May 5, 2011

Trump on same-sex marriage: "It's like in golf... people are switching to these really long putters, very unattractive."

Okay, it's an analogy, you know!
At one point, he compared his opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage to his reluctance to use a new kind of putter.

“It’s like in golf,” he said. “A lot of people — I don’t want this to sound trivial — but a lot of people are switching to these really long putters, very unattractive,” said Mr. Trump, a Republican. “It’s weird. You see these great players with these really long putters, because they can’t sink three-footers anymore. And, I hate it. I am a traditionalist. I have so many fabulous friends who happen to be gay, but I am a traditionalist.”

He said that, should he run, he would offer himself as a “conservative with a big heart.”
Now, do you understand the analogy, wise guy? Before you get your panties in a twist? Think about it!

What's his main point? He's saying it just looks weird to him — the long putter and the same-sex marriage. It bugs him. He's not saying he hates gay people. It's the casual "I hate it" that means "It drives me nuts." Now, it's not all about him and how things make him feel — not if he means to acquire political power. (Which I'm sure he doesn't, even though he's saying he's decided "in my mind" to run for President. Or is it that he's decided to run for President in his mind?)

Anyway, I think that putter thing is rather self-deprecating. He's confessing that his mind has limits, but he sees and talks openly about the limits of his mind. That's actually refreshing!

43 comments:

rhhardin said...

Does nobody just want to preserve the word marriage?

Just as the gays want to appropriate it, to make something disappear.

Too many jims said...

Trump likes traditional marriage so much he gets one every time they come out with a new model

tim maguire said...

To me it says he hasn't thought about it very much and doesn't intend to either.

Scott M said...

When you start making Ron Paul look mainstream, you know have a credibility problem.

johnroberthenry said...

So is trump saying that all gays are "fabulous"?

That feel wrong somehow.

John Henry

Drew said...

Well, that's one way to disarm an interviewer. Half-bizarre non-sequitur and half-incomprehensible comparison. The interviewer struggles to comprehend and finally just gives up.

“Look at that,” he interrupted, pointing to a giant white plane hovering outside the room’s windows. “That’s my plane. How beautiful is that?”

His plane is hovering? Is it a Harrier?

Palladian said...

"said Mr. Trump, a Republican."

Lol. The New York Times must have a macro in their word processing programs that inserts that after any stupid statement by someone to the right of Lenin.

MadisonMan said...

...and yet people with very long putters will win.

madAsHell said...

ohhh!! ohhhh!!

I know! I know!!

Gays have bigger putters?

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

Has Trump's 5th wife been born yet?

Simon said...

I think that's exactly right. We should keep in mind the limits of pure reason (a theme I've sounded before in these pages); it's often the case that we are held back by what seems like instinctive or emotional concerns that we can't quite articulate on an intellectual level. The conceit of the modernist-rationalist complex is to dismiss all such concerns, but the well-formed conservative mind jumps immediately to Edmund Burke, who addressed precisely this point in his Reflections:

"[I]n this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess that we are generally men of untaught feelings, that, instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree…; and the longer they have lasted and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them. We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason, because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek, and they seldom fail, they think it more wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice and to leave nothing but the naked reason; because prejudice, with its reason, has a motive to give action to that reason, and an affection which will give it permanence. Prejudice is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision skeptical, puzzled, and unresolved. Prejudice renders a man's virtue his habit, and not a series of unconnected acts. Through just prejudice, his duty becomes a part of his nature."

We are not accustomed to hearing a rousing defense of "prejudice" because the word has taken on a pejorative cast, but Burke, as if to claim Justice Stewart for conservatism, here situates the instinctive hesitation to get out of the river of tradition. We may not be able to articulate why something is wrong, because of the limitations of individual wisdom or learning, but soaked through with the traditions of Christendom generally and Anglo-American civilization particularly, we intuitively know a problem—and a bad putter—when we see it.

Such concerns are dismissed by the modernists and rationalists (who, like the so-called "legal realists," cleverly sought to adopt names as barricades: Who could be against rationality?), so brilliantly skewered by Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Michael Oakshott in Rationalism in Politics. As the latter observes, the modernist-rationalist "is at once sceptical and optimistic: sceptical, because there is no opinion, no habit, no belief, nothing so firmly rooted or so widely held that he hesitates to question it and to judge it by what he calls his 'reason'; optimistic, because the Rationalist never doubts the power of his 'reason (when properly applied) to determine the worth of a thing, the truth of an opinion or the propriety of an action." These conceits have become so widespread that it is easy to lose sight of the fact that they are just that, and that they must be resisted.

ricpic said...

I thought gays are ipso facto fabulous?

Fred4Pres said...

Trump can be entertaining. What you deem as rereshing can also be undisciplined and idiotic, depending on whatever topic and the context the short fingered vulgarian is opining on.

EDH said...

Reminds me of the story of Mitch Comstein:

Ty Webb: Let me tell you a little story.

I once knew a guy who could have been a great golfer, could have gone pro, all he needed was a little time and practice. Decided to go to college instead. Went for four years, did pretty well. At the end of his four years, his last semester he was kicked out... You know what for?

He was night putting, just putting at night... with the fifteen-year-old daughter of the Dean. You know who that guy was Danny?

Danny Noonan: No.

Ty Webb: Take one good guess.

Danny Noonan: Bob Hope?

Ty Webb: Ha ha... No, that guy was Mitch Comstein, my roommate. He was a good guy.

AFG said...

I feel the same way about seeing blacks in restaurants nowadays. It just looks so strange seeing them in there amongst all the white folk. But hey, I'm a traditionalist. I don't hate blacks, it's just weird to see them at the same bars and bathrooms as whites.

Shouting Thomas said...

I feel the same way about seeing blacks in restaurants nowadays. It just looks so strange seeing them in there amongst all the white folk. But hey, I'm a traditionalist. I don't hate blacks, it's just weird to see them at the same bars and bathrooms as whites.

Jesus fucking Christ! This chestnut again.

Spoiled brat middle class kids are just like blacks under Jim Crow.

I think that slow beheading is the only adequate punishment for anybody jackass enough to float this one.

The real question is: Why do we have to kiss gay's asses? That's really what this is all about.

Ankur said...

I have to say it is refreshing that someonene can admit that their opposition to gay marriage is the "ick factor", and not based on any legal/religious sophistry.

If only everyone was more honest about WHY they really oppose gay marriage, this entire debate would be hashed out much more quickly.

Because really, if people really wanted to protect the "institution of marriage", why isn't there a legitimate movement to ban no fault divorce?

Even better - get the government out of the marriage business. Let the religions own the marriage word that they covet so badly. And let every religion define marriage the way they want it - as long as there is explicit consent from all parties involved in the marriage. And yes - that means I am okay with polygyny/polyandry if a religion chooses to define marriage that way. If someone doesn't like it, they can change religions.

traditionalguy said...

Is The Donald bragging now that his putter is the longest one in the room? I guess no one can compete with the Trump Tower.

Steve Koch said...

So gays are like guys who, because they have really long putters, can stick it in the hole from 3 feet away?

Trump reminds me of Joe Biden.

Simon said...

Ankur said...
"I have to say it is refreshing that someonene can admit that their opposition to gay marriage is the 'ick factor', and not based on any legal/religious sophistry."

That Trump's opposition is based on one thing doesn't exclude the possibility that other people's opposition is sincerely based on other factors. For Catholics, it isn't a question of "religious sophistry," or even on the homosexual question itself (cf. CCC 2357 et seq.), but rather, of the origin and nature of the sacraments and the extent of the Church's authority over them (cf., e.g., Council of Trent, Sess. 7; Sacramentum Ordinis (Pius XII, 1947)).

edutcher said...

I get the feeling The Donald doesn't really want to get into this one, so he's being as obtuse as he can.

ricpic said...

I thought gays are ipso facto fabulous?

Ever get a good look at Harvey Fierstein?

MadisonMan said...

...and yet people with very long putters will win.

Most women don't have enough room for a big putter.

PS Toomanyjims wins the thread.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ankur said...

Simon, that is why I was careful in saying "their opposition", not "the opposition". I recognize that some people can have genuine religious issues. I also know that a lot of people just use religion as a disguise for what really is the "ick factor"

Harsh Pencil said...

Perhaps the ick factor is genetic. Maybe they just can't help it (being icked out). They were born that way. It's who they are. Who are you to deny them expressing who they are?

Simon said...

Ankur, how do you know that?

Amy said...

Long putters? Did he REALLY say that?

Phil 3:14 said...

Like so many other 3rd party candidates (and yest I consider him one) the more he says the "weirder" it gets.

At least when discussing gay marriage he didn't use the phrase
giant, sucking sound

Titus said...

Trump is a traditionalist?

Ankur said...

I don't deny them their right to expression, Harsh Pencil. If its the ick factor that makes them object to gay marriage, they should be loud and proud and admit they are icked out.

Only..if they were honest about the ick factor, they would never be able to influence policy. So they have to hide being religion and tradition and other forms of personal belief which seem to be more acceptable on a policy debate.

traditionalguy said...

@Titus...IMO Trump is a worldly wise promoter of his image as a seller of the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, but underneath he is also very much a traditionalist.

Phil 3:14 said...

AFG;
I feel the same way about seeing blacks in restaurants nowadays. It just looks so strange seeing them in there amongst all the white folk. But hey, I'm a traditionalist. I don't hate blacks, it's just weird to see them at the same bars and bathrooms as whites.

You know you would have been a lot better off using the analogy of seeing an eighty year old guy with a beautiful 20 year old blonde. That would have fit better the "seems weird to me BUT NOT ILLEGAL" message you were trying to send.

Unless of course you really believe that

a)Donald Trump is a racist

b)any one who opposes same sex marriage is no better than a racist

-OR-

c) left wing blogs always tell me the truth and they tell me that this same-sex opposition is just racism in another "color"

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was just a quickly posted and poorly chosen analogy.

jimspice said...

"any one who opposes same sex marriage is no better than a racist"

DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!

Beldar said...

Prof. A wrote, "[Trump's] confessing that his mind has limits, but he sees and talks openly about the limits of his mind. That's actually refreshing!"

So you give top grades to your stupid students, do you? Or do you just complement the ones who own up to their stupidity on being "refreshing" as you flunk them out?

I would agree that Trump's egotism is slightly less off-putting than Obama's, but I wouldn't ever choose the word "refreshing" to describe either.

Sofa King said...

Only..if they were honest about the ick factor, they would never be able to influence policy.

I'm not sure why you believe that. At the very bottom, that's the only justification for any policy.

Fen said...

Harsh Pencil: Perhaps the ick factor is genetic. Maybe they just can't help it (being icked out). They were born that way. It's who they are. Who are you to deny them expressing who they are?

Haha. Nice work.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Ankur: I have to say it is refreshing that someonene can admit that their opposition to gay marriage is the "ick factor", and not based on any legal/religious sophistry.

Saying you make policy decisions based on aesthetics isn't refreshing, it's worrisome. What if he gets into his head that people holding guns doesn't "look right"? Or he decides he doesn't like how criticism about himself sounds?

He is the worst sort of politician, the type that doesn't let people make their own choices for fear they'll make the wrong one. No free speach, no freedom of religion, no free markets; everything planned.

Fen said...

He is the worst sort of politician

Trump? He's not a politician, he's a game show host.

William said...

If you think that's incomprehensible, you should hear him talk about Medicare. Probably something about how wrong it is to hit a fast green with a long iron. He is patently pandering to the golf vote. He is willing to write off the gays and long putterers to get the golf vote.

E.M. Davis said...

Donald Trump is not a Size Queen.

jamboree said...

I think braying old jackasses with their bought wives are grotesque - like Trump. It just grosses me out and has since I was 9-yrs-old. It's just wrong. I look and I see women's house nigger financial subjugation every time and ppl pretending that it's normal and a cousin to prostitution isn't in their midst because they don't want to jeopardize their position or any favors that might come their way.

Then there are implants. Yeah, Melanie and Ivanka. Let's talk about ppl switching to long putters.

john lichtenstein said...

Meanwhile, registered Republican Ron Paul, married since 1957, has endorsed gay marriage.

Simon said...

Hi John,
Ron Paul isn't a conservative; most days he doesn't even appear to be sane. Conservatives don't write books called "The Revolution: A manifesto." He's a radical libertarian; not that there's anything wrong with that (necessarily), but he is in the literal sense a RINO, or perhaps RRPC is more descriptive: "Registered as a Republican for Political Convenience."

Ankur said...
"Only..if they were honest about the ick factor, they would never be able to influence policy."

Yes and no. Obviously on its face, the statement is wrong; emotional factors deeply influence political choices, and if voters decided on purely rational grounds, there would be no progressive movement, since to be progressive is to be innumerate and historically illiterate. The saving grace is the courts' made up "rational basis" test, and in that limited sense, you're right: Legislation that is manifestly based on deep-seated emotion or tradition is not likely to survive constitutional attack for the time being.