December 25, 2013

"If you don’t want to marry a homosexual, then don’t."

"But what gives you the right to weigh in on your neighbor’s options? It’s like voting on whether or not redheads should be allowed to celebrate Christmas."

Writes David Sedaris in "Let's Explore Diabetes with Owls" — something I found today in my search for the word "Christmas" in the text of my Kindle books.

56 comments:

Deirdre Mundy said...

Except the government doesn't care whether you celebrate Christmas or not, so it's not a matter for voters.

If marriage was actually a private thing, then no one would get a vote.

Once your actions impact taxes, spending, religious freedom etc., your neighbors get a vote. No one cares if the Unitarian church down the street gives you a gay wedding.

They care about whether they'll be forced to cater it, or whether you'll try to force the Catholic school to give spousal benefits to your new husband, etc.

I mean, seriously, if this was just about taxes, and you were lobbying for "Any pair of adults who form a household should get tax breaks," I doubt anyone would care about a vote on it.

If it was just inheritance law, no one would care, because, heck, who actually pays estate taxes? Only really rich people. Most people don't say "Baby, will you marry me so we can avoid probate court and save on taxes?"

So, even if it was purely private plus some tax breaks, people wouldn't really care about a vote.

The problem is that the activists want collusion and enthusiastic approval, not just marriage.

Lydia said...

They also want to change the traditional meaning of marriage. Those hypothetical redheads don’t want to change the traditional meaning of Christmas.

paul a'barge said...

The Constitution gives me the right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

What? You don't agree? Yes, it does ... it's in the section just before the section that explicitly gives women the right to abortion.

Look it up.

iowan2 said...

Homosexuals have never been denied marriage.

As always this is about government benefits. Sharing SS benefits, Inheritance tax avoidance benefits.

No one has ever denied love, like that little fact has ever been examined.

This is a protected class. A class that is defined by how they sate their sexual desires. Period.

SteveR said...

Well with the first two comments, Sedaris' point falls into the toliet where it deserves to be. Really David, great job, Glad I didn't have to waste anymore time.

tim in vermont said...

What SteveR said.

Ann Althouse said...

Some people, reading humor, actually laugh.

tim in vermont said...

Oh, that "like a fish needs a bicycle" line was a real knee slapper too.

Deirdre Mundy said...

That's not humor... it's a standard talking point that we have had to hear over and over again for years.

Just like the "If you're opposed to abortion, don't have one."

David Sedaris is very funny sometimes, but that point wasn't funny. It was just a tired replay of what we've heard before.

SteveR said...

I'd like to laugh except its not funny.

Deirdre Mundy said...

I think Sedaris is at his best when he's exploring quirky corners of the world around him. When he gets political, he gets boring...

Which is true for most comedians these days, since their 'political humor' occurs within very strict boundaries. Everyone knows what they're going to say, and then is expected to laugh to show that the correct sentiments have been expressed.

It's not actually about being funny anymore... it's about showing that you belong to the correct tribe.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

No Althouse, that isn't funny--it's just a ding-dong sophomoric non-zinger zinger. It's a barely a step up from my seven year old telling knock-knock jokes.

An actually funny David Sedaris line, and I hope someone here is familiar enough with his work to recognize it and remember its context, is "But bells, man: that's fucked up."

Oso Negro said...

Nothing says Merry Christmas like yet another post about homosexuality. I do believe our good hostess has outdone Andrew Sullivan this year.

ALP said...

I think Sedaris is at his best when he's exploring quirky corners of the world around him. When he gets political, he gets boring...

Which is true for most comedians these days, since their 'political humor' occurs within very strict boundaries. Everyone knows what they're going to say, and then is expected to laugh to show that the correct sentiments have been expressed.

It's not actually about being funny anymore... it's about showing that you belong to the correct tribe.
**********************
This. I watch tons of stand up comedy, and have all too often seen a great set go off the rails when a comedian feels that have to throw some "red meat" to the audience in the form of bad political humor, always at the expense of the right.

Wanda Sykes is a great example - her earlier work is outstanding. Somewhere along the line, once she got more popular, she began to tow the party line and make the obligatory political jokes. They were never, ever as good as her jokes on male-female relations, often falling flat and coming off just plain angry.

Sadly, I had to cross her off my list of comedians to follow, and make do reminiscing about her earlier work.

jimbino said...

We single and childfree non-socialists have good reason to oppose gay marriage: it creates more families to feed at the gummint trough of Medicaid, Medicare, SS benefits, Foodstamps, EITC and so on ad nauseam.

somefeller said...

Tough crowd. So much humorless rage, even on a holiday.

Anyway, Merry Christmas, Althouse! And if you want some Sedaris Christmas fun, treat yourself to a performance of "The Santaland Diaries".

Renee said...

Nothing is funny about fatherless homes.... it breaks down the whole community. It effects 'the neighbors'.

Comedy is a joke now a days.

Renee said...

No one is saying you can't live with and love a person of the same-sex, but it us its own independent idea that isn't the same as living and loving a person of the opposite sex.

It may seem I get caught up on a word, but it is the idea behind the word we lost. Marriage has lost all meaning, something that has no effect on others.


Renee said...

“Fatherhood e-Learning Module” from our U.S. Government.

“Father involvement benefits the child, the mother, and the community as a whole.”

An idea that is absolutely forbidden to have its own legal recognition in the name of civil rights.

eric said...

This was supposed to be funny?

Reminds me of the Jon Stewart routine. Clown face on, clown face off.

If you laugh along with Jon Stewart, then you agree with him politically and all is well. If you attempt to argue against his rhetoric disguised as a joke, then you're a humorless curmudgeon.

What the right needs is a comedian who knows how to make fun of Democrats, Homosexuals and Muslims so we can watch Jon Stewart go crazy and we can all laugh and say, "Clown face on!"

Jupiter said...

"No one is saying you can't live with and love a person of the same-sex, but it us its own independent idea that isn't the same as living and loving a person of the opposite sex."

Very few homosexuals of my acquaintance have any interest in monogamy (only one, actually, whose "committed partner" kept hitting on me at parties). The logic behind homosexual marriage is to make everyone agree that

1) marriage is merely a sexual arrangement, a sort of legitimized prostitution.

2) the primary value of marriage is that it entitles you to certain legal benefits.

The reason these claims are important to the Left is that the Left knows these claims are false. The Left correctly sees the family as the foundation of the society that the Left wishes to destroy.

n.n said...

paul a'barge:

Actually, that would be an interesting exchange. Normalization of a minority dysfunctional behavior vs state-sponsored capital punishment executed through lethal injection or physical assault of around one million wholly innocent human lives every year in America alone. I wonder if exposing the heterosexual patrons of dysfunctional behaviors would cause support for all of their causes to be dropped.

n.n said...

Jupiter:

You scared me there for a moment. Once we begin to question the terms and circumstances of reality, then we may as well go along to get along, since nothing actually matters in a selective reality.

somefeller said...

What the right needs is a comedian who knows how to make fun of Democrats, Homosexuals and Muslims so we can watch Jon Stewart go crazy and we can all laugh and say, "Clown face on!"

What, has Rush Limbaugh already been forgotten? Tragic.

Smilin' Jack said...

""If you don’t want to marry a homosexual, then don’t....But what gives you the right to weigh in on your neighbor’s options? It’s like voting on whether or not redheads should be allowed to celebrate Christmas."

Some people, reading humor, actually laugh.


It's not funny. When God destroyed Sodom, plenty of non-sodomites went with it. Your neighbors' actions can affect you.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Smilin' Jack - Really? I thought God couldn't even find 10 just men! Remember, Abraham tried to argue for the sake of his neighbors, but in the end, God was like "Sorry, but only you and your family are any good, so get out of dodge."

The whole POINT of the story is that the cities were so totally corrupt, there was NO ONE worth saving...

Smilin' Jack said...

Oops, that's right. As a lifelong atheist, my knowledge of Scripture is sometimes a bit sketchy. Still, it's hard to imagine a city comprised entirely of homosexuals lasting very long. Guess it was just another miracle.

n.n said...

Smilin' Jack:

You can ignore the biblical source and God's intervention. It is only necessary to understand what happens in a society when there is a dysfunctional convergence. Most notably, but not exclusively, when a population adopts a progressive morality and normalizes behaviors which are antithetical to evolutionary fitness.

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

n. n said:
" It is only necessary to understand what happens in a society when there is a dysfunctional convergence. Most notably, but not exclusively, when a population adopts a progressive morality and normalizes behaviors which are antithetical to evolutionary fitness."

Bingo. If you go back and read the Old Testament with Evolution in mind you will find that the rules of the Old Testament fit quite well with an evolutionary perspective. Since Evolution is a law of nature you can not just suspend it, you have to adapt to it. The morality in the Bible fits the evolutionary model quite well. The laws in the Old Testament are not perfect since many of them apply to a premodern society but the underlying principles upon which the rules of the Old Testament are based are still important for a successful nation while the New Testament presents moral laws for individual people who already live in an established society.

Before the leftists destroyed marriage, traditional marriage between one man and one woman insured that most men and women would find mates. Capitalism permits groups to compete for resources in a non-violent way and to end up benefitting each other in the process. Political forms of distribution such as Marxism/socialism end up pitting one group against another for pieces of the shrinking pie and end up impoverishing the entire group. It also insures that individuals and groups which produce less receive the same as the more productive individuals so that the less productive individuals have as good or better chance of reproducing when compared with the more productive individuals.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Clapper humor is quite annoying enough even if no one is demanding that you laugh.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

The British government just issued a pardon to Alex Turning, dead of suicide since the 50s after being convicted of homosexuality and given IM progesterone, an anti-androgen, for his deviance. This to a man who was so important to implementing code braking and helpful to the country in WWII. I think it's time, in British terms, for a stiff upper lip in terms of the behavior of those who identify as homosexual.

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


http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/21/3098351/utah-marriage-equality/

Claim: Same-Sex Couples Are Not Qualified To Marry Because They Cannot Procreate

Claim: Same-Sex Marriage Is A “New Right”

Claim: Tradition And History Have Always Recognized Marriage As Between One Man And One Woman

Claim: Prohibiting Same-Sex Marriage Does Not Discriminate On The Basis Of Sex

Claim: The Amendment Was Not Passed Out Of Animus Against Same-Sex Couples

Claim: Banning Same-Sex Marriage Promotes “Responsible Procreation”

Claim: Opposite-Sex Couples Make Better Parents

Claim: It’s Important To Proceed With Caution On Same-Sex Marriage

The Only Argument Left: The People Voted

sunsong said...

Utah is frantically trying to get an emergency stay on the judges decision. They have been denied twice. The request is now going to the Supreme Court and will be reviewed by Justice Sotomayor

lol

sunsong said...

My guess is that several states will follow Utah's example.

James Pawlak said...

If male homosexuals wish to put their organs in bacterial laden holes, let them. After all, they seem to have little resistance to killing each other with HIV/AIDS.

David said...

Humor is subjective, and needs a listener to accept the absurdity of the premise. Leftist jokes often use for their absurd premises one of their own particular ideological constructs, like the reactionary who pretends to think lower tax rates would stimulate the economy when everyone knows that what he really means by this is that he hates minorities. So the joke does not work for normal people. Hence, conservatives are humorless.

Susong: I don't think the word "claim" means what thinkprogress thinks it does. A lot of those are strawmen, is what I'm saying.

Heh

Howard Roark said...

I find Mr Sedaris's question "what gives you the right to weigh in on your neighbor's options?" rather silly.

My neighbor gets to vote on MY tax rate, my son being sent off to war, whether I have to wear a helmet while on a motorcycle, and don't even get me started on what my neighbors can vote on when it comes to my business's operations.

If Mr. Sedaris wanted a legally recognized partnership equal to marriage in all but name he could have had civil unions a decade ago everywhere.

But the insistence on gay unions being called marriage is to rub the noses of religiously motivated traditional marriage supporters in his agenda in a very petty, mean-spirited manner.

Co-opting an old word for a new concept is NOT a civil right.

SEO Moz said...

Makemylove.com, India's leading matrimonial portal site strive hard to provide you the perfect match with a touch of tradition from a wide array of community, caste, city and much more for the global Indian community you can find your life partner with help of makemylove
matrimonials sites indiaPartner Search














devid mark said...

Very well said. These tips are really amazing. I appreciate it for sharing them.
Drive Cleaning Poole, Drive Cleaning Dorset , Drive Fixing Bournemouth, Drive Fixing Poole

Carl Pham said...

Even for Sedaris, whose familiarity with rationality is more as fan than artisan, this is a brain-dead argument. What gives me the right to weigh in on whether my neighbor has health insurance, whether he wears a seat belt while driving, and whether he teaches his children that the Earth is flat or the world is run by Jews with forked tongues and penes?

Hey stupid, you live in a tribal society. Pure anarchy is a condition arguably suited to tigers and sharks, but no species of the hominid line. So that ship sailed 4 million years ago: we are ipso facto involved with our neighbors. The question is where to draw the actual line -- which part of our own individual action we want to agree to rule out of bounds conditionally, and under what conditions.

It's an argument. It can't be solved by some elementary school playground categorical. It has to be argued out, grubby fact by fact, and bound together by no doubt painful compromise.

Renee said...

@Howard

I can’t say what my neighbor does with his penis, as he inpregnants several women over the course of two decades and just move on each time. But I find it odd I can’t create public policy to specifically address this issue to encourage men and women in monogamous behavior and to fully support their family.

-------

Economic Well-Being and Family Structure

Economic status during early childhood can have a profound effect on children’s health and development. Stable family structure is strongly correlated with economic well-being. Married-parent families have the highest economic status, followed by cohabiting-parent families, and then by single-parent families. For women, entering marriages or cohabiting relationships (especially with the child’s biological father) is associated with increased economic status. Divorces and exits from cohabiting relationships are associated with declines in economic well-being.12 (RI Kids Count p. 10)

So the data is there. Legislature and courts simply ignore it. How can you have a society where we just ignore these issues?



Martinkh said...

That was the same argument for ending DADT in the military. Now of course we are on to the next step, punishing people in the military who don't voice total support for the policy, enforcing DADT for Christian beliefs, and spending precious military resources on gay spouses. Of course don't forget courses on "gay acceptance" in Kindergarten and Elementary school.

tim in vermont said...

Society has an interest in the promotion of stable families producing a new generation, a generation that is required for things like nurses to take care of us in our old age. Therefore, society has provided for incentives for this.

What benefits do homosexual marriages bring to society, I mean, what concrete benefits, tangible, necessary?

But gay marriage has come forward to hijack those incentives.

Interesting that only a doctrinaire leftist like somefeller actually found it funny. Kind of makes the case for most of the people on this thread.

B said...

sunsong said...Utah is frantically trying to get an emergency stay on the judges decision. They have been denied twice. The request is now going to the Supreme Court and will be reviewed by Justice Sotomayor

lol


No matter what the majority feels in the state of Utah, as long as a judge can legislate in your favor it's to LOL.

Fascist asshole.

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

If you don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then don't.

Oh wait...

How about, if you don't like guns, then don't own a gun.

Left's not okay with that either.

Sorry, but that particular formula is stale, and it's not a funny joke either - it's a bullshit superiority move that, somehow, only applies to thinks the left believes it should apply to.

sunsong said...

Fascist asshole.

How juvenile. I do appreciate the far right continuing to prove themselves the adolescent wing of the GOP.

Perhaps you are unaware that the judiciary is a co-equal branch of the United States government. There aren't two branches. There are three. The judiciary is about "justice". It is unjust to deny gays the same rights and liberties as everyone else, even if theocratic wannabes really, really, sincerely want to. It's not rocket science.

B said...

Perhaps you are unaware that the judiciary is a co-equal branch of the United States government.

Well aware, fascist. And there function is not to make law. That is the function of the legislative branch. Read up on it. Had SSM proponents worked though the system as they have in other states and had the law changed in Utah I would have no issue with it. Changing the law by judicial fiat... not so much. And those that LOL in agreement when the judiciary does so may someday find themselves on the other end.

The judiciary is about "justice".

No, it is not. You are ignorant.

It is unjust to deny gays the same rights and liberties as everyone else...

Ignorance on display. The only argument that gays have concerning equal rights is that of equal tax, inheritance etc consideration as married hetero couples if they establish a common household. That is not what you want. You want an unconditional acceptance regardless of personal belief, nature, and social stability that a SSM equal is indistinguishable in every way from a dual sex marriage. If you had your way, you'd LOL when some judge makes it illegal to so much as criticize gay marriage.

It's not rocket science.

No. It's not. It's to LOL when you find a judge to gainsay the will of the majority of the people of Utah as expressed through their duly elected representatives. Because it suits your plans, fascist.

sunsong said...

B,

Lol

B said...

sunsong said...Lol

Got nothing. huh?

Let's start with the most obvious display of your ignorance.

The function of the judiciary to not to impose 'justice', in this case by judicial fiat and with your enthusiastic support, rather it is to impose compliance with existing law.

Moving on.

One function of the legislature (there are others like budget) but reserved to the legislature is to pass laws. They do so as a body and as individuals, hopefully, as an expression of the will of the particular segment on the population they were elected to represent, again hopefully. Note this term - elected.

The judge who by judicial fiat overturned the law in Utah was a federal judge. He was not elected but appointed. He was appointed not to represent a segment of the electorate of Utah, a state included as one of the states the SCOTUS said could decide the issue of SSM for each state individually, but to represent the federal government.

In simple terms, once appointed you believe that he has the right to subvert the three branch balance of state governance in Utah - two elected and the third by appointment and in service to the the state constitution that you sneered at me as not understanding.

Moving on.

What rights and privileges did gays in Utah not have that were not related to financial considerations and aspects of having a common household and power of attorney (I know I didn't specify the PoA but did include it in my etc in my earlier post).

Could those rights and privileges not be leveled with common household legislation rather than insisting that the term marriage be tortured out of its traditional meaning? And if not, should this have been done by judicial fiat instead of convincing the people of Utah to in turn elect or inform representatives who would change or amend current law to make no distinction between same sex and dual sex marriage?

Have I got that all tied up for you...LoL

Joe said...

What rights and privileges did gays in Utah not have that were not related to financial considerations and aspects of having a common household and power of attorney...

This is exactly why prohibitions of same sex marriage ARE unconstitutional. Religious married heterosexuals carved out a bunch of HUGE benefits for themselves; what did they think was going to happen?

What rights and privileges did gays in Arkansas not have that were not related to having separate water fountains, not being able to marry outside their race....

Dozens of gay couples got married in Utah over the last week. Society and marriage hasn't come crashing down. Imagine that.

B said...

Dozens of gay couples got married in Utah over the last week. Society and marriage hasn't come crashing down. Imagine that.

Not the point. Nor am I arguing that if any state passes SSM that should not be respected. The point was whether that should have occurred because of judicial fiat instead of legislative action. It particularly irked me that the proponent of judicial fiat was crowing about it as if it were some great victory that a federal judge imposed 'justice' - her term - on the state of Utah.

Judicial fiat from the federal bench as an end run around the political process because a minority group either wants something they think they won't get using that process or won't get it fast enough to suit them is a serious danger to state rights.

Consider this. Gay people belong to more than one group of which being gay is only an overlap into a larger group. Think Venn diagrams. Gay/straight can overlap with, renter home owners, diesel car or truck owner, electric car owner, diabetic, non-diabetic...whatever. Everyone of those overlapping groups has a unique wish list. Should they also have the option of possibly (and I know I'm reaching here hence possibly) finding a sympathetic judge to sidestep debate and legislation and set by judicial fiat a condition they agree with minority group would disagree with.

Judicial fiat by appointed federal judges bypsses the political process. It is a Pandora's box and only the shortsighted would crow about it's implementation concerning any issue.

B said...

I made a cut and paste error significant enough to change the sense of a sentence.

Everyone of those overlapping groups has a unique wish list. Should they also have the option of possibly (and I know I'm reaching here hence possibly) finding a sympathetic judge to sidestep debate and legislation and set by judicial fiat a condition they agree with that the majority or another minority group would disagree with.