March 15, 2013

"You never hear anyone say they used to support it, but have seen the light..."

"... and now realize it's the wrong thing to do."

195 comments:

kentuckyliz said...

Vanderbilt basketball? Sigh.

Revenant said...

You would if there was political advantage in it.

Certainly we're seen formerly pro-choice or middle-of-the-road Republicans suddenly "evolve" when it was time to run for a Senate seat or the Presidency.

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

I don' really care but am concerned that the militant gays will attack traditional churches if they decline to perform these ceremonies. They seem determined to defeat any group that has moral concerns about gay marriage. Gay marriage is a transitory reaction to the AIDS crisis.

Lem said...

You never hear anyone say they used to support it, but have seen the light, and now realize it's the wrong thing to do.

You know... now that you mention it...

Petunia said...

Maybe that's true, or maybe any people who used to support it but now don't aren't saying that aloud, because of the risk of being pilloried and called homophobic.

edutcher said...

Usually, when something like that happens, the next light said politician sees is the one popped by the inquisitorati, asking how he could have lost.

PS Actually, you do, it just doesn't get the coverage.

Petunia said...

And I wonder about some people who change their minds in the other direction...our president, for instance...and those who believe that that is a true evolution of view and not pure political expedience.

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roux said...

Same-sex marriage will be the end of marriage and pretty much everyone knows it.

Of course it's not about gays and lesbians getting married but about destroying society. Oh and the financial benefits.

LilyBart said...


I'm incline to say live and let live. I've always said that I've got no problem with gays fallin love and getting married. Its their life - their choice. Live life. Be happy.

But I've become concerned and pursuaded that people who support gay marriage won't return the favor. That they won't let Christians have a different opinion - That government will force churches to marry - or force religious schools to teach about the gay lifestyle and gay sex.

So, you could say that I've been made more cautious about gay marriage as I've seen how others' rights can be trampled by the gay marriage movement.

And don't tell me this won't happen. Gay activists are pretty militant.



Titus said...

Wait till Kennedy sides with the libtards in the upcoming fag trial.

Talk about a nail in the coffin.

The good news is that fag marriage will not happen in the South (and Utah and Idaho) for at least 50 years.

The rest of the states-20 years max.

Lem said...

The sooner gay marriage is approved, as a matter of state business, equal protection or whatever... the sooner it will cease to cover up, paper over the underlying heart of the matter.

The desire to be accepted.

I see that willful desire as a unifying strength... its good when people want to join... its no more complicated for me.

As long as they let the churches go their own way... not force it upon them... I don't we think we should have any problems.

We are adults... or something.

Kelly said...

Isn't Gay marriage kind of new? It isn't even legal in every state yet.

Pogo said...

I fully expect Catholics will be illegal.

Pogo said...

Imagine no religion.
It's easy if you try.

Paddy O said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Big Mike said...

You never hear anyone say they used to support it, but have seen the light ...

You will.

tim maguire said...

Government forcing churches to hold marriage ceremonies for unions they don't support is a fake issue.

Churches have always had the right to sanction or decline to sanction any marriage they wish for any reason they wish (as far as the government's concerned) and there's no reason to think that well established practice will change.

Oso Negro said...

The unintended consequences of altering, in a single generation, countless millenia of societal practice are yet to be felt. There is no chance the contemporary generation of credentialed social observers will cop to detrimental effects.

rcommal said...

From what I can tell, despite all of the Catholics here, there's not a single one who's willing to stand up for Holy Week or to explain it, each and every one of the services and liturgical rituals therein.

Instead, it's more often than not all about the politics and the staking out of partisan positions, and what folks would like the general society to be like, and in what ways and how government ought better be configured to take care of things, and all that jazz.

How, exactly, is that not disgraceful?

LilyBart said...

Government forcing churches to hold marriage ceremonies for unions they don't support is a fake issue.

Do you think that government could force curriculum on private school (including religious based schools) that meets the gay agenda in order to get accredidation? Or to be able to accept any vouchers that are allowed?

I do.

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paddy O said...

"there's no reason to think that well established practice will change."

um.... there's a lot of reason, as well established practices are changing.

Lem said...

Government forcing churches to hold marriage ceremonies for unions they don't support is a fake issue.

You cant see how the militants could go after the church?

Buttressed on some equal protection argument, they would remove tax exemption to penalize the church... The democrats would love the back door revenue.

All they need is one or two Supremes.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

A far far bigger problem than Gay Marriage --- Black Marriage.

But no one talks about that one. Cowards.

edutcher said...

Titus said...

Wait till Kennedy sides with the libtards in the upcoming fag trial.

Talk about a nail in the coffin.


I do believe Ann (maybe Insta) quoted the good Justice indicating he saw things the exact opposite.

rcommal said...

From what I can tell, despite all of the Catholics here, there's not a single one who's willing to stand up for Holy Week or to explain it, each and every one of the services and liturgical rituals therein.

Instead, it's more often than not all about the politics and the staking out of partisan positions, and what folks would like the general society to be like, and in what ways and how government ought better be configured to take care of things, and all that jazz.


What is he babbling about?

It never fails to amaze me how the atheists and Libertarians and what-all have all these problems with Protestants, Catholics, etc., when they claim to be all live and let live.

SteveR said...

"Gay Marriage" is about politics, I'm can't see why its supporters are so gung ho about getting all these laws changed. They aren't playing the victim game right.

rcocean said...

Its the ultimate symbolic side-issue. If it becomes legal, who's hurt Almost no one. OTOH, how many Gays are prevented from being "married"? Probably .00001 percent of the total population.

Gays can now serve openly in the military. Has the military been deluged with Gay recruits? Are the Althouse sons now going to volunteer now?

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem said...

Are the Althouse sons now going to volunteer now?

There is no need to get personal.

rcocean said...

It isn't personal. To understand one sentence, its often necessary to read the sentence(s) preceding it.

Of course your comment could be satire. But if so, its bad satire.

edutcher said...

rcocean said...

Its the ultimate symbolic side-issue. If it becomes legal, who's hurt Almost no one.

No, society loses because Santorum is being proven right (can't believe I'm saying that) about the floodgate Lawrence v Texas would open.

The end of the family means we're all thralls of the State.

Gays can now serve openly in the military.

Only 5000 years of recorded history tell us what a bad idea that is.

somefeller said...

There's another clear way to see that same-sex marriage is inevitable. Throughout modern American history (if not even earlier), one can see a pattern. If affluent, educated upper-middle class Americans are generally in support of something, regardless of their partisan or ideological stripe, that thing becomes legal and a settled issue. If they don't generally support something, it doesn't. There was a time when segregation was fine, or at least of little concern, to most affluent, educated upper-middle class Americans. When the opposite became true, segregation died.

Support for gay marriage is becoming generally accepted among affluent, educated upper-middle class Americans, including among self-described Republicans and conservatives. That wasn't the case in the past and isn't the case for various other liberal causes. Once a certain tipping point takes place in that group on this issue, widespread legalization of gay marriage or civil unions will take place. And that tipping point is fast approaching, if it isn't already here. The rest is background noise and opposition from people who aren't in that group won't matter.

Henry said...

Only 5000 years of recorded history tell us what a bad idea that is.

The Amazon ain't just a river in Brazil.

bpm4532 said...

Excuse me for shouting, but ELIMINATE THE TAX EFFECTS OF BEING MARRIED. The only deduction should be personal exemptions. This of course means a flat tax.

This will all go away.

Bob_R said...

Marriage was forever changed by the invention of the birth control pill. The drive for gay marriage is a reaction to those changes - not a cause of them. We are still adapting to changes of circumstances for 97% of the population. I greatly doubt that what 3% of the population do to the institution will have that much effect.

Pogo said...

From what I can tell, despite all of the Catholics here, there's not a single one who's willing to stand up for Holy Week or to explain it, each and every one of the services and liturgical rituals therein.

From what I can tell, Althouse has never done such a post. If she does, I'm game.

I'm unsure what you meant by that jab.

Freeman Hunt said...

Actually, I do hear that.

Dante said...

That's like saying those who have converted to Islam are correct in their thinking because they now support Islam.

Really, this is simply a bandwagon argument.

Methadras said...

We all know that the end game of homosexual marriage is to bring down the church. Not a mystery when the velvet mafia basically says as much.

rcommal said...

What is he babbling about?

I am a woman, Ed. My name is Lori. (There are people here who have known that for close to a decade now. Including AA herself.) I am not an atheist, among other things--though I don't, myself, toss out labels in the way that you do, constantly, regularly and, from what I can tell, as a matter of principle (as you would define the notion of "principle"--to be clear).

I get it that you're among the greatest, most popular sorta guy ever. You are here to represent the mainstream, which only you get to define (thus staking out control). I get that. I cast a flower to you, and many flower petals in your direction. I bow to what's required. I do.

That said, I don't respect you.

And while I believe in so many traditional things, I'll never attach those things to such as you. Never. Because that's not what you're about, not really.

You strike me as one of those who absolutely opposes every and any change in church services of a Sunday morning, and yet who never attends, much less immerses yourself, in any service that might require you to look in the mirror of yourself and be confronted with: Why?

Pogo said...

There have been many who believed they were on the right side of history, that none could reasonably oppose them.

They litter the past.

chickelit said...

You never heard anyone say the Titanic was sinkable before she went down either.

Really, public and even expert consensus in uncharted territory counts for little. Ask the global warming alarmists.

A state-by-state referendum is the best way to go with this issue. This is why I predict the demise of DOMA and the upholding of Prop 8.

Chip Ahoy said...

Blinded by the light revved up like a deuce another runner in the night.

What does that mean?

creeley23 said...

Count me as someone who has switched from being on the fence about gay marriage to being opposed.

The sheer nastiness, closed-mindedness and dishonesty of gay marriage advocates, exemplified by our own Andy R., has put me right off the project.

Instead of debate, gay marriage advocates simply short-circuit all discussion by saying that it is a human right and anyone who disagrees is a bigot.

Or they take the tack Althouse's son offers, which also short-circuits discussion, by saying gay marriage is inevitable, so give up now.

Freeman Hunt said...

"What does that mean?"

Yeah, what does that mean? It always makes me picture Light Cycles, as in Tron.

AJ Lynch said...

How did thi become front page news? Did the senator call a press conference to announce it?

jr565 said...

I am less willing to support same sex unions let alone marriage after listening some of the most odious people who have ever been part of the body politic. Their churlishness and calls of bigotry for all who oppose their views has made me completely unsympathetic to ther views.

chickelit said...

Chip Ahoy said...
Blinded by the light revved up like a deuce another runner in the night.

What does that mean?


It means running away like a little piece of deuce from the blinding and blistering insight of revenant on yet another night of Althouse.

Actually I think it refers to a motor as in "little deuce coup"

AEH said...

Okay, I get what rcommal is saying. When someone says, "I have seen the light," he or she is making a revelation from their past experiences of mouthing the words. When young adults change political philosophies, is it really "seeing the light", or elongated adolescence in which the young man or woman is really wanting to be thought of differently from his or her parents? It's like changing churches to get a good feeling instead of good content. People often change to either stand apart or be the same, but in the macrocosm of the USA, there are two large herds of sheep.

edutcher said...

omefeller said...

There's another clear way to see that same-sex marriage is inevitable. Throughout modern American history (if not even earlier), one can see a pattern. If affluent, educated upper-middle class Americans are generally in support of something, regardless of their partisan or ideological stripe, that thing becomes legal and a settled issue. If they don't generally support something, it doesn't. There was a time when segregation was fine, or at least of little concern, to most affluent, educated upper-middle class Americans. When the opposite became true, segregation died.

Wrong, as usual. The elite were against segregation, North and, in many cases, South - seeing it as a humiliation. Most middle class people never even saw any black people their whole lives until the mid 20th century.

When Joe Average saw on TV what segregation was, then it ended.

PS By some phony folksy's reckoning, abortion is universally approved.

Freeman Hunt said...

I get that deuce is a car, but there's blinding and an indication of multiple "runners" (Who are they? Where are they running to? Or is it running as in transporting?) who tend to be out at night.

I read all the lyrics to the song, but that was baffling rather than enlightening.

Erika said...

I used to support it, as recently as 3ish years ago. My growing understanding of the necessity of the traditional family, as well as my growing awareness of the militancy and intolerance of the gay lobby, led me to re-examine my position. The same is true for my husband.

chickelit said...

@Freeman: Manfred Mann's other hits were called "Doo Wah Diddy Diddy" and "The Mighty Quinn"

Why even expect deeper meaning?

wyo sis said...

"Churches have always had the right to sanction or decline to sanction any marriage they wish for any reason they wish (as far as the government's concerned) and there's no reason to think that well established practice will change."

Churches have always had the right not pay for things that are against their doctrine until we got national health care. There is plenty of reason to think many well established Christian and Jewish practices and doctrines will be forced to change or pay outrageous fines or end.

Henry said...

We all know that the end game of homosexual marriage is to bring down the church.

The church? Which church? A church?

Do all you people who blather on about end games and flood gates and destroying society every look at evidence?

Massachusetts has Catholics and gay marriage and it is pretty much the same as it ever was (once, it was the Catholics that were going to destroy society).

Don't throw out glib statements about history. Historically women are subjugated to men, men are subjugated to princes, everyone is poor, and religion is based on the sword. Our tolerant, polyglot, rights-based, free market society is the anomaly.

Maybe what most needs protecting is the open society.

Freeman Hunt said...

Chickelit, ah, when you put it that way, it all makes sense.

Dante said...

Excuse me for shouting, but ELIMINATE THE TAX EFFECTS OF BEING MARRIED. The only deduction should be personal exemptions. This of course means a flat tax.

What about survivor benefits? It takes a lot of energy to raise kids, you know.

Why particularly male homosexuals feel it is in their right to these benefits without the effort escapes me.

Lesbians with children, well, they kids are different. I would be worried about dealing them a bad card if I were a Lesbian.

chickelit said...

Or they take the tack Althouse's son offers, which also short-circuits discussion, by saying gay marriage is inevitable, so give up now.

If we want to talk inevitability of something that should matter to everyone and not just 2% of the equality challenged population, it's the reckoning of monetary debt.

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

Henry, the illegalization of religious beliefs that don't celebrate all things gay has already occurred in Canada and the UK. Religion is hate speech.

chickelit said...

Chickelit, ah, when you put it that way, it all makes sense.

I wasn't even trying to be my usual smart-ass, Freeman. The melodies of that band were catchy and original, but I think sometimes they just used words because they rhymed.

AEH said...

Pogo, I attend a church in Montreal that is Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and the LCMS has the official stance that homosexuality is sinful. Can you give examples of how the Canadian government is oppressing churches?

chickelit said...

@AEH: I don't know about Canada, but your mother country sounds frightening on the matter: link

I think Althouse blogged this when it happened, IIRC.

creeley23 said...

Manfred Mann's other hits were called "Doo Wah Diddy Diddy" and "The Mighty Quinn"

Why even expect deeper meaning?


Ahem.

These are all songs Mannfred Mann covered, not wrote.

Doo Wah Diddy was written by the songwriting team of Jeff Barry and Ellen Greenwich. It is about as perfect as a rock song gets. DWD is up in Louie, Louie Valhalla. As R. Crumb said in one of his comix covers, "If you don't know what Doo Wah Diddy means, don't mess with it."

Dylan wrote The Mighty Quinn as a light-hearted, but not meaningless, romp about the imminent return of the local candy man.

Blinded by the Light is from Bruce Springsteen's freshman album when he was bursting with pure adolescent energy and his life was filled with crazy bohemian characters, as he tried to make it in the music biz. And that's what the song is about.

Freeman Hunt said...

Chickelit, sorry, I was unclear. I didn't think you were being a smart ass. It really did all make sense when you pointed out similar instances of wordplay.

Freeman Hunt said...

Then this creeley comes along and schools us all.

AEH said...

Chickelit, thankfully, I am just in Canada for school and my mother country is the US of A. It hurt my heart to re-enter Quebec after spring break in Ohio.

chickelit said...

Blinded by the Light is from Bruce Springsteen's freshman album when he was bursting with pure adolescent energy and his life was filled with crazy bohemian characters, as he tried to make it in the music biz. And that's what the song is about.

I think he expressed that better in later songs.

That being said, please address Freeman's and Chip's concerns.

Thanks.

chickelit said...

Dylan wrote The Mighty Quinn as a light-hearted, but not meaningless, romp about the imminent return of the local candy man.

You mean Candy man-Candy man like the Grateful Dead's Candyman?

Pogo said...

Start here AEH:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0080.html
http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-acquitted-of-hate-crime-charge-in-canada-42190/
http://catholicexchange.com/catholicism-a-hate-crime-in-canada/
http://canadianchristianity.com/state-canadian-church-part-iii-christians-danger-persecuted-minority-222/

Freeman Hunt said...

But can anyone rewrite Blinded By the Light as a song about the gay marriage debate? That's the real question.

YoungHegelian said...

@Henry,

Massachusetts has Catholics and gay marriage and it is pretty much the same as it ever was (once, it was the Catholics that were going to destroy society).

Sorry, Henry, no. You just weren't paying attention.

Pogo said...

http://www.theinterim.com/issues/society-culture/religious-persecution-in-canada/
http://catholicexchange.com/canada-orders-pastor-to-renounce-his-faith/
http://christiannews.net/2013/02/28/canadian-supreme-court-rules-biblical-speech-opposing-homosexual-behavior-is-a-hate-crime/
http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/shared/media/editor/file/PersecutionOfChristians(1).pdf

DADvocate said...

But, those who say it's just about having the same rights as others are lying or fools. In Rob Portman's hometown of Cincinnati a big stink is being raised because organizers of the St. Patrick's Day Parade aren't allowing a gay educational group (whatever that is) to march.

A representative of Councilman Chris Seelbach said the councilman was told that because parade organizers consider the parade a Catholic event and the Gay/Lesbian/Straight Education Network goes against Catholic teachings, the parade would not allow GLSEN to participate in the parade.

....

"The Parade has allowed participants to identify themselves and the organization they represent, but no solicitations are permitted by the marchers or in the crowd along the parade route," Schulte said in a statement.

Schulte said the restrictions were plainly stated in the parade orders given to all potential participants.

He said the Gay/Lesbian/Straight Educational Network participated in last year's parade but did not abide by the event's guidelines, and he said the group indicated it would not agree this year to the parade orders.


It's looking more and more like forcing others to accept gay groups no matter what is the goal. How long will it be until Michael K's prediction comes true? I support certain rights, but don't approve of the behavior associated with those rights and want nothing to do with it. What happened to freedom of association, freedom of religion, and such. I don't see a large out pouring of the gay community supporting 2nd amendment rights. Why should I bother supporting them when it appears more and more they are simply another cog in the liberal fascism wheel?

YoungHegelian said...

@jaltcoh,

You know what else you never hear? You never hear the same people who talk about how the gays are the new n*****s wonder about how 40 years from now if gays will be %45 of the prison population, 80% out-of-wedlock birthrates, and marriage will be all but unknown among the lower 50%.

Because the left has had such a good history of predicting how their schemes & dreams turn out for the target population, right?

creeley23 said...

That being said, please address Freeman's and Chip's concerns.

I thought I did. All these characters, Springsteen included, are overcome with the blinding light -- sex, life energy -- driving them crazy, impelling them to some destiny, running blinded into the night.

And Bruce tells us, it's going to be OK. They're all gonna make it.

You mean Candy man-Candy man like the Grateful Dead's Candyman?

Uh-yeah.

But when the Quinn the Eskimo gets here, everybody's going to jump for joy.

Lem said...

When you see the light... Gatsby approaches.

chickelit said...

Freeman Hunt said...
But can anyone rewrite Blinded By the Light as a song about the gay marriage debate? That's the real question.

I can't. When I try it comes out with Althousian nuance:

Blinded by the light,
wrapped up like a douche,
another thread runnin' in the night

Madison drummers bummers,
Indian summers with a Wonder Woman diplomat
In the dumps with the mumps as the adolescent hat man pumps his way
With an over the shoulder boulder holder, feelin' kinda sexy,
I tripped the mary-no-post-zone
With this very unpleasin', teezin' and appeazin',
Calliope crashed on the floor
Calliope crashed on the floor
...

...Some siliconed sister with a managable blister told me I go what it takes
She said "I'll turn you on sonny to something strong,
play the song with a funky beak"
And ala-cart Mozart was checkin' out the weather chart to see if it was safe outside
And little Early-Dearly came by in his curly-wurly and asked me if I needed a ride
Asked me if I needed a ride
But he was...
Blinded by the light,
.
.
She got down but she never got tired
She's gonna make it through the night
She's gonna make it through the night
But Mama, that's where the fun is
But Mama, that's where the fun is
Mama always told me not to look into the eye's of the sun
But Mama, that's where the fun is
Some brimstone baritone anti-vortex rolling stone preacher from the east
Says, "Dethrone the homophone, hit it in it's funny bone,
that's where they expect it least"
And some new-moan chap alone was standin' in the corner,
watching the young girls dance
And some fresh-owned moonstone was messin' with the frozen zone, reminding him of romance

Calliope crashed to the ground
But she was...
minded by the blight,

Now ScottM with a slingshot finally found a tender spot and throws his lover in the sand

And some bloody hot forget-me-not said daddy's ears are shot, save the buckshot, turn up the band...

Coketown said...

I severely undercooked my chicken tonight, and it put me in a very irritable and disagreeable mood. It's my fault entirely, since I didn't wait for it to defrost thoroughly, and I don't want to reheat the oven. So I've tried a succession of short blasts in the microwave, which has only transformed it into a strange entree--chicken in appearance, rubber in texture.

I rolled my eyes at the undercooked chicken. And I rolled my eyes at jaltcoh's blogpost--as always. Since we're dwelling in the world of inevitabilities, let's acknowledge the inevitability of being treated to yet another narcissistic, insular, indulgent piece of shit post by him. What do we expect considering the retarded blurb in the title? As though writing about himself isn't enough, he wants us to know what a swell guy others think he is.

Enough about me; here's what my readers think about me. Etc.

So let me say, as someone who not only "saw the light" and realized what an awful mistake gay marriage is, and know plenty of people both straight and gay who've reached the same conclusion, even after supporting it only a couple years ago--let me say John needs to pull his head out of his ass and broaden his exposure.

It doesn't take an active imagination to realize the push for gay marriage is animated by irreverence to marriage as an institution--not reverence. It doesn't take much sleuthing to see the only thing that makes gay marriage proponents more giddy than gay marriage is gay divorce. It's beginning to populate the lifestyle sections of the typical liberal rags. Gay divorce. It's almost as awesome as straight divorce. For liberals.

And it doesn't take a terribly inquisitive mind--actually, scratch that, it does--it does take an inquisitive mind to understand a) how few gays are actually getting married and b) how few of those who do are staying married.

Turns out gay relationships are very unstable. But sociologists don't use that word: they use "dynamic." Gay relationships are dynamic. Fluid. They evolve. And change. Isn't that what relationships are all about? Isn't that what marriage is about? Instead of "I do," it's "I do, for now...until something better comes up."

So going back to the man of the hour, the reason we're all discussing gay marriage--again, as though the topic hasn't already devolved into the densest tedium on earth--he should look out his window. Mirrors aren't windows. You can't see the world through them--unless you are your own world, which seems to be the case here.

Next time, phrase it as a question. "Does anyone who used to think...?" etc.

You know, one time, I was at a bar in Seattle--I think it was The Cuff, or R Place. Wherever, it was filthy--and a guy bought me a drink and asked if he could fuck my brains out.

Is this what happened? Did somebody literally fuck his brains out, compelling him to write such mindless, obviously idiotic dribble?

The mind reels.

creeley23 said...

But can anyone rewrite Blinded By the Light as a song about the gay marriage debate? That's the real question.

I live about two miles from the Castro in San Francisco. That's a place pulsing with crazy sexy bohemian energy, not as much now as in the past, but still.

One could write Blinded By the Light as an early song of the gay marriage debate.

What we need are Springsteen's later songs, from Darkness at the Edge of Town on, when Springsteen confronts the What-Now questions after the initial youthful energies have waned and his characters have bumped up against harsh realities.

Gay marriage is at least partly a response to harsh realities and bigger questions than finding a partner for now.

Coketown said...

I'm sure if you spent some time in a faculty lounge in the 1920s, or had tea every day with Keynes around the same time, you would say something like, "You know, you never hear people who used to support eugenics saying they no longer do. This movement must be inevitable. Cheers!"

History did not taken what once seemed its natural course. It seldom does. Keep that in mind while you're discussing inevitabilities.

Lem said...

It doesn't take an active imagination to realize the push for gay marriage is animated by irreverence to marriage as an institution--not reverence.

There is not much reverence to speak of on the straight side...
But I see where you are coming from.

Paddy O said...

"There is not much reverence to speak of on the straight side..."

This is why I generally stay out of these conversations, the reverence left a long time ago. There's sentimentalism now, but that's pretty shallow.

Lem said...

Talk show host Barry Farber used to tell the story of a famous Jazz musician... maybe it was Louis Armstrong ... when asked about a US – USSR stalemate that had to do with weather or not someone should be allowed to sit (credentialed) at the UN – the famous jazz musician is said to have demurred...

“If he wants to sit let him sit”.

creeley23 said...

In 2008 quite a lot of people, including some prominent conservatives, jumped on the Obama "Hope'n'Change" bandwagon. It was the most shamlessly messianic campaign in American history. You never heard anyone say they used to support Obama.

In 2012, not so much. You heard from quite a lot of people, including Alhtouse, who could no longer support Obama. And almost no one, not even those who voted for Obama, could defend the dreamy enthusiasms of the 2008 campaign.

Obama is the first president since Andrew Jackson to be re-elected with less support than he got the first time.

History, as other commenters have noted, is not always kind to those who claim inevitability.

Lem said...

I had rcocean pegged as a guy... but now I see the light.

Lem said...

I've Got The World On A String

Nini said...

This SSM movement will turn society upside down.

It's not even legalized in Australia but there was a case of a gay couple who sued a christian child adoption agancy for discrimination for turning down their application to adopt.

Lem said...

Beginning To See the Light

Lem said...

I Can't See The Light Of Day

Darrell said...

Blinded by the light revved up like a deuce another runner in the night.

The "deuce" here is two carburetors on a V8 engine for street racing. For serious racers, it would be two four-barrel carbs--Rochester Quadrajets or Carter AFBs (WCFBs). Gearheads can distinguish the difference in engine sound on a car running a twin-carb setup.
"Revving" should be self-explanatory.

However most Springstein fans think it "wrapped up like a douche" from what I've heard on radio call-in talk shows. And it makes sense to them "You know, wrappped up like a douche, man. You know how the chicks wrap up a douche?"

Lem said...

Long as I can see the Light

O Ritmo Segundo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem said...

Blinded by the Light

chickelit said...

However most Springstein fans think it "wrapped up like a douche" from what I've heard on radio call-in talk shows. And it makes sense to them "You know, wrappped up like a douche, man. You know how the chicks wrap up a douche?"

Well, that's pretty much how BS ended up his career, isn't it--wrapped up like a douche?

Don't blame the messenger and all.

Chip Ahoy said...

I am disturbed by Cokektown's misdirection.

He really had me going there with undercooked chicken.

I was recalling with a good deal of fondness the very recent chicken meal I was presented just a few hours ago, perfectly cooked too, and I didn't even have to cook it myself. And right there, somebody thought of cooking a chicken breast a way I hadn't seen before and hadn't thought of myself, and man, was it ever good too. En crema, but you can imagine it in coconut milk too, or regular cream, or crème fraîche, and poblano chile on top, split open and roasted, the inside of the chile exposed to roasting. It's always the outside to get rid of the skin, but you don't see the inside roasted. That was my favorite part.

And I thought it was going to be a story about inevitability contravened similar to what I experienced. A waiter who was curt, and abrupt, barely audible, and uninterested. Distressed by a problem that arose and then apologetic. A party to my having to wait inordinately long. Inevitable at that point for things to turn out poorly and yet an abrupt reversal, a delicious meal cheerfully delivered, and that standoffish aloof fellow reached out and clasped my shoulder four times before I left.

I notice shit like that.

But that chicken story was just lead in to Coketown rolling his eyes. Talk about a fake out.

O Ritmo Segundo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
O Ritmo Segundo said...

Yep. Bruce Springsteen can't get no royalties or concert-goers no more.

Apparently the existence of at least two coasts in North America is unknown by some.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Yep, the lyrics to that Mighty Quinn song are mighty silly. But how come no one ever bashes songs from the fifties, which were often equally ridiculous lyrically?

chickelit said...

It's as ludicrous as saying that Mark Twain's career is over.

Mark Twain's career is long over. His legacy lives though.

Springsteen's career is wrapped up like a douche though...contained...wrapped...flushed...

unless....


...he sees the light.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

At the risk of ruining the heretofore very visceral nature of my Friday night, is there any reason why "come all within" can't be a sexual reference?

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I can't make out what Chick is saying re: Springsteen. It's about as decipherable as a Manfred Mann lyric.

I'm still Springsteen still makes loads of royalties, his net worth is in the hundreds of millions, and people on the less flaky and more real coast of the U.S. still fill the shows that he plays.

I know that conservatism has a way of making propaganda out of everything but seriously, stop being a wet blanket.

chickelit said...

O Ritmo Segundo spake...
At the risk of ruining the heretofore very visceral nature of my Friday night, is there any reason why "come all within" can't be a sexual reference?

At the risk of sounding like I watch porn, is there any reason why "come all without" [the previous line in Ritmo's quoted song] can't be a sexual reference unrelated to real relationships?

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Is hating Sprinsteen part of the conservative backlash against hurricane relief and the governors who welcome it (and local hero Springsteen?)

If so, something has really gone off the rails.

Lem said...

See the Lights

chickelit said...

I frankly doubt whether Ritmo has ever seen the "Mighty Quim" up close and personal.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

At the risk of sounding like I watch porn, is there any reason why "come all without" [the previous line in Ritmo's quoted song] can't be a sexual reference unrelated to real relationships?

Heh.

Come on over here, Chickie!

Lem said...

After the Lights go Down Low

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I frankly doubt whether Ritmo has ever seen the "Mighty Quim" up close and personal.

Why did you say this? Are you trying to be jokey, and just found directing it at me more convenient?

The quims I see, well I don't know if they're mighty, but they're nice. They also lack teeth.

Slippery quim.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Ritmo's getting drunk texts now.

This one almost seems kind of poetic.

Lem said...

Is hating Sprinsteen part of the conservative backlash against hurricane relief and the governors who welcome it (and local hero Springsteen?)

Last I heard the money raised by the Springsteen gig after the storm is nowhere to be found.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Last I heard the money raised by the Springsteen gig after the storm is nowhere to be found.

Ok Lem good work! I'll be sure to put Breitbart's private investigators from the fifth dimension in touch with you and the other congregants gathered around the ouija board.

creeley23 said...

Is hating Sprinsteen part of the conservative backlash against hurricane relief and the governors who welcome it (and local hero Springsteen?)

I'm not bashing Springsteen. I still love his first four albums plus The River and Lucky Town, but few artists can keep up their vision and freshness past ten years or so. That's just the way of it.

I'm sure Bruce still puts on a great concert and he will be performing as long as he wants to.

Lem said...

Ok Lem good work! I'll be sure to put Breitbart's private investigators from the fifth dimension in touch with you and the other congregants gathered around the ouija board.

A hero would not let the money disappear... unless he was liberal first.

Icepick said...

And Bruce tells us, it's going to be OK. They're all gonna make it.

Yeah, how'd that work out for all those crazy bohemians in the bath houses of San Francisco back in the late 1970s? I guess that AIDS thing was reality setting in.

But here's the real truth of the matter: No one is going to make it. No one gets out of this alive. We're all doomed. All that is left is to try and find meaning in our fleeting moment in the sun, before the darkness takes us.

And right now, in this time, in this place, the most significant moral issue is the claim that men butt-fucking each other should be assumed to have all the same rights and privileges and responsibilities of couples having children the old fashioned way. O tempora o mores! For the fate of civilizations to turn on such matters is a sign of a much deeper rot.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I'm not bashing Springsteen. I still love his first four albums plus The River and Lucky Town, but few artists can keep up their vision and freshness past ten years or so. That's just the way of it.

I'm sure Bruce still puts on a great concert and he will be performing as long as he wants to.


All true, especially the last part. But vision/freshness and commercial success are different things.

In any event, I was never much of a Springsteen fan but respect the impact he's had and consider him rightly iconic. I also heard him speaking on a WXPN (Philly) broadcast in the last year or so and listened as he let loose an incredible barrage of poetic free-association. It made me respect him more than I thought I would.

If I find the link, I'll post it. It's a great treat.

Icepick said...

I don't hate Springsteen because I'm a conservative and he's a very rich commie. I hate Springsteen because he's so fucking full of himself, and his fans treat him like he's Jesus Returned. It's profane in a way that neither an Ozzy Osbourne nor a Larry Flint could hope to match. (And only one of those two is really trying to be profane.)

O Ritmo Segundo said...

No one cares what you think, Icepick.

I'm pretty sure this is the link, Creeley. If not, I'll keep looking. I'm listening to the first few minutes and his insights are funny. It'll be evident if this is the one or not soon.

Icepick said...

For perversity, consider this: Something dreamed up by the feverish mind of Andrew Sullivan about 20 years ago is now a moral inevitability sweeping the world. Or at least the parts of the world that don't believe in any thing any more.

Icepick said...

O ritmo, you cut me to the quick!

O Ritmo Segundo said...

For perversity, consider this: Something dreamed up by the feverish mind of Andrew Sullivan about 20 years ago is now a moral inevitability sweeping the world. Or at least the parts of the world that don't believe in any thing any more.

Yeah, pretty perverse, Icepick. The entire world moved on and didn't care if it fit in with the ridiculous things that made you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Imagine that.

Icepick said...

Oh, I forgot to add the "@@" at the end of my previous comment. Not that anyone cares, LOL!

O Ritmo Segundo said...

But Springsteen's the one who's full of himself.

Dante said...

edutcher sez:

It never fails to amaze me how the atheists and Libertarians and what-all have all these problems with Protestants, Catholics, etc., when they claim to be all live and let live.

When I was young, Religious folks used to bother me a lot. Sometimes they would send out pretty young women to convert folks, and that bothered me too.

Not so much anymore. It's becoming clearer to me that Religion has been a great caretaker of a many important social institutions. Unfortunately, like Soviet Union All Powerful State, the US has to destroy those institutions to cement the New Morality. Meanwhile, the earliest concrete evidence of religion is 100,000 years ago, by a non homo sapien sapien animal in burial rituals. And these rituals may be even longer ago than that.

Such is the morality of the state. What arrogance to replace something that predates humanity with stupid ideas, all of which seem to empower the state.

Icepick said...

Ritmo, what makes you think that whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside means a goddamned thing to the world? The world just IS, it doesn't care about people. You have an inflated sense of self to think that it does or should.

As for me it has been a long time now (on the relative timescale of my life) since I thought the world did or should care about what I think or feel. As a Sri Lankan friend liked to put it, "I got over my bad self."

Gay marriage is a triviality. Adding it to the legal and moral framework of society would at best remove an inconvenience for a portion of a small minority. This isn't a case of freeing the slaves. Slaves had a true harm done to them: their personal liberty was removed, and they were made human chattel. Being gay and not being allowed to get married to someone of the same sex does what great harm to gays? Hurts their feelings? Makes them feel unaccepted? Gay marriage is not on a par with gays not wanting to have homosexuality made illegal. It's just not even in the same ballpark.

This is not a great wrong. Especially given that many of the "rights" they claim to want concomitant to marriage are things that they could obtain through other legal mechanisms.

A sane society, faced with this issue, would respond with either a "Huh?", a "whatever, I don't care" or a "NO." (A sane society that would say "YES" would have already done so before this was a big deal.) The fact that we vacillate and fret and worry and tear ourselves and each up over this kind of trivial nonsense shows that we're lost something more important along the way. Good luck figuring out what that is by listening to Bruce Springsteen. I'm sure confused lyrics about carburetors and silly feminine hygiene products will clear that up for you any decade now.

O Ritmo Segundo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
O Ritmo Segundo said...

Ritmo, what makes you think that whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside means a goddamned thing to the world? The world just IS, it doesn't care about people. You have an inflated sense of self to think that it does or should.

Are you not able to read? I said YOU are the one who feels warm and fuzzy inside believing that excluding gays from loving sacrament is important. I AM NOT.

The world will do what there is no rational objection to. There is no rational reason to object to gay marriage, and therefore, it will proceed. Your knotted and emotive and sentimental attachment to irrelevant and stagnant institutional habits notwithstanding.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Gay marriage is not on a par with gays not wanting to have homosexuality made illegal. It's just not even in the same ballpark.

Other than the plain fact that there is no rational reason to waste time objecting to either.

But reason eludes you.

Icepick said...

The world will do what there is no rational objection to.

Wow, when did that happen?

First off, you are not talking about the world. You are talking about a human society.

Secondly, you are talking about a subset of that society, the subset that sets legal policy. You are claiming that a group of humans will do whatever as long as they see no rational reason not to.

Are you seeing a problem with this yet? Forget gay marriage, just think about what you are implying, that a group of humans will do anything if they see no rational objection to it. That's one big claim you're making.

Here's an example: From now on, all games of chess should begin with the player having the Black pieces moving first. My reason is this: Always having Black move second makes black people feel like second class citizens. It's the turn of white people to feel bad by moving the White pieces second. Furthermore, the board is to be rotated a quarter-turn, so that "Black is right" is the new imperative. That "White is right" stuff was a bunch of KKK bullshit. As before, Queens will start on squares of their color.

My reason is asinine, because we're talking about a game with some arbitrary color distinctions. But that's not the threshold I have to meet to get a change done. All I need to do is show that there is no rational objection to this change. And there isn't. Thanks to the rotation of the board, the set-up for the player making the first move is exactly the same as it was before. All the "book" opening moves to the game will remain the same. All the books and magazines and internet sites will still be valid, except with a "negative" image effect for the diagrams. Even the chess-playing programs and databases will still be valid.

Because the colors don't matter, they're only used for contrast to help a rather visual animal keep pieces and squares easily recognizable. THere is no RATIONAL reason to oppose my changes. Sure, my rationale is stupid, but there is no rational reason to oppose it. Because it is a meaningless change.

However, it would be opposed, for the simple reason of "What the fuck do you think you're doing? YOu're fucking with TRADITION!" Well, that's not rational on their part. It is an appeal to doing things the same way they've always been done* jusy because they've always been done that way.

The changes would not be implemented. Even if I demonstrated to a lot of them that they used to play with no color distinction of pieces of squares at all. Which was true for people that played on the earlier versions of the Free Internet Chess Server, when graphical interfaces were not always available to users. So their objections to changing the color scheme is really, REALLY trivial, and not at all rational.

* Not actually true in this case, but that actually bolsters my point.

Icepick said...

For the record, I don't particularly feel warm and fuzzy about gays getting married, nor about their staying single. I'm not really interested in church or CHURCH teachings, being an atheist. I do care about society because I live in it. I've also noticed that a lot of changes that were supposed to be neutral or positive have often had bad effects. For example, no-fault divorce, taking away the stigma of having children out of wedlock, and so on.

So my position is that if someone wants a radical change to how things have been done in the past, they need to show (1) that some grievous harm is occurring because of how things were done and (2) that the change they are advocating will meet alleviate that harm. I don't see an great harm from not allowing gas to get married to each other. It is an inconvenience in a society that has an ever declining respect for marriage, and which otherwise accepts gays.

OTOH, making homosexuality illegal, so that gays having sex with each other are criminals for that act alone, is a noticeable harm done to them. In that case, the burden of showing that oppressing them should be continued falls on the other side. They failed to do so (at least thus far), and so the laws and enforcement practices have changed.

Gay marriage just isn't that great a cause - the harm done, if any, to those not allowed to marry is minimal.

And what is the great rationale for allowing it? That consenting adults should be allowed to form bonds as they see fit?

Icepick said...

Excuse me, form LEGAL bonds sanctioned by the state as they see fit.

MayBee said...

He didn't make a big announcement about why he changed his mind , but in 1998 Barack Obama supported gay marriage. He later announced he did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_social_policy

Why do people always "forget" this fact about our president?

Icepick said...

I also don't see why, if gay marriage is allowed, various forms of group marriages shouldn't be allowed. After all, consenting adults, and all that.

But I can give you really good practical reasons why group marriages shouldn't be allowed. Think of how messy the divorces would be. I'm not saying that to be funny, either. Ever worked on a QDRO before? Think about custody issues for children of group marriages. Think about the problems that could arise from Party A in the group marriage wanting a divorce from Party B in the marriage, but not from everyone else.

But this is the path of consenting adult reasoning. It's also pretty much the path of any kind of breakdown of the ground rules for who can get married. If something as basic as the need for the two parties to the marriage be of opposite sex is in doubt, why should the number "TWO" be sacrosanct? After all, there are a helluva lot more examples of group marriages in human history than of gay marriage.

gadfly said...

At one time Portman was Romney's leading VP candidate, but it seems his conservatism was pasted on for the election only. Real conservatives have principled beliefs - and Rob Portman suddenly doesn't believe in family values because his son is queer.

Are you telling me that after 21 years, Portman didn't know or at least suspect that his son was not hetero? I do not believe that for a moment.

Marriage and matrimony imply a union for the purpose of producing offspring.

Those with screws tightened a different way can simply find other words to use. Vocal minorities this small need to shut up and live the life of mismatched orifices/appendages that they choose while leaving the rest of us at peace. I don't bother them so they need not force their way into my world.

Icepick said...

Why do people always "forget" this fact about our president?

They don't. In fact I brought this up (elsewhere) earlier in the week. The problem is twofold. First, this doesn't fit the narrative that most of the big shots want to tell. So you're not going to get this pounded into your head by the NYT, the WaPo, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, et cetera. Second, everyone knows that Obama will say whatever needs to be said at the moment to win the next election. So no one necessarily believes what he says. Liberals will always assume he's one of them and whenever HE goes off the ranch he's just playing the suckers, and conservatives will just think he's another jack-hole from Chicago. (Obviously the two positions are not mutually exclusive.)

Basically, a politician being a politician isn't noteworthy.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

First off, you are not talking about the world. You are talking about a human society.

Which is a part of the world. Even your creationist co-partisans believe that the supernatural Sky God who supposedly created humans didn't make them supernatural as well.

Secondly, you are talking about a subset of that society, the subset that sets legal policy.

In a democratic republic, no distinction is necessary, you Tory monarchist.

For the record, I don't particularly feel warm and fuzzy about gays getting married, nor about their staying single.

Why do you keep completely missing this point? What you feel warm and fuzzy about is confining them to arbitrary rules made by arbitrary organizations.

I'm not really interested in church or CHURCH teachings, being an atheist.

Wonderful. Another poseur. I knew it was coming, as is this:

I do care about society because I live in it.

Good! Then you'd better damn well try to BE and LIVE the example you'd like.

I'm so sick of Republican hypocrisy. You're endorsing institutions and the whimsical strictures they mandate, for others, that you yourself wouldn't take part in. This is inherently tyrannical.

Marriage is something that individuals have to agree to. Like all consensual arrangements. Therefore, if you wouldn't like someone preventing your marriage, you don't have a right to endorse the prevention of another's.

It's really that simple. Just think of all the arbitrary complexity and FEAR you confine yourself to by making it about such subjective contrivances as society, institutions and the like. You think that religion and homosexuality makes this a special case? Then explain why? What is so different about religion and homosexuals that supercedes their human claim to the same human institutions that you enjoy access to?

I understand that the conservative impulse is to arrange arbitrary hierarchies and organizations out of people in society. Organization and order give them comfort, apparently. But this is tyrannical. Monarchies served that purpose, but they did not stand. This will not stand, either. And the same clerisy that co-opted and collaborated with the crown can stay, too. As long as they remain non-coercive and stop pretending that their meddling with our free democratic republic can trump the will of the people and right to be self-ruled by reason, instead of by superstition and categorization.

Get real, man.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Sorry - should have been clergy and not clerisy. I realize now that despite their common origin, they developed meanings that are so politically distinct in modern America, that I should have retained that distinction in the comment above. Oh well.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Marriage and matrimony imply a union for the purpose of producing offspring.

Gadfly, I hereby appoint you to be gonad inspector for marriage license applicants. Seeing as how not even the state finds that role to be anything short of sleazy and downright weird.

In any event, glad to know that you're another one special enough to feel your world "intruded" upon by the free associations of others. Nice tyranny, too, with the advice to "shut up".

I hope they yell a thousand times louder than your eardrums and consciousness can handle.

MayBee said...

Ice pick- it might not be all that noteworthy, but in a post about "never" hearing about such a conversion, it was worth noting. Unless, of corse, the point is to demonstrate the author doesn't really pay attention to it when it does happen.

Renee said...

Maybe I see the light, but reflected differently. I still hold to the man+woman =offspring. When we study and understand the affects of father absence and child welfare outcomes, we know both mom and dad are equally important. Marriage public policy was the geared to this goal. Look at our prisons and look at the incarcerated childhood's. It is more then just poverty, but the lack of the biological dad present.

How does this become bigotry towards homosexuals?

Meanwhile I try to focus on father engagement programs and stabilize intact families in my state, and probably the Catholic Church may rename the Sacrament of Marriage so people do not confuse the ideas. It isn't just my relationship vs your relationship, rather if child is raised by their own biological parents.

This is an strange contradictions/paradox we fail to grasp, for instance one may say a mother and father should be together for the sake of the children. Current scientific social data and evolution can trace back that sexual monogamy between a male and female and the combining of domestic/economic resources benefit their children. Marriage was really about being open to the needs and obligations of children, but yet the foundation of that idea can only exist if there is love between a husband and wife first. If the husband and wife do not willingly love one another and give to one another completely, then they can not fully come together for the full benefit of the children

As with previous discussions with AndyR I worried of unjustified false accusations of bigotry.


Thank you Professor for allowing dissent on or blog.

jr565 said...

Is hating Sprinsteen part of the conservative backlash against hurricane relief and the governors who welcome it (and local hero Springsteen?)

If so, something has really gone off the rails.

I think its more the rote leftism and socialism in much of the lyrics.

For me, its his "voice" and music which is repetitive and not particularly interesting. Not to mention overly wordy on many of the songs, in particular the early one. Sloppiness and one notedness.

That being said a few so go are tolerable. I actually like Glory Days and a few others where he gets his fake middle class working mans shtick down.

jr565 said...

The argument for gay marriage is a bogus one. It's to a question of equal rights because gays have never had the right to marry and to give them said rights would mean allowing gay men to marry women, a right they already possess.
Gays can't marry and still be in gay relationships and call it one and the same definitionally.

So then the next question is, should society recognize and codify a separate relationship that doesn't fit the definition and give it equal value to marriage which is the bedrock of society.

If the only argument is "if you don't accept the change then you are a hateful bigot" then, no.

sydney said...

I used to support same sex marriage. I no longer do, for the same reasons more eloquent commenters have already posted. So, yes, there are people who have seen the light in a different direction.

Unknown said...

Random thoughts:

Gay marriage legality would accomplish several things. One, it would put a lie to the myth that gays are any better (or worse) at marriage than anyone else.

Two, we will start to see some of the hidden bigotry come out. So much of the current argument is directed at religion and conservatives that people do not always see the whole problem. I know more than a few Democrats who publicly support gay marriage but are privately
homophobic. They are very supportive of rights - as long as you do not exercise them in their neighbourhood.

And if you want to see some heads explode seriously support polygamy in a discussion.

As to whether churches will be pressured to perform gay marriage? Of course the will. Mormon churches - filled with children - were threatened with violence because people exercised their right to vote. The lawsuit against a New Mexico photographer is in year 6. She is being sanctioned for choosing to not participate in a commitment ceremony by a state that does not permit gay marriage or civil unions. She took no steps to stop the ceremony - she simply elected to not participate.

sydney said...

Many will say this was a coincidence, but in 2009 a conservative synagogue in our area held its first same sex union. A month later, their Torah fell out of its ark and hit the ground, all on its own. The whole congregation had to do penance. I've always wondered if God was trying to send them a message.

CEO-MMP said...

chickelit said...

Chip Ahoy said...
Blinded by the light revved up like a deuce another runner in the night.

What does that mean?

It means running away like a little piece of deuce from the blinding and blistering insight of revenant on yet another night of Althouse.

Actually I think it refers to a motor as in "little deuce coup"


I always thought it was talking about having a sudden emergency bathroom urge in the middle of the night, probably from bad mexican food. Turned on the light to see where he was going and got blinded on his way to drop a deuce.

Mitchell the Bat said...

JERRY: Are you sure you want to get married? I mean, it's a big change of life.


ELAINE: Jerry, it's 3 a.m. and I'm at a cock fight. What am I clinging to?

Erika said...

Sydney--I used to be a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. In the summer of 2009, the church held its churchwide assembly in Minneapolis, and a vote was scheduled on whether to ordain noncelibate homosexual clergy, needing a 2/3 majority of the 1000 voting delegates to pass. From the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up file: the measure passed with 666 votes, and at the same time as the vote was being taken, a brief tornado hit downtown and tore the cross off the steeple of Central Lutheran Church, directly across the street from the convention center which was hosting the assembly.

Things that make you go hmm....

Michael McNeil said...

Meanwhile, the earliest concrete evidence of religion is 100,000 years ago, by a non homo sapien sapien animal in burial rituals.

Neanderthals were non Homo sapiens sapiens it is true, but it is also quite clear that they were far from being “animals” — except in those senses where we too are animals.

Jay said...

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Other than the plain fact that there is no rational reason to waste time objecting to either.


You tell 'em, retard!
I mean, when everyone here thinks of reason they think of you.

And:

The question of marriage may be trickier for Democrats, who have been strong supporters of equal rights for gays but who do not want to alienate social moderates.

At one point today, Mr. Kerry, who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, a year in which he was up for re-election, remarked that ''marriage is viewed as a union between men and women.'' When the remark drew hisses, he interjected, ''That is a historical, cultural view.'' When the crowd hissed again, Mr. Kerry simply shrugged and said, ''That's my opinion.''


Note retard: you're a Kerry voter.

Joe Schmoe said...

This Jaltcoh person says no one goes the other way. Sure they do. I used to be very pro-gay marriage, now I'm not so sure we should just chuck our existing institutions out the window. But nobody like me will ever publicly say such a thing, as the pro-gay marriage cabal has effectively shut down free speech, including thoughtful objections, on the matter.

Michael McNeil said...

Pogo, you're a physician; you are not incapable, and it is really very easy. Please take the few seconds it will take for you to learn how to enter real HTML links in your comments.

I (and I'm sure a great many others here) — barring something really extraordinary — am simply not going to go to the (considerable) trouble of, one by one, highlighting and copying (much less typing out) the links (that you are so laboriously gathering and posting for us) to the clipboard, opening up a new browser window (or tab), pasting the link onto the browser's address line, hitting Enter and then finally arriving at the site to see it. (And that's only the first one!)

No, if you're going to all that trouble, help us out just a little bit more — by providing a link we can click on! As I say, it's very easy. Here's the basic form of what you should enter (CAPS are unnecessary but indicate what is to be typed letter for letter):

<A HREF="http-link-like-what-you-posted">text that appears as the link</A>

Pogo said...

"You never hear anyone say they used to support it, but have seen the light..."

See: Richard Nixon, Pauline Kael.

Ironclad said...

I find the idea of a "right" to marriage to be difficult to accept since there are so many restrictions that automatically limit its scope. Your "right" to marry has never included your parents or siblings and is usually extended to prohibit even first cousins. (The latter is usually the worst abuse, since in many parts of the world first cousins are considered the "best" partners to preserve family wealth). And it has always been proscribed by age.

So the institution of marriage has always been a restrictive club - and saying that it is just between "loving people" misses the point. You always have to have boundaries and that has been the job of the state to set them.

This is a slippery slope argument - if you open the definition, how do you logically prohibit polygamy, polyandry or any other variation of the man-woman formula? I never see that question addressed and it is to me biggest issue with the whole debate.

If states want to give civil unions to particular groups, then that means they are choosing to establish rules. I prefer that approach to the Kumbaya train wreck that this "diversity" mentality is leading us into.

Shouting Thomas said...

If Althouse didn't get into this ditzy shit because of her son, then she is even goofier on this subject than I originally thought.

joshbraid said...

There is a certain pessimism that all great civilizations wither and die, so I suppose this sentiment is timely. However, I think that the "death wish" of destroying marriage and family is not inevitable, just a sign of the culture of death that is so embraced by those in power who profit from it.

Paco Wové said...

M. McNeil – while I sympathize with your plea to Dr. Pogo, allow me to take the opportunity to note that in Firefox, if I highlight a printed URL and then right-click on the page, a context menu appears that gives me the choice of opening the URL in the current tab, a new tab, or a new window. So while not quite as convenient as a pre-made link, it does not need to be a hardship either.

However, as I am all about giving back to the community, here are the good doctor's URLs all turnéd into links:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0080.html
http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-acquitted-of-hate-crime-charge-in-canada-42190/
http://catholicexchange.com/catholicism-a-hate-crime-in-canada/
http://canadianchristianity.com/state-canadian-church-part-iii-christians-danger-persecuted-minority-222/
http://www.theinterim.com/issues/society-culture/religious-persecution-in-canada/
http://catholicexchange.com/canada-orders-pastor-to-renounce-his-faith/
http://christiannews.net/2013/02/28/canadian-supreme-court-rules-biblical-speech-opposing-homosexual-behavior-is-a-hate-crime/
http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/shared/media/editor/file/PersecutionOfChristians(1).pdf

somefeller said...

By and large, the only people who oppose gay marriage now who supported it in the past are doing so because President Obama and his political allies are now seen as leading support for gay marriage. Their knees are jerking, which is to be expected.

But in the long run, that won't matter if most affluent, educated upper-middle class Americans (in other words, the cohort that dominates the media, legal and culture industries) favor gay marriage. They lead and others follow, so it's simply a matter of getting to the tipping point with them.

Scott M said...

Well, crap. Based on the blog post's headline, I thought it was going to be about mercury-laden compact fluorescent bulbs.

Pogo said...

Thanks, Paco.

The iPad makes links a real pain.

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

I'm going to say, now for the first time, I've seen the light. I no longer support SSM. Not because I think it should be outlawed but because I refuse to support a fascist movement that wants to ram themselves down our throats. (Pun intended.) The gays in Cincinnati have made is abundantly clear that it's more than marriage. It's forcing us to allow themselves into any part of our lives that they want to be in. Freedom of religion be damned, freedom of association be damned, freedom of speech be damned, ....

Aridog said...

smoefeller said ...

Once a certain tipping point takes place ... widespread legalization of gay marriage or civil unions will take place.

If the semantic nonsense of trying to couple "gay" with the word "marriage" to vanish...gay unions, or domestic unions, would already be the law of the land in my opinion. All the legal and tax benefits could be accorded....without equating gay union with marriage. Invent a new word, whatever ... what is the point of picking a fight with several thousand years of history.

Then there is the conflation with civil rights per se. @ edutcher was correct to criticize your absurd interpretation of the history of segregation. Never mind that segregation still exists, more than ever in some places...think Detroit. Racism is a growth industry here. I resent it and anyone who is so dumb as to be unaware of it and dismiss it.

Of course, once again the grotesquely ignorant conflation of racial civil rights with gay privilege is made. If you really believe that inglorious horse crap, show me one sign over a nasty drinking fountain that says "Queer" next to a clean one that says "Hetero Only." Advise me of the hotels that do not permit gay use, and restaurants that will only feed gays through the back kitchen door. Show me the "gay" Rosa parks moment. Give me a list of lynchings of gays for looking at a hetero with purported lust. Tell me what metro areas have laws requiring gays to step off the sidewalk to the curb gutter when a hetero passes by them.

I experienced the civil rights dawning era by living in it, by acting within it, by trying fucking hard to be a good example....including a foolish and unnecessary attempt to "rescue" a black friend during a riot. People who compare that experience with anything gay just piss me off.

Michael McNeil said...

Paco: Thanks for the tip (really). But, while helpful on a PC, I'm oftentimes using an iPhone, where there not only is (as yet) no Firefox, but sometimes just highlighting is troublesome.

Pogo: The iPad makes links a real pain.

I'm not sure why that would be. I have an iPhone and not an iPad, but I'm able to put links together in my postings quite well, despite the three different keyboard screens one must switch between. (Sometimes in doing italics I find it's something of a pain switching between the keyboards to enter the requisite special characters, and in that case I'll simply copy the </i> to the clipboard, then paste it before and after each region to be italicized, not forgetting to delete the ‘/’ in the first of each set.)

Renee said...

DADvocate,

back in the mid-late 90s while I was in college, I worried how gay activism would actually may have a backlash against them. I spoke in confidence with a classmate who was bisexual about my concerns, at the time it was I thinking their speech was more or less overkill on campus.

Then the parade issues on Saint Patrick's Day. You allow them to participate, then they break the rules on distributing materials.

I've been to several Memorial day/4th of July parades here in Massachusetts, where are the gay activists in those? These would make more sense to march in these. There have been varied amounts of political expression in these parades, even Tea Party Republicans hanging out with Progressive Democrats as we wait our turn on route.


-----

I have to deal with a direct social implications, the issue of the fragile family in my community and the desperate need to fully bring a mom and dad together for the sake of the children. I will be outspoken, that the rights of adults end when it comes to the rights and obligations to children.

For instance, I will fight for the rights of a biological gay father to be on the birth certificate and be a devoted dad to his children, over a lesbian second mom/step-parent who demands I make the claim the child has two moms.

Pogo said...

iPads can be a pain in the ass because
1. You have to switch screens over and over again to type out the (/I) brackets. Once is fine, 5 times is onerous.
2. Sometimes when you cut and paste a link and get back to blogger, blogger reloads and raises your work.
3. Doing the cut paste manuevers multiple times is time consuming on an iPad, easier on a computer.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

Good letter.

Michael McNeil said...

Sometimes when you cut and paste a link and get back to blogger, blogger reloads and raises your work.

I presume you mean “erases” your work. Yes, that's a huge gripe with the iPhone/iPad vis-a-vis Blogger comments. In self defense I've gotten so I always first copy the entire contents of the comment window and paste it into another app (e.g. Notes) to safeguard it whenever I need to do that.

gbarto said...

As the gay marriage debate evolves, I'm coming to oppose all state-sponsored marriage. I favor the existence of some institution - call it the civil union - that will allow two people to act as one so that kids can get raised. I suppose on equal protection grounds, I can see extending the same thing to any two adults who want this state-sponsored recognition of co-mingled financial and social commitments. But marriage should be left to churches and churches only. If you want a union and you're gay, go to the courthouse and sign the papers. And if you're gay and want to marry, find a church that will marry you. I'm sure they're out there or will be. What's making this a mess is a truly frightening debate: Which relationships should our government sanction with a word indicating it is a sacrament? Let the churches do the sacred, and government the civil.

Renee said...

gbarto,

To some extent I agree, but my concern are with birth certificates. Birth certificates should always reflect the biological mother and father, and if the child for whatever reason can not be raised by his/her parents then have guardianship/amend the certificate but the biological parents identity should never be removed.

Freeman Hunt said...

I agree with Pogo. The iPad makes linking a pain. I really am beginning to get irritated by all the little iPad quirks. Like I wrote in a thread the other day: using an iPad is a lot like using a broken laptop.

Baron Zemo said...

gbarto said...
What's making this a mess is a truly frightening debate: Which relationships should our government sanction with a word indicating it is a sacrament?

This is precisely the point. The government will be enforcing its view as to what is acceptable religious doctrine. Just as they are attempting to do in the health care debate where they want to force religious institutions to provide birth control and abortion. The government is already in the business of dictating what religious doctrines are acceptable.

It is not that big a leap to presume that they will mandate that the sacrement of marriage must be performed in violation of the Catholic, Jewish, Mormon or Muslim faith.

If you think that the people behind same sex marriage will not demand that then you are fooling yourselves.

Baron Zemo said...

The government is already in the business of regulating what religious practices are acceptable in the area of marriage. The laws that prohibit Mormons from the multiple marriages that were long a vital part of their religion have long been on the books. In fact I believe that such laws and the acquiescense of the Mormon faith were a prerequisite for Utah to join the Union.

So you already have an example of the government demanding a religion change its laws about marriage to comply with public opinion.

Then it was plural marriage. Now it will be same sex marriage.

Baron Zemo said...

I think a reasonable response is what gbarto states as a solution.
Make all marriage a "civil" partnership.

Pass a constitutional amendment that the government can not interfere with the religious definitions of marriage. A religious ceremony will not stand alone as a valid civil partnership.
A separate filing in civil court would be required to establish a "marriage" bond. A marriage by clergy would not be enough.

Such bonds could be same sex or multiple people or even siblings who wish to share community property rights or medical rights as described by so many who claim that is the reason for SSM. Or you could marry your cat and have them become your heir. Whatever floats your boat.

Keep the government out of the definition of what constitutes "marriage" in a religious context and then we can all agree. It is a win-win.

Baron Zemo said...

Of course that will not suffice for SSM advocates.

They will not agree until all religious institutions are forced to perform and recognize SSM.

If you think that is not the case then you are fooling yourself.

DADvocate said...

For instance, I will fight for the rights of a biological gay father to be on the birth certificate and be a devoted dad to his children, over a lesbian second mom/step-parent who demands I make the claim the child has two moms.

Renee - I agree with your position. Plus, there are genuine potential health issues regarding parentage. I'm pretty much in line with gbarto on marriage and I'm not a strong supporter of marriage period. Too many men get screwed come divorce time. It's a bastion of bias and bigotry against men in heterosexual marriage.

I have a lesbian sister. She has no interest in getting married as she doesn't want to risk losing half of what she's spent her life earning. Living in a common law state, just the legalization of gay marriage could endanger her keeping her belongings and wealth. SSM will complicate things for gays that don't marry as well as those who do.

creeley23 said...

Althouse's son has gotten 14 replies, mostly from people (including moi) have seen the opposite light and moved against gay marriage support. He has yet to post a response.

Renee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Freeman Hunt said...

Why would he have to respond?

This is why I don't think I'm going to do comments anymore on my blog. (Whenever I do blog.) Once you allow comments, everybody thinks you have to participate in them, and that it means something if you don't respond.

Renee said...

Yes, I've had hypothetical discussion with my husband how we could totally screw each other over in a divorce depending on who made the move first.

Gay marriage support is based mostly on seeing how broken marriage has become, but then again we've made a lot of gains in treating gays with tolerance and not making their lives miserable.

20+ years ago, homophobic slurs were so common on the playground I didn't realize what f*gg*t really meant until I was older. I can't believe the teachers did nothing when it comes to such isolation and bullying. A boy couldn't dare play house or hold a baby doll. Don't use the pink or purple crayon 'too much' when coloring. At least in the schools both public and Catholic today, that doesn't happen and if someones says something it is addresses. No one is saying you have to like everyone, but you can't be a jerk to anyone.

Somethings I would like to see more of in our culture is accepting that gay men are really just men, and men should accept them as men as well. It always bothered me how gay male teens got stuck the girls. Maybe gay men want to hang out with the guys, because gay men are one of the guys.

I live in a culture where my children can do anything without being questioned that it is a girl or boy thing. No one is questioning if my 6 year old's sexual orientation, because he likes rainbows or my other son because he likes to do art or sing. No one questions my daughter because she is stronger and more muscular then most boys her age. No one stops my youngest son if he happens to pick a 'girl prize' out of the box, but unfortunately some crazy parent might swing the pendulum the other way and try to her her son gender reconstructive surgery.

I think 'coming out' happens too early, no one should directly ask anyone if they are gay or straight. It's rude and no one should be pushed to come out as anything. It is no one's business wondering about other people's orientation. Straight people don't have to come out, so why should gay people?

creeley23 said...

Why would he have to respond?

I didn't say he had to. I am curious, however, to read what he says if he does.

JAC made a flat argument that "the clearest way to see that widespread same-sex marriage is inevitable" is because "you never hear anyone say they used to support it, but have seen the light, and now realize it's the wrong thing to do."

Now he is presented with evidence that directly contradicts his argument. I find it interesting to see how people accommodate such information.

I once read an interesting book for a psychology course in which a psychiatrist at a mental institution brought together three patients who shared the same delusion that they were Jesus Christ to see how they would respond. They each made some changes, but basically stuck with their delusions.

Which is not to say that JAC is delusional, of course, but my interest is similar to the psychiatrist's.

DADvocate said...

Straight people don't have to come out, so why should gay people?

Good question. Many years ago, I think it helped "the cause" when a celebrity came out of the closet. Now, it's simply tiresome, redundant and, probably, a PR stunt. Most of the time when a celebrity comes out nowadays, I'm surprised it's supposed to be new information. Anderson Cooper? I thought I already knew that. Adam Lambert, Clay Aiken? That wasn't news. Rosie O'Donnell? She reminded me of Rosey Grier.

rcommal said...

I do think that a problem of slippery slope was well highlighted by some lawsuits that were not just initiated but also were won (or at least settled, dubiously). Due to that reality, I cannot discount the concerns that state sanctioning of gay marriage might lead to state sanctioning against churches that choose not to perform (that is, *sanction*) gay marriage. (Human nature is something I get. Also, experience counts for something.)

This would be a, if not the, glitch: the lack of full-throated, absolute commitment of SSM advocates to never force churches, or even individuals, to be involved in any direct action or sanctioning with which they do not agree. Shorter version: No forced approval via coercion. Should SSM advocates adopt that slogan, perhaps there might be a better form of progress, and sooner. If not, the blame lies not where too many thinks it does.

rcommal said...

Why would he have to respond?

This is why I don't think I'm going to do comments anymore on my blog. (Whenever I do blog.) Once you allow comments, everybody thinks you have to participate in them, and that it means something if you don't respond.


Long ago, Freeman, I tried to use the analogies of the difference[s] between the street, the sidewalk, the yard, the porch, and the living room, and to no avail. Althouse herself, from what I could tell at the time, at best didn't buy it and at worst disagreed. Or maybe the reverse. Whatever.

In any case, the choice that played out was to be sporadic and intermittent about it, which is the best expression of what the reality of being human is. It is what is, and no utopia bullshit about it.

creeley23 said...

This would be a, if not the, glitch: the lack of full-throated, absolute commitment of SSM advocates to never force churches, or even individuals, to be involved in any direct action or sanctioning with which they do not agree.

For many gay marriage advocates and liberals, muscling conservative Christian churches to the liberal agenda which the churches don't agree with is not a glitch but a feature.

If you doubt, ask them whether they have any such concern.

rcommal said...

The other thing is--something that some folks here have known for years--that I worked for a church for several years.

Making sausage is something I know about.

Would it shock, shock you all to to accept how outraged people got when the new [Episcopal] priest refused to allow the cathedral to be used as nothing more than a backdrop for a pretty wedding? That he required a serious pre-marriage, thoughtful process? And--oh, by the way--that they were actually interested in participating in the church and raising their children in it.

These were heteros, folks. Heteros. Not homos. (And yes, I *am* using those words on purpose, for a purpose, among other reasons.)

"Our family has ALWAYS been married in this church!"

Vicious is rather a broad-based thing. Naive it is, to think otherwise,

creeley23 said...

rcommal: Sorry. I'm not getting your point.

I went to Episcopal churches for most of the 2000s. The scenario you describe sounds typical.

creeley23 said...

Why would he have to respond?

This is why I don't think I'm going to do comments anymore on my blog. (Whenever I do blog.) Once you allow comments, everybody thinks you have to participate in them, and that it means something if you don't respond.


I've been commenting in and hosting online discussions since the 80s. I'm laissez-faire about it. As far as I'm concerned no one is obliged to respond to anyone on anything.

The flipside though is that no reader is obliged to interpret silence without judgment. If a blogger like JAC posts "Black is the same as white because X," then a dozen commenters respond that "Black is not white because A, B, C, D, etc." and JAC says nothing, well... JAC is out of luck if he expects his next post to be as respected as before.

Acts of speech and silence have consequences.

rcommal said...

Just to share:

Something that really struck me, many years ago now, was a Cathedral Dean who was really struggling with the notion of "private baptisms." Folks wanted their kids baptized in private ceremonies, with a party afterward, mostly with the baptizing officiant celebrating at the party thereafter. Whatever.

Of course, the very notion of baptism, most especially infant baptism, like that is nonsense, when one thinks about it. Isn't it?

rcommal said...

Sorry, creeley23:

I don't care about your point either.

creeley23 said...

I don't care about your point either.

No. I said, I don't get your point, not that I didn't care.

I am interested, but if you are just an ass, that's OK too.