Said David Barton, as if choice and rights are unrelated concepts. The document in question is the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.How can you understand liberty and the pursuit of happiness without seeing choice as a necessary part of the right? You are free to do — what? — only one thing? It is true that, in recent years, gay rights proponents have fixated on the idea that gay people have no choice in their sexual orientation, but their demand for rights has to do with letting people make their own choices about what to do with their preferences and desires. Those who oppose gay rights know that perfectly well: They predictably respond to the argument that sexual orientation is inborn and unchangeable by saying that sexual behavior is a choice.
If you don't believe sexual freedom is a fundamental right, think of some rights that you are fond of — freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, freedom of speech — and try to explain them devoid of choice. To focus particularly on religion: Do you think that the Founders saw religion as something apart from choice? Here's a famous American document, James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessment:
If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 1] all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16] Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.That's all about choice, my friend.
ADDED: Barton presents himself as a Christian, so it's especially interesting that Madison relied, in part, on principles he found in the Christian religion itself:
[T]he Christian Religion itself... disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them....
353 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 353 of 353"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Im assuming that getting or sticking in cornholes is covered by the pursuit of Happiness. Why are we still talking about this move on to real problems. You can make any kind of pact or promise to anyone you want. You either have a pro gay agenda, anti gay agenda, or dont care.
Like racism alot of anti gayness is self perpetuated in ones own mind hence their crusade aganst it. Much like Applefluffers self infused quest aganst christianity.
Maybe you all need to get over the fact that alot of us think dudes railing dudes is gross, sorry.
Paddy O speaks better than I ever could and I think he nails it. Shouting Thomas has some good points as well.
I feel like gay people just want the world to love them and accept what they do. I dont accept it, I think its gross, but I dont care what you do. Keep it in places where I wont see it and dont tell me about the details. I promise to do the same in return with my own sexual practices.
Islamists would cut your fucking head off, why dont you start barking up their tree to start with and leave the people who dont care and the people who want you to keep your shit behind closed doors alone.
Sad some religions dont support you, tough shit.
I support legal union for gays, love is love and your partner should be who you choose. Just shut the fuck up about it in public, most of us dont care and the fact that you push and go out of your way to tell us your gay is what gets annoying.
You dont see me having a fucking poon-tang parade in the streets. Vagina ballons and shit.
The more I see stuff like this the more I think about children acting out for attention at school because their home life is unsatisfying.
As Carol Herman said, look to france, civil unions cool.
I am church married, even though my belief in god is more my own internal thing than latching onto mainstream a specific religion (Grew up catholic, went christian for awhile, wife and I decided that faith can and is within oneself).
I dont want a civil union, I like to think that I have gods blessing.
I support your rights for civil union though.
Freedom of choice- what about Ann's (and many others' of course) support of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, particularly as it applies to employment and public accommodations?
The government decided there that people and businesses could not discriminate on the basis of race. This is a choice too, but one the govt said is now off-limits.
The arguments for restricting choice here are similar- in some ways- to the arguments raised by those who oppose gay marriage or gay rights in general. Yes, some people will have their liberties restricted, but society as a whole will be healthier for it.
Racism is an illegitimate choice, and so banning it isn't a reduction in the choices available at all. This is just like Bender's "truth".
@Trooper: "When I have a post discussing Barbara Eden's breasts I don't delete someone because they want to talk about how cute her ass was in the I Dream of Jeanie outfit."
What if someone wants to discuss how nice Major Healy's ass looked?
I would, for example, offer that Major Healy's ass would make an appropriate mascot for the Yankees. A giant Healy ass head costume with baseball bat in...hand.
@Maguro, The "bitter clinger" example is perfect.
A slight variation on the theme is that people aren't fully competent to choose for themselves, so their choices need to be regulated by a nanny state.
@Trooper York -- I was reading the blog when Shouting Thomas posted. I clicked through the post, read the first three or four comments, including his, then starting composing my own comment.
Believe me that there was nothing in those comments that Shouting Thomas hasn't freely repeated in later comments in this thread. And repeated. And repeated.
My take is that Althouse is exactly on point in her 9:25 am. She wanted to avoid instant deflection of the main issue.
I am surprised, but Shouting Thomas has had plenty of comment inches since.
@Bart Hall -- Good analysis, especially on the importance of choice. Cuts to the point.
when good analyses are to be delivered, Bart Hall is the go to guy
How can you understand liberty and the pursuit of happiness without seeing choice as a necessary part of the right? You are free to do — what? — only one thing?
That is setting up a false choice. That there is only one way to act or one way to choose.
The choices we make in the pursuit of happiness are not necessarily "rights".
The rights that are enumerated in the Constitution are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit (not the guarantee of) Happiness.
If your pursuit of happiness leads you on a Dexter path. Does that constitute a right?
There are a lot of choices people make that may be good or bad on a personal level. Sexual choices and sexual behaviour can be one set. However, those personal behaviour choices do not necessarily rise to the level of being a "right".
VW: ramen.
What we all will be eating under Obamanomics. It will be all that we can afford.
We should all aspire to be deleted at least once, but on different subjects.
I will be ambitious and try to do it on the subject of nature photography. You gotta admit that's a challenge, but I got this:
Nigger Flower
@bagoh20--There you go propagating stereotypes about pistil size.
Shame! Shame! Shame!
Hey baggy whatever floats your boat man. If you are digging on Major Healy's as you are intruding on Bob Newhardts property but knock yourself out.
@bagoh20--There you go propagating stereotypes about pistil size.
LOL. I thought something along those lines. Very funny
pistiles are good; stamens are better
But I kid. Althouse is very open on this blog and tolerant to the point of diminishing what will carry her name forever. The Titus stuff is often worthless, and simply lazy indulgence - no attempt at humor whatsoever.
I think as long as it at least expresses a reasonable attempt at either humor or argument then it's worth keeping. If it's just spreading excrement on the wall, then delete, please.
pistiles are good; stamens are better
homophobe.
And Henry you should know that Shouting Thomas doesn't like it when you comment on his inches or lack thereof.
That's a sensitive topic. Just sayn'
And caplight. I am surprised at you.
Yankee hate ill behooves a man of the cloth.
You must know that God is a Yankee fan.
What, no delete? Ok, how about this?
Badly Rolled Fag Flower
"I’m sorry, your sexual choice is not a God-given right."
If it is genetic, then it is God-given - right or not.
Unless you are an atheist, in which case you think it's just being a provocative ass.
Hey for a long time my sexual choice was Joey Heatherton or Angie Dickenson and I didn't have a right to get that.
What gives?
I mean I would have settled for Charo for crying out loud.
Choocie choocie baby.
bagoh20, Try leaving the natural world for the processed-food world and pork faggots.
Adjective or verb? You can choose, but you must choose wisely to be free.
Assuming the existence of God, I do believe that if there is a dude named God, he or she lets us choose and we have to accept the consequences of our decisions. But not being a theologan I can justify any of this stuff. The book of Job does come pretty close to humankinds reltionship with God IMO
and I am not even Jewish (damn--where is cedarford when you need him--Ok, I am not a progressive jew)
Saint Croix said...
I think the "my friend" set some people off!
"My friend" is the last refuge of the McCain.
================
McCain used it excessively and indiscriminately between friend and foe.
The problem is that liberals, progressive Jews in high positions in the media, now conservative "watchdog" groups have elevated sanctimonious outrage over most forms of "crowd address" as an art form of opposition.
Try getting away with being Obama and saying "you people" to a white crowd or worse, suffering the Holy lather of the race pimps if you are a Republican addressing the NAACP and say "you people".
Or wait on the feminists to rail on someone that says "you gals" to women at some female association convention...when *sniff* thet are not gals but properly addressed as "empowered women".
Kids, gals, chollos, coonases, cheeseheads...all...so...PATRONIZING to the dishonest faux shock and outrage activist speech critic!
So politicians work to find phrases that laud the audience and aren't offensive to anyone, or are thought not to trigger OUTRAGE when addressing a problem group.
Thus we get "Code".
Religion of Peace.
Heroes - for substitute language for all cops, soldiers, firefighters, teachers, government employees, nurses, do-gooders.
"Troubled youths" as code for flash mob gangs of you-know-what...
My lady friend pointed out to me that we are apparently on the 400th anniversay of the King James Version of scripture--It is now and for=ever will be soaring prose--agree with it or not, it remains a wonderful addition to the English Language--way to to go, Jimmy
I think the same logic could apply to child molesters, and proponents of bestiality: it's their proclivity, let them enjoy themselves. They can't find happiness any other way. I suppose there are all kinds of choices left: The Roman Caesars sampled them all. Caligula fell in love with a horse. Christians rejected all that: spoilsports.
Of course horses dont take you to the cleaners in a divorce settlement--Caligula chose wisely (well excpet for the praetorian guard thing)
Caligula didn't fall in love with a horse. He just made him a Senator.
We do the same thing today.
Only we do with the back end of the horse. Just sayn'
I am just sick of having this gay stuff rammed down my throat. I can't watch a TV show without gay stuff in it. Its all over the newspaper. Its everywhere. Gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay.
I agree with Prof Althouse and also how can someone read "among these" and not acknowledge that the list of three rights is not exhaustive. There must be at keadt one additional right nor listed.
The fourth right, of ourse, isthe god-given right of the Green Bay Packers to be the best team in footballdom.
OK Triange Man--now you have crossed the line :)
I, for one, am somewhat shocked that the right to choose to butt-fuck would be THE issue of the 2012 presidential race.
I should have seen this coming.
Well that is what the Jug Eared Jesus has been doing to the economy so it was bound to come up. Just sayn'
That is shocking. Did that just come over the wire or was it sent to our cell phones?
If I had known who people choose to buttf*ck was THE number one issue of the Presidential race, as I've now been informed, I wouldn't have been wasting my time here at Althouse. I would have been out THERE doing something about it.
Thank God we have vigilant citizens to remind us when the 2012 presidential campaign gets seriously off-track.
Buttf*cking, huh. Some candidates are going to have to answer for that.
@Tim, So very close. THE issue is the "right" of the government to keep fucking the "private sector."
I’m in favor of gay marriage. Why? Because all the arguments against gay marriage that I’ve ever encountered always boil down to, “Well, we just don’t think it’s right. Sorry, but I have to have something better than that before I put folks in jail or otherwise limit behavior with legal sanctions. I would have to have it demonstrated that a behavior is intrinsically harmful to others before I would consider sanctions to be proper.
Barton is just one in a long line of folks I’ve seen who seek to find a moral reason to oppose homosexuality because of a personal repugnance toward homosexuality, a hostility that if it is elevated becomes pathological, a form of hysteria. Hatred follows fear.
I don’t believe homosexuality is a choice. I believe Barton’s argument is weak and illogical. To demand that homosexuals be celibate because the practice of homosexuality is a “choice” is to be unfair. Why should I enjoy having my sexual orientation protected and condoned but not be willing to extend that same protection to homosexuals?
But I do have a caveat – and it’s a big one. I fear that homosexuals will become another anointed minority group, with all the quotas, affirmative action and other crap that goes along with special status. I will try to vote to prevent this from happening. Another entitlement group is the last thing America needs at this point.
… let's make sure we proceed very cautiously where there is no evidence, which proponents of gay marriage have not done.
For me, it’s the other way around. Opponents must give me evidence.
There is something that they advocate called Dominionism.
Dominionism does not represent mainstream evangelicals.
This is probably a worn out thread. I had to leave because my good friend, Bill George, was struck today doing funeral escort duty on his Harley. He has severe internal injuries, a compound fracture of the hip, broken ribs, ruptured spleen and they may have to take out some of his intestines. Trying to get him ready for surgery his heart has stopped twice. This is serious and he, his wife Liz and his daughter Sid need a miracle right now.
That said, I do think Ann let's us police the commenters which I happily did with Shouting today.
@Tim, So very close. THE issue is the "right" of the government to keep fucking the "private sector."
So your issue and the "issue" of billionaires just magically aligns perfectly! What are the chances of that. #dupes
So your issue and the "issue" of billionaires just magically aligns perfectly! What are the chances of that. #dupes
Thanks for providing a perfect example of the dumbass "false consciousness" argument your side deploys regularly.
@Chip,
I agree, which is why this thread seems so barren, despite the endless pixels it's consumed...
Pity that concern over Obama's paucity of experience, accomplishment and associations with Wright and Ayers didn't quite rise to the level we see over Barton, his thoughts and association with Perry.
Oh well. Can't fix the choice to be stupid overnight, or even over two and 3/4 years...
Madison: "1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence."
Citizen: "Yeah, but what about homosexual marriage?"
Madison: "WTF."
I don't know what Shouting Thomas said, Ann, because you will not let us see.
I think you were WAAAAAAY out of line in deleting him, no matter what he said.
What is going on here? Your son suggested that someone's notes should be deleted the other day because he didn't like (agree?) with what they said.
Now you are doing this to Shouting Thomas.
Your blog and your right to do this of course. Not for a moment suggesting that it is not.
But it leaves a horrible taste in my mouth.
I think it is abominable behavior. I've been here almost from the beginning, reading you daily. I don't remember you doing this before. Is STFU!!! going to be the new motto here?
You are acting like a democrat or Obamaite.
John Henry
WV: Frizoo-My feelings exactly. Frizoo to you, your son and the horses you rode in on.
Madison: "WTF."
AllenS FTW!
If anyone, gay or straight, has casual sex with two or three hundred partners a year, there is a high probability that it will have adverse consequences on his health, both spiritual and physical.....I think the way in which you are gay is of more consequence than the fact that you are gay. Gay marriage--I mean a real marriage and not some sort of cynical construct--seems to me to be a prudent and dignified way of expressing one's homosexuality. Homosexual marriage can easily be consistent with a conservative position on sex. My guess is that throughout America, mothers are going to be nagging their gay sons to get married and settle down.
Wow, the teacher threw the eraser at Shouting Thomas?
I'm impressed.
You know, bringing up what our Founders of this Country said, and then applying homosexual anything to what they had written, is one of the dumbest fucking ideas I've ever heard of.
What do you fucking think that they would have said and done, concerning anything homo?
The most educated people of this country have become the dumbest motherfucking people present, in what this great country used to be.
Go back a generation and find out how out of fucking whack these new thoughts are.
Going back, marriages weren't happy places. My mom told me romance had nothing to do with them. Women needed mates because they needed to see weekly paychecks.
My mom told me that very handsome men, who didn't have secure paychecks, couldn't find brides.
But if a man worked for the post office, he did.
Then, WW2 came along. Men went to fight. And, women dropped their aprons. And, lined up for factory jobs.
When you hear about how our factories produced planes and ships, you begin to realize what women did back during WW2.
Then, when the guys came home, women tied back on their apron strings. And, men went to work.
Unlike the Great Depression. When having a steady job got ya a bride.
Being handsome didn't even cut careers out for ya in Hollywood.
We're in a better place these days with the way sexuality has been retrieved by the expectations of love.
I don't see a different road, ahead. But finding love? It's a difficult journey. Even was for Cinderella. Who steps forward into Princess Diana's life.
Maybe, a luckier road for Kate. William sure seems smitten.
No wonder love springs eternal.
You dont see me having a fucking poon-tang parade in the streets. Vagina ballons and shit.
Never been to Mardi Gras, eh?
So... Christians think it's the wrong choice to not be Christian.
Puhleez.
You elevate 'choice of religion' to right/wrong (as in theft, murder, calumny...) and imply that Christians of this age would prosecute "infidelity"? You DO know the reality of the Inquisition (as opposed to the Lite-Beer version), right? The reality was about fraud--which crime you probably disapprove.
And then you imply that Shari'a is the equivalent to Western-tradition law where in reality, it is an interwoven theo/political system where it is operative?
C'mon, Prof.
The phrase "pursuit of happiness" needs to be seen as it was intended in the original sense not as we seem to define or rather redefine it now.
A quote.
Canadian scholar Ronald Hamowy provides an elegant and correct
definition of the meaning of a “just political order” (the Jeffersonian
“pursuit of happiness”) as it is evinced by the Declaration:
"[Men] may act as they choose in their search for ease, comfort,
felicity, and grace, either by owning property or not,
by accumulating wealth or distributing it, by opting for
material success or ascetism, in a word, by determining
the path to their own earthly and heavenly salvation as
they alone see fit."
[...]
The fundamental question concerns why Jefferson, in the Declaration,
replaced the Lockean triad “Life, Liberty, and Estate” with “Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Once again, we cite Vernon
Parrington for the classical formulation of the (alleged) importance
of this alteration:
"The substitution of “pursuit of happiness” for “property”
marks a complete break with the Whiggish doctrine of
property rights that Locke had bequeathed to the English
middle class, and the substitution of a broader sociological
conception; and it was this substitution that gave to
the document the note of idealism which was to make its
appeal so perennially human and vital."
It would be superfluous to dwell in any detail on the innumerable
interpretations of this substitution, since most do not substantially
differ from Parrington’s, so it will suffice to recall only one among
the many, a recent reformulation:
"Substituting “the pursuit of happiness” for Locke’s right
of “property,” Jefferson attempted to extend the concept
of rights for all mankind all over the globe for all times,
not just property holders."
Also see here.
bagoh20 said...
"I’m sorry, your sexual choice is not a God-given right."
If it is genetic, then it is God-given - right or not.
========================
What does god have to do with giving someone a taste for pederasty, rape, beastiality, foot fetishes, violent sadomasocism - among other "sexual choices" we don't ordinarily associate with "blessed god-given right of choice"??
Nor are Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindi, even Buddhist text silent on what they purport their followers obey in sexual dos and don'ts.
Homo agenda people dragging God as Cosmic Approver into this "rights" argument while ignoring the actual "sins" of the faith part of the equation ?? Like a communist arguing that Jesus would have loved them and their ideology.
Elsewhere, someone observed that the 'gay marriage' issue is not about anything other than 'definition.'
No one denies the 'right' to make a wrong choice, whether sexual or otherwise. (Usual conditions, child-rape yadayadayada)
However, "choice" of action whether right or wrong is not the same as 'redefinition' which is akin to repealing the law of gravity by judicial fiat.
no can do.
Caplight, sorry to hear about your friend. Here's hoping that the surgeries go well. I'm sure he and his family are grateful to have you around.
To bago and others, I don't think that Althouse is monitoring the thread right now.
ST,
Stop the lying, Althouse. You can do what you want with your fucking blog. But, on this issue, you are just a damned liar.
Give her Hell, ST!!!!! And the fact the rest of you don't expand on his argument - except for Apfelkuchen's stupid, and intellectually lazy, "Hate much,shouting Thomas?" - is one of the saddest spectacles I've seen in a long time.
This is now a society, filled with people willing to go in circles over nothing, wondering where the "structural damage" in our society is - DUH!!!
The ability not to understand what's important - especially in an intellectual exercise such as this - IS the structural damage. Pogo's insight, that this issue is a libtard dodge from dealing with real issues they can't address competently, is another example of how true issues can just slip away while the assholes (pun intended, in this case) tie you up in knots over issues that really have nothing to do with you or anything else. What do I care about Barton or Sharia Law? I don't. So why am I talking about them? Because - as Glenn Reynolds famously said - law professors just throw shit out there without worrying about it's effects in the real world.
You've got a rich white lady, who voted for Obama, leading you by the nose to places you've got no good reason to go.
That's a more decent blog topic than whether or not gays are able to butt fuck, with a non-existent God's blessing, if you ask me.
"The choices that Althouse mentioned (religion, speech) are listed as specifically protected in the Constitution. Unless one thinks that sexual freedom choices / rights are part of the unenumerated rights covered in the 9th Amendment (Randy Barnett - please call your office), while such rights may be good to protect for public policy reasons, the Constitution doesn't require their protection and thus such rights aren't at the same level as the Constitutionally protected rights to freedom of speech or religion. At least that's a sort of originalist position on such issues."
Barton was speaking about God-given/inalienable rights -- natural rights -- not the text of the Constitution. He said "documents" with an "s," so clearly, he doesn't limit himself to the Constitution. The most obvious document is the Declaration of Independence. He's using the language of natural rights, and when you are in that analysis, you are not talking about whether there is a specific text.
So my point about the nature of rights and my quarrel with Barton is not susceptible to the limits of the specific texts. When we do constitutional law and need a text for that idea, we use the due process clause, which refers to "life, liberty, and property." The rights relating to consensual sex are understood as part of "liberty," which is a word that requires us to go beyond the text to find/give meaning.
"To bago and others, I don't think that Althouse is monitoring the thread right now."
We were out biking. I'm seeing comments now, but only up to the one I just responded to (and yours, which popped out at me).
Email me if there is a specific problem post that needs attention.
You could go here for a discussion of Shari'a and Natural Law theory. The internal links are also very useful: http://dad29.blogspot.com/2007/12/dont-believe-in-natural-law-then-you.html
As to the Constitution vis-a-vis natural law, it is a given that since man pre-exists the Constitution (and all of Western law in general) then man gave Gummint the right to 'declare rights.'
"Who's on first" applies.
Synova said...
I don't think that homosexuality hurts anyone, but I do think that destroying sexual mores, glorifying consequence free transitory relationships and viewing sexual desire as more important than self-control or fidelity, does very bad things.
Is that an argument for gay marriage? Marriage is the opposite of a "transitory relationship" and embodies "self control" and "fidelity." Would marriage not tend to improve those things associated with homosexuality of which you disapprove?
More on 'rights'/natural law from Hauerwas: http://dad29.blogspot.com/2007/03/stanley-hauerwas-on-rights.html
He appears to be agreeing with Barton to some extent.
Go ahead, Professor, respond to my 8/20/11 2:28 PM comment.
@apfelkuchen
Christian Fundamentalism will destroy this country as Islamic Fundamentalism destroyed Iran.
Yeah, Iran was one of the world's great democracies before the Islamic fundies took power.
From stat.gov:
"The 1979 Islamic Revolution and the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war transformed Iran's class structure politically, socially, and economically. During this period, Shi’a clerics took a more dominant position in politics and nearly all aspects of Iranian life, both urban and rural. After the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, much of the urban upper class of prominent merchants, industrialists, and professionals, favored by the former monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, lost standing and influence to the senior clergy and their supporters. However, Bazaar merchants, who were allied with the clergy against the Shah, gained significant political and economic power after the revolution. The urban working class has enjoyed a somewhat enhanced status and economic mobility, spurred in part by opportunities provided by revolutionary organizations and the government bureaucracy. Though the number of clergy holding senior positions in the Majles and elsewhere in government has declined since the 1979 revolution, Iran has nevertheless witnessed the rise of a post-revolutionary elite among clerics who are strongly committed to the preservation of the Islamic Republic."
Replace Islam with government in the above and you have Obama's redistributist state ruled by a privileged elite...which is far more likely to become a reality than a repressive Christianist state.
When we do constitutional law and need a text for that idea, we use the due process clause, which refers to "life, liberty, and property." The rights relating to consensual sex are understood as part of "liberty," which is a word that requires us to go beyond the text to find/give meaning.
Are you now playing the "I'm a con-law prof, you're not" card? To hell with that.
I still don't know what your argument is, exactly.
--If our "inalienable rights" are God-given, then it seems pretty natural for the God squad to bring considerations of morality to the discussion.
--If those rights are not God-given, then until we specify where they come from I don't know how we can have a coherent discussion of what they are.
--You yourself couched this whole thing in an overtly political context by linking Barton to Perry. So it's perfectly natural for people to frame the discussion in terms of constitutional rights. They are not missing whatever point you're making.
--I still don't know what any of this has to do with the "rights" of gays aside from their "right" to marry. They are not being systematically deprived of any other rights, until you law profs discover a "right to be accepted" in some penumbra of the Constitution. As for the question of whether it's sensible to think that a right to gay marriage can be found in any of the founding documents, I will simply reiterate what AllenS said.
There's no right to divorce and remarry in the Constitution, either. One hundred years ago, some states had laws that explicitly forbid a spouse from divorcing and then marrying his or her affair partner.
And the Constitution is silent on whether or not first cousins can marry. It's currently illegal in some states and perfectly legal in others. But aside from George Michael Bluth and Maeby Fünke, there don't seem too many people interested in activism on this issue.
And the Constitution is silent on whether or not first cousins can marry. It's currently illegal in some states and perfectly legal in others.
But..but..what about the pursuit of happiness?
A bit more of that Barton quote:
“I’m sorry, you’re [sic] sexual choice is not a God-given right,” Barton said, “You’re talking about a choice and you’re talking about elevating a choice to an inalienable right, which is impossible, you can’t, not under the definition of American documents.”
Seems to me, he’s not talking about choice per se, but about a choice, that is, the particular choice of living as a homosexual. Althouse’s argument rests on the choice per se construction: “How can you understand liberty and the pursuit of happiness without seeing choice as a necessary part of the right?"
In an economy that is melting down at record levels, the thing we should be most concerned about are gay rights.
The libertarian writer Robert Nozick believes that we are the owners of our own person and this self-possesion is the fundamental right of liberty, which is part of our self-evident truths. Barton wants to redefine the DOI as well as the historical antecedents of John Locke to exclude the liberty/libertarian philosophy, And I don't know this relates the Althouse's son; I think Chip has another interesting take on this.
Althouse:
Glad you quoted from James Madison. I seriously doubt that James Madison believed homosexual conduct was a FR. But whatever, right?
C-fudd - calm down. I don't think anyone here is attacking your inalienable, constitutional, God-given right to jack yourself off to sleep in your flophouse room.
A few posters here have commented on C-fudd's antisemitism. I feel at least somwhat qualified to remark on that since I was apparently at least partly responsible for his demise on PJM. No, I didn't go complaining "waah waah, mean old C-fudd hates Joooos, ban him". I merely taunted him into a response that was so over-the-top (though I myself found it quite amusing) that *others* complained and shortly after that he was never heard from again on that portal.
I am fine with C-fudd's Jew-baiting - he is living proof of my contention that antisemites are invariably nitwits, misfucks and born losers. What I would like to see is that people recognize that he is a delusional liar and idiot as well. For some reason he projects this persona of being a knowledgable crank. But as I have pointed out and in fact proven many times before, he just makes up all his shit to support whatever psycho talking point he is trying to make, including his claims about his own background, experience, age etc.
In an economy that is melting down at record levels, the thing we should be most concerned about are gay rights.
Who on this thread said gay rights was more important than the economy? Weak.
Hey cripes I tried to post this much earlier in the thread but i guess it didn't take.
Thank you Trooper.
If the Balkans explode again we should send Trooper in with some Stoli's.
I think that it would be an easy bet, that The Althouse Woman, won't comment any more on this thread.
Gary Rosen
Hey I've been watching you take him on for years.
I don't know how you do it exactly.
Thank you for that. I just wish more people would take him on here.
Plenty do but I'm sure they get tired of it.
What I really hate is that for awhile he was being lauded as intelligent or something here in the threads.
Add to that he tries to present as some military expert.
The $#%@ on the day of or shortly after the helicopter crash was insinuating that the pilot was stupid because we should have known it was overloaded with 37 guys.
The payload of a damn Chinook is some 50,000 pounds.
Some guy told me the damn thing can lift a tank.
I'd love to find video of that-as a visual aide to not only how stupid C-4 is , but possibly an evil liar who was trying to sully the intelligence of an Army pilot who had just lost his life.
And of course C-4 knew all this before the debriefs in Afghanistan had even commenced.
Anyways I always see you fighting back and good on ya.
Crap one more thing-I had the German military history professor and he might this eery observation-
When you fight against anti-semitism-the true evil will be those that sit on the sidelines and critique the style of those that fight that hatred.
Ann Althouse has never directly confronted Cedarford that I know of-but she has done that..
Shocking to see the least when I saw my military history prof's prediction or law get supported right here at Althouse by Althouse herself.
edit:Shocking to *say* the least.
*******
Gary Rosen
Ya he represents himself as an AF guy that served during the First Gulf War.
So insinuating that the Army helo pilot was just stupid as hell before ...anyways.
I hear ya.
I get the other aspects of "C-4" that you are referring to.
"...we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us." ~ Madison
Ah, but sorry this is exactly what the gay agenda seeks to do.
Just look at this week's news...a Florida teacher has been re-assigned and "investigated" because of his facebook post disagreeing with gay marriage. A young man is on trial for murder(not forgiving the murder here) because the school he attended did nothing to protect his rights not to be harassed by a gay student.
You can't have it both ways.
Barton? Barton who? The man is a private citizen who can say any stupid thing he wants...Or is this a proactive attack on Perry?
Since it's looking more and more like Paul Ryan will enter the race and will probably get the Republican nomination...
Oops! A Catholic pro-life candidate... So who are you going to drag out to justify another vote for the 0? The Pope?
wv: mulsn...Althouse mulsn why we should deny "...an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us." and vote for the most incompetent person to ever walk through the White House's doors...
I have to agree with the poster early on who said that Ann's premise is pre-adolescent.
While choice is integral to rights the fact that you have a choice does not mean that you have a right. I have a choice to have sex with people over or under the age of consent. The fact that I have a choice does not mean I have a right to have sex with people under the age of consent.
There are lots of things we can choose to do which are illegal. Once you start claiming that unlimited choice (which is what you seem to claim) is a Constitutional right you are arguing that there are no limits on behavior.
I realize that you wouldn't really argue such a thing but your initial premise is exactly that. You seem to be offended that Barton says we don't always have the freedom to choose. Well, we don't; at least not without consequences of the choice and THAT is what a lot of libs object to: Consequences.
Althouse and Meade will scrub the chalk off some WW I memorial but they'll leave the desecration of that young helo- pilot unchallenged by either one of them.
Can't be bothered.
Any blogger who's been blogging for awhile would know or expect certain stuff to be flung when they make a post like that (-about the fresh death of 30 SEALs)-and when they welcome a commenter like Cedarford that applies exponentially.
madawaskan, perhaps you'd like to take this opportunity to demonstrate your outrage and leave this blog forever.
Hell I might be over the top with what happened on the Navy SEALs thread.
Most people are ignorant as hell when it comes to the military and they wouldn't have even realized what Cedarford was up to.
I'm out.
The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.
Job 1:21
Thank you for your prayers. My dear friend Bill George has passed from this life into the next. I trust his soul to the hands of the merciful and living God. Please continue to pray for his wife Liz, daughter Sid and his many friends and family members.
I am out of this now but I want say this, Althouse Blog is a gift to me. I profit from the ideas, I appreciate the knowledge I acquier, I enjoy the banter, jousting and reparte. It is a ton of work to host this blog and I appreciate our host and all she does for us. Increasingly this is the only blog comments I bother to read. But there are limits. And Shouting crosses that liune when he personally attacks Ann and Chris in the way that he does. One of the beautiful things of being conservative is I can say something is just wrong. I don't have to justify it. It is self-evident. Shouting you have often helped me think things through in a good way, thank you. But today you were wrong, out of line and disrespectful to our host. She is a real person who is a mother and just where do you get off with the attitude and condemnation and rage. You owe her an apology. Now man up, send her an email or do it here and move on. Crack, you're next. Pull one of your hyssie fits and make it too personal and I'll call you out too.
I don't intend to take advantage of the fact that I personally know Ann, Meade and Chris now. We are far from BFFs. But I have seen first hand what she and Meade endure for the sake of free and open debate and discourse. It is ugly. It is harsh and rude. It is meant to hurt them and ruin their reputations and work. They deserve better here from the regulars. And as far as I am concerned Chris is off limits in discussions of sexuality, gay marriage, or anything else having to do with homosexuality public or private.
I hope I have been clear. Now I will leave you so that I may grieve the loss of one of my dearest friends and attend to his family and burial. And don't make me come back here and do this again.
And I still hate the Yankees. Arrogant bastards!
Peter Hoh
Explain yourself?
Peter Hoh
See you're just fitting into what my German military history professor described perfectly
Always more annoyed with those that stand up against the hatred.
Peter Hoh
Essentially you've put up more of a fight against me here than Cedarford.
Be proud of that there.
The real problem is not the Yankee but the people who don't challenge the Yankee haters.
God is a Yankee fan.
Caplight, I'm sorry to hear this update. Must be tough for everyone. Take care of yourself -- I know others are counting on you.
Trooper
The real problem is the Giants fans that don't recognize the Superiority of the Steelers.
Blaahhh, blaahh Rosen and his tool Madawaskan whine away.
There is something amusing about someone citing "my military history professor" as some final word on things military.
Anyhow, it looks like 3 investigations are undwerway on the helo crash and who if anyone showed bad judgment and made errors. The military is a learning organization. It cannot live as a self-esteem club that examines a pile of dead bodies, pronounces them all heroes without flaw, same with the commanders and the intel people and the equipment and moves on without a lick of knowledge and lessons learned.
This was a high economic loss (greater than 100 million) high loss of life single event that guarantees investigation and inquiry.
Who knows? It might also pin some of the blame on ROE that want ground troops instead of air assets taking out retreating Taliban because Karzai and his cronies bitch about killing his Pashtun Taliban aligned pals he is trying to double deal with.
And sometimes they create a scapegoat or enforce some ridiculous accountability in relieving a CO for something they were not aware of nor logically should be aware of. NOt fair, but it seems to cut down on similar foulups down the road.
And Rosen? He projects his own, loathsome "under a sewer cover" personality and values on others. Wonders why folks like him are so reviled...
Wait a minute. That's not true.
The Steelers have the best rapists in the NFL.
LOL!
Well the Giants bought our best self-shooter!
And we don't have the best dog -kicker-that's AJ's team.
mad - thanks for the props. Yeah, it bothers me a bit too that AA doesn't call out C-fudd once in a while (no need to ban, ridicule will do just fine). There may be an issue here, her previous husband was Jewish I believe.
Madawaskan, if you think it's so outrageous that Cedarford is allowed to post here, then why are you participating here?
I skip over c4's posts. I hardly see why I need to acknowledge them, let alone voice my objections.
Re. your professor's point: I am neither criticizing your style, nor am I objecting to your pushing back against c4.
In your 5:22, you level a significant charge against Althouse. If you really feel that way, I don't quite understand why you'd continue to participate here.
peter hoh
Madawaskan, if you think it's so outrageous that Cedarford is allowed to post here, then why are you participating here?
Reread my comments-where do I say that?
Try being at least fair here.
C-fudd's backpedaling furiously now on the helo crash. Wow, I feel so bad about being "reviled" by the likes of C-fudd.
Gary Rosen
Yeah, it bothers me a bit too that AA doesn't call out C-fudd once in a while (no need to ban, ridicule will do just fine).
Thanks for reading me correctly.
******
Peter Hoh
I think you misread me.
I think you don't get what it is like to have a father that still to this day has nightmares about reaching some Holocaust camp first, after he got through the Battle of the Bulge.
I also think you might not get what it is like to be still a member of the military community and to have to read what C-4 posted on the Navy SEALs thread.
I get that you can never really get that.
Anyways-I'm sure I should probably take your invite to get the heck out of here.
*******
Trooper
Thanks for making me laugh. Always.
Peter is a Big timey liberal so he has no interest in being fair.Libs in general don't have a problem with anti-Semites.
C4 is a-ok in their book.
Oh and Plaxico is on the Jets.
Gary, that 5:54 insinuation is a rather nasty one. It's couched so that you can maintain some semblance of deniability, but the intent is clear.
"Backpedaling" is a nasty smear??? Is it worse than C-fudd's interminable antisemitic rants? I thought madawaskan was being a bit harsh on you but maybe he has a point.
madawaskan, I never read the thread about the helicopter being downed. What's my responsibility regarding c4's comments there?
Your father's role in WWII is honorable, and certainly his stories would affect your outlook. I don't object to you taking c4 on any time you want to.
You are trying to argue that those of us who don't are complicit in c4's antisemitism. I say that's bullshit.
Gary, no, I wasn't referring to your "backpedaling" comment, which is why I deleted that remark and specifically identified the comment I was objecting to.
The best way for evil to triumph is for good men to say nothing. Or something like that there.
madawaskan said...
Hell I might be over the top with what happened on the Navy SEALs thread.
Most people are ignorant as hell when it comes to the military and they wouldn't have even realized what Cedarford was up to.
----------------
But you aren't! No, why even though you never served like many of us have...you had a military history professor!! That makes you an expert on investigation protocols.
Hopefully when results come out posters exhelodriver, Drill SGT are around to say if the conclusions make sense.
My initial read is the Chinook was loaded with far more people than prudent for a combat ops, spec ops protocol was not followed in going w/o their own air assets used, the helo was sent into a live fire zone without air cover, and sent into a live fire zone without a "rescue op" justifying the risk. And it well could be that command has a person or two that knows some big force protection safety measures were not adhered to and tried to cast the incident as a failed rescue in early official reports.
We shall see. The milblogs will be tracking this and other Chinook shootdowns.
Oh, *that* "nasty smear". Funny how some people are more outraged by the suggestion that someone might have an attitude towards Jews than by out-and-out antisemitism. Hell, most Jews have attitudes towards Jews. It's hard not to given all the publicity (good and bad, true and false) for the past 4000 years.
What. Maddy is saying is that it is passing strange that deletions and push back comes for this gay rights stuff and not for anti-semitism. Strange really.
Trooper, I have no patience or sympathy for antisemites.
Clear enough for you?
Trooper, if there were 20-plus states with recent constitutional amendments limiting the liberty of Jews to engage in certain kinds of contracts, then, yes, I would be raising a ruckus.
As it is, there's one tiresome kook who periodically writes long comments in which Jews are blamed for controlling the media or something. No one seems to take these comments seriously.
It seems to me that ignoring c4's comments is more effective than engaging them, though I don't object to those who do. I don't think there's much traction to c4's antisemitism. It's crazy old dude on the corner level ranting.
Thank you. You had me wondering there for a minute.
I have no patience or sympathy for law professors that find an acceptance for homo marriage in the constitution. It ain't there.
That's fine Peter but telling someone if they don't like it they should leave is kinda defending it don't ya think?
And that was Maddy's point in the first place. Just sayn'
Like many people, I have no problem with individuals of any color, religion, ethnicity. Positive experiences with Jews, Muslims, evangelicals, blacks, Cubans I have personally known.
But the fact that blacks "suffered" long before I was born does not give black leadership a pass from being criticized on affirmative action or the black community for low educational attainment, high crime, the black thug glorification.
Or similar "slights" of the past do not give Cubans a pass from me saying they have too much influence in S Florida politics, nor Muslims for Islamic terrorism and refusal to assimilate. Or Jews when they appear to me to have too much influence over media, finance, and US foreign policy.Or the Religious Right from twisting the Republican Party off course.
If Jews alone can claim immunity from any and all criticism in any matter - for past bad times America had nothing to do with..except helping end those bad times...that gives Jews an enormous advantage in getting their way on certain matters of import that hurt the country, overall.
Muslims have seen this Jewish demand in part obeyed by Gentiles and have tried very hard to make any criticism of Muslims for anything, anywhere forbidden on grounds of "bigotry". For decades, blacks tried the same angry demand that blacks never be called on any problem - because it was racist to do so.
I find more and more people on the Left and Right being open and honest about problems with Islamics. Problems with Israel policy and things progressive Jews rammed down America's throats. Liberal democrats finally acknowledging that black crime and dependency is a problem none of their government entitlement programs have fixed. Republicans agreeing with the Left that some of the rightwing extremists are indeed nutballs.
In that context of more open debate, I think A Althouse sides with more open debate and not with Zionists, Fundies, Hard Lefties, etc. trying to pull the victim card and shut down any criticism of their groups.
Just another cool thing about Sarah Palin is that Israeli flag she kept in her office up in Alaska. You can pretty much figure out who is cool and who is a shitheel by the way they respond to an Israeli flag. Ain't that right, C4?
Well her lack of response says something.
Maybe you do reflect her views.
Stanger things have happened.
Barton is a fraud and a propagandist of the worst kind. He's repeatedly lied and invented statements by the Founding Fathers out of whole cloth to support his hypothesis that America was founded as a "Christian nation." It very clearly wasn't. Thomas Jefferson explicitly said so in the Treaty of Tripoli.
Peter Hoh quotes me: You offer this test for sexual liberty: "So the question is still whether or not a sexual choice impacts the people around you enough that they're going to object. I don't think that homosexuality hurts anyone, but I do think that destroying sexual mores, glorifying consequence free transitory relationships and viewing sexual desire as more important than self-control or fidelity, does very bad things."
And says: "But straight people aren't bound by this test. I could divorce my wife and marry my girlfriend, and the state won't ask if that choice hurts anyone."
My "test" wasn't a test, but an expression of my opinion that it's not homosexuality that negatively impacts society, but these *other* things, the acceptance of desire and whim as virtue and pushing the notion that we must indulge our desires. Nearly that it's *wrong* not to divorce your wife and marry your girlfriend because emotions and desires are paramount and "staying together for the kids" is so... oppressive. Do what you *feel* because your kids will value your honesty and not mind at all that their lives are chaos... at least Mom is having good sex, eh?
The thing of it is that the state very well used to ask if divorcing your wife and marrying your girlfriend hurts people, if children born out of wedlock hurts people, if heterosexual immorality hurts people. That harm happens from lose sexual mores I think is an objective fact, just as it is a fact that alcohol and drugs are harmful to society and communities. The fact of harm doesn't constitute a "test" that proves that government ought to prohibit or control something... in this case drugs or sex. Pointing out that the elevation of "sexual choice" or expression to the level of some sort of universal good is illogical and damaging does not bind anyone to therefore call for prohibition.
What we've gotten for sexual liberation is single parenthood and abortion and broken families with all the insecurity resulting from that. And whatever call to tolerate "what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom" is distorted into a call to destroy privacy and the notion of *being* private is now prudish and provincial, if not hateful intolerance.
Barton is a fraud and a propagandist of the worst kind. He's repeatedly lied and invented statements by the Founding Fathers out of whole cloth to support his hypothesis that America was founded as a "Christian nation." It very clearly wasn't.
I would have thought that would have been obvious from our slave-owning and baby-killing.
Caplight, I'm really sorry to hear about your friend's death. Thanks for using this blog as a place to honor him and to generate prayers for him and his family.
Thanks too for the kind words about me and Meade and Chris. Its great to have you as a friend.
"Wonders why folks like him are so reviled.."
While C-fudd is so popular LOL!!!!
@C4
for past bad times America had nothing to do with..except helping end those bad times...
Bullshit. Perhaps you've forgotten the St. Louis.
FDR, Congressional leaders, military intelligence and media barons knew perfectly well that millions of Poles and Jews were being moved into concentration camps. They chose to turn a blind eye.
However I do agree that past grievances or ill treatment is not a basis for reparations or special rights ad infinitum.
Synova, fair points about the "test" idea I floated.
"If Jews alone can claim immunity from any and all criticism in any matter"
How about immunity for criticism for anything perpetrated by anyone with a vaguely Germanic-sounding name? C-fudd's been called on this time and again. He is a neurotically compulsive liar, plain and simple.
And I still hate the Yankees.
Don't we all?
My sympathies for the loss of your friend.
Hey Caplight, I am sorry for your loss. I don't know Liz or Sid but I can only imagine the pain they are feeling right now. My prayers are with them and you. God bless.
"Positive experiences with Jews"
Right, some of C-fudd's best friends are Jooooos!! I wonder how chummy they stay after C-fudd goes off on another rant about "Bolshevik Jews" or "Jewish ACLU lawyers or ...
scroll down to #51
Jim-
"Thomas Jefferson explicitly said so in the Treaty of Tripoli."
Someone may have, but it was not Jefferson.
BJM said...
@C4
for past bad times America had nothing to do with..except helping end those bad times...
Bullshit. Perhaps you've forgotten the St. Louis.
FDR, Congressional leaders, military intelligence and media barons knew perfectly well that millions of Poles and Jews were being moved into concentration camps. They chose to turn a blind eye.
=========================
1. You confuse an imagined moral obligation to take in millions fleeing some distant atrocity - Starvation in the Ukraine, China, persecuted Greeks, Muslims fleeing drought areas, Somalis fleeing war, persecuted Jews, persecuted Tutsis - with complicity. A grand delusion - If the US would not take in 20 million starving Chinese after we dispatched troops to SAVE THEM!! - we caused their deaths! And similar such logic.
2. Saying that we had a duty to take in persecuted Jews showing up on a ship demanding they be let in in the midst of a great Depression- but could enforce our laws and not let in persecuted Haitians,anti-Stalist Russians then being slaughtered in the millions, Koreans, Italians? That puts foreign Jews above other groups and the decision makers at the time rejected a special status for Jews only - a call strongly supported by Congress and the public.
3. The notion that US and Brit and Soviet leaders and people thought the War was "All About The Jews" is ridiculous. THey all fought the war to win at the lowest cost in the soonest period of time to serve the American, Commonwealth, and Soviet People. Not the Jews. The thought was that the sooner the war was over, without throwing citizens lives away (less of a factor with the Soviet butchers) - the better for the Allies and the people under German and Japanese Occupation.
Mind that besides the Jews - 13 million Chinese, 4 million Indonesians, 400,000 Greeks, 3 million Polish Catholics, 22 million Soviets died. It was bigger than just the Jews.
Prayers for the friends of caplight.
Pogo said...
Prayers for the friends of caplight.
=============
Yeah, caplight comes across as one fine man, and I ma sure his friends are worth a moment of time to speak to a higher power to bestow grace on their sorrow.
I don't think that homosexuality hurts anyone, but I do think that destroying sexual mores …
“Destroying sexual mores?” Whose mores? The commentor’s?
… glorifying consequence free transitory relationships …
The homosexuals I know do not do this.
… and viewing sexual desire as more important than self-control or fidelity, does very bad things. the acceptance of desire and whim as virtue and pushing the notion that we must indulge our desires.
Sounds like a justification for gay marriage.
That harm happens from lose sexual mores I think is an objective fact …
A link to some of those objective facts, please.
… just as it is a fact that alcohol and drugs are harmful to society and communities.
Naw. Alcohol and drugs are not harmful – overindulgence in them are. Just about any behavior could be harmful if it’s pushed to excess.
What we've gotten for sexual liberation is single parenthood and abortion and broken families with all the insecurity resulting from that.
I sort of agree with this yet I don’t want to go back to the days when divorcees were castigated, offspring of divorcees and those born out of wedlock were outcasts and those who sought abortion were thrown into jail.
And whatever call to tolerate "what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom" is distorted into a call to destroy privacy and the notion of *being* private is now prudish and provincial, if not hateful intolerance.
I don’t get it. How does a change in sexual mores “destroy privacy?” And privacy is considered “prudish and provincial?” By whom?
In closing let me extend my sympathy to the commentor who lost a friend to an accident.
Pogo said...
Prayers for the friends of caplight.
=============
Yeah, caplight comes across as one fine man, and I am sure his friends are worth a moment of time to speak to a higher power to ask for bestowing grace on their sorrow.
Unless one thinks that sexual freedom choices / rights are part of the unenumerated rights covered in the 9th Amendment
Well...?
Saint Croix said...
She has stated several times that she only deletes personal attacks against her family
It was a borderline attack. It was out of left field, for one thing. I think it was a combination of thread hijack + attack on family member + cranky mood = yank the wank.
I read the post. You didn't miss anything.
If her son is gay then the motive behind posting in the first place is a part of the topic...
Justifying a family members homosexuality is a big difference from using the issue as typical political discourse.
Thats what I read into what ST said. I didnt see it as a personal attack on anyone.
This is the same thing as Sarah Palin referring to blood libel and the liberals trying to use it as a foot hold to take her down...
I am certain that ST has the natural right to make the odious choice to bring in AA's family into a discussion that doesn't require it. But it was clearly a wrong choice on many levels. Nonetheless, we enjoy unique liberties in this wonderful country that require that we, as individuals, make the best choices possible. It is a ridiculous conceit to assert that all choices are equal in value and deserve the same status.
This post has generated many more thoughtful responses than the vagina power one. I'm not sure what significance to attach to that data point.....I think it is fair to say that C4 is an anti-Semite, but it is unfair to cast him as a stereotypical anti-Semite. All anti-Semites should be judged on their own merits and not according to pre-conceived notions. As Safire said of Buchanan, some of my best friends are anti-Semites. Some of C4's points are valid and informative, and some shit he just makes up......He works according to a variant of Occam's Razor. If a bad situation can be blamed on the machinations of the Jews, then he blames the Jews. However, if the explanation for a bad situation can be rooted in something even more malignant than the machinations of the Jews, he uses that as the explanation. Thus in the Polanski case, we find him sympathizing with Polanski and inveighing against the manipulative twelve year old girl. We all know how crafty those blackmailing twelve year olds can be. I believe in the DSK case, he took the Jewish banker's side against the maid. Occam's Razor holds that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Cedarford's codicil is that your most malignant analysis of an imbroglio is usually the correct one, but sometimes you have to dig a little deeper in order to find the most malignant response. There are other malignancies beside anti-Semitism, and he is willing to entertain them.
Wow, what a thread! Amazing what is happening right here right now. No judgement, just amazement. It's awesome!
"Some of C4's points are valid and informative, and some shit he just makes up"
It's *all* shit he just makes up. Occasionally he is valid and informative by accident or coincidence, just as I'm sure I could find a sentence in Mein Kampf here and there I would agree with. Especially since C-fudd's posts alwasy go on and on and on and on ... it's like monkeys at typewriters eventually writing Shakespeare.
We are created as men or women to be men or women. We do not create ourselves. Thus given that being endowed by our creator to do and act as a human male, or human female. In this being both humans but created differently but in a way that is adventurous to both parties for having and bringing up children. Regardless of our lust, desires and shortcomings. To be as created is sane while to act otherwise is as insane as a person who CHOOSES to be a car. Chose as you will your a human male or female created not for your selfish sake but for the propagation of a healthy society.
The pursuit of happiness is very broad. Even serial killers have the right to pursue their happiness, yet what they view as bringing them happiness (namely killing people for Fun and sexual gratification) does not have to be sanctioned by society. Does it?
I suppose I should ask Ann, is she suggesting that if one chooses to do something, in the grounds that the right to pursue happiness is inalienable that therefore their choice must be a right?
Isn't any decision made based on a choice of some sort, and aren't all people who look out for their own self interest pursuing their happiness? Wouldnt therefrore all choices in the pursuit of happiness be inalienable? I can think of countless examples where this is not in fact true.
Speaking of sexual rights, do I have the right to have sex with dead people or dogs, as but two examples?
"gay rights proponents have fixated on the idea that gay people have no choice in their sexual orientation, but their demands for rights has to do with letting people make their own choices about what to do with their preferences and desires."
It is certainly true that people will make their own choices about what to do with their preferences and desires, but though they might make those choices doesn't mean that society must respect those choices, or block the fulfillment of their pursuit of happiness for whatever reason it deems fitting.
People have an inalienable right to liberty, yet we also have prisons which incarcerate people, often for the duration of their lives, and which block prisoners rights to pursue happiness as free men (and it's often their pursuit of happiness which woulnd them up in prison in the first place).
"Speaking of sexual rights, do I have the right to have sex with dead people or dogs"
Definitely not in the same night. I think we all agree with that as a starting point.
If anyone has ever wondered why our Founding Fathers didn't let women vote, you can find out why with this thread.
"Speaking of sexual rights, do I have the right to have sex with dead people or dogs"
This is unclear as to whether you are referring to all dogs or only dead dogs. Please be more specific.
caplight,
Shouting crosses that liune when he personally attacks Ann and Chris in the way that he does. One of the beautiful things of being conservative is I can say something is just wrong. I don't have to justify it. It is self-evident. Shouting you have often helped me think things through in a good way, thank you. But today you were wrong, out of line and disrespectful to our host. She is a real person who is a mother and just where do you get off with the attitude and condemnation and rage. You owe her an apology. Now man up, send her an email or do it here and move on. Crack, you're next. Pull one of your hyssie fits and make it too personal and I'll call you out too.
First, let me join everyone in saying I'm sorry for your loss. Losing a friend is a terrible ordeal and, having had my best friend visiting for the last three days, I can only imagine what pain you and your friend's family must be enduring and, again, I'm very, very sorry.
Second, let me join you in celebrating this space as a free speech zone, which is special, but can get strange, and thus is fraught with danger. There's no other place like it, and we know it, and it should be acknowledged as such.
Third, I'll even join you in saluting Ann, her efforts on it's behalf, and her willingness as a blogger to "go there" (I've said, many times, I consider her bolder than her male - or female - colleagues, and I meant it.) Ann Althouse is different, and special, and we all know it and it deserves to be said where she can hear it. She is "blessed" (as the Christians say) loved, and a day shouldn't go by that she doesn't know it.
BUT,....cont'd:
Cont'd:
Get off of it, man. Ann's free speech policies are no different than mine at TMR and, while I'll take no credit for them (it's her blog) many have said I've redefined them since I got here - broadening the parameters - so Ann's idea of freedom, or anything else, isn't necessarily the end-all be-all.
And let's face it, there's a certain pussy contingent who thinks any expression of anger is a threat, or wrong, or a "pity party," or just has no right to exist, which is bullshit. Shouting Thomas took that name for a reason, and to expect anything less is to be wrong yourself.
And that includes missing the play on the name "Doubting Thomas," which means you're not only going to get yelled at, but he's going to be skeptical if you go carting out a load of manure for display - which Ann does, fairly regularly, with this gay bullshit. Does Chris play a role in that? It appears so - Ann's made it appear so - so (in a free speech zone) that's in play as well. Nothing malicious about anyone saying so. What's bullshit is Ann not taking that on, but getting all hardcore when it's addressed directly.
Sorry, Sister, but if you allow your slip to show somebody's going to tell you - and especially if it looks like you do it on purpose. That's chickenshit behavior.
Look, we're all different people, some clearly more obsequious than others. Some of you make me gag at the deference you'll show Ann, when she's clearly better off than others and benefits greatly just from that fact adding a sheen to her persona, which can be petty, shallow, in bad taste, and occasionally disgusting. (She's been working that bullshit, oppressed liberal woman schtick for decades, and now IS working the gay thing - where, say, I'm at least TRYING to work my way OUT of the black orthodoxy,...to abuse and little applause, I might add - and crap like that "we happy few" post, about how much law professors make, is another more subtle example of how she, and Glenn Reynolds, can simultaneously be clueless while rubbing it in.)
ST calls her on a lot of that, and rightfully so, where the rest of you are hoping merely to kiss her ring. I didn't see the comment Ann deleted, but my guess is she was probably wrong in doing so, because (like a lot of people) examining her own biases isn't one of Ann's strong suits - which many of you help her avoid with your ass kissing. She can be wrong. Openly. But, where many of you will call me or ST on something, you'll let her slide without comment, which is wrong in itself:
People like Ann have practically been sliding their whole lives, and that's part of what's wrong in this country, and part of the answer to that is not to condemn her, but for all of us - including herself - to at least say so without anybody fearing being deleted.
What about the right of people to live in the type of community that reflects their moral & social ideals?
Freedom is meaningless when the will of the people is repeatedly thwarted and every choice made subservient to the twin cudgels of "diversity" and "equality".
This is the whole reason we are supposed to be a republic of States as opposed to a monolithic, all-powerful federal government.
People like to pretend that legislating morality is somehow unconstitutional, but this position denies the fact that we legislate morality every day (prostitution, polygamy, drug use).
Just as with these other proscribed behaviors, THERE IS NO RIGHT TO HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE anywhere in the Constitution.
Instead, the Constitution says that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government BELONG TO THE STATES.
If the vast majority of the people in a State are against homosexuality (or bestiality, or pedophilia, or incest, or any other behavior they find abhorrent), and they pass laws that punish or prohibit this behavior, and if these laws DO NOT VIOLATE any of the specific rights enumerated within the Constitution, then what right does the federal government have to step in and deny their will?
They predictably respond to the argument that sexual orientation is inborn and unchangeable by saying that sexual behavior is a choice
I would respond to this argument by saying that the initial premise is false. Heterosexuality is certainly inborn. Homosexuality is an aberration that is not inborn but that is brought about through various means.
This is not an argument for creating legal sanctions against homosexual behavior. It is an argument for opposing creating legal protections and privileges for it, however.
Post a Comment