legal precedent, well, then the people need to decide that based on the stresses being put on them from those that want to be included. Let's see who wins?

I just don't like the attitudes that have sprung up from the homosexual side of the spectrum. There a lot of homosexuals, that I know, that are frankly disgusted with the way their militant wings have conducted themselves on this topic. They believe that it puts and lumps them in a bad light and all the good will that was being built over time has now been squandered and any lasting acceptance through societal evolution has been for nothing. Instead, people will be forced to accept at the point of law, not from a genuine turn of the heart.

My human nature is, is that if you try to force something on me, then I will put up a wall against it. Instead if you can persuade me that it's the right thing to do, I would join your fight. Homosexuals started this tact and they are wrong in doing so and many other homosexuals that were on the sidelines hoping for a lasting and meaningful turn of society have seen it pissed away. They are the ones that are being cheated. Does that make me a spiteful asshole? Yes, but I didn't start this. I was dragged, kicking and screaming into the argument and this is my position. I am not convinced it's the right time or the right thing to do.

shoutingthomas said...

I'm trying to figure out why any legislation or court case would keep me from loving or having sex with my partner.

No legislation or court is doing any such thing, drama queen.

Try to refrain from outright lies.

And they say gay men are always interesting and exciting.

Some of them are just dreadful bores and stuffed shirts like Scott.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Scott: I'm trying to figure out why any legislation or court case would keep me from loving or having sex with my partner.

Two examples come to mind:

If your partner were in the hospital and you weren't allowed to see them, because you're not a family member.

If the police knocked your door down and arrested each of you, and then put you in prison.

Scott said...

Yeah, unlike you, who used "fucking" five times in a post. That's so exciting and intelligent.

And you're using the leftish technique of shouting "liar" without specifying what you believe the lie is.

So lame. So pathetic.

Pogo said...

Looks like the defenestration of marriage will be a uniter in Wisconsin as much as it is at Althouse.

All are at least agreed that each other can go to hell.

Scott said...

Example 1: It wasn't an issue when my partner died in 1994. I was his only family in Minnesota.

Example 2: If the general state of civil liberties gets to that point, the Second Amendment kicks in. It would hardly be an isolated civil liberties issue

Jason (the commenter) said...

Methadras: I just don't like the attitudes that have sprung up from the homosexual side of the spectrum.

So you're going to discriminate against gays because they have the wrong attitude. That sounds like something Shirley Sherrod would have said.

dick said...

Do you also object to clubs that only accept female members as well? Regardless of whether men want to join or not the men had to open up almost all their clubs and the women didn't. What's good for the goose should also be good for the gander.

Scott said...

If a club is not a place of public accommodation, can't they bar admission based on gender?

wv: babil

Jason (the commenter) said...

Scott, you were trying to figure out how.

There are laws people would use against gays on the books in many states right now. Sure, we have protections thanks to the right to privacy, but it could all go away with a Supreme Court ruling, and people are hoping for it. There are people out there who want to kill us.

dick said...

Trooper,

You are so right about McSorley's. When I first moved to NYC it was a great place to meet your buddies and make plans for the weekend and have a few beers. Then women took them to court and the court forced them to open it up to both sexes. Ruined the whole ambience of the joint. Instead of a comfortable place to relax it became just another yuppie bar and lost most of its business. My buddies and I just stopped going there because it was just too boring.

Michael Haz said...

I object to private clubs that only accept male members, even when I don't want to belong to those clubs. The exclusion is an expression of rejection.

Interesting statement, as it suggests that you do not object to private clubs that only accept female members.

Do you object to universities that accept only women students? Or university "resource centers" that only serve women at coed universities?

Double standard.

Revenant said...

So are you arguing that one should never oppose or resist any urges they may have?

I asked you a question. After you answer it, I'll be happy to field any follow-up questions you might have.

In case you missed it, I'll repeat: if I banned Mormons from my restaurant and said you could simply suppress your religious urges if you wanted to come in, would you believe that I wasn't denigrating Mormons?

Scott said...

Jason, no law will keep people from hating me for being who I am. Social change using the law as a blunt instrument doesn't ultimately work.

Scott said...

Hey, where are all the leftish sock puppets? Aren't they supposed to be the champions of civil liberties?

edutcher said...

Palladian said...

"Homosexuals don't want equality, they want special privilege to be or do anything they want, whether it's available to heterosexuals or not - or does anyone really believe heterosexuals regularly get away with orgies in public parks and public displays of lewdness the way homosexuals do?"

Are you kidding?? Have you ever been out of your house?

But I like your line of reasoning: we faggots want to get married because we also want special rights to fuck in public parks!


I said nothing of the kind. Organized homosexuals have carried out the kind of behavior I described to create 'the gay riviera' in Florida by driving heterosexuals away , counting on pressure from the democrats and the media to keep them from being prosecuted.

As I said, AIDS, and the attendant need for medical benefits, is the driver of the sudden urge for homosexual marriage.

What other economic/legal union in the United States is regulated/restricted by the sex of the parties to the contract?

And: if opposite-sex marriage is such a fundamental, innate part of the human experience, why does it need regulated by the government?


Marriage was created to protect the rights of women and dependent children. Who could marry whom, in terms of consanguinity, among other things, was regulated in the interests of public health. Society, recognizing the family as its building block, took measures to protect it from being debased. The people who wrote the laws were, in many cases, people who knew enough classical history to remember the result of Greek and Roman permissiveness about homosexuality.

AJ Lynch said...

Meade:

I asked your better half if she agreed with O'Connor's prediction.

I did not ask if the voters of the state of Michigan would beat O'Connor by 20 some years.

HT said...

A rather unflattering angle of the pro heterosexual marriage speaker, I thought. Transparent and unfair.

Methadras's view is uncharitable but understandable. Ann Althouse's embrace of gay marriage ... well I can't agree. I think a lot of the people protesting frankly make a mockery out of it all. Who can take them seriously? I mean, which serious people can take them seriously?

I am all for same sex partners getting each and every governmental and tax benefit that married people get, but call me old fashioned. Marriage is between a man and a woman. I have known maybe one or two gay men who have wanted or could be faithful to their partners. I have one gay male friend who was fine with his partner's infidelity and his partner was fine with his. This is a good basis for marriage?

Sorry but - mockery.

There will be many unforeseen consequences to gay marriage.

El Pollo Real said...

We're all just lucky that DTL didn't show up here and hate on everybody.

peter hoh said...

Society, recognizing the family as its building block, took measures to protect it from being debased.

And then the heteros debased it.

A man can divorce his wife and marry his mistress. Not only will the state recognize the new marriage as legitimate (even if some churches won't) but his fellow conservatives will nominate him for the office of president.

amba said...

Your photos are like a cartoon of "hip vs. square." Neither side is very attractive, except for the lad in the "gay boy" T-shirt, who, style-wise, goes to neither extreme.

Beth said...

Do you object to the NAACP Althouse? How about NOW? or DAR?

Do the NAACP or NOW restrict membership? I think the DAR used to restrict by race, but is not the case now.

amba said...

any biology that compelled one to be homosexual, a "gay gene," is a pretty piss-poor biology since, by its very nature it is destined for extinction

Flexo, that's far too simple-minded. If there is a gay gene or genes, it/they may have reproductive advantages in collateral kin who also carry the gene. It may have advantages in that other contributing roles are filled by people who don't reproduce.

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
amba said...

Quayle, how can you equate love with crime?

I do agree that the rainbow/pierced/nearly-naked people do not make a good case that gay "love" is love. But virtually all the gay people I know personally are not rainbow/pierced/nearly-naked. They are coupled and they love, really capital-L love, their partners. Long-term.

Quayle said...

"In case you missed it, I'll repeat: if I banned Mormons from my restaurant and said you could simply suppress your religious urges if you wanted to come in, would you believe that I wasn't denigrating Mormons?"

Yes I very well might, because (in case you didn't know) Mormons analyze and assess the world almost entirely on the question of why one is acting - the motive - and not what one is doing.

Therefore, if I concluded that you were sincerely concerned for me and for society because of your honest assessment of what Mormonism might cause, I would not think you were denigrating Mormons, I would respect your honest concern.

But to many gay marriage advocates in this public debate, gay marriage opponents' acts are ipso facto the implied motive the gays choose for them.

With nay gays, there appears to be zero interest in or allowance for any motive but what the gays say it is. They leave no room for honest, well intentioned, but (in their view) misguided disagreement.

Quayle said...

"Quayle, how can you equate love with crime?"

I can't think of a way, off hand, which is probably why I didn't and don't do it.

amba said...

"Hell, straights are losing interest in marriage at an alarming rate."

Mission accomplished.


Pogo, you think destroying marriage was the gay agenda?? Or that there is any connection between gays wanting to marry and straights not wanting to stay married??

Straights started divorcing like crazy long before gays got it in their heads they might dare to want to get married.

Marriage was destroyed by the ME agenda, not the gay agenda. And whether you have the character and devotion to keep your pledge to stay with someone through good and ill is not a matter of sexual orientation. There certainly is a promiscuous gay subculture. But there's a promiscuous straight subculture, too.

William said...

I suppose the Jersey Shore crowd would have many compelling arguments against the tanning bed tax. The rest of us not so much.... There are several countries in Europe where gay marriage has been legal for some time. I remember reading that only a small percentage of gays choose to get married and that their divorce rate is somewhat higher than for straights. What shocked me was that male gays had a lower divorce rate than lesbians. In any case, I don't suppose there is much difference in contentment between European and American gays.......I looked at the pictures of the demonstrations. I wouldn't be comfortable with either crowd (or any crowd for that matter), but the pro gay marriage crowd clearly had more energy and velocity. They will ultimately win on this issue, but they probably have more passion for the cause of gay marriage than they will have for a steadfast marriage......The Clintons had a more successful marriage than the Gores. That doesn't subvert the institution of marriage so much as it makes it incomprehensible.

amba said...

I didn't and don't do it.

Yes, you do. You group homosexual proclivities with gambling, addiction, and pedophilia, all evidently as evil urges that can and should be resisted.

amba said...

So it should be simple for you to just tell me which urges should be resisted and which one's not.

Resist the ones that cause injury to the innocent.

amba said...

But, of course, my references to alcoholism when talking about gays and relationships are entirely ridiculous and comletely far afield, right?

That article isn't about gays. It's about love addiction and breakup withdrawal, aka heartbreak -- equal-opportunity afflictions.

amba said...

OK, do you want those same protections for people who live together? That's fairness, too.

Many states have that already. It's called common-law marriage.

amba said...

only to turn freedom to surfdom.

The Beach Boys thought surfdom was the ultimate in freedom.

peter hoh said...

Amba, good eye.

amba said...

it isn't the norm.

Imagine a world where everything was the norm. Where every man was named Norm, and every woman Norma.

I'm pretty square, and don't like the flaunting of most anything, but the priggishness and self-satisfied tone of enforcement with which that word is uttered makes me shudder.

Beth said...

amba,

You're so square (baby I don't care)

Quayle said...

"Yes, you do. You group homosexual proclivities with gambling, addiction, and pedophilia, all evidently as evil urges that can and should be resisted."

No, I group them all as urges and proclivities. I said nothign about 'evil', that is your word.

And I don't use it because it is irrelevant to my point, which is that our society routinely advocates and expects resistance to some urges and proclivities some humans have, yet advocates and allows submission and surrender to others.

And I am asking, on what basis? On what distinctions do we differ in whether we advocate and expect or allow people to resist or to give in?

The urge by itself obviously isn't sufficient for us in all cases.

Quayle said...

Why is it sufficient in the case of an 'orientation' towards same sex?

Or what else with that orientation is present in the case of gays, that we should advocate submission and surrender?

amba said...

That doesn't subvert the institution of marriage so much as it makes it incomprehensible.

William's thoughtful, melancholy comment with that great punchline wins the thread, IMO.

amba said...

Quayle,

If you're just talking about urges, and not urges you and other "Norms" think are evil, why didn't you include any healthy, normal urges like eating ice cream, or buying an iPad, or . . .

Quayle said...

"Imagine a world where everything was the norm. Where every man was named Norm, and every woman Norma.

I'm pretty square, and don't like the flaunting of most anything, but the priggishness and self-satisfied tone of enforcement with which that word is uttered makes me shudder."

And so you can't make any observations about anything because it contains an implicit 'norm.'

And I suppose you pour any substance on your garden and house plants - acid, strong base, petrol-chemical - because to pour water on them would be too normal.

Sometimes what is has a normal statistical pattern, and what works or works best becomes normal for that very reason.

Quayle said...

"If you're just talking about urges, and not urges you and other "Norms" think are evil, why didn't you include any healthy, normal urges like eating ice cream, or buying an iPad, or . . ."

It probably is of no use to say it, but I don't think it is 'evil', or certainly not in the sense of the word you seem to attribute.

Look, I made my point. Ann implied that to have an orientation or proclivity was sufficient to justify giving in.

I merely pointed out two obviously areas where we all agree that urges aren't sufficient.

I didn't use the iPad or ice cream example because they weren't as concise to the point, though they certainly apply equally as well.

But even using your example, I'll bet you and I both know people that feel sick inside and personally worthless that they so easily give in to the urge to eat ice cream, and I'm sure upon though, you would agree that they are sadly some of the most neglected and least noticed people in our neighborhoods or social circles.

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
peter hoh said...

Quayle, do I really have to tell you that Amba's play off the "n" word was an attempt to add a little lighthearted humor into the thread.

Revenant said...


Therefore, if I concluded that you were sincerely concerned for me and for society because of your honest assessment of what Mormonism might cause, I would not think you were denigrating Mormons, I would respect your honest concern.


Interesting. Thank you for the reply.

In answer to your earlier question: certainly there are urges that we should repress. Specifically, morally wrong urges. I'm at a loss to think of any urges that ought to be suppressed, which aren't morally wrong. And I don't think it is possible to label an activity as morally wrong without denigrating it and those who practice it.

Beth said...

"iPad" is not as concise as "pedophilia"?

Stop digging.

reader_iam said...

Got to comment #6 and upon reading paragraph #3, checked out.

This may be a first. But that tore it.

Revenant said...

Considering that heterosexuality is the normal orientation for 96% to 98% of the worlds population, then homosexuality is either a biological diversion of some kind which I would view as a disability

Explain your reasoning. How is it a "disability"?

sonicfrog said...

No, I have no proof. You have no proof that I am wrong, either.

Uhm... I am my proof. My gay friends in Fresno who are also in long term, permanent relationships are proof. All of my gay friends in San Diego, who have been in relationships as long, if not longer than I have, are proof.

Again, I ask... What is your proof for your statement?

PS. Gay don't want to have gay marriage to have sex in parks.... They already do that... as do straight couples hooking up for a quick bit of excitement.

sunsong said...

Homosexuality is not an urge - it is an orientation - just as heterosexuality is an orientation.

Nor is homosexuality immoral. Those arguments are void of substance. They are simply attacks while pretending to have something to say.

Why not be honest and virtuous? Why cloak your attacks in pretense? Don't you see your words would have more power if they were true?

Is it not immoral to consciously harm others? Is it not immoral to discriminate against people for no other reason than that they are different? Isn't it really true that the immorality here lies with those who wish to play God over what homosexuals can and cannot do?

There have always and will always be gay people. If you can't come to peace with that - I would suggest that you may have some serious problems.

Methadras said...

Walter said...

I see Methadras is still on here passing on his/her limitless bigotry and disdain for logic.


No, Walter, my bigotry is fairly limited to certain things. As to having a disdain for logic, well, if that was the case, I'd be fairly unemployed and unemployable. There are just certain issues I don't have much tolerance for. Homosexual marriage being one. If that's a problem for you to understand, then I can't help you.

Methadras said...

peter hoh said...

That's the situation with marriage. The state grants certain important benefits to married couples.


That's because the state, [mockery]in its infinite wisdom[/mockery], sees a benefit from this arrangement. Which is telling that it saw one with homosexual marriage, DoMA wouldn't have existed or been written into law. In essence it was a refudiation of that sentiment completely.

Methadras said...

mesquito said...

I'll take my stand with Quayle, Elton John, Rush Limbaugh, and Barack Obama.

Mrriage should consist of one man and one woman.


I saw Elton John in concert last Saturday in San Diego at the Cricket Amphitheater and he sucked. The show sucked and people were leaving half-way through it. Then after 3 songs he had to get up from his piano and told the audience he had to go pee, ran off the stage for 5 minutes and came back to a set list that would bore the dead. Then his last three songs, Crocodile Rock, Bennie and the Jets, and I forget the other one were the last bit of up tempo. Horrible stage presence, and his band was lethargic. I was really disappointed. Even the drag queens that were there were pissed.

Methadras said...

Jason (the commenter) said...

So you're going to discriminate against gays because they have the wrong attitude. That sounds like something Shirley Sherrod would have said.


I don't discriminate against homosexuals, just their militant activism that I disagree with, in that context, those are the attitudes that I was referring to. It's like errant children being told no and then watching throw a temper tantrum. Not discrimination, but clearly you've confused it purposefully.

Methadras said...

Jason (the commenter) said...

There are people out there who want to kill us.


There are many people who would like to murder many other people for no more difference than being from a different tribe, having pre-marital sex, being a prostitute, being cheated on, not liking your face, wearing the wrong colors in certain neighborhoods. Do you honestly believe that you victimhood status should be elevated because 'some people' want to kill you for being a homosexual? Are you really going to make that argument despite the contrary? Talk about being pretentious. Now your homosexuality elevates your likelihood of murder. I'm trying to not laugh at you right now considering the insidious level of crimes within the homosexual community itself. You should be more worried about your fellow homosexual than heterosexuals who would predate you on average than anyone else. Come on, this is a low statement even for you.

Scott said...

Your straw dog is burning.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Methadras: Do you honestly believe that you victimhood status should be elevated because 'some people' want to kill you for being a homosexual?

I'm just being realistic. And I find it funny that you're talking like this since you are the biggest whiner about being a victim here.

The National Riffle Association and Fox News are also big into victimhood. Are you against issues they support because of it?

Pogo said...

@amba:

My 'mission accomplished' response made no reference to the authors of that victory.

The destruction of marriage was a primary tenet of Marxism, and their success is evident. You can see the beginning of the end in Ibsen's plays and in the spread of communism and socialism worldwide. A quite effectve knife in the USA was AFDC and broadened welfare payments.

Gay marriage merely marks the fin de si├Ęcle. The unintended effects will be large, ignored, or celebrated. But like abortion, the fight will go on, and will separate, as here, along binary opponents, each calling the other the devil. Minds are made up.

After this, however, expect religion to be the next target, and the same argument swill be used against it, and be similarly successful, if that's the correct term..

Michael said...

Back in 1963 I walked into the Souther NonViolent Coordinating Committee offices hoping to join and was told I didn't qualify even though I was a student. They suggested I join the NAACP which I did and to which I belonged for nearly ten years at which point I began to see what we have seen.

El Presidente said...

"and we bought our suits at Robert Hall."

Hahahah, Trooper I love you.

El Presidente said...

I know I am late to the party here but this sure looks like street theater rather than any a real attempt to change the law. IN the 1960's civil rights marchers understood the gravity of the situation and wore their big boy pants or Sunday dresses to meet fire hoses. No one takes your marchers seriously and until they do nothing will change.

El Presidente said...

Compare:

http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2009/08/11/1250041577_1805/539w.jpg

to the people marching in Madison. Who is taking their change seriously?

Methadras said...

Jason (the commenter) said...

I'm just being realistic. And I find it funny that you're talking like this since you are the biggest whiner about being a victim here.


Your realism is unfounded in the larger, broader range of who you think is murdering people and for what? Your claim was that people are specifically gunning for you because you are specifically a homosexual. I tore that claim apart in the face of reality. Not your reality, but actual reality. I've never claimed victimhood on anything. Ever. Not on this blog, not in my life, anywhere and for you to say that I am being a whiner and a victim is frankly bullshit. Where am I being a victim? I'm against homosexual marriage. Does that now lend itself to me being a victim?

Methadras said...

Pogo said...

After this, however, expect religion to be the next target, and the same argument swill be used against it, and be similarly successful, if that's the correct term..


The church is the real target. Marriage is the last bulwark in that attack. If homosexuals can successfully tear down marriage, then the church will be next.

Peano said...

Meade said... "Then shut it down, big boy. No blogger lady, no club. IT'S THE LAW!"

Rosebud is kinda cute when he gets his dander up, ain't he?

Revenant said...

The destruction of marriage was a primary tenet of Marxism, and their success is evident.

Yet, oddly, marriage is a more stable institution in China, Cuba, and North Korea than it is in America. It is almost as though Marxism didn't really have much to do with the state of marriage. Almost as though an increase in options -- in freedom -- led people to choose things other than "traditional marriage".

Nah, that's crazy talk. It must be Marxists; that's the only possible explanation.

amba said...

"the same argument swill be used against it,"

Good typo, Pogo.

amba said...

I still don't see how gay people wanting to get married destroys marriage. It's survived a lot of other changes, like you can't marry a six-year-old anymore, can't marry your sister (as Egyptian royalty did), can't have a harem of 100 wives. People used to feel every bit as strongly about interracial marriage being unnatural and the beginning of the end. Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose? I wouldn't go that far...but change is constant, and as almost always felt as a loss. The struggle between conservatives trying to conserve (because we need protection from our own nature) and progressives calling change "progress" (because change is what we do, or we'd still be in caves) results in some good things being preserved, but perhaps in altered form. I think gay marriage (maybe not among the parading activists, but back in the real world) is conservative.

amba said...

Quayle -- implicit norms are fine. Even explicit ones. It's the Norms flying under the smug banner of "It's The Norm" who worry me.

wv "bloparoa"

Aw. That one came four decades too late for doo-wop.

amba said...

Sorry, "flying under the banner" . . . need coffee . . .