[P]lus, for someone of his demographic and biography, it was more than a little fake. (Did the Harvard Law Review Editor hugging Derrick Bell in that 1991 video really think two men shouldn’t be allowed to get married?)I love the totally gratuitous homoeroticism McWhorter allowed into his question by having the men hugging.
"Someone of his demographic and biography" is an unusual phrase. Who else has Obama's biography? McWhorter speaks as if this is the sort of person we just know, from experience. But Obama is unique in the history of the world. Who knows who the authentic Obama is? I've read his autobiography, and I got the impression that he himself could never figure it out, and I'm deprived of the actual answer to the question whether he was conning us, and I barely have a guess whether he knew if he was.
If Obama believes in same-sex marriage... what does that even mean for someone of his demographic and biography? Of course, if you go to Harvard Law School and merge/mingle with the elite you get the message of what you're supposed to think, but then... do you really think it? Do you lose touch with what you really think? Of does even that question disguise the real question which is whether there's a real you at the core who thinks anything at all?
(And I'm saying that as a lawprof who has lived amidst the lawprof liberals for more than 3 decades now and who willingly admits that I lost track of what I really thought for myself or whether there was a true self that thought anything at all.)
Posts
215 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 215 of 215I once saw an article in Barron's that said when you go to Columbia it generally takes about 20 years to break through the indoctrination and figure out what you really think.
I was a science major.
What a surprise.
It's interesting that you assume that nobody would read Locke outside of a college course.
That wasn't my assumption or what I was suggesting. Too subtle?
Palladian says:What a cavalcade of silly twats this thread is!
That comment is even better when you read it in Yoda's voice.
If Yoda said it it would be "A cavalcade of silly twats this thread is, yes..."
Break me a fucking give.
Pookie and other homophobes here, sound abnormal to me, do they need curing?
See, that's just poorly-thought out (and poorly punctuated) silliness. A phobia is an irrational fear, and no-one has displayed any such fears, least of all myself. All I've done is pointed out that Andy Hat's unnatural compulsion to insert his penis into other men's anuses impedes the natural functioning of his reproductive system, and that it's a shame for him, and people like him, that no successful treatment of this disorder exists.
Even you, dear dumb Allie, don't believe this compulsion is normal or healthy. You just believe that since it's unfair that some people are unwell (which is true), then pretending that the unwell are well re-establishes the desired fairness (which is false). Well-motivated, but ultimately false.
They are abnormal? What "they" to you mean the irises or the human beings who possess them? Abnormal carries a pejorative sense to many people (shouldn't do, but there you are) so your statement implies a lot that you probably don't mean.
I say what I mean and mean what I say. People with one green and one blue eye are "abnormal".
If certain people have erroneous ideas about what the word abnormal means, that's really not my problem. I don't cater to the abnormally stupid.
Jay writes,
"People aren't born gay.
So there is that."
Because. He's an expert. Can't you tell?
Poopie and Q, you are quintessential homophobes, own it be proud! Well Q is proud of himself anyway, good on you Q, you are the man!
Poopie, my iPad keeps correcting your name to Poopie. I do so humbly not apologize.
So, to sum up:
No SSM proponent can explain why homosexuals should have the rig to marry, what good it will bring, or even begin to explain a value system of marriage rights that has anything but arbitrary limitations, or none at all. And they can't explain in objective terms why what they want is better for anyone, much less a majority of Americans.
But if you point out their emperor has no clothes, they call you a homophobe.
If you judge a movement by the character of its proponents, the worst cause in the world is SSM.
What reasons did Q and Poopie give that should convince anyone that SSM is wrong?
All I heard was "They're abnormal!" yes, that most certainly is showing good character, yessiree!
I don't care if gay people get married, Allie. It's a free country. I just don't feel like pretending that homosexuality is something other than a mental disorder.
I also believe that diabetics have the right to get married. Doesn't mean diabetes isn't a disease.
@Questor 3:59
Somewhere in last two days I read the numbers on divorce in SS recognized unions in several of the Scandenavian countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden ... maybe The Netherlands also ...)
The numbers for divorce were significantly -- and I do mean significantly -- higher. Lesbians had the highest rate.
I will look around (surely someone else saw it?).
Whatever it does, stabilization doesn't seem to be it.
Results from Swedish study here.
There is a more comprehensive article out there which includes the above info.
Divorce rates in states that allow SSM
I'm afraid this is one of those issues that will have all sorts of conflicting data.
Post a Comment