Oh, spare me. Rosie was utterly clear at the time, as I blogged on February 27, 2004 — 2004!
"Vile and vicious and hateful." Rosie O'Donnell gives this reason for going to San Francisco to marry her female partner:By the same token, if you opponents of same-sex marriage believe the light of reason is on your side, why don't you act as if you think it is and leave Rosie O'Donnell out of it.
"We were both just trying to come here after the sitting president said the vile and vicious and hateful comments he did on Tuesday and inspired myself and my brand-new wife to fly here this morning."Quite aside from how it sounds to cite hostility to President Bush as your reason to marry or, more specifically, whether the gay marriage cause is helped by presenting it as a political protest, is it really necessary to tar supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment this way? It was only two years ago that O'Donnell first publicly said that she was gay. How fast can you expect social progress to take place? Only last summer, the Supreme Court withdrew the power to make homosexual sodomy a crime, and now, already, we are asked to think people are "vile and vicious and hateful" because they want to restrict marriage to different sex couples?...
Supporters of gay marriage would do well to show some understanding for the feelings and beliefs of the people they are trying to persuade. The sense of alarm about the proposed amendment is understandable, though unwarranted, but it is counterproductive to become overheated and engage in this kind of inflammatory rhetoric. The light of reason is on your side: why act as if you don't think it is?
पोस्ट्स
२११ टिप्पण्या:
211 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Wonder whose vile and vicious and hateful comments caused Rosie's divorce from Kelli Carpenter in 2009......
Revenge not love is no way to start any marriage--hetero- or homo- sexual.
Let me begin by shrugging and saying that the light of reason is not my only guide. In fact, I doubt the light of reason is anybody's guide. Psychopaths excepted, everybody begins moral reasoning with their moral instinct and whatever life experiences have shaped it along the way.
There were two reasons for the way marriage has been--one men to one woman--in the west for over a thousands years: keeping wealthy and powerful men from monopolizing women, and providing a stable environment for the raising of children.
As for homosexual marriage, I'm against it because it overturns the second reason. The privileges extended to married couples most often have that desire 'in mind'. Now behave responsibly, and raise the next generation.
Those privileges should not be extended to homosexual couples precisely because they are privileges; they are reward for behavior (A) that will likely result in desired behavior (B).
Finally, as for leaving or not leaving Rosie out of it: that's the kind of thing people do in the middle of a heated argument. Rosie, for example, could have chosen to leave President Bush out of it.
By the same token, if you opponents of same-sex marriage believe the light of reason is on your side, why don't you act as if you think it is and leave Rosie O'Donnell out of it.
I don't even know who O'Donnell is. What does she do?
Don't think I care.
My question: what will the Bigot Hunters who yearn to relive the civil rights era martyr themselves over next?
This need to position oneself as a daring martyr struggling against injustice has been a comic farce for a couple of decades.
Why do we always have a fringe of people who need to play drama queen and pretend that they're fighting against lynchings and beatings?
Who do these drama queens need to preen their egos by imagining themselves in a great moral war with the bigots?
It's a psychological addiction. We've got a mess of people out there who love to admire their own halos. They're a pain in the ass. And, giving them what they want won't end the phony martyrdom drama.
I think Aldous Huxley was really on to something with Brave New World: free love and soma for all, babies raised in test tubes by drones, and anyone who goes against all that either detained or driven to suicide.
It's an upbeat read.
By the same token, if you opponents of same-sex marriage believe the light of reason is on your side, why don't you act as if you think it is and leave Rosie O'Donnell out of it.
This "light of reason" BS is Ann's shorthand for: "Let the lawyers run things."
Fuck lawyers running things.
Lawyers have quite successfully forced us to accept them as the arbiters of the structure and morals of our communities.
This is not something I want. I'm fucking tired of being run by lawyers.
Let me tell you another reality of life at Sullivan & Cromwell, where Ann was an associate.
The support staff that had to put up with your shit generally regarded those associates as spoiled douchebags. The staff put up with the prima donna behavior, the temper tantrums, the bad manners, etc., only because they had to to make a living.
They support staff didn't dare to display their disgust at the prima donnas because it would have cost them their jobs.
Lawyers at corporate law firms are used to running people around like servants. Ann is used to this, too.
Ann, I don't want to be your servant. I don't want to be a servant of your lawyer run society.
And, the social structure of the law firm mirrors the battle over gay marriage. On top are the dumb douchebag kids who think they should run other people because they are Ivy League intellectuals.
On the bottom, the support staff are religious, family people who live in the boroughs. In other words, people with common sense.
Lawyers will apparently succeed in forcing us to kowtow to their superior wisdom. The issue has been taken from the hands of the lowly people and handed off to the courts.
This is what Ann means by "the light of reason." Translated: The dumb support staff was put on this earth to obey their betters.
So, let me summarize Ann's political views:
She loves the quota system... and why not! She's at the top of it.
Lawyers should run everything. And, surprise! Ann's a lawyer.
"I should be the boss and get everything I want."
That pretty much summarizes Ann's political platform.
The surprising part of this is you can tell Ann is a genuinely decent person. How to reconcile this virulent, rapacious self-interest with that?
Rosey, like most Hollywood types, misinterpret their on-screen persona with reality. Arguably, most viewers who find Rosey's acid tongued character humorous also understand that performers constantly require affirmation whether in personal life or professional.
For actors and actresses the world is a stage and they are always performing long after the rest of us flip the channel or shut off the TV. They are the victims of that pleasant euphoria the rest of us can turn on and off at will, namely, the willing suspension of disbelief. The rest of us can voyeuristically dabble in the world of immoral, unethical, and valueless life but in the end, reality intrudes.
Rosie O'Donnell can't be left out of it because she's put herself in it. It would be rude to just ignore her, right? We're always supposed to pay attention to the person who's talking, not pretend they aren't even there, right? Like it or not, Ms. O'Donnell has put herself into the fray. Patting her on the head and in effect telling her to be quiet now, the grownups are speaking, in the hopes that the real conflict can be hushed up and brushed under the rug so the agenda can be pushed forward smoothly, is a very Progressive attitude. It's like the way Democrats have pushed blacks into the margins and turned them from controllers of their own fate to plaster victims, to be brought out when needed and put away when the power play has been won. It's all about pushing the agenda forward.
Let's hope "gay marriage" is a more successful attempt at social engineering than "affordable housing" has been.
But I see it as more evidence of the last gasp of the West, which is doing its damnedest to disappear completely.
One can "oppose" mortality, but it isn't up for voting, I've discovered.
I don't have a gut objection to same-sex marriage, but I am deeply suspicious of the GLBT community's motivation in seeking it. Is it only to put a thumb in the eye of conventional people, regardless of the high-flown civil rights analogies they like to draw?
There is one thing that I would like to ask them. Gays and lesbians like to perceive themselves as exceptional. Unfettered by the conventional, they are more creative than us schlumps. This has more than a modicum of truth to it. Why, then, don't they craft a social convention unique to themselves instead? Why do they try so hard to cram a square peg into a round hole, so to speak?
That was a well written article by Brian Maloney. I agree with everything that he said.
Good day.
Federal Constitutional Amendment, declaring that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.
faster please.
Gay marriage is a wedge issue to normalize homosexuality. It is an argument that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, no better and no worse. People who think homosexuality is abnormal, or weird, or bad, or a sin, deny this equality. Marriage is a proxy for this fight.
Gay marriage just opens the door to an entire wave of gay rights litigation. Liberals abhor a public/private distinction. They abhor the closet. If a man wears a dress to spice up his sex life, then he has a "right" to wear a dress to work. It's not enough for gays to live in a tolerant country that protects free speech and privacy. They must have public acceptance, and they do not hestitate to use force (i.e. the court system) to get their way.
This litigation is an attempt to dictate public acceptance, and attempt to shame in public anyone who disagrees as a bigot ("homophobe"). This entire debate, it seems to me, is really a facade to cover up the real agenda: thought control. Thus the stupid pretense that the people of California are klansmen.
Tyrone;
They do it because they want us to "watch" and to assault our senses. They are exhibitionists who seek to force their proclivities on the rest of us.
The gay pride parades in California are a bacchinal of perversion far removed from the niceties of opinion management. But then the normal laws governing the rest of us mean little to the desperate nihilists who embrace anarchy as a form of sexual and rhetorical expression.
paul a'barge said...
Good day.
Federal Constitutional Amendment, declaring that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.
... hastening the day when a federal circuit judge can declare the Constitution unconstitutional.
Rosie O'Donnell is a worthless human being. With her "fire doesn't melt steel" comment she revealed herself to be the most vile of conspricay theorists, making Birthers look like absolute truth tellers.
That she would believe and spread a lie so vicious as outlandish as to suggest that we intentionally blew up 6WTC for some nefarious purpose (meaning we were in on the attack) all to get in her digs at Bush makes her beneath contempt in my book.
Agreed, St Croix.
Anyone who thinks that the gay "marriage" debate has anything to do with vows, faithfulness, family, etc. is missing the point. It's about a tiny minority that demands to be celebrated by the majority. I'd be all for these stupid and meaningless "marriages" if it meant the proponents would shut their yaps about what they do with their genitals, but that ain't gonna happen. What they do with their junk is their entire political identity.
For the dumbest human to every inhabit the planet that George Bush sure had some influence.
How is it "social progress" to deconstruct marriage?
Vet66 wrote:
The gay pride parades in California are a bacchinal of perversion far removed from the niceties of opinion management. But then the normal laws governing the rest of us mean little to the desperate nihilists who embrace anarchy as a form of sexual and rhetorical expression.
The ones in NY are not much better. I remember one year I was out with my parents coming back from a movie and the gay pride parade was going on down the block. A gay guy marched by with his lover in toe. His bf had a collar on and he was dragging him by a leash. The bf also was wearing no shirt and "pants" that had one half of his leg and ass completely bare (the other leg was covered in cloth) I didn't see his front, but I'm assuming his balls were covered. (I'd love to have seen an Althouse post on his outfit by the way, I'm sure it would be funny as hell).
I wasn't angry at this. It was more of a "What the hell am I looking at?". And in truth, the guy being dragged by the leash looked like he was really embarassed.
But still, what is the purpose of this display? That's how you show gay pride? Is it a wonder that people view gays as silly and don't take their victimization seriously?
if you opponents of same-sex marriage believe the light of reason is on your side, why don't you act as if you think it is and leave Rosie O'Donnell out of it.
Maloney was responding to something that O'Donnell said on her radio show. He listens to radio shows and then comments on what was said. That's what Radio Equalizer is all about. Got it? Are you suggesting that nobody can talk about what she says? Is she off limits to heterosexuals?
"...if you opponents of same-sex marriage believe the light of reason is on your side, why don't you act as if you think it is and leave Rosie O'Donnell out of it."
The answer is in the prior Althouse post saying "when I drew the news, I liked to capture someone saying something I completely disagreed with."
Under the caricature, you wrote "...either that, or freedom of speech is precisely the right to corrupt society's values".
That is in fact what is happening; the left is imposing gay marriage precisely to corrupt society's values.
For example, the recent news of the psychology student who is being driven out of college for daring to be a Christian and opposing the belief that gender is a mere social construct, and the university professor being fired from teaching his religion class because he discussed Catholic teaching about homosexuality.
This is just the beginning of an endless onslaught against religion which will be successful until it provokes a violent backlash, from either Muslims or Christians or both.
But it will happen, in our lifetimes. Again, there ain't a damn thing we can do to stop this train, as I see it. There will be blood; it's the way the left ends all disagreements, by design or default.
So Rosie O got married to celebrate her hatred for George Bush. Unsurprising that it didn't work out over the long haul.
"Vile and vicious and hateful."
What did Bush say that could reasonably be characterized as "Vile and vicious and hateful" ?
Bush Transcript
How fast can you expect social progress to take place?
People who feel discriminated against, in general, don't consider time-lines. Understandably they are concerned with the here and now.
She has since broken up with her wife.
Did they go through a formal divorce proceeding? If so, what was the outcome, that is, division of assets, child care, etc.?
"Quite aside from how it sounds to cite hostility to President Bush as your reason to marry or, more specifically, whether the gay marriage cause is helped by presenting it as a political protest,..."
It is a political protest - the whole thing - I told you so. They don't want to discuss the issues, they want to stick it to somebody, but they can't get it through their thick heads that, while they may be obsessed with such things, nobody else wants to get fucked by 'em.
They can take their "pride" and shove it.
This is just the beginning of an endless onslaught against religion which will be successful until it provokes a violent backlash, from either Muslims or Christians or both.
I'm going to have to correct you on this one, Pogo.
The "violent backlash" has already taken place among Muslims. Remember 9/11?
The "violent backlash" is only a figment of the imagination of the left in America when it comes to Christians.
And, yet, the left is determined to undermine Christianity, and seems now to champion Islam.
In Woodstock, the left is now adamantly and angrily pro-Hamas.
Pogo wrote:
For example, the recent news of the psychology student who is being driven out of college for daring to be a Christian and opposing the belief that gender is a mere social construct, and the university professor being fired from teaching his religion class because he discussed Catholic teaching about homosexuality.
Do gays and lesbians really believe that gender is a mere social construct? Doesn't that kind of negate being gay or lesbian? Because wouldn't it not matter who your lover was, if gender didn't matter? Also the gay community always includes the transgendered amongst it's members, those poor people who feel they need to mangle their bodies to change sexes. If gender were just a mere social construct, wouldn't their mangling of their bodies be even more crazy than it already is? Here they are trying to change sexes to the sex they really think they are, when in fact their sex is just a social construct to begin with. So how could you feel "male" or "female" and why would you have to go so far as to remove your natural genitals if gender doesn't really matter? You'd think that gays and lesbians would tell their fellow transgendered that they don't really need to chop off their penises, they can be happy as they are. In fact, if gays and lesbians are consistent, shouldnt' they kick the transgendered out of their club? Because the transgendered are trying to disprove the notion that gender is a social construct. To the transgendered, gender is everything. Conversely, shouldn't the transgendered feel hurt that their gay buddies think so little of their desire to become "male" or "female".
Tyrone: .. hastening the day when a federal circuit judge can declare the Constitution unconstitutional.
That's a classic, Tyrone. Mind if I steal it and save it for later use?
"leave Rosie O'Donnell out of it. "
I would love to. blog advertising blog advertising
Who in their right mind was thinking about Rosie this morning?
In Woodstock, the left is now adamantly and angrily pro-Hamas.
Not so covert anti-semitism. Not saying that's the whole package but it's a big part of the package.
Only last summer, the Supreme Court withdrew the power to make homosexual sodomy a crime,
Well, that was in Texas after all. A place whose backwardness horrifies and shames the rest of the country.
So we've gone from "leave the gays alone" to "Leave Rosie alone", both of which are almost as gag-worthy as sunsong's comment a few threads ago about a rainbow appearing after some sort of forgettable gay justice.
On this thread we have plenty of cogent, reasonable arguments against SSM, more will appear, and we have plenty of cogent, reasonable arguments in favor of SSM, with more certain to appear later.
The difference will be that cogent, reasonable supporters of SSM will marginalize cogent, reasonable opponents with a complete mischaracterization of their argument something to the effect of "you just think gay sex is icky".
There is no debate here folks. It's like abortion, you might as well move on.
Using Rosie O'Donnell as justification for anything is a fool's errand. This is the Truther who knew 9/11 was an inside job because steel doesn't melt.
I'm sure there are better, and smarter, advocates for the Lefty cause du jour.
WV "rousi" Who Whoupie replaced.
Do gays and lesbians really believe that gender is a mere social construct? Doesn't that kind of negate being gay or lesbian? Because wouldn't it not matter who your lover was, if gender didn't matter?
To follow up on my point, the only people who one might consistently say are post gender are bisexuals. To them, they could have penis or vagina. Doesn't matter. They still probalby identify themselves as male or female, so gender is not irrelevant but if gender were a social construct, then everyone would be bisexual. And in fact they couldn't call themselves bisexual because bi implies that there are two sexes, and has been established gender is just a social construct. They'd have to identify themselves as "People who like both penis and vagina"
But what do gays think of bisexuals? to a lot of them bisexuals are people who can't make up their mind. And they wish they would choose a side. Remember Anne Heche who had a relationship with Ellen Degeneres, then went back to dating men? I remember the outrage directed towards Anne. She was just a phony who pretended to be gay to get movie parts, she was a betrayer of all things lesbian.
When really, she was just saying she likes both penis and vagina and probably prefers penis.
LeBron Brasiliero said: "Well, that was in Texas after all. A place whose backwardness horrifies and shames the rest of the country."
Damn Ritmo, you're into mass projection this morning.
The mystery was never about what motivated Rosie to get married, but what would motivate her wife. I mean beyond her beauty and sweet lovable personality.
Another fictitious, but nonetheless classic example of this was a recent Law & Order special victims unit episode.
In it Kathy Griffin played an outspoken lesbian activist who was constantly getting in the cops face (particularly Stabler) about going after the killer who was targeting women. And the TWIST at the end was that in fact Kathy Griffin's character had a bf who got caught going into her apt, and people thought he was the killer of lesbians. So she had to reveal her dark secret, that she liked penis as well as vagina.
Yet, to all her lesbian friends this was a betrayal of the highest order. "Everything you said was a lie" one of her devoted followers said (paraphrasing) and at the end she had to say she will have to rebuild her organization and will continue to fight for Gay, Lesbian, Transgender AND BISEXUAL issues going forward (as previously I guess, the bisexual were the Anne Heche type betrayers of all things lesbian).
It was a really stupid episode, I'll agree, but nonetheless, worthy of discussion. Because it shows that lesbians and gays are not in fact believers of gender neutrality at all. Lesbians are WOMEN who like WOMEN. Gays are MEN who like MEN. If gender was neutral they would be PEOPLE who like PEOPLE. And people who like people are the luckiest people in the world.
"I'm sure there are better, and smarter, advocates for the Lefty cause du jour..."
And I'm sure they'll find some. The Lefties can't seem to function without a bunch of celebutards fresh out of rehab telling them what to believe. Maybe Paris Hilton or Lady Ga Ga will become their new intellectual muse. Anyone but that ignorant Garofalo cow. She I just can't stomach.
Both sides claim to know what's in the hearts of their activist opponents. They are wrong.
So why don't we limit our invective to those who have actually stated their position, like Rosie? She made her statement, and we can judge it. Most of us want the best for individuals and for our society, which we think is the grandest experiment in human freedom and happiness the world has known but not inviolable.
The victory of gay marriage will probably have the same effect as the victory for abortion on demand. One side will have its "victory" but not hearts and minds.
Oh, Rosie, oh, girl
Steal away, baby, steal away
~Led Zeppelin How Many More Times
I am utterly confused about this particular posting. Ann criticizes Rosie O'Donnell for expecting social change to occur faster than it is, and for demonstrating a lack of understanding for her opposition. Then she baits us into criticizing Rosie O'Donnell! Huh?
I am further mind-effed by Shouting Thomas's postings about lawyers. What is up with that?
Your implication that our laws should be based on "light of reason" alone without regard to tradition is terrifying. Reason can be used to justify absolutely anything - and has been in the past. Tradition, custom and societal norms are needed to provide some kind of constraint to man's imperfect rational thinking. Without these, "reason" quickly devolves into tyranny, chaos and a breakdown of the social order, as in revolutionary France. To think otherwise is naive beyond belief.
About Shouting Thomas's rant regarding lawyers, I would add that that may (may) be true for early associates of law firms. Definite MAYBE. But the longer a lawyer stays in a firm, the more she or he understands just how critical paralegals and legal secretaries are for them, both professionally and many times personally. And a good lawyer will truly take care of his or her support staff.
So there.
The professor said,
"...if you opponents of same-sex marriage believe the light of reason is on your side, why don't you act as if you think it is and leave Rosie O'Donnell out of it."
I am pretty sway-able either way on the issue of same sex marriage at this point, I think it is inevitable that we will eventually have it whether we like it or not. That said, SSM's proponents don't seem to want us to "leave them out of it." They keep saying things to various media about how opponents are haters & homophobes (i.e.,"vile & vicious"). It is very similar to the bogus racism charges we hear when we oppose Obama's policies, affirmative action, illegal immigration, etc.
Some proponents of SSM, such as our friend Andrew Sullivan, are not content with the right to marry. He now seems, for example, to be seeking a redefinition of marriage excluding such quaint and outdated ideas such as monogamy. Perhaps SSM opponents occasionally have a valid point.
The "light of reason" is to respond to the argument that RuyDiaz made by saying that marriage and sexual exclusivity defines who's Daddy and who has to pay the bills. True, true. It also defines who is legally responsible for the other person in case marriage goes down the "for poorer", "for sickness" and "for worse" path. Family is the basic unit of social welfare even when children are not present, but even when they are. It defines not only who takes care of the babies but who takes care of the elderly, ill or infirm. This happens before (or should) any government intervention or welfare program. Thus the state has two interests related to marriage... to encourage it and to preserve it.
Thus, gay people marrying is a good thing, and divorce should be difficult and only granted for cause.
But really... is there a reason that I should be making this argument based on reason when the people most involved are having "me too!" tantrums and getting "hate married" as political statements?
. . . if you opponents of same-sex marriage believe the light of reason is on your side. . .
Because when one's life is so ruled by passion and the inner fear that one might actually be wrong to the point that one refuses to relate to reason and stereotypes all opponents as "vile and viscious and and hateful" - what's the point of other's expecting that one to come around to reason?
Traditional marriage has been attacked, not the other way around, Ann.
This issue will never be okay. And here's something for you to think about Ann, and all supporters of gay marriage - pay attention:
The world - including Eurpoe - is becoming more religious, not less so. Despite every atheistic social system attempt of the last 100 years - and the hundreds of millions killed in their name (communism, et al) - the world is seeing a religious resurgence unprecedented in history. And no, Islam is not the largest or fastest growing - Christianity is.
So how is that gay dream of "marriage equality" going to play in about 30 to 50 years, huh? There's a reason gender has mattered in marriage in societies for thousands of years. Same sex marriage - forced or not - will never be accepted by a society that has basic AND reasonable objections to it. Consider it to be Roe II.
It isn't personal, therefore it isn't about Rosie, it's foundational and structural.
I've sometimes wondered if Europe will go Pagan.
In any case...
As far as I can tell the "reason" that supports gay marriage is highly conservative (which may be why I find it persuasive) but who is going to go there, really?
Is Andrew? If he's saying monogamy (or even the polite fiction of monogamy) isn't going to be part of it anymore?
Or Rosie when she gets married and then divorced?
Or anyone who supports no-fault divorce?
Or anyone who has been divorced and is likely to feel personally attacked by anyone saying divorce is bad?
No one... not anyone at all... is interested in the reasonable arguments about how gay marriage could conceivably strengthen marriage (with the exception of the hard core Christians) because as soon as strengthening marriage becomes an issue they are personally involved.
"Damn Ritmo, you're into mass projection this morning."
But one must applaud his new-found sense of brevity.
I am utterly confused about this particular posting. Ann criticizes Rosie O'Donnell for expecting social change to occur faster than it is, and for demonstrating a lack of understanding for her opposition. Then she baits us into criticizing Rosie O'Donnell! Huh?
Anybody check whether it's blogger sweeps week coming up?
Crank up the polemics; crank up the hits.
Rosie's revelation about her motive for the lesbian wedding reminds of the old saw that the worst thing about capitalism is the capitalists:
The worst thing about gay marriage is its proponents.
Maguro: Reason can be used to justify absolutely anything - and has been in the past. Tradition, custom and societal norms are needed to provide some kind of constraint to man's imperfect rational thinking.
Works for me. At least I like it better than (truthfully) asserting that "tradition can be used to justify absolutely anything - and has been in the past" and then going on, not to champion reason as providing "some kind of restraint" on the idiocies of (some) traditions, but to set up a Dictatorship of Reason that lays waste to tradition, and always ends up promoting more unreason than the Dead Hand of Tradition ever managed.
Of course, the problem is that there is really no such thing as Tradition, only traditions, so life under a Multi-Kult of irreconcilable traditions has only the insufficient tool of reason as a guide, corruptly used to advance the ends of the various competing cultures.
"Well, that was in Texas after all. A place whose backwardness horrifies and shames the rest of the country."
Isn't Texas one of the few states without some version of the California economic implosion fueled almost exclusively by state government excess?
Horrifying!!
Synova said: "No one... not anyone at all... is interested in the reasonable arguments about how gay marriage could conceivably strengthen marriage..."
What are the arguments? It's certainly not an historical/traditional one. Given the recent fact that gay marriages seem no stronger than traditional marriages (Shout out to Rosie), that's not one either. So what is the argument?
"But one must applaud his new-found sense of brevity."
Word.
But one must applaud his new-found sense of brevity.
I'm finding that emulating Ann's way of poking holes in petty details suits that style of writing.
It's the bigger picture that messes you people up, so I won't lower myself to addressing it.
But it's nice to hear the smarter ones like Maguro and Synova address things like the reason versus tradition conundrum. It would be even nicer still if they could agree that there as many flaws with the latter (and blindly following it) as there are with the former.
So sorry to deviate from pot-shots to machine gunning.
Synova,
That was a sincere question by the way. (I know I usually just drop in to snark, troll bash, etc, but sometimes I wade in for real)
I'm actually persuadable on this issue, I lean toward opposing SSM, but that's not set in stone.
"Well, that was in Texas after all. A place whose backwardness horrifies and shames the rest of the country."
Really.
Birthplace to Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings, Bob Wills, George Strait, Janis Joplin, Buddy Holly, Dale Evans, Stevie Ray Vaughn, and on and on...
Home to the great University of Texas, not to mention the great Longhorn basketball and football teams.
Home to NASA space center.
That certainly embodies backwardness... not!
Don't mess with Texas!
Now, the horrifying backwardness and ignorance of Ritmo... that's another subject.
Ritmo said: "It's the bigger picture that messes you people up, so I won't lower myself to addressing it."
No LeBron, warping the language - like most committed leftists - is your problem. It's certainly not any unparalleled grasp on "the big picture" that sets you apart here.
But you are unmatched in your ability to carry on Argument By Projection. You're a fucking master of that.
Ritmo wrote: Well, that was in Texas after all. A place whose backwardness horrifies and shames the rest of the country.
Could Ritmo be a closet Butthole Surfers-hating bigot?
Isn't Texas one of the few states without some version of the California economic implosion fueled almost exclusively by state government excess?
Horrifying!!
Or fueled by the same corrupt Texas-based energy interests that screwed California in a different way less than a dozen years ago.
Who knows why (or if, not that I'd follow it) Texas has a cheaper budget. Maybe it has something to do with the political culture that gave us the guy who asked: "Is our children learning?"
It's still a backward and more corrupt state and for some people, those things are worse than a relative lack of wealth - by the government or anyone else.
This line from the post struck me, "How fast can you expect social progress to take place? Only last summer, the Supreme Court withdrew the power to make homosexual sodomy a crime, and now, already, we are asked to think people are "vile and vicious and hateful" because they want to restrict marriage to different sex couples?"
If we're going by what SCOTUS did, that's only a vote among 9 people; how reasoned, and how driven by agendae, any particular decision might be is an interesting question. Consider how many have gone against the will of the public and how many have proven to be lousy law; not to mention the ones either overturned down the road or those clearly at odds with the Constitution as written.
Unless I misread the Federalist Papers, I don't believe the Constitution, and particularly the court system, was intended as an engine of 'social progress'.
Judicial review began as an exercise in vanity and hasn't improved much in 2 centuries.
Could Ritmo be a closet Butthole Surfers-hating bigot?
I've got nothing against Butthole Surfers. Which proves that, despite the odds, some good things can come out of Texas. Or the buttholes of Texans. Or whatever.
I'd call what you do more like carpet bombing.
Oh boy. I'm sure you're as capable of giving as you are of taking, GMay.
No LeBron, warping the language - like most committed leftists - is your problem.
So says the guy who defended Machos before he started in with his typically childish law school games the other night. ;-)
About Shouting Thomas's rant regarding lawyers, I would add that that may (may) be true for early associates of law firms. Definite MAYBE. But the longer a lawyer stays in a firm, the more she or he understands just how critical paralegals and legal secretaries are for them, both professionally and many times personally. And a good lawyer will truly take care of his or her support staff.
I agree and disagree.
First, let's talk about eras. The era (early 1980s?) when Ann was an associate was one of the worst. Female lawyers with Ann's chip on their shoulders entered law firms in masse. They were nightmares. They generally regarded their staff as backward, bigoted rubes.
Partners in law firms in that era were often vile, pompous oafs who routine threw things at their secretaries, exploded into temper tantruns without provocation, and ruled like petty dictators.
Things started to change when the support staff wouldn't put up with it any longer and began to file lawsuits. The support staff made it too expensive to continue behaving like a spoiled child.
And (delicious irony) if an attorney got too carried away, he or she was likely to be hung on the great discrimination cause... because he or she miscalculated and threw their tantrum on one of the protected classes.
It was only the threat of lawsuit and financial cost that caused corporate lawyers to clean up their acts in the late 80s and 90s.
The relevance of my discussion about law firms... well, I put it quite clearly.
The discussion about gay marriage has been hijacked into our general rule by lawyer edict. The purportedly "bigoted, backward" electorate has been cut out, just as the support staff is silenced and ignored in the law firm.
And, I understand your point of view, as you apparently are a lawyer. This seems a good thing to you.
Shouting Thomas wrote:
"Well, that was in Texas after all. A place whose backwardness horrifies and shames the rest of the country."
Really.
Birthplace to Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings, Bob Wills, George Strait, Janis Joplin, Buddy Holly, Dale Evans, Stevie Ray Vaughn, and on and on...
Don't forget the EVIL George BOOOSH!!!!
Remember when Natalie Maines was ashamed that the president was from Texas? I'm ashamed Natalie Maines was from Texas.
I'm also ashamed our current president was from Kenya... I mean Hawaii... (I kid)
Waylon Jennings will be forever remembered for penning The Dukes of Hazzard theme song. And that is respectable.
Plus, his son Shooter came out with a pretty cool album earlier this year that I actually bought and like and listen to. Even though the libertarian-dystopian themes are of a more conservative flavor, I still like it. It's good stuff.
Heh, Ritmo,
Do you really want to talk about corruption being so bad in Texas when you have two of the highest profile congressmembers undergoing ethics investigations? Gosh, what state are they from?
Or how about City employees in CA who make more than the POTUS? Golly, not TX either.
Or a MA senator who's currently answering questions about his tax evasion? MA...MA...what state is that again?
Or how about Blago in Illinois? What's he indicted for again?
Of course we won't talk about the widely known, and accepted corruption that is the Chicago political machine. Help me out with my geography since you're a Globetrotter, is Chicago in Texas?
(BONUS QUESTION FOR RITTY: What's the political party affiliation of those I mentioned above?)
But what about education? Did our President learn about the 7 additional states or Austrian language in the TX school system? Help me out here Ritmo.
Ritmo wrote: Which proves that, despite the odds, some good things can come out of Texas.
Surely LBJ counts as another "good thing" to come out of Texas in your book Ritmo? You're constantly lauding his legislative legacy.
"So says the guy who defended Machos before he started in with his typically childish law school games the other night."
Not my problem you lack a sense of humor. That shit was funny.
Your focus on details obscures the big picture. I don't care about individual Democrat misdeeds any more than I care about the dozens of Republican pedophiles and sex scandal-makers. I do care more about a party that seems explicitly interested in using its position in power to cut deals with and profit off of favored industries, especially when they're backward industries bent on not innovating or addressing the needs the country faces in the present and future.
But what about education? Did our President learn about the 7 additional states or Austrian language in the TX school system? Help me out here Ritmo.
There you go again disregarding the difference between a measly detail and the big picture. I will put Obama's speaking skills and grasp of detail up against Bush's any day. And on your saner days, you'd probably admit to doing so also.
Trust me, it wasn't Bush's stunning oratory that frightened the left, and later, the middle.
Jennings, a singer, songwriter and guitarist, recorded 60 albums and had 16 No. 1 country singles in a career that spanned five decades. He was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame in October 2001. With pal Willie Nelson, Jennings performed duets like "Mammas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Cowboys", "Luckenbach" and "Good Hearted Woman".
Jennings also wrote: "In Texas, Bob Wills is Still the King."
You really are an idiot, Ritmo.
Jennings was one of the great voices and writers of country music. A brilliant man.
What's up with that photo of Gavin Newsom and the microphone?
Now that the idiot, Ritmo, has entered the discussion, we'll waste endless megabytes on the loony left's favorite theme: they're really smart and everybody else is really dumb.
Ritmo, you dumb ass, you got anything else?
Surely LBJ counts as another "good thing" to come out of Texas in your book Ritmo? You're constantly lauding his legislative legacy.
But there's where you have me wrong, Pollo. LBJ is, like many politicians, a mixed bag - perhaps filled with lofty aspirations but someone who left a mark on the political culture probably not less corrupt than Nixon - and maybe even moreso, considering that he never did anything that he got caught for. I mean, if someone as corrupt and ambitious as Hillary Clinton could try comparing herself favorably to Obama (and MLK) by referencing LBJ (around the time that she raised the specter of assassination), that doesn't leave a good taste in my mouth.
LBJ eventually gave way to the less corrupt idealism of RFK, but he upset some lunatic or miscreant and then the Democrats lost any admirable leadership for a long time, perhaps even until now. The right took advantage of that, as is their right. But let's not go lionizing LBJ as someone other than a hard worker. If he had ideals and principles, that's nice. But his inability to figure out issues of war and peace in his own mind and in his connection with the electorate certainly stands out as a representation of failure to his generation.
He died shortly thereafter, and probably not without a lot of guilt and desperation.
wv: pideendi
Pudenda for people who prefer certain vowel sounds over others.
Now that the idiot, Ritmo, has entered the discussion, we'll waste endless megabytes on the loony left's favorite theme: they're really smart and everybody else is really dumb.
Ritmo, you dumb ass, you got anything else?
Actually, I do. I've got the fact that I praised Jennings just before you had the bright idea of taking me to the toolshed to instill his greatness in me.
And I also got the fact that before I jumped in to praise more honest rightists such as Synova and Maguro, you were wasting megabytes with your predictable rants against lawyers.
The jealousy. The jealousy.
There must be a mathematical expression describing just when a thread will go off topic. The variables are 't', thread length, and 'e', emotional value of the original topic. Throw in a constant somewhere for the intelligence of the participants, or lack of it.
Oh wait, it's simpler than that:
OT=RB
So, idiot Ritmo, how many posts dedicated to your incredible intellect do you have in you today?
Can we expect a couple of dozen?
Why don't you just solve the great puzzle of nuclear fusion instead of wasting your time here?
By the same token, if you opponents of same-sex marriage believe the light of reason is on your side, why don't you act as if you think it is and leave Rosie O'Donnell out of it.
If you want other people to leave Rosie O'Donnell out of it, why to you insert Rosie O'Donnell into it? Again.
As far as the "light of reason", there's little of that anywhere in this debate.
Synova asked,
"Is Andrew? If he's saying monogamy (or even the polite fiction of monogamy) isn't going to be part of it anymore?"
I don't know if you read Andrew regularly but he has had a series of posts recently on "The Evolutionary Case Against Monogamy."
As he drifts progressively further from the Catholic doctrine of which he once claimed to be an adherent, it appears to me as if he is using arguments based in "evolution" to support, basically, whatever he wants to do anyway (in this case, have sex with many different partners despite being married). I suspect that should such views become mainstream, some married men would use them as an excuse for infidelity, and most married women would find them completely unacceptable.
One of the arguments against same sex marriage is that it would be destructive to traditional marriage, and it seems to me that this argument is somewhat validated by the propagation of such novel ideas.
Tyrone Slothrop: Oh wait, it's simpler than that:
OT=RB
Snork.
Tyrone, you're really cookin' this morning.
There must be a mathematical expression describing just when a thread will go off topic. The variables are 't', thread length, and 'e', emotional value of the original topic. Throw in a constant somewhere for the intelligence of the participants
You need coolin', baby, I'm not foolin',
I'm gonna send you back to schoolin',
Way down inside honey, you need it,
I'm gonna give you my love,
I'm gonna give you my love.
I've read the original post a couple of times now, and I don't get it.
Shouting Thomas,
Sorry - I probably did give the impression that I am a lawyer, but I'm not. I know a lot of lawyers and am related to them. I tend to have more rather than less respect for them. I worked for a lawyer I'm related to, and that experience of course was fine. I also interviewed for a support staff position in DC, and did not get the job, for which I'm grateful. Yes, in that instance those people did seem like a-holes. I chalked it up to the pressures they were under and I also thought they were kind of idiots for responding to it like Pavlov's dogs, as if there is no other choice in life. But who gives a you know what about what I think.
But still I suppose I am confused. In my simpleton's world, I have seen your comments and assumed you were conservative, and therefore might be grateful to have this blog to come to and comment on. Instead, you say that AA has a chip on her shoulder. I have criticized her many a time, but your pattern in this entry seems off base and unjustified. Is it just some animus you have against lawyers?
It seems out of character, too.
@Ritmo
Copycat!
ike the reason versus tradition conundrum. It would be even nicer still if they could agree that there as many flaws with the latter (and blindly following it) as there are with the former.
Ritmo, excellent point.
However, Synova - and you in your praise of her - missed the point and flattered yourselves as though the arguments in favor of traditional marriage are only that - "traditional".
The defense of government recognition of - which RuyDiaz explains the basics of very well above - of man-woman marriage is extremely reasonable.
I trust that you have the backbone to examine it. So many in this argument begin at what they feel is a superior attitude and righteousness above the other side, which does keep out reason.
I like to think that Synova also does not think herself morally and intellectually superior to those who fell differently. Otherwise, that would completely illustrate the very point of this post - persuading those (such as Rosie O)who can't truly reason beacuse of their blindness towards those who oppose them.
BTW - I'm trying for Internet immortality by imitating Mike Godwin, my law is: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of blaming George Bush approaches 1.
Of course, this discussion pretty much started off with a blaming of Bush. Maybe we can blame Bush for people blaming Bush.
DADvocate said
If you want other people to leave Rosie O'Donnell out of it, why to you insert Rosie O'Donnell into it? Again.
____
My point exactly!
Hey, Ritmo, have you been pleasuring yourself while looking at my daughter's pictures, again?
The most ridiculous finding of fact in the sad decision by Judge Walker
- which will sadly turn the reputation of a p[reviously distinguished jurist into an eventual law class laughing stock -
"Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage."
First question to law students:
(giggle)"How was the judge able to determine finding as 'fact'?"
Chase, thanks. And thanks for showing up.
But regarding O'Donnell, wouldn't you say that any time someone perceives anything this potentially personal to be infringed, though, that they're liable to lash out in ways that convey a superior attitude and righteousness?
I guess what I'm asking is that if an issue is personal for someone, upon whom is it incumbent to convey greater sensitivity? The person for whom an issue or need is personal or the person challenging that with abstract arguments related to "society's" needs and the like?
When Kelli and Rosie split up, Kelli lost the dog.
Just sayin...
I think reason has little to do with the gay-marriage debate. The left has an agenda -- they want inclusion of every kind of sexual minority into what is regarded as the norm. They've been at this at least since Kinsey.
The other side (conservatives) have a norm based on Augustine's notion that the only non-sinful sex is between a married man and woman aiming at a child.
The left argues that one should make love, because if you're not you're making war (they're quite militant about this).
The right argues quite militantly that marriage and normal family constraints are the only way to provide for a peaceful, normal society.
"Light of reason," has no part in either group.
It's a question of beliefs, and agendas, rather like the abortion debate, or any of the other important debates that decide elections.
Rosie O'Donnell is big on hate. She's fat with hate. She's pregnant with hate. She's a hater.
Or a hatter, depending on your "position."
At any rate, Obama has said more or less the same things as Bush.
I think the big difference between the two groups is that the liberals are totally self-oriented. They want their pleasures, and anyone who gets in their way should be mown down.
The right is more self-sacrificing. They are willing to fight for universal principles whether or not they get something out of it on a personal basis.
I remember those days following 9/11 when Rosie came out and said she loved Bush.
Seriously. She really said that.
Gmay, serious answer: Doing away with no-fault and making a strong stand against divorce.
The way that gay marriage could be argued with reason to strengthen marriage is if it was coupled with the important things that marriage provides a society... that it represents the fundamental unit of social welfare and responsibility.
But this argument can't be made without also either stating outright or implying that people who get divorced are almost certainly wrong to do so. "What God has joined together let no man put asunder," or whatever that line is.
The essence of marriage is that it is permanent, else why bother. The economies of two people are joined, the property, and everything, to share both prosperity and poverty, good times and bad times. To divide out the chores and roles and care giving and bill paying.
But no one is interested in saying that, you won't even hear it in church for fear of offending those parishioners who have been divorced.
But people do not truly partner without the expectation of security. They don't pool their resources or divvy up domestic roles if they don't know for certain they're going to be married next year or 10 years or 20 years from now. So then all marriage is is living together.
Gays could argue for marriage, but they won't. Not any more than the preacher in the pulpit is going to risk offending those in the congregation who are divorced.
Does anyone remember the feuds that O'Donnell used to get into with Donald Trump, Howard Stern, etc., etc.?
Come on. Things like that must have been hella enjoyable to anyone of a certain political persuasion. I know they were entertaining to me.
I think Trump even talked of wooing O'Donnell's lover away with a more attractive lady.
That was funny.
But still I suppose I am confused. In my simpleton's world, I have seen your comments and assumed you were conservative, and therefore might be grateful to have this blog to come to and comment on. Instead, you say that AA has a chip on her shoulder. I have criticized her many a time, but your pattern in this entry seems off base and unjustified. Is it just some animus you have against lawyers?
Whether I am conservative or not is a matter of perspective.
I do, indeed, appreciate the work that Ann puts into this blog. It's a great service.
No personal animus against lawyers. I've known and worked, literally, for hundreds of lawyers. Some were great people, others total assholes. Some have been friends for decades.
The chip on Ann's shoulder is feminism. From my viewpoint, she's constantly reframing the normal struggles of life (like how we take care of our children) into complaints of discrimination.
The gay marriage debate is being taken out of the hands of the electorate and handed over to lawyers.
This is a strategy that began with the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and continues to this day.
The electorate has effectively been shut out of the decision making process, and always for the same reason. They're "bigots."
The decision making process now rests entirely in the hands of unelected lawyers and judges.
And, that's the problem. It seems that, every day, another part of the political process is ruled to be beyond the judgement of the electorate because they are "bigots." The immigration debate is headed in the same direction.
Ann, for reasons of self-interest, is on the side of the unelected lawyers and judges. She wants the power to judge these issues by judicial fiat.
I expect her to see things this way. And, I'm criticizing her for it.
YOu guys are gonna love this.
Ritmo,
You are again correct. I do not wish Rosie ill. I am actually a fan, have met her personally at a taping of her talk show years ago, found her to be attentive in the conversation - not something common among many celebrities - and still have great affection for her. I understand her feelings even though I disagree with her characterization of her opponents.
What I have difficulty with more than anything in this national conversation is the overall attempt to control the debate through false analogies.
Got to run. back later
Brett Farve is accused of just the run of the mill hetero cell phone sexting scandal...
Unless Steger comes up with the photos, county me skeptical. Still, Greenbay fans might get some schadenfreude about that.
Fred4Pres said...
I remember those days following 9/11 when Rosie came out and said she loved Bush.
;)
Ok, thank you for clarifying ST. Hmmm.... I am a woman in the south, from here - moved away, now back. I am interested in what AA has to say about women's issues, considering she's had a very successful career and has raised two kids (that I know of). And been married twice. I am not really a feminist I guess or maybe I am, my thoughts on the subject are quite muddled. But I appreciate what she has to say. As far as what you're saying about the lawyers, that may be. In the case of civil rights, I'm glad it ended up in the courts (though Congress had a say too, wouldn't you say?). And here in the Deep South, the electorate still very much has a say about things like gay marriage.
Kirby Olson said...
I think reason has little to do with the gay-marriage debate. The left has an agenda -- they want inclusion of every kind of sexual minority into what is regarded as the norm.
The real goal is the collapse of the US as a society and a nation. Remember, this was all started back after WWII when Uncle Joe was the father of World Socialist Revolution. The Constitution would be replaced by the Communist Manifesto and I doubt that's changed since most of the people in the halls of power were indoctrinated to it 40 or 50 years ago.
Ritmo,
As a troll, it's interesting that you're so easily baited. I mean, I know you like to derail threads, but your subsequent missteps are the stuff of legend.
"Your focus on details obscures the big picture."
Au contraire, your inability to support your argument with details means you can't argue worth a damn. Your ability to argue by assertion is only eclipsed by your ability to argue by projection.
"I don't care about individual Democrat misdeeds any more than I care about the dozens of Republican pedophiles and sex scandal-makers."
This is clearly a self-evident lie. If you didn't care about Republicans any more than Democrats, you wouldn't have given such a wildly hyperbolic and overslanted characterization here. Care to list some specifics of these "dozens" of cases to which you refer?
Oh wait, that's right, you don't care about specifics. Those pesky little things that tend to torpedo your terrible argumentative tactic of arguing by assertion.
"I do care more about a party that seems explicitly interested in using its position in power to cut deals with and profit off of favored industries, especially when they're backward industries bent on not innovating or addressing the needs the country faces in the present and future."
And here you are, suddenly caring about Democrats.
"I will put Obama's speaking skills and grasp of detail up against Bush's any day. And on your saner days, you'd probably admit to doing so also."
Oh, I'm never sane Ritmo. I think Obama's ability to read from a teleprompter exceeds Bush's. Not by much, but he's got GW beat. Then again, I've never been as impressed with Obama's oratory skill as much as some.
When it comes to Obama's extemporaneous speaking, I put him right about even with GW - fucking awful.
"By the same token, if you opponents of same-sex marriage believe the light of reason is on your side, why don't you act as if you think it is and leave Rosie O'Donnell out of it."
Um, you posted the article about her (with her name leading the text), you brought her up. Probably (and hopefully) none of your readers even thought of her until you shoved her name up there. So others shouldn't use her as context, but you can use her for vortex?
"The light of reason is on your side:..."
Bias. The light of reason is also on the opposite side.
vw: gazindry - yet another permutation of relationships to be attempted to be made legal.
Synova,
Thanks for the in-depth answer, though I'm not convinced that anything you said makes a case for actually "strengthen[ing]" marriage.
I agree that doing away with no-fault would go a long way toward strengthening marriage, but simply adding more variables to the equation that equals marriage isn't a formula for strength. As far as I can tell at least.
"...that [marriage] represents the fundamental unit of social welfare and responsibility."
Here is the crux (to me) of what little "debate" there is on the subject. What is the fundamental aspect to society?
GMay --
"What is the fundamental aspect to society?"
Family. No families, no society.
"I remember those days following 9/11 when Rosie came out and said she loved Bush."
Anything is possible when your political opinions are based on emotion. 9/11 was so emotional that it overloaded the liberal mind causing it to reverse polarity momentarily. Then when our military under Bush started doing the unavoidable in response - i.e., kicking Taliban ass - he and America lost their victim status, and the liberal mind went back to default mode.
In addition to being very short lived, this polarity shift is very rare, and usually requires many Americans to die from a foreign attack for the phenomenon to appear. It's all documented in an extensive study summarized here:
Psychology of Patriotism
Leftists used to claim that it was possible, indeed desirable, to discuss the pro and cons of Marxism and leave Stalin out of the discussion.
Now how long has it been since you saw something like that?
True, HT. Though I will add that everybody I know that works in the legal field (as I do) says that female lawyers are generally harder to work for than males. They are a lot less appreciative and are often prima donnas.
We have one now in the small firm I work for, and I'm the only support staff that can get along with her. lol
Oh, on the topic of this post - I don't care about what Rosie says. Thankfully. So I'll be happy not to talk about her. She's a moron.
bagoh20, you rick rolled me!
Rather than respond directly, I'll let the 11:48 attempted derailing of this thread by a pompous pontificator on the topic of thread derailment speak for itself.
Darcy said...
True, HT. Though I will add that everybody I know that works in the legal field (as I do) says that female lawyers are generally harder to work for than males. They are a lot less appreciative and are often prima donnas.
We have one now in the small firm I work for, and I'm the only support staff that can get along with her. lol
Oh, on the topic of this post - I don't care about what Rosie says. Thankfully. So I'll be happy not to talk about her. She's a moron.
___
Moron or not, Ann baited us with a negative commentary on her, then said 'ok, leave Rosie out of it.' I really don't care about Rosie O'Donnell either. But that's beside the point.
on the topic of females at the top of the chain, well, I've heard the same thing in other types of offices. I don't think the picture you paint is typical of just law firms (for those who hold that opinion, that is). It's such a big topic, that that's all I'll say on it.
"Family. No families, no society."
Fair enough, but what is it about families? Surely single people can contribute to a society. What the hell is a family these days? Marriage was, inarguably, defined for thousands of years as a union between a man and woman. If we're going to redefine marriage, why not redefine "family"?
The thing I found so bizarre about judge Walker's so-called "findings", is that he's so quick to give a nod to history with regard to homosexual relationships, then dismisses history when it comes to marriage. Then many proponents will quickly and snidely dismiss the question of polygamist marriage when there is far more history behind those marriages than homosexual marriages.
So why is it more valuable to society to have any two people joined in marriage? Why not three? Four? None?
"Rather than respond directly, I'll let the 11:48 attempted derailing of this thread by a pompous pontificator on the topic of thread derailment speak for itself."
Well if that isn't a black hole calling the kettle black.
Is that RAAAAA-CIST?
(Look Fred4, 5 "A"s)
We need to delineate between what words meant before and after the 1960's. All dictionaries need two sections like in a dual language reference. So when writing, we need to identify which meaning we are using like we do with dates (BC / AD). I suggest "BD" and "AD" for before deconstruction and after. Especially for things like: marriage, fact, racism, rape, man, woman, right, wrong, etc.
"BD" and "AD"
Don't forget the word gay.
Edutcher wrote:
"The real goal is the collapse of the US as a society and a nation. Remember, this was all started back after WWII when Uncle Joe was the father of World Socialist Revolution. The Constitution would be replaced by the Communist Manifesto and I doubt that's changed since most of the people in the halls of power were indoctrinated to it 40 or 50 years ago."
I'm not sure anyone on the left really knows that the program was put in place then. I doubt if Rosie knows.
But you have to admit that gay marriage was NOT part of Stalin's basic message. There probably were gay men and women in Stalin's government, but gay Stalinism has been a French and an American thing, not a Russian thing.
GMay wrote:
But what about education? Did our President learn about the 7 additional states or Austrian language in the TX school system? Help me out here Ritmo.
Actually, if we're going to be fair to Obama he really thinks there are 58 states. He visited 57 and had 1 more to go.
Revenge not love is no way to start any marriage--hetero- or homo- sexual.
If Rosie had had a better year professionally, maybe she could've married for love.
GMay --
"Fair enough, but what is it about families? Surely single people can contribute to a society."
And yet, they are still members of the family from whence they came. A society compose of dedicated single people not wanting families (as opposed to those simply not married yet) will last a generation or two.
"What the hell is a family these days? ... why not redefine "family"?"
Perhaps the best question is 'why' redefine it?
"So why is it more valuable to society to have any two people joined in marriage? Why not three? Four? None?"
What's currently being done is, instead of arguing why three, four or none is better, the proponents are asking the opponents to essentially disprove a negative. The burden of proof is on those suggesting change.
There were two reasons for the way marriage has been--one men to one woman--in the west for over a thousands years: keeping wealthy and powerful men from monopolizing women, and providing a stable environment for the raising of children.
As for homosexual marriage, I'm against it because it overturns the second reason.
I suspect that the more males involved in a marriage, the less stable the relationship. Based upon this 'rationale' lesbian marriages may be the most stable.
I have nothing against Rosie and I swear I couldn't tell her from Adam in a police lineup.
I have been googling her photos however to determine her bodily fruit type and whether she might have a short memory to go along with her commitments.
maguro,
"Your implication that our laws should be based on 'light of reason' alone without regard to tradition is terrifying. Reason can be used to justify absolutely anything - and has been in the past. Tradition, custom and societal norms are needed to provide some kind of constraint to man's imperfect rational thinking. Without these, "reason" quickly devolves into tyranny, chaos and a breakdown of the social order, as in revolutionary France. To think otherwise is naive beyond belief."
Dude, do not - and I mean DO NOT EVER - compare us to France. Our flag is red, white, and blue - theirs is blue, white, and red. I could go on, but that's an apt metaphor for where I'd go from there.
Crack,
The key words from Maguro,
are revolutionary France.
Read it again.
The burden of proof is on those suggesting change.
The burden of proof should actually be on those requesting a denial of others' rights - assuming you value rights over continuity.
History and tradition can be used to justify anything. Those things can be appealed to, but not in an arbitrary way. And in a discussion of rights, we should should ask why rights should be denied, and not assert or assume that because they weren't previously granted there was some good reason for not granting them.
I refuse to believe that the passage of time and the accumulation of greater knowledge makes people more ignorant of what constitutes proper action.
Synova,
"I've sometimes wondered if Europe will go Pagan."
Take my word for it: it was born Pagan, is still Pagan, and will only stop being Pagan by a foot planted firmly in their asses. The challenge for us:
How devastating of an onslaught do we have to deploy so they can't figure out a way to rationalize it as enjoyable. The bombing of Dresden comes to mind.
I have been watching an interesting video series on Great Britain. The whole Chain of Being suggests that indeed England was hardly born pagan.
Ritmo,
I'll take the guy who asked "Is our children learning?" over the guy who thinks there are 57 states (and he doesn't know what to do with any of them) any day.
leave Rosie O'Donnell out of it.
And leave morals out of it.
And leave the current legal and common definition of "marriage" out of it.
And leave the history of marriage throughout civilization out of it.
And leave the will of the people out of it.
And leave the legal chicanery ("findings of 'fact'" - :snort:) in Walker's ruling out of it.
And leave the unintended consequences of Walker's ruling out of it (hello, polygamy!).
And leave the actual text of the Constitution and its amendments out of it.
And leave the consent of the governed out of it.
-------
Did I miss any of the topics that the pro-Walker-ruling side has either explicitly declared off-limits or has repeatedly refused to engage?
Because I think those limits sufficiently narrow the scope of this complex topic down to the core of what the pro-gay-marriage side really wants to talk about:
You're all just haters and bigots and homophobes!!!
:yawn:
Fred4Pres wrote:
I remember those days following 9/11 when Rosie came out and said she loved Bush.
Seriously. She really said that.
DId she mean George Bush or did she mean bush?
Because considering her proclivities I can totally see her loving bush. Then again, who doesn't?
And George W. Bush is the man who appointed Ted Olson to be Solicitor General, a position that added additional practice chops to his already great legal skills. Ted Olson is also the one of the prime members (if not the prime member) of the legal team that won in the California gay marriage case this week. Funny how the world works.
AllenS,
"The key words from Maguro,
are revolutionary France.
Read it again."
Dude, I lived there - nothing's changed. behind the facade of sophistication, they are still the same mean, simple, confused, and extremely-insecure killers they were then. And no, I'm not referring to my ex, I'm talking about the French - the people. There were more-than-a-few times when I found myself thinking, "You know, I think the Germans may have had a point."
There's something essential missing in them.
And as far at Texas being backwards and anti-gay is concerned, it's hard to see how that can be the case when Houston has a lesbian mayor, Dallas has a lesbian sheriff and all of the major (and a lot of the minor) cities in Texas have pretty thriving GLBT communities. Rural Texas may not be the most gay-friendly place on earth, but neither is rural Pennsylvania or rural New York, last time I checked.
Oh ok, Crack. I'm sure he'd have teached your kids well.
Anyway, drivers licenses have historically not been issued to people for the purpose of commandeering SUVs.
If we were sufficiently deferential to history and tradition, we'd honor that precedent.
HT,
"The whole Chain of Being suggests that indeed England was hardly born pagan."
Britain didn't want to be known as part of the European Union, either. They're different. They know it, we know it, and Europe knows it.
jr565 wrote: DId she mean George Bush or did she mean bush?
Because considering her proclivities I can totally see her loving bush. Then again, who doesn't?
Don't laugh but my theory is that the anti-Bush forces are the same are the anti-bush forces.
The drive for hairless torsos and crotches ultimately derives from the porn industry and a decadent urban coastal bar scene mentality.
--------------------
Some of those at work forces are the same that shave crotches
from "Shaving In The Name Of" by Rage Against The Machination.
You find a rural Pennsylvanian or New York cop willing to bust a homosexual couple for "sodomy" and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court and I guess then we can talk.
Plus, the lesbos are a(n otherwise) homophobic male's wet dream - so let's not let their acceptance get in the way of Texas' otherwise well-deserved reputation for the defense of regression.
Ritmo said: "The burden of proof should actually be on those requesting a denial of others' rights - assuming you value rights over continuity."
Speaking of burden of proof - what right is being denied? Please be specific and provide reputable citations.
(This question gets ignored or skirted quite a bit.)
Is the "light of reason" all we really need?
Ritmo,
"Oh ok, Crack. I'm sure he'd have teached your kids well."
I don't have kids, but if I did - and their education was one of my major concerns - I'd much rather leave them in the hands of George W. Bush than Barack Obama.
Hell - screw their educations - I'd rather leave them with Bush for any reason.
Ritmo imagined: "Plus, the lesbos are a(n otherwise) homophobic male's wet dream - so let's not let their acceptance get in the way of Texas' otherwise well-deserved reputation for the defense of regression."
Here we have a classic case of Ritmo's argument by projection. You really are amazing with that
Gmay wrote:
Speaking of burden of proof - what right is being denied? Please be specific and provide reputable citations.
(This question gets ignored or skirted quite a bit.)
Maybe if everybody asks the question, people like Ritmo will answer.So I'll ask it as well:
Speaking of burden of proof - what right is being denied? Please be specific and provide reputable citations.
Also in regards to:
The burden of proof should actually be on those requesting a denial of others' rights - assuming you value rights over continuity."
I hate belabor the point, but feel it's necessary. How does this statement relate to other marriage restrictions be it incestual marriage, polygamy, bigamy, or marriage with underage kids.
Is NAMBLA an evil organization, or is society just provincial and bigoted towards man-boy love?
You find a rural Pennsylvanian or New York cop willing to bust a homosexual couple for "sodomy" and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court and I guess then we can talk.
Well, something tells me that if those states had sodomy laws on the books, you could find cops in those states ready and willing to arrest people on such charges. And it certainly is interesting to note that neither the Attorney General and Solicitor General of Texas decided to take that case to the Supreme Court, instead leaving it with the Harris County DA, who had no Supreme Court experience. I wonder why that would happened?
Plus, the lesbos are a(n otherwise) homophobic male's wet dream - so let's not let their acceptance get in the way of Texas' otherwise well-deserved reputation for the defense of regression.
Ah, so Annise Parker and Lupe Valdez got elected because lots of homophobic Texan men thought they were hawt. Actually, in your case, let's not let the facts get in the way of your utter lack of knowledge about this topic.
Obviously, the "I wonder why that would happened?" sentence in that last comment should have said "I wonder why that would happen?". Preview is my neglected friend.
Somefeller wrote:
Ah, so Annise Parker and Lupe Valdez got elected because lots of homophobic Texan men thought they were hawt. Actually, in your case, let's not let the facts get in the way of your utter lack of knowledge about this topic.
Ritmo is probably basing his opinion on porn, where all the "lesbians" are hot. But in the real world, a lot of lesbians wear flannel, and construction boots and look (to put it charitably) non feminine. And most guys don't much like those lesbians.
So we probably would have to see pictures of the Texas pols to see what kind of lesbians they are, the hot kind or the construction worker, truck driving type Depending on how they look should tell us why Texans voted for them. (/sarc)
Well, something tells me that if those states had sodomy laws on the books, you could find cops in those states ready and willing to arrest people on such charges. And it certainly is interesting to note that neither the Attorney General and Solicitor General of Texas decided to take that case to the Supreme Court, instead leaving it with the Harris County DA, who had no Supreme Court experience. I wonder why that would happened?
Those laws either wouldn't be on the books or they would have been so "selectively enforced" as to not matter. Really. Look at Meade's utter incredulity at the concept of not enforcing something when it came to Obama's prosecution of drug laws. I guess something like that would have to be a revelation in Indiana.
Plus, the lesbos are a(n otherwise) homophobic male's wet dream - so let's not let their acceptance get in the way of Texas' otherwise well-deserved reputation for the defense of regression.
Ah, so Annise Parker and Lupe Valdez got elected because lots of homophobic Texan men thought they were hawt. Actually, in your case, let's not let the facts get in the way of your utter lack of knowledge about this topic.
Oh ok. I get it. Because certain straight males are fascinated with lesbians to the point of creating an entire subculture around it, this only translates to greater acceptance of them as people if they are physically attractive.
What is your deal today? Are you trying to prove that just because you took 7 Nachos to task yesterday, you can be just as argumentative with antagonists of the Master Obfuscator himself?
In any event, the jury has deliberated and returned the verdict on Texas' reputation for progressiveness and found it sorely lacking. We can use any benchmark you like.
But in the real world, a lot of lesbians wear flannel, and construction boots and look (to put it charitably) non feminine. And most guys don't much like those lesbians.
But they still respect them. And it's a kind of respect they usually reserve for, you know, Joe the Plumber or other similarly dressed (real or wanna-be) salts of the earth.
What is your deal today? Are you trying to prove that just because you took 7 Nachos to task yesterday, you can be just as argumentative with antagonists of the Master Obfuscator himself? In any event, the jury has deliberated and returned the verdict on Texas' reputation for progressiveness and found it sorely lacking. We can use any benchmark you like.
No, I simply have a lack of tolerance for cant or for people who talk about Texas who really don't know what they are talking about. (That includes blue-state conservatives who think everyone here is the conservative version of the Noble Savage, complete with six-gun, cowboy hat and Baptist church membership.) And as far as the progressive jury is concerned, I guess it depends which progressives are on the jury. The ones that I know, both in this state and in some pretty good progressive perches on the coasts would go with me on this one.
I'm sure the real picture defies the stereotypes, somefeller. But Texas, like any other large state, is big enough to forge and choose the reputation that precedes it. In this case, the prosecution and appeals of the Lawrence case were horrifying to any civil libertarian, whether he be left, right, coastal or provincial.
And if you lament the fact that the locale where such a travesty could have originated was thought expected or typical, that's really Texas' problem, sadly enough.
I'm sorry, but when intolerance is enforced to the extent of having a legal and historical example made of it, people have a way of remembering where it was in this great and supposedly free land that such inflammatory abominations were so well defended and furthered.
Whether you like it or not, cases as famous as this have a way of defining the legal and political culture of a place.
Instead of posting "Rosie O'Donnell Reveals Motivation Behind Her Own Lesbian Wedding" as your headline...why not just get it over with and post this:
"We ALL Can't Stand Rosie...Sp Let's Hear Your Reasons Why!!!"
I never seen so many shallow, jealous, whiny homophobic people gathered in one place in my entire life.
And Ann "The Queen" Althouse is right at the top of the list.
She throws out the standard chum and the local "pack" eats it up.
Whether you like it or not, cases as famous as this have a way of defining the legal and political culture of a place.
Sort of like how California's gay marriage ban defines California's legal and political culture? You're correct that I can't do much if people have incorrect and ill-informed stereotypes about Texas. However, that says more about them than it does about me or this state.
Pogo wrote:
For example, the recent news of the psychology student who is being driven out of college for daring to be a Christian and opposing the belief that gender is a mere social construct, and the university professor being fired from teaching his religion class because he discussed Catholic teaching about homosexuality.
This is just the beginning of an endless onslaught against religion which will be successful until it provokes a violent backlash, from either Muslims or Christians or both.
But it will happen, in our lifetimes. Again, there ain't a damn thing we can do to stop this train, as I see it. There will be blood; it's the way the left ends all disagreements, by design or default.
The professor has been rehired.
But I'd really like to juxtapose Pogo's comments with these by Shouting Thomas:
This need to position oneself as a daring martyr struggling against injustice has been a comic farce for a couple of decades.
Why do we always have a fringe of people who need to play drama queen and pretend that they're fighting against lynchings and beatings?
Who do these drama queens need to preen their egos by imagining themselves in a great moral war with the bigots?
It's a psychological addiction. We've got a mess of people out there who love to admire their own halos. They're a pain in the ass. And, giving them what they want won't end the phony martyrdom drama.
NOM's Summer for Marriage Tour has played on this "We're the victims of bigotry" theme, too.
Sort of like how California's gay marriage ban defines California's legal and political culture? You're correct that I can't do much if people have incorrect and ill-informed stereotypes about Texas. However, that says more about them than it does about me or this state.
Given the margin of the vote, and the massive spending on campaigns against gay marriage waged by carpetbaggers from Utah, I'd say they're still more progressive than most others on this one.
But maybe considering details such as those makes me given to emphasizing such things as "nuance", an issue that another famous Texan had a big problem with.
There are explanations and then there are explanations. And so it goes with tolerance itself. Explain to me or to anyone else what is so progressive about Texas and go wild with it. But generic pleas to "Please don't judge us!" and to "Just be open-minded and forgiving no matter the evidence!" are kind of weak appeals, wouldn't you say?
At some point Texas has to answer for its reputation on its own and not with - I guess you might say - "cant". Even nice, polite and civil talk can be given to cant, somefeller. I'm sure many progressives in Texas would like to improve the state's reputation for progressiveness. I've yet to see the evidence on how they plan to do so, let alone how they've already done so.
And, oh yeah... the ranchers who sued Oprah for not wanting to eat hamburgers? Also not very good for improving Texas image on progressive issues. (Let alone free speech).
It's becoming more difficult to interact with most of you guys, knowing that, however friendly and sensible you seem regarding other topics, you hold such vile opinions and such ugly sentiments in your minds and hearts.
It's an odd feeling knowing that you have no home on the left or right, since both are eager to wield power in order to repress and enslave you, each in their own way. Both want to use the State to engineer your life, both with a misguided sense of moral purpose. Both know that their designs counter the human spirit, so both seek the power necessary to force the human spirit into submission.
Would that as many people loved liberty as love power.
In Texas, "progressive issues" (like killing newborns, allowing foreign forces to breach our borders and hoggishly stealing the next generation's wealth) aren't exactly winners.
Fortunately for the neo-Stalinists in our audience, MA, CA, NY, IL, etc. are picking up all the slack that TX is leaving.
Before I go off swimming - an activity that didn't seem to require government approval (and if somefeller has a response to my absolutely hate-filled comment I'd be happy to read it later), I just note how naive it is to fight a permanent battle against the concept of a democratic, self-government as if it were a somehow foreign and evil entity. It's merely a reflection of the system the people have chosen to keep in place. If Palladian wants to shift his contempt for that government onto the people, oh well. But at some point, concepts less abstract and more personal than that are bound to sway people. And far from making them heartless and inhuman, I'd say that's how we define such things.
But generic pleas to "Please don't judge us!" and to "Just be open-minded and forgiving no matter the evidence!" are kind of weak appeals, wouldn't you say?
I didn't say don't judge us. And I provided evidence on some central points, which you chose to ignore or wave aside. The weak appeals are on your end, not mine.
And, oh yeah... the ranchers who sued Oprah for not wanting to eat hamburgers? Also not very good for improving Texas image on progressive issues. (Let alone free speech).
In other words, the ranchers who filed a SLAPP suit? Such suits aren't unique to Texas. Interestingly, they lost that suit (in a Texas court, in which Oprah was defended by a law firm from Texas), and they weren't exactly seen as cultural heroes for it. Again, a weak appeal on your part.
I'm sure many progressives in Texas would like to improve the state's reputation for progressiveness. I've yet to see the evidence on how they plan to do so, let alone how they've already done so.
That is further evidence of your lack of knowledge. Here are some suggestions. Google these terms: The Texas Observer, Molly Ivins, Dominique de Menil, ACLU of Texas, Bill White, Annise Parker, South by Southwest, Houston Montrose, Diverseworks Artspace and Equality Texas. Then, write a short essay about each. At that point, get back to me. It sounds like you need to do your homework.
The Lefties can't seem to function without a bunch of celebutards fresh out of rehab telling them what to believe.
Which one whispered in Ted Olson's ear?
I like Molly Ivins but sadly the others just never captured as much attention. Jim Hightower seemed to exemplify a certain desperation. And Ivins had a talent for sarcastic satire that isn't easily replicated, and that one shouldn't have to in order to make a simple progressive case.
somefeller is right, Texas is a much more complicated and interesting place than people make it out to be.
Omaha1: Some proponents of SSM, such as our friend Andrew Sullivan, are not content with the right to marry. He now seems, for example, to be seeking a redefinition of marriage excluding such quaint and outdated ideas such as monogamy. Perhaps SSM opponents occasionally have a valid point.
Omaha, Sullivan aired a debate about fidelity. Nearly all (if not all) the links cited at your link that critique monogamy were written by other people -- not Sullivan.
Sullivan's own take on the issues raised in Sex at Dawn are best summarized here:
Somehow, we have to find a balance between what is natural and what is moral. This isn't easy. I find the attempt to separate them completely unpersuasive - but I agree with my reader that there's a lot of cherry-picking going on in the conflation of the two as well.
For me, original sin becomes much more comprehensible through a Darwinian prism. Our DNA is full of things - violence, selfishness, abuse, hatred - that are perfectly "natural" from an evolutionary point of view, but desperately in need of restraint when combined with humankind's formidable pre-frontal cortex and its increasing capacity to inflict damage of planet-wounding proportions. We are neither beasts nor angels, but as time goes on and our capacity for damage increases, we'd better try reaching for the angels more persistently.
Our task is not to deny our nature, but to channel it, with God's help, and through practice, to better ends.
Those are hardly the thoughts of someone championing the case for non-monogamy.
Maybe you had Sullivan confused with those heterosexual activists who champion non-monogamy.
Which one whispered in Ted Olson's ear?
Hiss you've hissed your last!!!
Hisssssssss
The onus is on FMA supporters to prove they are not vicious, hateful bigots. SSM supporters have the default moral position.
Crack,
You did not live in REVOLUTIONARY FRANCE. Maybe the problem isn't France. Maybe the problem isn't New Age. Maybe the problem isn't commenters on this blog. Maybe the problem is you.
Has that thought ever crossed your mind?
SSM resulted from the rule by judges. That isn't democracy, and I've got to question if it falls within the realm of a republic.
Ritmo that's a hilarious YouTube clip you linked here.
Synova, @10:19: I think you've been misled about Andrew Sullivan's position on marriage and monogamy. I read his blog regularly, and I can't recall him arguing that marriage should no longer contain the expectation of monogamy.
Or anyone who has been divorced and is likely to feel personally attacked by anyone saying divorce is bad?
I make a distinction between those who are divorced (or are divorced and remarried) with those who divorced their spouses to marry their affair partners. This is a relatively new development -- explicitly forbidden by law in several states within the past 100 years.
I, for one, am interested in strengthening marriage.
It's worth remembering that the bulk of the gay rights establishment -- and particularly the queer-theorists -- were opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage back when people like Andrew Sullivan started promoting the idea in the 1990s.
The leather-clad denizens of the gay pride parades in SF and NY were not the ones pushing the cause of same-sex marriage or civil unions.
Here are the plaintiffs suing Montana for civil unions. These are the kind of people who have been at the forefront of this movement.
I still think there is the slim possibility for a civil union compromise -- a conservative idea, I think, though it does give "special rights" to same-sex couples, unless civil unions are open to hetero couples, too.
I dislike that proposal, however, because I think it will weaken marriage.
"It's becoming more difficult to interact with most of you guys, knowing that, however friendly and sensible you seem regarding other topics, you hold such vile opinions and such ugly sentiments in your minds and hearts."
Holy shit. Then get the fuck out why don't you?
Subject other people to your emotional preening because while this sort of knee-jerk, pearl-clutching response is as wrong as it is predictable...it's fucking t i r e d.
Palladian said...
It's becoming more difficult to interact with most of you guys, knowing that, however friendly and sensible you seem regarding other topics, you hold such vile opinions and such ugly sentiments in your minds and hearts.
It's an odd feeling knowing that you have no home on the left or right, since both are eager to wield power in order to repress and enslave you, each in their own way. Both want to use the State to engineer your life, both with a misguided sense of moral purpose. Both know that their designs counter the human spirit, so both seek the power necessary to force the human spirit into submission.
Would that as many people loved liberty as love power.
8/8/10 2:40 PM
I do not want you to think I hold vile or ugly sentiments about you, because I do not. Some of us (definitely me) have no problem with the idea of gay marriage or making it a new social construct. We really do not want the courts to do it. It is a bad idea. I know people who are pro choice, and feel exactly the same way about Roe.
And mocking Rosie O'Donnell is not about mocking lesbians or women, it is about mocking Rosie O'Donnell. She is definitely in a league of her own.
Liberty is living in a nation of laws. Power is when a select oliarchy of philosopher kings can tell us what is acceptable and what is not. Which is why every Supreme Court nominee now has to go through a mini constitutional convention. It did not used to be that way, because the impact of the court was more limited.
And I like your drawings too.
Oh Fred, it wasn't you I was talking about. I have no problem with reasonable opposition, and I actually agree with those that dislike the judicial decisions that have gotten us to this point. It should be obvious reading through these comments the difference between reasonable opinions and vile sentiments.
I'm not going anywhere, GMay. We're not going anywhere. Don't pretend that you're somehow above allowing emotion to inform your responses. Your entire argument (such as it is) springs from an emotional response, to an emotional union that somewhere along the line someone irrationally decided to put under the regulatory and licensing power of the secular government. An emotional response to an emotional topic is appropriate, and exactly the reason that the State should not be involved in regulating any kind of marriage.
And I don't clutch my pearls. I'm more likely to strangle someone with them.
"It's becoming more difficult to interact with most of you guys, knowing that, however friendly and sensible you seem regarding other topics, you hold such vile opinions and such ugly sentiments in your minds and hearts."
Is this a reasonable opinion, Palladian, or a vile sentiment?
It is reasonable to respond to sentiment with sentiment, for the same reason that you shouldn't respond to an act of war with a strongly-worded statement from th U.N.
Vileness is generally subjective, so I'll leave that up to you.
As for Mizz O'Donnell, I don't think that a single lesbian should be accepted as representative of lesbians in general, just like I don't think that the people camping it up and whoring around at a "pride" parade should be accepted as representative of homosexuals in general.
Demographics are terrible predictors of individual merits and deficiencies.
Palladian-
Glad to hear you're not going anywhere. Don't forget there are more dimensions to the political spectrum then just left and right. Even if those other homes are smaller.
Palladian said: "Your entire argument (such as it is) springs from an emotional response..."
Bzzzt. Wrong. If you'd like to point out exactly where I've argued from emotion about this, I'm all eyes.
After reading most of these threads, yet refraining from comment until this one, I think I've arrived at the same conclusion you have - the state has no business in the marriage business. The only problems I see with that are that this position doesn't seem to strengthen marriage, and how does this affect child custody and a myriad of other prudent aspects the state adjudicates in matters of family law. (IANAL ADEFPOBO, so forgive any misuse of terms there)
The state is so entrenched in marriage, I just can't forsee a separation of the two.
Palladian, I don't see how you reconcile:
"It should be obvious reading through these comments the difference between reasonable opinions and vile sentiments."
with
"Vileness is generally subjective, so I'll leave that up to you."
I'd still like to know if a comment like your
"It's becoming more difficult to interact with most of you guys, knowing that, however friendly and sensible you seem regarding other topics, you hold such vile opinions and such ugly sentiments in your minds and hearts."
falls into the category of "reasonable opinion" or "vile sentiment" - that would help establish a baseline going forward.
Your entire argument (such as it is) springs from an emotional response, to an emotional union that somewhere along the line someone irrationally decided to put under the regulatory and licensing power of the secular government.
That marriage is merely an "emotional union that somewhere along the line someone irrationally decided to put under the regulatory and licensing power of the secular government" is exactly what opponents of gay marriage deny.
Existing "secular governments" did not evolve on a foundation of libertarian first principles, and the idea that marriage is strictly personal, that society at large has no interest in the form and regulation of family life, and that it can all by handled by contract law with no interference of the state in delimiting the forms that family life may take, is a very late-evolving notion - I'd say it evolved just yesterday, if not actually the day after tomorrow.
Underlying the "get the state completely out of the marriage business" argument is the tacit claim that it is irrational to believe that the permitted forms of family life have any bearing on what kind of society a society is, and that allowing everyone to set things up as they please with a lawyer will result in no change but "more liberty" - a claim that I consider ridiculous.
Polygamy-based societies, for example, are different animals than monogamy-based societies. I'm not arsed about gay marriage in itself; I do care about the precedents that are being set by the arguments advanced for it.
paul a'barge said...
Good day.
Federal Constitutional Amendment, declaring that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.
faster please.
The Founders made it difficult to Amend. The great achievement of Special Interest groups was discovering that money and great organization meant you owned the functioning of Congress on key issues, a good chunk of the Fed Judiciary their due to your lobbying and payoffs - and could also defeat any Amendment. The Founders made it perhaps moderately appropriately to inappropriately difficult - to bind subsequent generations to their wishes. Good enhancements or updates sometimes happened. Other times not because of the hassle. And binding subsequent generations to peculiar views and institutions gave us the Civil War.
But no Amendment of any controversy has passed since 1962. (Poll Tax) Special interests have achieved gridlock. Best examples are the drawn out defeat of the ERA, line item veto, and balanced budget Amendments. Popular with the public, easily sabotaged.
So when someone in power says we should Amend to modify the 14th on anchor babies, proposes a flag burning Amendment, a continuity of Government Amendment if DC is nuked, or a mariage Amendment....laugh. Because the person in the halls of power saying it's doable is either stupid or demagoguing.
Only three ways exist to Amend the Constitution anymore without special interest groups sabotaging significant measures.
1. Fed Judge Fiat.
2. Constitutional Convention that circumvents all the emplaced Amending obstacles special interests can exploit.
3. Gun point.
(See Note)
Note: The only way the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments passed was Occupying military with rifles ready against the conquered citizenry of several states saying who they had to elect to their state Legislatures and to Congress. With sitting Southern Senators stripped of office and new elections called, and sitting Fed judges who went to the Confederacy stripped of lifetime office.
Gun point Amending is indeed a bloody effective option. And historically endorsed as making for great Amending achievements. Without guns and blood, no 13th, 14th, 15th Amendment. (Or the Sacred Parchment itself, the Constitution, for that matter)
A am not a lawyer either, but in terms of child support, I don't think the state makes a distinction between a divorced dad and a dad who was never married to the child's mother.
There is one distinction, though, and it disadvantages a man who was married to the child's mother -- even though he is not the child's biological father.
That is, (outside of cases involving adoption) if a man ordered to pay child support were to prove that he was not the father of the child, the state will still press for him to pay child support if he and the child's mother were married when the child was conceived and/or born. If he was not married to the mother of the child, there would be no such presumption of paternity.
So the state has created an incentive for men not to marry.
Here's Ted Olson responding to the idea that Judge Walker overrode the will of the people and created a new right in his decision.
Palladian, I hate it when you are reasonable you big lug!
Crack,
For what it's worth, the video I'm watching talked about the Chain of Being as a way of distinguishing England from the rest of the isles (Scotland, Ireland and Wales) not so much from the rest of Europe, even France.
Ritmo Montana wrote (2:19) And if you lament the fact that the locale where such a travesty could have originated was thought expected or typical, that's really Texas' problem, sadly enough.
Texans are deeply saddened by the disapproval of the likes of Ritmo, but are struggling to endure same while enjoying the highest job creation rate in the country and five of the ten healthiest local economies.
Silly Texas. Failing to see the value to its citizens of embracing sodomy.
"I've read the original post a couple of times now, and I don't get it."
Did you read the material at the links? It doesn't make sense without reading the links.
Yeah Ann, I think we all get it by now. The part that that person may NOT have gotten is when you say to leave RD alone, right after you have criticized her for expecting more and not understanding her opponents.
Kind of like how the other day you said or implied you'd take the inevitable anti gay backlash over same sex marriage, if it means defeating those nasty ole Democrats (whom you voted for - at least one) this November.
All I can say is... get your gay marriages in now. As this country becomes more Hispanic and more Muslim, there will be less tolerance for gay marriage.
Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks and Mormons reproduce at rates FAR higher than liberals. They will produce children who are opposed not favorable towards gay marriage.
I am not passing judgement in either direction, just making a prediction.
Well Rialby, I just read a headline somewhere that said that courts or a court in Mexico said gay marriage was ok.
As a supporter of gay marriage I just want to say that I'm happy that many who oppose it are old and will be dead soon.
I care not whether the light of reason shines on my political views.
But I do care that back when I used to live in San Diego, I resided in the Congressional district of conservative superhero Duke Cunningham.
The Duke was famous for, inter alia, referring to homosexual men as "shit-chute fuckers". I think he even used this flowery term on the floor on the Congress.
Is that sort of rhetoric-- from a sitting congressman-- vile and vicious and hateful enough for you?
It is for me.
And of course it is in line with the vile, vicious, and hateful crap that right-wing conservatives have been spewing for decades. Remember that some Republican hicks even shot Dennis Hopper and Captain America at the end of Easy Rider? And that was back in the 1920s or something. Those assholes!
Anyway... upon hearing Duke's over-the-top put-down, I became a supporter of gay marriage. I even got a totally unnecessary blowjob by a guy named Jorge in a Tijuana massage parlor just to see what this whole homosex thing feels like. It was my own personal Larry Craig moment, minus the hypocrisy.
In my estimation, you are either with us or against us. You either support gay people as true Americans who are part of our society, whether you approve of their lifestyle or not; or else you view them as cancerous shit-chute fuckers like the Duke did. There is no middle ground.
Besides, wasn't it good ole' President W. who promoted such a clear-cut "with us or against us" way of thinking? You conservatives ought not to complain when others use it; it was, just like the shit-chute fucker concept, a product of the corrupt, manipulative leaders that you got behind.
AllenS,
"Crack,
You did not live in REVOLUTIONARY FRANCE. Maybe the problem isn't France. Maybe the problem isn't New Age. Maybe the problem isn't commenters on this blog. Maybe the problem is you.
Has that thought ever crossed your mind?"
Ahh - the "Falling Down" scenario - I just referenced it the other day.
Yes, Allen, I have. As seriously as I take anything. But, believe it or not, I do have a life outside of my blogging persona - with friends and everything - and after a lot of long, deep, heart-wrenching conversations with people who were free to be, and willing to be, as critical of me as they wish - and about what it's meaning to live my life as an absolutist - the consensus seems to be the world is fucked up and I should run for office or something.
Dude, France is always revolutionary - it's part of their identity - you know that don't you?
NewAgers kill and screw up others lives, as well as their own, you know that, too, don't you?
Some of the commentors on this blog - any blog - are out of their gourd. I'll assume, since you and I have never had a harsh word, and tend to agree on many things, you know that as well.
Yes, Allen, I have taken that hard look in the mirror and discovered there's no shame in wanting to be good, trying to be correct, and, under the circumstances (you guys have to understand there's no turning back, or wiping away, what my wife's murders have meant - way more than the mundane divorce many want to focus on so badly to condemn me) no matter how trying for me, or others, I'm doing what has to be done. Not even always what I want but what HAS to be done:
PC has no place in this world any longer, when it leads to murder. Liberalism has no place in this world, when it leads to murder. NewAge has no place in this world, when it leads to murder. It's over.
I have been assured by those that have known me my whole life, since my school years, and as an adult, that I am correct in this. If anything, it's been a revelation to them since I opened their eyes to a phenomena that they, too, had once accepted as part of the fabric of our lives. Now they reject it as well. And we laugh. Just today, a newer friend gave me a collection of motivational CDs to use in my music, because he knew I wanted to study them, and as a joke gift. The best part, to me, was when we stopped laughing and he said "I don't want them thangs in the house where my wife can get to them." I've only known him, a very practical fellow, for about a year.
That's what I call a score.
Crack Emcee,
Sometimes I go through your blog trying to piece together what happened to you, and what you in turn made happen. I'm doing that now, and I can't help but wonder how come you don't have PTSS or PTSD, whatever it's called. I don't mean that flippantly. I am still trying to piece it all together, and if you are to be believed, you've done an admirable job, not only getting through it, but putting this dr who you say has done so much evil (but I'm still trying to find out WHAT he's done) out of business. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, partly because you won't let go, and I think that no way would someone who is lying and doesn't have the courage of his convictions be so tenacious.
"There is no middle ground."
There is a middle ground, which I've articulated more times than I care to count.
Real liberals, as I understand the classical definition of the term, don't use the power of government to force others to accept their beliefs by fiat. That goes for the belief in marriage as an opposite-sex-only institution and the belief in a more inclusive definition of human union. They accept that there are different, irreconcilable beliefs about the subject and therefore choose not to involve the State in the institution at all. So many so-called social issues could be easily resolved in this way, and strengthen our pluralistic society by removing the sole irresistible force, the State, from the question altogether.
This is the only way to avoid the extremist absolutism of people like Josh, Dead Julius, shoutingthomas and paul a'barge.
But as I said, people would rather force each other using the violent potential of State power than agree to live in a society where people can choose to live by different creeds.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा