April 2, 2013

"This morning's David Brooks column on same-sex marriage was one of the weirdest, most mean-spirited things I've ever seen in The New York Times."

"Entitled 'Freedom Loses One,' the article is a sarcastic broadside against... well, against something, though it's not clear exactly which of the many post-Sixties permissive-society hobgoblins Brooks hates is the real target here."

Says Matt Taibbi, in Rolling Stone.
Posted by Ann Althouse at 8:01 PM
Tags: , , ,

213 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 213 of 213
Michael said...

Aridog: You see this blog as an intellectual exercise, a chance to articulate beliefs and to defend them. Inga sees this blog as a chat room circa 1998, a chance to interact socially. Different planets.

4/3/13, 10:23 AM
Drago said...

r/v: "Not so much mean spirited as ignoring the wide range of desires and goals of the gay community."

I think you're not addressing the historical arc that Brooks is (trying) to speak to (I think).

I think one of the subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) points is that the verbalized "desires and goals of the gay community" have morphed from the "olden days" of the 60's/70's (the "we don't want to participate in any of the larger societal "norms" 'cuz we're different!!!eleventy!") to the "new" desires and goals which include the "hey, we're just like everyone else" and "we want what you have!!" items.

Many on the right question the sincerity of this "change", at least as far as the older gay activists are concerned. It seems like too much of a 180 degree turn and they sense some ulterior motive.

What's ironic is that the younger gay activists embrace the newer position whole-heartedly and I believe they are sincere in their desire to be viewed as "normal" and "just like everyone else".

I can remember vividly discussing these things on the coast way back when with gay activists were adamant, (ADAMANT!! lol) that they wanted nothing to do with the larger society and it's "hangups" and "restrictions".

4/3/13, 11:18 AM
President-Mom-Jeans said...

Inga said...
Marshal, you are probably an Aspie. You have the personality down pat, it's ok, nothing to be ashamed of.


Ah, the usual tactic of a pathetic old leftist crone: Express a position that disagrees with her sick little worldview, and you have a medical disorder. Diagnosed by her of course.

Careful, if you have the temerity to say mean things about her, the dirty old cunt will call you a stalker and threaten to sick the internet police on you.

4/3/13, 11:38 AM
Anonymous said...

What's ironic is that the younger gay activists embrace the newer position whole-heartedly and I believe they are sincere in their desire to be viewed as "normal" and "just like everyone else".

I have my doubts about that. Can you point to some links?

Meanwhile, the rate of new AIDS infections is increasing because young gays are reverting to old practices now that AIDS is manageable with the new cocktail treatments.

And I'd bet that very, very few young gays want to marry and raise families "just like everyone else."

4/3/13, 11:39 AM
Anonymous said...

I wouldn't be surprised if young gays want to be viewed as "normal" and "just like everyone else."

That doesn't mean gay marriage will be "just like everyone else."

4/3/13, 11:58 AM
Aridog said...

creeley23 said ...

And I'd bet that very, very few young gays want to marry and raise families "just like everyone else."

I suspect you are right. But I'm a cynic. Mostly they want fiscal benefits, plus in some cases, want to expand what is "equal" for dignity etc. purposes. I find that sad or humorous or both.

Because, the long run impact of all this "marriage equality" campaigning will be "total equality" ...e.g., everyone will be treated as single individuals for tax purposes. One bread winner families take it up the butt, and duel bread winner marrieds win (big)...until its time to transfer property or make gifts. Government will a-l-w-a-y-s go for the most benefit for government. You tell me how this will be different?

No one has answered my question on the "marriage penalty" aspect of the debate, and that may be because I have it wrong? Donno. Don't be kind....tell me how this helps gays with marriage benefits?

Or is this whole thing just political and few if any actually plan to marry, ever, and just need a pointless victory?

I DO know that Methadrus has it right in his concise statement about the impact of everyone being equal, so that no one is special/protected. DOMA was specially to limit protection...so expand it widely overriding DOMA and soon there will be no protection for anyone...period.

I say that sincerely based upon my time as a "Fed" and in the military. Uncle Sugar will protect his/her favorite entity...itself. If you doubt that, you must know something I have missed over the past 40 odd plus years.

This issue is a classic case of some folks not paying attention to what they wish for...seek benefits to lose them for everyone. Congratulations.

4/3/13, 12:02 PM
Anonymous said...

Or is this whole thing just political and few if any actually plan to marry, ever, and just need a pointless victory?

Gay marriage is mostly a big sugar rush for liberals who want to relive the sixties civil rights movement. They get to feel good about helping the oppressed while despising conservatives, especially religious ones.

There's really nothing else that liberals get to feel good about these days.

Gay marriage helped elect Obama and helps Democrats convey the impression that they are on the bandwagon crushing their opposition.

4/3/13, 12:21 PM
Aridog said...

Michael said...

Inga sees this blog as a chat room circa 1998, a chance to interact socially.

Seems like it. However, due to my weakness for nurses perhaps [have needed them at various serious times] I think she's actually smarter than that...if she just would realize it herself. But she does try hard try prove me wrong.

4/3/13, 12:30 PM
Renee said...

Maybe there are a lot of gays who want to have children, but when it comes to children one parent can not deny the other parent out of their wants. It is about the child's needs.

As a woman I couldn't hook up with a man, for the sole purpose of having a child and then deny that man the right to his child or deny my child the right to his father.

This is wrong when straight people having children though sexual activity, and the courts and our laws advocate for the child to have both their parents be there in co-parenting, even if mom and dad hate each other's guts.

In the same way a heterosexual can not deny a child the other biological parents, neither can a person who happens to be homosexual. I guess back in the day, when relatives had larger families a childless family members could always take enjoyment in nieces and nephews. Today, heterosexual family members are less likely to be married or have children.

With sperm/egg now a commodity to be bought and sold, well the law has made a sad exception. I think it is unethical and wrong, to deny a child's its identity. I hope children conceived in this manner fight and make reforms. Even banning the practice.

ADopted children have only lost their biological family in the sense their parents can not parent (drugs addiction/incarceration), that doesn't mean they should lose the right to have a relationship with their parents/siblings/relatives. Even when papers make them legally apart of another family, nature is there and present.

4/3/13, 12:30 PM
Aridog said...

creeley23 said...

Gay marriage is mostly a big sugar rush for liberals who want to relive the sixties civil rights movement.

Agreed...and nothing pisses me off about the entire issue than that false theme. Most of the LGBT activists today have no clue about the civil rights fights of the 50's and 60's...most weren't even born yet. Those that were around and still make the equivalence...they are thieves of a legacy they didn't earn.

Fuck it...I gotta stop or someone will call me a racist again, like a week or so ago, by link right here.

4/3/13, 12:44 PM
Sam L. said...

I want both to lose this argument, such as it is (and isn't) and I expect they have. Read one or both, I shall not.

Both houses, a plague upon.

4/3/13, 12:47 PM
Drago said...

creeley23: "And I'd bet that very, very few young gays want to marry and raise families "just like everyone else."

You're right and I should have been more precise about who is defined as "young".

When I said younger I was actually thinking of the couple of generations which came well after the 60's radical generation. The 60's radicals were also the ones saying "smash monogamy" etc. So their "radical-ness" was complete.

I agree with your characterization of the youngest gays today.

4/3/13, 3:37 PM
Anonymous said...

Drago: OK. But I really don't see the gays somewhat older as any different. I don't think any gays, with exceptions of course, are keen to raise families.

Many of them will do the standup thing with children from previous marriages, but raising families is just not what gays are about.

4/3/13, 5:11 PM
«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 213 of 213   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)