May 10, 2012

"While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads."

"In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage. Or that — as great as her friends may be — we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview."

Said Bristol Palin.

226 comments:

1 – 200 of 226   Newer›   Newest»
Scott M said...

That Palin family. Such inarticulate, frothing haters.

damikesc said...

Democrat Presidents have a bad habit of going to their children for policy advice. First Carter, now Obama.

...but his kids --- and, apparently, political advisors --- are off-limits.

Bush's kids, though, who did NOT offer him political advice, those girls were fair game. As are Romney's kids who, also, don't tend to give him political advice.

Alex said...

Bristol, where's Levi you know the FATHER of your kid? My god these cons are such hypocrites!

Geoff Matthews said...

I'm sure Alex is just as judgmental over Obama's bullying of a young girl in middle school.
I expect that this will be the general reaction of most 'liberals' to her statement.

ndspinelli said...

As long as everyone is chiming in, I wonder what Monty Rock 3 thinks about this. Or, Tiny Tim.

AJ Lynch said...

What Scott said!

tim maguire said...

I'm going to go with the Professor's earlier post about how our "ideals" should not be dependent on whether or not we know someone who will benefit from our changing them.

It's either right or wrong regardless of the (probably fictitious anyway) gay parents of his kid's friends.

You're right, Alex. How dare a young girl make a bad choice? Who is she to support smart behavior when she herself once did something that wasn't smart? (This is not an endorsement of Bristol's opinion, I just can't resist pointing out that Alex is a posturing idiot.)

TWM said...

Smart kid. Of course doing the wrong thing often times makes people smarter and it shows here.

Unfortunately it doesn't always work as evidenced by people still supporting Barry after the past three years.

prairie wind said...

Bristol is onto something here...common sense.

Pastafarian said...

Unevolved, is what these people are.

Of course, the Palins do have European ancestry; so their ancestors did interbreed with Neanderthal. We shouldn't expect anything else from these subhuman creatures, really.

A mother and father needed to raise a child? Sniff, sniff, eye-roll of disdain. Troglodytes.

DADvocate said...

Yes, but no matter, it's all about ME!

Icepick said...

It's either right or wrong regardless of the (probably fictitious anyway) gay parents of his kid's friends.

They're not ficticious, they're composites. Like the girl Obama shoved in middle school. Or the dog he ate.

David said...

Shorter Alex: Women who have children out of wedlock should not have opinions about anything.

Alex said...

I despise hypocrites like the Palins. Lecturing & hectoring all of America about morality instead of looking at their own house.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."

Right Palins?

Leather Daddy said...

I sure wish I could sit down with Bristol and talk about kids and such

Alex said...

David - hypocrites should always keep their fucking mouths shut.

Alex said...

How can you call yourselves "Values conservatives" and yet support the Palin family? Sarah Palin allowed her underage daughter to have unprotected sex!

Scott M said...

I despise hypocrites like the Palins. Lecturing & hectoring all of America about morality instead of looking at their own house.

So you're suggesting that Obama cannot be honestly and credibly anti-drug use?

chickenlittle said...

Look! Alex is casting stones too! And I'm casting stones at Alex! It's hypocrites all the way down.

I always knew Alex was a Sullivanist. I see them everywhere!

harrogate said...

Ha!

chickenlittle said...

Why are you acting so buttsore today, Alex?

ndspinelli said...

Alex, You have your daughter wearing a chastity belt? "Allow" her daughter!! Think before you type. You only diminish yourself when you make idiotic comments like that.

Alex said...

my point is obviously Sarah Palin did not have *that* discussion with her daughter. You know the one about the birds and the bees. Typical conservatives, they simply *can't* talk about sex, it's that *dirty* thing!

Icepick said...

Sarah Palin allowed her underage daughter to have unprotected sex!

Allowed? What were Todd & Sarah Palin supposed to do, make Bristol wear a chastity belt? What amazes me is that to liberals babies are always bad news. Sarah Palin shouldn't have had her last pregnancy aborted because the child was an undesirable, and Bristol should have had hers aborted too, I suppose. Not just Pro Choice anymore, but demanding abortion, at least the abortion of their foes children. NASTY stuff.

harrogate said...

Alex,

Actually, I have long maintained that if you want to know the meaning of morality, and the value of values, and discover the decent in decency, as it were, you have no further to look than Bristol Palin and her mama.

But the media is out to get them.

chickenlittle said...

@Alex: Are you pissed that you're missing the party at Clooney's or something?

Alex said...

Why was Bristol messing around at 17 with a hockey player instead doing her homework and saving her chastity for marriage? Are the Palin women just that horny?

Amartel said...

"Shorter Alex: Women who have children out of wedlock should not have opinions about anything."

It's almost like them thar stupid goodfernothin' Palins are daring their betters to continue saying stupid things.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

Bristol tried to be a wife and mother before she got a husband, and she learned the lesson why morality protects girls.

If her mother had not been a sitting Governor and a possible VP awaiting the heartbeat ancient McCain to stop, then it may have worked out for her.

But as it is, she got some dancing lessons out of it along with the other lessons.

Alex said...

The Palins have nothing to teach us regarding morality. Just look at their backgrounds, every step of the way it's lying, cheating, graft, corruption, fornication, racism...

Alex said...

No, hypocrites should STFU. If Bristol were to say that she made a mistake having unprotected sex that would be different. She never owned up to her bad behavior.

harrogate said...

Alex, they are Real Americans. All the rest is lies and syndrome.

Alex said...

So 2 sins:

1. pre-martial sex
2. unprotected sex

Wow, just wow.

Stones, glass houses! Keep rockin' the hate Teathugs.

ndspinelli said...

Alex, You don't know what the Palins told their daughter about sex. You still haven't explained "Allowed". Just admit it was a stupid choice of words. Real men can man up. Wimps just double down on stupid. What are you?

Icepick said...

my point is obviously Sarah Palin did not have *that* discussion with her daughter. You know the one about the birds and the bees. Typical conservatives, they simply *can't* talk about sex, it's that *dirty* thing!

How do you know that the Bristol's parents never talked to her about sex? You know it is possible that on some cold Alaskan night 17 and 18 year-olds just might not be thinking about what their parents told them about the birds and the bees.

Lem said...

Apparently Alex wants to castigate Palin for the sins of her daughter as he perceives them. The sins that hypocrite judgemental conservatives call sin.. mind you.

What an ass.

traditionalguy said...

Alex...Think about how puritanical you are being while you shovel on the guilt for human breeders.

If not for horny teenage women who want to bed teenage men and have their baby the population of the USA would be about 1/10 what it is today and we would speak German or Japanese.

Icepick said...

Hmmm, so the problem is that Bristol Palin never admitted that she should have used birth control? Wow.

To quote Bristol Palin again:

"Accusing me of hypocrisy is by now, an old canard... Parents warn their children about the mistakes they made so they are not repeated. Former gang members travel to schools to educate teenagers about the risks of gang life. Recovered addicts lecture to others about the risks of alcohol and drug abuse. And yes, a teen mother talks about the benefits of preventing teen pregnancy."

sounds like she's admitting she made a mistake. Now can Alex do the same? Signs point to NO CHANCE IN HELL!

Revenant said...

It was nice of the New York Daily News to produce a story I care about even less than the story about Romney's schoolboy antics.

pm317 said...

Heh..Where is the father of her baby? I certainly hope he is not shaping his kid's worldview.

MadisonMan said...

Okay, we know what Bristol thinks about it, what is Courtney Stoddard's viewpoint?

SeanF said...

Question: Has Bristol ever actually acknowledged that her pregnancy was the result of unprotected sex, or is that just an assumption Alex is making?

The (slim) majority of unwanted pregnancies happen to women who are on birth control, after all.

Joe said...

Yes, often Dads need to be Dads, but come on, Bristol is being more than a bit of a hypocrite here.

Icepick said...

HOLY SHIT! It just hit me! There's only one man in America that obsessed with Palin uteri, and that's Andrew Sullivan! Alex is Andrew Sullivan's (ahem) sock puppet!

Michael Haz said...

Poor Bristol. She'll never find the acceptance she would otherwise have had if she had simply killed her son.

Icepick said...

And checkinlittle, that answers your question at 3:35 too.

MadisonMan said...

I give Bristol Palin credit for not posing for the cover of Time Magazine this week.

Yeee-ikes!

Alex said...

You see I'm not the only one having a problem with the hypocrisy!

Kovacs said...

"Let’s pause for just one second. When Christian women run for high office, people inevitably bring up the question of submission. Once, Michele Bachmann, for example, was asked during a debate, 'As president, would you be submissive to your husband?'

"People automatically assume that a Christian female President isn’t capable of making decisions without her spouse’s stamp of approval. (I should add female Republican candidates-–liberal women don’t get the same kind of questions.)"

Bachmann was asked that question by Byron York, a conservative, to help her spin her own comments that a woman should be submissive to her husband. A knack for straw-man argumentation must inherit from the mother's side.

The smug, anti-intellectual apple doesn't fall far from the unserious tree.

chickenlittle said...

Icepick said...
checkinlittle

lol!

Icepick said...

whoops, typo!

Sorry about that, chickenlittle!

Lem said...

Poor Bristol. She'll never find the acceptance she would otherwise have had if she had simply killed her son.

An Obama drone could not have been more accurate... wait.. No, I think thats right. With good intel, the drones are accurate.. Otherwise Obama would have evolved them out of existence.

Joe said...

"...that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage."

Thousands of years of thinking about marriage would insist that Bristol marry and get her child a father, even if she didn't love him.

Well, unless you come from another tradition which dictates that Bristol should have been killed by her father for dishonoring the family.

When you appeal to tradition, it's not always roses.

Calypso Facto said...

So very entertaining, watching tolerant and benevolent harrogate unwittingly jump into Alex's comedy act when he thinks he's found a compatriot.

Matt said...

Who is Bristol Palin? Sounds like the name of a sci-fi character.

Icepick said...

So here's what we've got.

A President who is either so weak-minded that he's getting outthought on one of the major issues of our time by his young daughters, or a President who is cravenly switching his position around just to meet the demands of donors, and Alex is OUTRAGED by one young woman getting schtupped a few years ago on a cold Alaskan night without his permission.

Got it.

Kit said...

Two things 1) I don't believe we've been defining marriage the same way for thousands of years. That's pretty well documented. And 2) there's a well known Buddhist proverb, "when the student is ready, the teacher appears.". Sometimes it is the kid who gets us to see things in a new way.

Alex said...

Joe & Matt - we are all on the same page.

Now - begin strafing run!

Lem said...

Sometimes it is the kid who gets us to see things in a new way.

Since Roe, many kids have not been given that chance..

machine said...

and another "leader" of the GOP exhibits their hypocrisy...

Comanche Voter said...

"Alex" does have himelf worked up in a lather doesn't he? Since maybe 75% of black babies in this country are born out of wedlock, and maybe 40% of Latino babies are born out of wedlock, and God knows how many young white brides have a "bun in the oven" whilst at the altar--just who are we going to listen to? Can't listen to any of the black folk; can't listen to much of the Latinos--and old whitey over there, we better give him the stink eye.

What a flipping tool Alex is. As for having a child out of wedlock, I'd give odds that Alex is not at much risk of that. As was supposedly said to the Pope, "you no playa da game, you no makea the rules." And I doubt that Alex has much in the game.

As for Ms. Palin--she played the game--and suffered the consequences. Some folks learn from experience. She may have done so.

BarrySanders20 said...

MadisonMan,

My daughter, then about 2, was an early talker. My wife was (and is) a breastfeeding supporter.

One day my daughter was happily attached to one side, stopped, sat up and said "Switch" and moved over to the other, non-empty side.

I thought that was probably long enough on the breastfeeding.

Then, years later when my other two daughters were nursing, my wife would have the two year-old on one side and the new baby attached at the same time to the other. That was always strange to me as well.

Kids are all good.

What Titus says.

edutcher said...

Excellent point from Michael Haz. If it happened to Malia or Sasha, it would have been a burden, not a baby and we all know what would have happened next.

traditionalguy said...

Bristol tried to be a wife and mother before she got a husband, and she learned the lesson why morality protects girls.

Nice point. This is the lesson of 5000 years of recorded history the Lefties want undone so they can have their welfare state.

harrogate said...

Alex,

Actually, I have long maintained that if you want to know the meaning of morality, and the value of values, and discover the decent in decency, as it were, you have no further to look than Bristol Palin and her mama.


What immoral thing did "her mama" do?

Allow her Down's Syndrome baby to live?

ndspinelli said...

Alex is now preaching not only puritanism, but violence w/ his "strafing" comment. What a pathetic wimp!

Michael said...

Why does this dipshit bring his daughters into this? Quite the Dad. Some leadership we are getting from the daughters. Not to mention the story is probably a lie.

rhhardin said...

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."

Right Palins?


Him.

Paper Porcupine said...

The insufferable hypocrisy of the left will leave you dazed on the floor. Alex, Andy, you'd better go lie down. It's going to get worse. Conservative women are coming for you and it won't be pretty. They'll tear your safe little cardboard world down around your ears by the simple tactic of being honest and strong. They don't always get it right the first time, but they know where the truth is and go after it. It's not a weakness to be wrong, but to continue to be wrong in the face of truth is about as dumb as it gets.

Revenant said...

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

Once again it falls to the local atheist to explain the Bible...

The whole "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" line wasn't a metaphor. It was Jesus literally saying that sinners shouldn't stone other sinners to death. It was a statement that punishment of sin should be left to God.

It was not Jesus saying "unless you're perfect you aren't allowed to criticize anyone". That would have been spectacularly idiotic.

Lem said...

I like the way Jon Lovitz put it..

Because I criticized the President, it's news? Last I checked, he's President, not King! This is America! Freedom of Speech. what's the bfd?

Don't criticize King Obama.

Robert Cook said...

"...we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home."

As opposed to what?

And how do "we" know that?

chickenlittle said...

@rhhardin: "Hin" would rhyme with "sin" but is olde-fashioned. Too bad we no longer accuse one another.

Robert Cook said...

"Since maybe 75% of black babies in this country are born out of wedlock, and maybe 40% of Latino babies are born out of wedlock...."

Those equivocating "maybes" are significant. Do these approximate figures come from actual recent studies you have seen, or are you simply pulling them out of...thin air?

chickenlittle said...

Robert Cook said: And how do "we" know that?

I'll join Bristol on that one, so she's grammatically correct. I know it to be true from personal observation. Of course there are specific exceptions.

chickenlittle said...

What's your personal experience on the matter, Cook? Got kids? Did you stay with the mom?

Robert Cook said...

"The whole 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' line wasn't a metaphor. It was Jesus literally saying that sinners shouldn't stone other sinners to death. It was a statement that punishment of sin should be left to God.

"It was not Jesus saying 'unless you're perfect you aren't allowed to criticize anyone.'"


Why couldn't he have meant it both literally and figuratively? And even if he meant it only literally, there's no legitimate reason we can't use the phrase metaphorically. After all, we don't stone people anymore, but there an awful lot of self-righeous assholes around condemning others for actions or statements no worse than or not even as bad as things they (the assholes) are guilty of, or for the same things, (e.g., closeted "family values" politicians and preachers who condemn gays while living secret gay lives themselves, or who condemn any kind of non-traditional or open sexual activity while being unfaithful-to-their-spouses fornicators themselves.

Michael said...

Robert Cook. 72% of blacks are born out of wedlock, not 75%. Good catch.

Joe said...

According to the National Vital Statistic report (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_01.pdf#table15) in 2009, the percentage of births for unmarried women was 29% for white, 72% for black, 53% for Hispanic.

It took me longer to type this comment than look this up.

Coketown said...

Robert Cook: Here's a thorough post by Ta-Nehisi Coates on black birth rates. He doesn't dispute the 70% number and offers some of those "recent studies" you seem to prize so much.

If you honestly didn't know that black out-of-wedlock births were so high, you are astonishingly ignorant and probably shouldn't be lecturing other people on social issues. Another statistic that may ruffle your feathers is the five-year divorce rate among homosexuals in countries and states that allow same-sex marriage. Bon apetite!

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

A sperm donor is not a father, and if Palin has learned a valuable lesson and passes it on, then that's not hypocritical. In fact, doing the opposite would be.

edutcher said...

Robert Cook said...

...we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home.

As opposed to what?

And how do "we" know that?


As opposed to a single parent (particularly unwed mother) home and we know it because of the poverty stats.

I know you have marijuana breaks at The Daily Worker so you buy their nonsense, but this one's so common knowledge, even the Lefties concede it.

Chip Ahoy said...

The good thing about those black kids born out of wedlock is so many are also being raised by gays. I know of three such adoptions. One adopted girl down the hall, being raised by a single woman, deduced that I am the Easter Bunny.

greenlantern said...

Bristol has a right to her opinion but there are no conclusive studies yet done about the effects on children. There is no research that says gays, lesbians, whatever, if it is a loving and supportive family, are less well-adjusted than conventional families. In fact, much of the research out there says the reverse. However, this a a new field of research and there have been flaws cited in the methodologies of past research. So, bottom line, we don't know "scientifically" how children are affected. It's all opinion, valuable (or not) as that may be.

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L45.pdf

Seven Machos said...

Lantern -- Your vaunted research clearly, demonstrably shows that gay males are multiple times more likely to transmit and receive venereal diseases, particularly AIDS.

Obviously, then, since you are such a fervent scientist, not only gay marriage or adoption but all gayness between and among males should be illegal.

Because, you know, dude, science. Research. Petards.

chickenlittle said...

GreenLantern: Studies aside, do those results jibe with your personal experience?

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

The spring smarmy offensive from Obama had me swirling down the toilet. He is the master at it. Thanks Ann for finding something solid I could hold on to, other than the Obama -.

dbp said...

Bristol Palin is a simple, fairly uneducated young woman who allowed herself to become impregnated by an unworthy young man. And yet her views on marriage are more sound than those of our Harvard educated president.

Michael said...

GreenLantern. But we do know that kids are never embarassed and two dads or two moms at their school events dont bother them at all. Being around two gay people makes you not so sensitive.

Seven Machos said...

Sadly, scientists have never been able to study any society of two-year-old children living completely on their own without adults. This society could very well thrive, or it could be somewhat ineffective in terms of allocating resources.

Clearly, then, we should allow and, in fact, encourage such societies until such time that scientists with their all-important research are able to deliver vital data about the success or failure of groups of wholly unsupervised toddlers.

As an aside, I think we also have no business preventing anyone from eating decades-old decomposing carcasses from graveyards. How can we do that, when the scientists have no data?

You let us know, Lantern. You let us know.

garage mahal said...

Bristol Palin backs traditional marriage much in the same way Rush Limbaugh does.

Rafique said...

OK, it seems a bit of clarity is called for here. Alex and others, Bristol's own choices regarding her son aren't the issue here. The problem is a failure of logic. Her thesis seems to be that because Obama based his decision to support same-sex marriage (or more accurately, to finally come clean about the position he already held), he lacks the maturity that a father should have, and is essentially following the lead of his children.

The logic fail should be obvious. The experiences of the parents of his friends of his children helped shape his views about gay couples. Agree or disagree, that's the issue. It's partially based on emotion sure, but neither Palin is fit to lecture anyone on that score, IMO.

FWIW, I oppose same-sex marriage, but that's a different discussion.

bagoh20 said...

She is either right or wrong with her opinion. Who the messenger is is irrelevant to the value that can be gained from the message. Of course if you cannot judge the message for yourself, then you are stuck judging her instead.

Seven Machos said...

Garage's argument, such as it is:

1. People have children out of wedlock.

2. People get divorces.

3. ????

4. Gay marriages should be recognized by the state.

Brilliant!

garage mahal said...

If the state recognized the 4 marriages of a fucktard like Rush Limbaugh, pretty much anyone's marriage should be recognized by the state. Is Limbaugh's 4 marriage still considered "traditional"?

Pogo said...

I do not believe Obama ever talked to his daughters about this issue, even once. Nor do I believe the gay couples he cites exist.

Classic Obama bullshit. It's about the money. Only that.

Revenant said...

Do these approximate figures come from actual recent studies you have seen, or are you simply pulling them out of...thin air?

According to this CDC study from 2009, the rates of out-of-wedlock birth were:

73% for non-Hispanic blacks
65% for American Indians
53% for Hispanics
29% for non-Hispanic whites
17% for Asians

The overall rate was 41%.

Gene said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seven Machos said...

Garage -- You would do well to start your inquiry into why any state recognizes any marriages by asking why the state recognizes any marriages at all. The State does not recognize or not recognize marriages because of Rush Limbaugh.

Like every leftist, you are shallow and conclusory, and little else.

Incidentally, I should remind everyone here as I used to in the gay marriage marathon threads of years of yore: gay marriage is perfectly legal. No one, nowhere with the power of law can prevent any gay people from marrying each other.

Gene said...

I am astonished at the amount of hate directed at Bristol Palin for saying something that is both compassionate and wise.

Coketown said...

If the state recognized the 4 marriages of a fucktard like Rush Limbaugh, pretty much anyone's marriage should be recognized by the state. Is Limbaugh's 4 marriage still considered "traditional"?

This is less an argument in favor of liberalizing marriage as it is an argument in favor of drastically restricting divorce.

Matt said...

Pogo
I do not believe Obama ever talked to his daughters about this issue, even once. Nor do I believe the gay couples he cites exist.

Just because you say so, right? Nevermind the fact that he has more openly gay people in his administration than any other president. I am quite sure he has discussed the matter with some of them as well as his kids. In fact, I would be surprised if he had not. He's more open minded than most conservatives....

Revenant said...

Why couldn't he have meant it both literally and figuratively?

The rest of the Gospels make no sense if you believe Jesus thought human beings were forbidden from criticizing each other.

there's no legitimate reason we can't use the phrase metaphorically.

You're welcome to use inappropriate metaphors as much as you like. You can stand on a table and yell "was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor" until you're blue in the face; I won't stop you.

Pogo said...

Seriously, is anything true in Obama's books?

Does he ever tell the truth about anything that happened to him?

Whenever he tells an anecdote now, I immediately figure someone wrote it for him.

Palladian said...

Attention whore.

Chuck66 said...

Bristol Palin is a Native-American. That alone makes here qualified to teach at Harvard.

Seven Machos said...

You certainly got Pogo, Matt. Sizzling.

section9 said...

Good for Bristol: she's right to hold her opinion, wrong on why Obama made it.

It was crass political opportunism designed to hold on to gay dollars to prevent any going to Romney.

That's about it. Alex is, of course, way off, and Garage, is late to the Party with his talking points, as usual.

Pogo said...

Matt, because he is constantly bullshitting.

I think everything he says in public is calculated for effect, and he is wholly unconcerned with the veracity of his statements, which is the essence of bullshit (as compared to lies and the lying liars who tell them).

Palladian said...

Everything Obama says is a lie, including "err" and "um".

Roger J. said...

Matt: Mr Obama's openmindeness is indeed stunning--even more so than your asinine comment.

Seven Machos said...

Speaking of Obama: imagine if Lincoln had said, in an interview, that he believed that slaves should be free, but then failed to include anything about freedom from slavery in his actual platform, or do anything about slavery as president. Suppose that.

Would that have been enough to make people in human bondage gleefully happy?

Or suppose Kennedy had said that he didn't want those missiles in Cuba and did nothing. Would a mere sop have been enough?

If you really consider what's going on here, it's clear how trifling this issue of gay marriage is to its very supporters.

Matt said...

The only real issue I have with Pogo is that he has uses a 'Pogo' avatar and has thus come close to ruining a terrific comic strip by a truly brilliant cartoonist.
Them's the breaks....

Palladian said...

I prefer that people who know the launch codes have their minds completely closed.

somefeller said...

In general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. So therefore gays and lesbian marriages (and presumably, civil unions, as is the case with state anti-gay marriage amendments like the one that just passed in North Carolina) shouldn't be legally recognized. Well, the conclusion clearly follows from that premise.

In any case, I'm sure the Obama camp is pleased to see that the Palins are chiming in on this topic. That will only help them in winning the news cycle.

Seven Machos said...

The only real issue the hoi polloi have with gay marriage is the fear that a perfectly good institution that is the bedrock of Western society will be ruined if gay marriage is recognized by the state in the way that monogamous heterosexual marriage is recognized.

Them's the breaks....

Palladian said...

The only real issue I have with Pogo is that he has uses a 'Pogo' avatar and has thus come close to ruining a terrific comic strip by a truly brilliant cartoonist.

This is one of the perils of having an "open mind": your appreciation of art can be completely ruined by someone's icon on a blog comment.

Robert Cook said...

"The rest of the Gospels make no sense if you believe Jesus thought human beings were forbidden from criticizing each other."

I hate to break it to you, but an argument can be made the Gospels "make no sense" nohow.

And...Jesus' admonition is about something other--or more--than "not criticizing" others> It admonishes against judging others, as it places us above them, and we are above no other men and are as low and base and prone to fault (or "sin") as anyone. Rather than judge others we should be concerned with improving ourselves.

Oh, and the admonition works perfectly well and is entirely sensible as a metaphor...it bears no relation to a statement like "it was over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor," which is simply a misstatement of fact.

Matt said...

Seven Machos

You're comparing apples and snickers bars. Slavery and the Cuban Missile crisis were far more serious and pressing than gay marriage is now. Obama has simply expressed his personal opionion. And he explicitly states as such in the interview.

If he were to sign some executive order about gay marriage it would be serious over-reach that even someone like me would question. He knows gay marriage will be the law of the land some day. But there is no need to force it to become law at this point. The reason is because the discrimination that the lack of being able to same-sex marry is no where in the same league as ending slavery or preventing a war.

The best comparison would be Civil Rights in the 1960's. But even that took the power of Congress to pass - not just LBJ.

I think putting gay marriage on ballots is the right step at this point. [Some liberals may disagree - as will you, I am sure].

Alex said...

Matt - civil rights should not be up for a vote.

William said...

My sympathies are with Levi. It is very difficult for the heterosexual male to be as promiscuous as he aspires to be. There's something about the heterosexual act that defies promiscuity. The physical union of heteros is like dovecoting versus the Elmer glue pressing of gays. Once a guy connects with a woman who is half way attractive and half way sympathetic to his problems (e.g.horniness), he tends to keep going back. It takes an enormous amount of willpower and character to move one. It's easy enough to do when the girl's pregnant or smeared with baby vomit, but, when you do it then, everyone gets all judgemental.... Levi did not have the sophistication of so many gays who know how to nibble on a macaroon and move on to the other selections in life's great banquet. Instead he lingered and paid the price.....I don't judge Levi too harshly. He made the effort, but I just think it's difficult for hetero men to be consistently promiscuous.

Seven Machos said...

I think putting gay marriage on ballots is the right step at this point.

I agree, and I would naturally vote for gay marriage. I disagree vehemently, however, that anyone's civil rights are violated because people cannot get their marriage recognized by the state.

You are obviously wrong that slavery was some pressing issue. What was pressing about it exactly? It had a social norm for 200 years in the United States and the colonies that preceded it.

Robert Cook said...

As opposed to a single parent (particularly unwed mother) home and we know it because of the poverty stats."

But, of course "Bristol Palin" (or whoever wrote that statement that was attributed to her) meant, "as opposed to homes with two same-sex parents."

Palladian said...

I don't judge Levi too harshly. He made the effort, but I just think it's difficult for hetero men to be consistently promiscuous.

You know, I've read some pretty stupid comments these past few days, from either side of this stupid "Obama evolution" non-issue, but yours might be the stupidest of all.

Seven Machos said...

I fucking love William! Thanks for bringing some sense to this debate, man.

Seven Machos said...

Cone on, Palladian. That's hilarious.

Palladian said...

Oh, I didn't say it wasn't hilarious...

Seven Machos said...

or whoever wrote that statement that was attributed to her

Because the hoi polloi cannot write anywhere nearly as well as the vanguard. Right, useful idiot?

Tell us the one about how the United States engaged in illegal wars and how Bush and Obama are war criminals. It's been too long since I heard that goofy shit.

Matt said...

Seven Machos

You are obviously wrong that slavery was some pressing issue.

Hisorically you may be right. But
let's just say slavery was a bigger issue than gay marriage. I don't compare the two otherwise.


Alex
In theory you are correct. Voters should not be the ones who decide civil rights. If Congress wants to draft a bill and make gay marriage the law of the land I won't complain. I just don't think they will nor feel compelled to in the same way some of them did to draft Civil Rights legislation.

Saint Croix said...

The MSM drives me up the fucking wall. From the newspaper article:

Palin — a single mom herself — then argued children are raised in homes where there is both a mother and a father.

Since many kids clearly are not raised in a home where there is a mother and a father, it would be stupid for her to say that kids are raised in homes where there is a mother and a father.

Thus the "conservatives are stupid" meme and the "conservatives are hypocrites" meme.

What she said is this...

“We know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview.”

She's obviously not saying that you cannot have single moms raise children, or single dads. Or 2 gay moms and 2 gay dads. Or a frickin' village.

What she's saying is the best situation for a child is to have both a mother and a father.

I agree.

And since Bristol Palin is a single mom, this is a heartbreakign thing for her to know and admit. But it's very honest.

Luke Lea said...

Well said.

edutcher said...

Have to agree that the book is out on homosexuals raising adopted kids and will be for about 20 years or so, but I can't help wondering if it comes back negative, how many people will want to acknowledge it.

somefeller said...

In general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. So therefore gays and lesbian marriages (and presumably, civil unions, as is the case with state anti-gay marriage amendments like the one that just passed in North Carolina) shouldn't be legally recognized. Well, the conclusion clearly follows from that premise.

In any case, I'm sure the Obama camp is pleased to see that the Palins are chiming in on this topic. That will only help them in winning the news cycle.


Yes, they've done so wonderfully well in the last few months.

PS I seem to remember (almost 50 years ago so this may be a bit fuzzy) an instructor in high school recounting how, after Antietam, Lincoln realized he didn't have the money to prosecute the Civil War with what was in the Treasury at the time.

He went to many of the big money Abolitionists and wanted to talk deal and their price was the Emancipation Proclamation.

Anybody come across anything similar? I only raise this because Zero's proclamation is so like it.

Nathan Alexander said...

Voters should not be the ones who decide civil rights.

Why not?

Because it interferes with the "SSM is inevitable" explanation of "shut up!"?

chickenlittle said...

Anybody come across anything similar? I only raise this because Zero's proclamation is so like it.

I thought Congress levied a special tax to fund the Civil War?

Let the Clooney clones deploy their wealth. Obama's right: they shouldn't hold it back. Of course, no one has to believe the stories and fabrications that their monies will buy--I'm talking generally here--about their whole leftist agenda. Let them slowly bleed out their accounts for this election cycle. Hollywood is still rich but not getting richer like it used to. Media is changing fast. People also have an appetite for alternative Hollywood viz., Breitbart-style media and entertainment which counters the Cloones.

Revenant said...

I hate to break it to you, but an argument can be made the Gospels "make no sense" nohow.

An argument can be made that 1+1=3. Just not an argument worth listening to.

The Gospels make sense from a narrative perspective, whatever you think about them from a realism perspective. Suffice it to say that anyone who thinks Jesus forbade criticism of sin is an imbecile.

Revenant said...

Slavery and the Cuban Missile crisis were far more serious and pressing than gay marriage is now.

You don't get to say that gay marriage is a civil right and then say that denial of gay marriage rights isn't important enough to merit Presidential intervention.

Paul Ciotti said...

Somefellar: In general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. So therefore gays and lesbian marriages (and presumably, civil unions, as is the case with state anti-gay marriage amendments like the one that just passed in North Carolina) shouldn't be legally recognized. Well, the conclusion clearly follows from that premise.

Actually not. Children do better in homes where the parents don't smoke, fry their dinners in lard and watch TV ten hours a day. But we don't make those illegal either. Nor should we.

Matt said...

Saint Croix

There is nothing heartbreaking about Bristol's blog post. She is admitting nothing whatsoever about her own choices.

She certainly has a right to her opinion. But when someone who is a very notable single mom writes, " Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview." you have to scratch your head a bit.

Also, when she writes, "that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage" she proves herself to be naive about history as well. The definition of marriage has changed quite often in thousands of years.

Matt said...

Nathan Alexander

Voters should not be the ones who decide civil rights.

Why not?

Because if voters were the ones to decide Civil Rights in 1964 it would not have happened in many states. Especially those in the South. South Africa would have not been the only country with a serious apartheid problem. Sometimes you need the force of the Federal government / Congress to step up and make the right choice.

Revenant said...

But when someone who is a very notable single mom writes, " Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview." you have to scratch your head a bit.

Not if you know what the word "ideally" means.

Revenant said...

Because if voters were the ones to decide Civil Rights in 1964 it would not have happened in many states.

You DO know that the Civil Rights Act was passed by democratically elected Representatives and Senators, right?

Paco Wové said...

"The definition of marriage has changed quite often in thousands of years."

Examples?

chickenlittle said...

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove;...


I think it interesting that even Shakespeare spoke of minds (not hearts); "Minds" evokes a spirit of sort, divorced from the corporeal.

Scripture uses concrete terms like flesh and cleave unto.

I'm certain that part of the culture clash is related.

edutcher said...

chickenlittle said...

Anybody come across anything similar? I only raise this because Zero's proclamation is so like it.

I thought Congress levied a special tax to fund the Civil War?


That was the first income tax (old Abe was a real innovator), but, supposedly, even that wasn't enough, although he had access to all that gold and silver coming out of the Western territories (which still would have been part of Mexico if he'd had his way).

I only heard of it that one time (although it was also the first time I heard 50,000 Union soldiers deserted when news of the Proclamation was made public).

Man, the neurons get flaky over time.

Matt said...

Revenant

Civil Rights Act was passed by democratically elected Representatives and Senators

Yes, but you know there is a difference between democratically elected representatives and a pure democracy? Are you suggesting we don't need Congress?

Civil Rights passed in the Senate 73 to 27. The 27 who opposed were in the South and were voting according to their constituents. If you removed the Senators and let the people vote then Civil Rights would have not passed in some Southern states. I have a problem with that.

Matt said...

Paco Wové

Seriously?

Marriage

History

Here too

Nathan Alexander said...

Matt, you do realize that you are mixing apples and oranges, don't you?

If you want Congress to pass a law about SSM, then you should be working against Obama's re-election campaign, because Congress already passed a law about it, and Obama refuses to defend it in court.

So from your logical argument, SSM is already done, and should not be pursued in the states anymore, at all, period.

Of course, I don't really expect you to be stopped by something as simple and direct as cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy. You'll just keep repeating your astro-turfed talking points, convinced that you are right and bright because the elites you so desperately want to join pat you on the head for doing so.

Ron Miller said...

Dads being Dads?

Paco Wové said...

Seriously.

I was just curious to know the last time that the legal definition of marriage in the Western world was something other than "one man, one woman".

The best answer I can glean from those links is, "thousands of years ago, if ever."

Synova said...

"I don't judge Levi too harshly."

I don't judge Levi harshly either. I don't think that he was any more messed up or unreliable than most young men his age. The two of them might have been fine, even with Bristol's mom being who she is.

But seriously... the MSM went after him. They went after his MOM.

I don't blame him for being horny, or having poor judgment. I blame everyone who didn't let him alone while he grew out of it.

Anglelyne said...

Hey Alex, up your troll game or piss off. You've had plenty of time to improve your skills, and you're still a lame-ass bore at trolling.

Craig said...

My dad's dad died when my dad was five. His dad died when my grandfather was 14. My great grandfather was nine when his father died.

My dad is eighty-five and still alive. The last time that happened in my paternal line, Napoleon's army was running what eventually became East Germany.

My dad's family got off the boat in 1855. He saw me graduate from high school, the first time that happened since we came to America.

Dead fathers weren't just the norm in my family. They were the rule. German heritage in Wisconsin was risky business back in the day.

Synova said...

Mostly the way that the definition of marriage has changed is that it used to be far more restrictive and far more permanent. For people who got married, anyhow.

It seems to have been mostly about who you weren't allowed to marry. At some times that included a weird list of relations-by-marriage that you couldn't ever marry.

Matt said...

Nathan Alexander

you do realize that you are mixing apples and oranges, don't you?

I would not expect an SSM act to follow the exact same course as the Civil Rights act. Who would? They are different. The larger point I was making was that the 1964 Civil Rights act would not have been passed universally if it was on the ballot in all 50 states.

Note that the Civil Rights Act gave universal rights to blacks. While most of those rights have through the years been given - at the Federal level - to gays: Such as basic rights in education, employment, etc.

A ban on SSM is the only major one still standing. But it’s a fight we can have at the state level. Other rights, such as preventing work place discrimination should not be only decided by states or voters. They are way more important. They need to be enforced from the Federal level - and they have. Perhaps you disagree?

Craig said...

My great grandfather's marriage was double-hulled. His younger sister married his wife's older brother. I think they figured that the men were likely to be dead by age forty, so they put a premium on extended family.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

Yes, but you know there is a difference between democratically elected representatives and a pure democracy? Are you suggesting we don't need Congress?

So you're fine with gay marriage being decided by voting, provided it is voted on by elected representatives instead of by popular vote? Some "civil right"!

In any event, the elected representatives of 1964 were less supportive of civil rights than the voting public was -- nationally, the overwhelming majority of white voters favored equal rights for blacks.

John Lynch said...

Scapegoating gays for the failure of heterosexual marriages makes no sense.

If we need laws to protect marriage, then make a law that protects marriage- ie a law that actually applies to married people.

The divorce and illegitimacy rates exploded long, long before gay marriage was ever an issue. I'll believe that people care about marriage when I see laws that make divorce harder and discourage people from having illegitimate children. The absence of any such laws tells me all I need to know= the stated purpose of defining marriage as heterosexual has nothing to do with marriage at all.

This is simply punishing gay people for being gay.

Revenant said...

Matt,

You're being deliberately obtuse. Certainly the definition of marriage has changed many times, but Palin was referring -- correctly -- to the fact that heterosexuality has been a constant of that definition.

Similarly, the definition of "person" has changed many times over the years. Despite that, if I proposed tomorrow that it be extended to cover elm trees, I could quite rightly be accused of overthrowing thousands of years of tradition in the definition of "person".

Seriously, I support gay marriage -- but my fellow supporters embarrass the hell out of me sometimes. This IS a new thing. Stop pretending it isn't and focus on pointing out that, like antibiotics and computers and democracy, it is a GOOD new thing.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

Would you vote for people who passed those laws?

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

Are you surprised by someone who doesn't want their civil rights put up for popular vote? As if the people could never collectively make a bad decision.

Ever wonder what the word "civil" in "civil rights" means?

Civil rights are your rights as a citizen. By definition, they come from, and are determined by, the government. There is no such thing as a natural civil right -- natural rights and civil rights are two different things.

So do I think the government should be accountable to the governed? That would be a yes.

Revenant said...

Sorry, my comment "would you vote for people who passed those laws" was address to John, who commented that he would want to see laws restricting divorce.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Carnifex said...

Wow! That was a ride. About every subject under the sun. A lot of acrimony too. So I'll add mine :-)

Bristol Palin strikes me as a sweet, naive(but learning), not very bright young woman, who effed up and got pregnant too early in her womanhood. If she tries to warn other young women of doing the same, it's a mikvah.

Palin Derangement Syndrome is alive and well in the liberal leftist heart. It's like crucifixes to vampires with you guys, isn't it?

The Bible is a fairytale that needs to be read literally to be understood apparently. Except when it's made up stuff.

Jesus never used parables or analogies, except when he did.

People are now looking at their watches when Zero says "Good morning" to see what time it is.

Someone takes Pogo waaay to seriously(the cartoon, not the poster)

Lincoln did do something about slavery, he opened up a fifth column on the south by promising them freedom(Douglas was an Abolutionist, Lincoln wasn't). So yes, he and Zero do have a lot in common.

Alex-troll gets fed very easily by some posters(you ignore him and he goes away).

Quaestor said...

Would somebody please explain to me why same-sex marriage is a good thing. Please don't use the excuse that such alliances amount to human rights, or that just because something is desirable (i.e. someone desires it) that something is therefore good. Just stick to the ethics. Avoid the naturalistic fallacy, please.

Saint Croix said...

Have to agree that the book is out on homosexuals raising adopted kids and will be for about 20 years or so, but I can't help wondering if it comes back negative, how many people will want to acknowledge it.

I imagine two moms (one biological and one step) will be similar for kids as being raised by a single mom. You don't have a dad, and not having a father hurts you.

Carnifex said...

@revenant

Just curious, what are a persons natural rights, and civil rights? Just a short list so I can get an idea of where you're standing?

Ie)life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are natural rights?

and the first 10 amendments would be civil rights?

Saint Croix said...

Here's my review of a movie that deals with this stuff.

The Kids Are All Right (2010) What’s funny about this one is that it’s a lesbian nuclear family. Mommy lesbian, daddy lesbian, and two kids. And the family’s under stress because the daddy lesbian has to work and support everybody and the mommy lesbian is kind of a goof-off. There’s some tension. And then Mark Ruffalo shows up and he’s a man. And you can tell the filmmakers really like this man when they designed him. “I want the perfect man! And he’s sensitive and he drives a motorcycle and he’s a sexual dynamo and he’s a master chef and he never says the wrong thing, ever.” He’s way better than the lesbians, who are screwed up and normal. Daddy lesbian is a cranky alcoholic and mommy lesbian is an unfaithful liar. And Mark Ruffalo is their sperm donor, I forgot to mention that part. So he’s the dad to the lesbians’ two kids. That doesn’t even make sense, actually, because the kids are three years apart. “We like his sperm so much we want to use it again!” Anyway, both the kids like Mark Ruffalo and the lesbians like Mark Ruffalo and everything would be so cool. Except that damn straight sex gets in the way. Sex! Sex! You had sex with Mark Ruffalo! And the mommy lesbian swears she’s gay and she loves everybody, but she’s such a liar you’re not sure whether to believe her. And the acting’s so good, I’m crying along with the lesbians. “How could you have sex with Mark Ruffalo?” And poor Mark is peeking through the windows, trying to be a daddy. But it’s so cold now, and the kids don’t like him anymore. And no, they don’t play the Who. But there is a Joni Mitchell sing-along. And Mark Ruffalo’s joining in on the chorus. It’s almost like his character was designed by a woman or something.

John Lynch said...

Quastor- OK, I'll make a go of it.

Gay marriage is a good thing because gay people are here and they're not going away. They can either be fully functional contributors to our society, or they can be outcasts.

Gay marriage is a way for gay people to not only enjoy the benefits of marriage but to join the rest of society by participating in the same rituals and following the same norms.

This actually strengthens marriage, because everyone can do it.

The only way it's a bad thing is if we decide that homosexuality is undesirable and that gay marriage would encourage it. That's a matter for personal belief.

Ralph L said...

Thousands of years of thinking about marriage would insist that Bristol marry and get her child a father, even if she didn't love him
She gave it a second try, but Levi knocked up another girl, presumably because Bristol wasn't bangin him again before marriage. I believe this was after Levi had publicly trashed her family. She's well rid of him.

William said...

I don't have a problem with gays marrying. Maybe the paradigm shift won't be among straights but among gays. By this I mean that perhaps marriage will do more to undermine the traditional gay lifestyle than that of the traditional family. Maybe with the effloresence of all these new diseases, intelligent gays will choose a life of fidelity and settled habits. More power and a longer life to them. Perhaps in the way that gay couples make fashionable fringe neighborhoods, gay couples will make marriage seem stylish and dedocrative. At any rate, I see no harm in letting the cards play out.

Ralph L said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

Would somebody please explain to me why same-sex marriage is a good thing.

For the same reason marriage in general is a good thing.

And please don't say "kids". Outside of royal dynasties, kids have never been a requirement for marriages to be deemed legitimate, let alone good.

Seven Machos said...

Paco -- Marriage in the Western world began to take root in earnest around 1100. The primary driver was the Church.

Seven Machos said...

...Marriage as we know it today -- monogamous, and between one woman and one man with sexual exclusivity.

Ralph L said...

participating in the same rituals and following the same norms
What's stopping them from doing that now? In the late 60-70's, marriage was "just a piece of paper."

It seems to me, the only benefits to society are: if two (or more!) people agree to be responsible for minors, the state has a stake in enforcing that responsibility in family/divorce court (likely saving itself money), and it is usually better for children to have more than one parent if they're not fighting constantly or grossly unfit.

But the second benefit can and does occur without state sanction. The non-birth parent's visitation/custody rights are improved in the event of a split, however, as are his responsibilities. Presumably, these could be worked out in a prior private contract, instead of under the state's sometimes unjust laws.

Revenant said...

life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are natural rights?

Yes (that was the point of the "endowed by their Creator" bit).

and the first 10 amendments would be civil rights?

No, the first 10 amendments list a mix of natural and civil rights that the federal government is not allowed to restrict.

Examples of civil rights would be voting, access to courts and government services, protection of the police, and freedom from discrimination in employment and accommodations.

Interestingly, the latter civil right conflicts with the natural right to freedom of association; the government said "you are not allowed to NOT choose to associate with someone because of their race".

The Civil Rights Act is a good example of people voting to grant new rights and take old rights away.

Quaestor said...

John Lynch wrote:
Gay marriage is a good thing because gay people are here and they're not going away. They can either be fully functional contributors to our society, or they can be outcasts.

So gays are currently outcasts? They seem have favored status in the halls of power and influence. I may be wrong but gays appear to me to be lionized in fashionable centers of our society. Judging by the openly expressed attitudes for major celebrities the outcasts in America are traditional Christians. Imagine walking into a big Hollywood party hosted by Clooneys or the Spielbergs, and announcing you're a homosexual. I think you'd find yourself welcomed by all. Now picture walking through those same doors and announcing yourself as a devout Southern Baptist.

Traditional Christians object to same-sex marriage because it outrages their view of marriage as a religious institution. Furthermore, forcing traditional Christians to accept same-sex marriage isn't likely to make same-sex couples any more welcome among them.

Another point, I don't think by asserting gay people are here and they're not going away puts any restraint on the future. Homosexuality in the strict sense of the term is as old as history, at least in the West, the annals of ancient China being oddly silent on the matter. However, exclusive homosexuality, gayness in the accepted sense today, is a relatively new social phenomenon. For example, Oscar Wilde, the prototypical gay man was in fact a functioning bisexual who continued as a loving husband and father even while carrying on his affair with Alfred Douglas. It is beyond our power to impose our idea of the gay man or the lesbian on future generations.

Ralph L said...

Yeah, SM, those ancient Hebrews had never heard of adultery, so they just ignored that commandment and boinked like rabbits.

The ancient, pagan Romans had marriages somewhat like ours--serial monogamy, with a Rielle or two on the side.

Quaestor said...

John Lynch wrote:
Gay marriage is a way for gay people to not only enjoy the benefits of marriage but to join the rest of society by participating in the same rituals and following the same norms.

But you must admit that a substantial subset of our society holds that same-sex marriage does violence to those same rituals and norms.

Synova said...

"The divorce and illegitimacy rates exploded long, long before gay marriage was ever an issue. I'll believe that people care about marriage when I see laws that make divorce harder and discourage people from having illegitimate children. The absence of any such laws tells me all I need to know= the stated purpose of defining marriage as heterosexual has nothing to do with marriage at all."

I'll concede that it's a "lock the barn door after the horses have escaped" reaction, but not that it really has nothing to do with the decay of heterosexual marriage.

First we get talked into no-fault divorce and de-stigmatizing divorce because it's so unfair and sometimes people need to leave (and of course everyone would continue to take it seriously and never lightly leave, just like no woman would be less than serious about the decision to have an abortion) and it was wrong to make people get married if the girl got pregnant because the later divorce was even worse for the child than her never being married in the first place and then it was really *really* wrong to make any single-mother feel substandard, like fathers were even necessary, and attaching shame to illegitimacy is downright evil...

And everyone's like... I thought we were worried about domestic abuse, but people are just *leaving* and look at all the divorce and all the kids who don't have intact families and all the teen pregnancies...

And everyone who cares about it panics, only they still don't want to make the single-mothers or divorced women in their congregations FEEL bad.

And it's not FAIR to scapegoat gay people, but it really is about heterosexual marriage falling apart.

Add to it all that it does seem that a whole lot of the anti-marriage stuff over the decades has been deliberately trying to destroy the patriarchal, oppressive, religious institution.

Add to *that* that there doesn't seem to be any real push to strengthen marriage or return to a seriousness about it or expressions of understanding about what marriage ought to mean or how some of the rot could be reversed, only demands about civil rights (which is a weak assertion at best) which comes across as a petulant "me too!"

Wouldn't someone who really wanted to be married, care that it meant something?

So the same standard could easily apply to SSM. Just change the words a little bit... I'll believe that gay people really care about marriage when they support laws that make divorce harder and discourage illegitimate children. The absence of such advocacy says all I need to know.

Probably they're just trying to piss off Christians.

Quaestor said...

John Lynch wrote:
This actually strengthens marriage, because everyone can do it.

This is not an argument is it? You've made an assertion but you've made no effort to demonstrate its truth.

Allow me to put my critique another way. Would the NBA be strengthened if everyone who wanted to play in NBA were allowed to join a team. Even assuming there were enough teams to absorb all those wannabe Michael Jordans would the quality of the sport be improved by their participation?

Quaestor said...

Revenant wrote:
For the same reason marriage in general is a good thing.

This would get you an F in any philosophy or forensics class. One doesn't win arguments by changing the subject.

The accepted and traditional form of marriage may be a bad thing for all I know. It seems to make more people unhappy than happy these days, given the rates of divorce and domestic strife. Therefore, I deem your reasoning faulty in this case.

Seven Machos said...

Ralph -- You obviously have not read the Bible.

Generally, the issue of marriage isn't about human happiness. It's about keeping track of people and property over generations and raising children -- particularly boys -- in an environment where they are reasonably likely to become civilized. This is the best argument for why it makes no sense for the State to recognize gay marriages.

Quaestor said...

John Lynch wrote:
The only way it's a bad thing is if we decide that homosexuality is undesirable and that gay marriage would encourage it. That's a matter for personal belief.

I do not believe the universe of ethical entities is strictly divided between good things and bad things. There are entities which exist in both camps, rain for example. And there are things which have no ethical status whatever, for example a vacuum. Same-sex marriage may be one of these things that are neither good nor bad. What I'm still waiting for is an argument that it is a good thing.

As for the desirability of homosexuality, it may not be the case that homosexuality is even consistent with that context. If we assume that gayness is innate, simply a feature of one's genetic and/or congenital inheritance like eye color, then its desirability amounts to nothing more than personal taste. Some people eat broccoli, some don't. However, if gayness is a lifestyle (gays themselves go back and forth on this point, often arguing both ways simultaneously) then we may rightly ask is it desirable from a more pertinent viewpoint than mere taste. Furthermore, you again assume that our judgement on matter must be the be-all and end-all. What we say or do on will not bind the opinions and manners of future generations to our liking.

Kirk Parker said...

Palladian,

Re: William--I fervently hope your facetiousness detector is just broken, because either yours or mine is (mine read off the scale.)

Revenant said...

This would get you an F in any philosophy or forensics class.

I guess it is a good thing I'm just replying to an anonymous jackass from the Internet, then. :)

Ralph L said...

That's true, SM, I'm sure no one got married in the Bible, or if they did, they married two people seven macho years apart.

In England, the established Church kept the marriage records and read the banns and issued licenses until recent centuries. A special license costing 10 pounds (big money at the time) was required to marry quickly. Divorce required an act of Parliament.

Then Miss Marple said "Oh, Somerset House!", and the national government began keeping track of everyone.

Quaestor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

Wouldn't someone who really wanted to be married, care that it meant something?

I've known quite a few married people over the years, starting with (shockingly enough) my parents. At no point have I heard any of them answer the question "what does your marriage mean to you" with anything like the statement "it means I'm heterosexual".

Love, honor, respect, companionship, yadda yadda yadda. Those are the things people mention. Anyone who needs marriage as some sort of affirmation of their own heterosexuality has got some issues of their own to work through.

Seven Machos said...

Ralph -- Monogamous marriage with sexual exclusivity is not a historic norm anywhere. If you believe differently, you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

Quaestor said...

I guess it is a good thing I'm just replying to an anonymous jackass from the Internet, then. :)

From one anonymous jackass to another, eh?

Nevertheless, my point still stands. Since the goodness of traditional marriage hasn't been established by you then your assertion that same-sex marriage is good for the same reason (that reason being unestablished) does not follow.

Ralph L said...

This is the best argument for why it makes no sense for the State to recognize gay marriages.
Gay sex may be infertile, but gay people aren't. Some lesbians still want to have children and do. More gay men probably would if they could get the twat out of the way.

Seven Machos said...

Ralph -- So what?

Ralph L said...

Anyone who needs marriage as some sort of affirmation of his own worth or place in society has got some issues of his own to work through. Also true for groups.

That's right, SM, everybody cheats and always has and always will.

Seven Machos said...

everybody cheats and always has and always will

What you are missing, completely and stupidly, is the societal expectation of exclusivity. That did not exist. There wasn't cheating because monogamous marriage wasn't a value.

I'm sorry to have to explain this to you.

Quaestor said...

Seven Machos wrote:
Monogamous marriage with sexual exclusivity is not a historic norm anywhere.

This is undoubtedly true as a practical matter. However, some anthropologists have argued that matrimony exists at least partly as a means to coerce sexual exclusivity by making infidelity a matter of law rather than simply opportunity. Historically the laws of matrimony have restrained women more than men, either by unequal statutes or by unequal enforcement. However the point remains that the laws of matrimony have historically sought to punish infidelity and reward monogamy.

Without such laws infidelity can only be restrained by violence, bondage or abandonment -- absent the law you can either beat up your cheating wife, chain her to the bed, or leave her and her brood to their own devices.

Seven Machos said...

Historically the laws of matrimony have restrained women more than men

That's all true, of course. But you should take out the prepositional phrase "of matrimony" and you would see the true scope of the issue.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 226   Newer› Newest»