Althouse: At the Wildflower Café...

June 28, 2013

At the Wildflower Café...

... you can talk about whatever you want.

166 comments:

edutcher said...: Perhaps we've been wild enough for one day?; 6/28/13, 7:35 PM
rhhardin said...: Surveillance drone crash site on my bike route.

Probably it was brought down by tea partiers.; 6/28/13, 7:37 PM
Saint Croix said...: On the last café thread, Rev writes...

The insanity of treating homosexual relationships as somehow inferior to heterosexual ones drives me straight up the wall.

One of the things that is kind of bewildering to me is how many liberals deny that they discriminate. I guess because they were taught as small children that discrimination is bad?

Yet we discriminate all the time! And we surely do so in regard to sex.

Suppose Jane refuses to date short people. That's discrimination, right? We might even say it's irrational discrimination.

Or suppose Jane refuses to date Asians. That's discrimination, too. We might say this discrimination is uglier. We might say it's malign or evil. "You're racist, Jane."

Now suppose Jane refuses to date women. This is also discrimination. But unlike the previous forms of discrimination, it's not odd or irrational. Indeed, we expect Jane to date men. It's the norm in our society. And beyond that, it's how babies are made.

Jane is engaging in sexual discrimination. But there's a rational basis for it. Not only is it rational for her to date men, it's good and healthy for her to date men. Society approves!

Yet the Supreme Court, apparently, does not approve. The Supreme Court is telling us that sex discrimination in regard to marriage is wrong.

When you strike down discrimination in the name of the Constitution, you are saying it's irrational, malign, or bad.

Yet, in the context of sex, sex discrimination is none of those things. We do it all the time.

Implicit in this criticism is the idea that there is no purpose to sex, and nothing to distinguish straight sex from gay sex.

Obviously liberals don't think much about human reproduction! But what's even more bewildering is how they don't even think about their own behavior.

Do you engage in sex discrimination in your own life? I suppose there are a few people who are utterly bisexual. But the vast majority of us discriminate all the time. To us it's right and normal and healthy to think this way.

So while we might say that gay rights should be protected by law, is it truly honest to say that our Constitution outlaws sex discrimination when it comes to sex itself? Was our Constitution written and ratified by bisexuals, and is that the standard that all of us should strive to follow?

Or is sex discrimination, in this context, perfectly acceptable?; 6/28/13, 7:52 PM
Saint Croix said...: Perhaps we've been wild enough for one day?

This is when I quote John Belushi. Did we say it was over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Nothing is over until we say it is! Are you with me?

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.; 6/28/13, 7:53 PM
ricpic said...: Daisies in the grass, what were the chances?
Daisies in the grass, exchanging glances.
Something in his pistil was so exciting.
Something in her stamen was so inviting.
It turned out so right, for daisies in the grass.

Sinatra on my mind. Do daisies have pistils and stamens?; 6/28/13, 8:00 PM
Simon said...: One imagines pulling up a chair and in a little bar in D.C. to clink glasses with Elena, Steve, and Nino, to exchange rueful observations about how tiresome it is to have to have the fate of major cases hanging on Asisstant-to-the-Regional-Chief-Justice Michael Scott.

"It's Tony's world and we just live in it," shrugs a weary Scalia.

"Isn't there a story that Marshall, toward the end," says Breyer, "he told his clerks 'no matter how bad I get, even if I'm checked out, just send in my vote and write the opinion.' And Douglas was the same way. Couldn't raise a thought, could barely raise a hand to vote. Tony... Well," Breyer giggles, "he can still raise his hand."

"But doesn't the case deserve better? Doesn't the court deserve better? I mean, did you even read the opinion? Doesn't the debate deserve better?" A flash of annoyance from Our Hero. "Doesn't America deserve better?"

Kagan cracks a wry grin. "Don't gays deserve better?"

"Right? That's the kicker of it. All that federalism guff—as if anyone thinks that's the basis on which you two and Sonia and Ruthie decided the case. Well, and now you know how Bill, Clarence, and me felt about Bush against Gore. Sandra, who knows, but c'mon. Like we used to say in Brooklyn... Well, but that's just how it goes sometimes. It's a big case, it really matters that it come out the right way, you've got four votes for the right result, and the only way to get the fifth is to let dummy have his way. Hmph. I did love that meme you posted about him having cameo as that robot in 'Iron Man,' Steve. That was a riot."

"What's really troubling in all this," I say, handing Kagan a martini, "isn't the bad substantive law that he made to get the result he wanted in Windsor, it's the wreckage of the standing law left bobbing in his wake as he tears off to the merits..."

Breyer rolls his eves—"standing! C'mon..."—but Scalia's nodding his head. "Dummy did the same thing in the, the what was it called, the EPA case? The 'oh my god the ocean's going to eat Massachusetts' case? Where he pretended that this trivial cut in a minor sector of American emissions is going to work for redress? Tony, if you want to do something about global warming, start with that hot air emmission problem in the middle of your face!"

"It was a good term, though," I say. "Elena, you and Nino wrote some fantastic jousts, the Voting Rights Act case is a solid win, the Chief kept everyone happy in Gabelli, you all had a good row in King, Amex was a razor-sharp thrill-ride, and American Trucking came out well, I thought, and Steve finally punched his ticket to Apprendi-land."

"It was a good term," agrees Breyer. Everyone stares at their drinks thoughtfully for a while.

I shrug. "I do miss Dahlia Lithwick, though. When's she coming back?"; 6/28/13, 8:04 PM
ricpic said...: Discrimination is another word for thought. It's thought that must go.; 6/28/13, 8:05 PM
Simon said...: @Althouse Just so you know: Using Cher to make a point? Very gay. Love it. :p; 6/28/13, 8:06 PM
Revenant said...: On the last café thread, Rev writes...

"The insanity of treating homosexual relationships as somehow inferior to heterosexual ones drives me straight up the wall."

One of the things that is kind of bewildering to me is how many liberals deny that they discriminate.

I'm not a liberal, and have never said anything that could be interpreted as "discrimination is always bad". So why on Earth you used my comment as a springboard for launching into an extended defense of discrimination is beyond me.

What irritates me about the anti-gay-marriage crowd isn't that you discriminate against gay people, but that you have idiotic reasons for doing it.; 6/28/13, 8:12 PM
Farmer said...: Re: the previous post...

Perhaps some local functionary will refuse to record a gay marriage and there will be more litigation, but really... get a clue. It's over.

If only!

Can't states refuse to acknowledge gay marriages recognized by other states? That's my understanding. If so, it's not even close to over. It's just getting started.; 6/28/13, 8:16 PM
ricpic said...: So that's it, Simon. Nino just nods in agreement? Ya think Nino's satisfaction that he's a player trumps his alarm over Tony's naked contempt for the bigoted demos?; 6/28/13, 8:16 PM
Farmer said...: Also, hi Inga!; 6/28/13, 8:16 PM
edutcher said...: Saint, I am with you.

So, apparently, is the NFL. They told Sibelius to take her ObamaTax commercials and pound sand.

Saint Croix said...

On the last café thread, Rev writes...

The insanity of treating homosexual relationships as somehow inferior to heterosexual ones drives me straight up the wall.

Something I recall from my undergrad days as a Soc minor.

Homosexual relationships, by and large, are notoriously unstable.

Male homosexuals have a 10 times greater rate of VD than male heterosexuals and female homosexuals have a 3 times greater rate of VD than female heterosexuals. this was from the NY Dept of Health 1965, so the numbers have changed, but, it makes you stop and think.; 6/28/13, 8:16 PM
Revenant said...: Homosexual relationships, by and large, are notoriously unstable.

Relationships where marriage is impossible and the parties involved are in constant danger of arrest are unstable?

Damn. That IS shocking.; 6/28/13, 8:18 PM
Dante said...: Here are the results of the poll questions to Ann's post that had the following in it:

If they think crying about being called bigots — when, again, the majority didn't even use that word — is going to help, I just have to laugh. You took the opportunity to oppress when it was there, and now that it's gone, you want to say you are oppressed. Man up, losers. You lost. And you deserved to lose. Now, stop acting like losers. If you can. (I bet you can't!)

Responses:

I'm pro gay marriage, and what Ann said is perfectly fine. I'm glad to close this chapter of discrimination in our nation: 3

I'm anti-gay marriage, and what Ann said is perfectly fine. I realize I'm a loser: 1

I'm pro gay marriage, but the poor sportsmanship by Ann offends me: 11

I'm anti gay marriage, and Ann is a poor winner. Now I remember what's wrong with feminists: 20 Selections

12% thought what Ann said was fine, including the person who admits to being a loser.

88% felt Ann was a poor winner in this instance.

11 of 14 who are pro gay-marriage felt Ann showed poor sportsmanship indicates that's the way even those without a dog in the fight felt.; 6/28/13, 8:23 PM
Saint Croix said...: So why on Earth you used my comment as a springboard for launching into an extended defense of discrimination is beyond me.

I'm defending sex discrimination in the context of sex itself. Which, I wager, you are guilty of committing in your own life. Is this bad discrimination? Or do you consider it right and normal (indeed, important?) Wouldn't you find it outrageous for anybody to say that you have to date people of both sexes?

Thus the appropriate defense of gay rights is a libertarian argument ("none of the state's business") as opposed to the equality argument ("I see no difference between gay sex and straight sex"). I challenge the latter argument as an absurdity.; 6/28/13, 8:25 PM
chickelit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/28/13, 8:27 PM
chickelit said...: My impression; 6/28/13, 8:29 PM
Hagar said...: The next frontier in the civil rights biz is banning separate public rest rooms for the sexes; he, she, or "it"?; 6/28/13, 8:29 PM
bagoh20 said...: "What irritates me about the anti-gay-marriage crowd isn't that you discriminate against gay people, but that you have idiotic reasons for doing it.

Take two isolated islands. One only allows hetero love, and on the other only gay love is permitted. Come back in 20 years and tell Mother Nature she's an idiot for not making them equal. It's not like people made this up out of thin air.

Now if you want to grant political equality to the two different things, that's debateable, but that they are in fact different is simply an obvious fact.; 6/28/13, 8:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Hi here Farmer!

I'm all verklempt, just saw a live wedding on MSNBC, between two guys very much in love. It was lovely. Congratulations to those two guys, may you have a long happy life together.; 6/28/13, 8:30 PM
Anonymous said...: *There* I always cry at weddings, eyes still leaky.; 6/28/13, 8:32 PM
harrogate said...: edutcher,

I hope you are well. I saw the cyberbullying discussion in the other thread and I want you to know we really value what you have to say. Really.; 6/28/13, 8:32 PM
Farmer said...: I don't understand watching weddings on TV. I have to be dragged to weddings of people I know, I'll be damned if I'm going to suffer through a stranger's wedding.; 6/28/13, 8:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Ah now Farmer, love is grand!; 6/28/13, 8:37 PM
Revenant said...: Thus the appropriate defense of gay rights is a libertarian argument ("none of the state's business") as opposed to the equality argument ("I see no difference between gay sex and straight sex"). I challenge the latter argument as an absurdity.

False dichotomy. Obviously the libertarian preference is for the state to not grant special benefits to private social arrangements, sure. But if the state IS going to get into that business, it damned well better use a rational basis for doing so.

Here are the *actual* requirements for marriage, as of earlier this year:

1. You're adults.
2. Of different genders
3. Who aren't related to each other
4. And want to get married.

That's it. Children, society, tradition, religion, stable households, you name it -- none of those matter to state-recognized marriage. We'll let two crackheads who leave their thirty bastard children crawling around on a feces-covered floor get married if they want to.

If we decided to only recognize the marriages of stable nuclear families with kids, all the "but but SOCIETY, but but RAISING THE KIDS" handwaving might make some degree of sense. But you don't do that, now, do you. If someone proposed stripping marriage rights from heterosexual couples who were known to be infertile you'd shit yourselves inside-out with rage.; 6/28/13, 8:40 PM
Dante said...: One of the things that is kind of bewildering to me is how many liberals deny that they discriminate. I guess because they were taught as small children that discrimination is bad?

I discriminate for sure. I prefer sex with women.; 6/28/13, 8:42 PM
Farmer said...: Love is grand, Inga. My wife and I just celebrated our 10th anniversary. I just hate weddings.; 6/28/13, 8:42 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "Can't states refuse to acknowledge gay marriages recognized by other states? That's my understanding. If so, it's not even close to over. It's just getting started."

I'm only referring to California. Elsewhere more will have to happen, but the endpoint is so predictable that I advise conservatives to find a different position.; 6/28/13, 8:43 PM
Revenant said...: Take two isolated islands. One only allows hetero love, and on the other only gay love is permitted. Come back in 20 years and tell Mother Nature she's an idiot for not making them equal.

My goodness, you mean it is possible to construct a hypothetical scenario entirely unlike real life in which allowing gay marriage is a bad idea?

That IS a revelation. The fact that it is possible for you to be right in an alternate universe totally excuses the fact that your beliefs have no bearing on this one.; 6/28/13, 8:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Congrats Farmer!; 6/28/13, 8:45 PM
m stone said...: I agree with St. Croix. Defense of gay rights is a libertarian argument.

Libertarians can take some consolation in the fact that the supremes essentially are turning the issue over to states with the invalidation of DOMA.

Equality has always been the banner of gays and they have used it effectively.; 6/28/13, 8:47 PM
Dante said...: I'm only referring to California. Elsewhere more will have to happen, but the endpoint is so predictable that I advise conservatives to find a different position.

If it's the government cramming unpalatable foodstuffs down the proles' throats, I would suggest its time to push back on the massive federal government.

Fortunately, big government types are doing a lot of that, and hopefully the frog will now jump out of the pot.; 6/28/13, 8:47 PM
edutcher said...: harrogate said...

I hope you are well. I saw the cyberbullying discussion in the other thread and I want you to know we really value what you have to say. Really.

harro, whether you are serious or not, know that I laughed off their lame attempts to aggrandize themselves.

As creeley noted, "Most of what being liberal is about these days is feeling superior, as somefeller now demonstrates", and you can include the She Devil of the SS, whose biggest talent seems to be piling on when she thinks somebody is down.

They deserve each other.; 6/28/13, 8:48 PM
somefeller said...: Harrogate, I'm glad you saw the cyberbullying discussion. It doesn’t take much to see that the problems of one blog commenter don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, but I think we all should try to make this blog a safe place for edutcher. He certainly needs that, particularly after Ann ruthlessly gutted him on that thread.

So let's all say it: edutcher, you are validated and valued here.

I ask that others copy and paste that sentence on this thread if they agree with it.; 6/28/13, 8:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh Ed, just when I made a vow to be kind to you, pity.; 6/28/13, 8:51 PM
bagoh20 said...: Revenant, I never said gay marriage was either a good or bad idea, but rather that the idea that the two forms of relationship are the same is a lie.

This is the basis of the issue. It was in the past, it is now and it will be the problem in the future when others demand they are the same. We can say OK to all of them, but I don't know what basis we will use to discriminate on the next group, except that unlike gays the next group will actually be politically weak and helpless to resist our lording.; 6/28/13, 8:55 PM
Revenant said...: If it's the government cramming unpalatable foodstuffs down the proles' throats, I would suggest its time to push back on the massive federal government. Fortunately, big government types are doing a lot of that, and hopefully the frog will now jump out of the pot.

Historically, the result has been for conservatives to flock to the banner of big-government conservatives who promise to crack down on social issues. Four years later the government is even more massive and even more intrusive, and the conservatives have the nerve to look surprised.

That frog will stay in the pot forever because he's afraid the frogs outside it might be fags. :); 6/28/13, 8:56 PM
edutcher said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/28/13, 8:57 PM
Simon said...: Ricpic, no one likes to lose, but losing is a fact of life on an appellate court. You get over it and move on. Appellate judges don't hold grudges, and the ones who do don't last.; 6/28/13, 8:57 PM
Revenant said...: Revenant, I never said gay marriage was either a good or bad idea, but rather that the idea that the two forms of relationship are the same is a lie.

You are comparing heterosexual and homosexual reproduction and pretending it is a comparison of heterosexual and homosexual marriage.

If you want to talk about "lies", start with your own. :); 6/28/13, 8:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh yeah, you told her a thing or two Ed! By God, she'll know better than to tangle with you again!; 6/28/13, 8:59 PM
edutcher said...: somefeller said...

Harrogate, I'm glad you saw the cyberbullying discussion. It doesn’t take much to see that the problems of one blog commenter don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, but I think we all should try to make this blog a safe place for edutcher. He certainly needs that, particularly after Ann ruthlessly gutted him on that thread

You say this as if I actually care what you two morons (ie, you and the She Devil of the SS) think.

Besides, I recall answering her, point for point.

In more important things, looks like Choom's African safari is winning friends and influencing people.; 6/28/13, 8:59 PM
Dante said...: That frog will stay in the pot forever because he's afraid the frogs outside it might be fags. :)

Hah!

Well, things are changing. It's getting back to Reagan times, when people are losing both wealth and income.

Let's see what happens when Obamacare hits how people feel about it. Let's see what happens when interest rates soar. Etc.; 6/28/13, 8:59 PM
bagoh20 said...: "My goodness, you mean it is possible to construct a hypothetical scenario entirely unlike real life in which allowing gay marriage is a bad idea?".

Let me construct one where they might have more equal footing: Same scenario, but now the gay island has medical technology to allow gay couples to reproduce just like the hetero island. Will the islands be the same in 20 years? Will one of them be superior, other than being bigot-free.; 6/28/13, 9:01 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/28/13, 9:02 PM
Simon said...: I mean (@Ricpic again), suppose that Roberts says "you know what, Tony? I don't appreciate you calling my friends bigots. And I don't appreciate you insinuating that I'm a bigot. You've received your last enjoyable opinion assignment, pal, so I hope you like writing ERISA and tax opinions, because I am going to make your life a fucking misery." Okay? Well, how do you suppose that that scenario would actually play out? What do you think the denouement would be?; 6/28/13, 9:02 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/28/13, 9:03 PM
bagoh20 said...: "You are comparing heterosexual and homosexual reproduction and pretending it is a comparison of heterosexual and homosexual marriage.

So now marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. That's the truth?; 6/28/13, 9:03 PM
somefeller said...: Yes, edutcher, you did respond to Ann, point by point. And your response is valued and validated, no matter what it said. Because you are validated and valued here and this is your safe place. Even if others won't copy the sentence saying so.; 6/28/13, 9:05 PM
Revenant said...: Well, things are changing. It's getting back to Reagan times, when people are losing both wealth and income.

We came out of the Reagan era with bigger government than we'd had under Carter.

We don't need a return to the Reagan era. We need a return to the Calvin Coolidge era. :); 6/28/13, 9:05 PM
bagoh20 said...: Maybe we should have two forms of marriage. Reproductive or Romantic - Family or Companionship. Many of the benefits of marriage are designed to support raising children, so if you are not, then maybe there should be less benefit regardless of gender mix.; 6/28/13, 9:07 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/28/13, 9:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Why not just have marriage between two unrelated people who love each other and then they can decide for themselves if they want to have children, not asking too much, right?; 6/28/13, 9:10 PM
bagoh20 said...: "Why not just have marriage between two people..."

Why only two? Why only people? WTF? The bigotry is endless in here!; 6/28/13, 9:12 PM
Anonymous said...: For now.; 6/28/13, 9:12 PM
Dante said...: So now marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. That's the truth?

Isn't that what the court ruled? Essentially, the state has no interest in the family as the unit to raise the next generation.

I suppose I could go for this, if the state weren't up my ass on so many other things.; 6/28/13, 9:13 PM
Revenant said...: So now marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. That's the truth?

You are arguing that they are the same. If merely "having something to do with" marriage made something the same as marriage, marriage and divorce would be the same thing.

You don't have to get married to have kids, and don't have to have kids once you're married. Legally as well as biologically, child-bearing is not an inherent part of marriage and marriage is not an inherent part of child-bearing.

Thus your attempt to say "reproduction is different, therefore marriage is different" is objectively wrong on both a logical and factual basis.; 6/28/13, 9:14 PM
harrogate said...: Inga:

That's not bad, not bad at all.; 6/28/13, 9:14 PM
Saint Croix said...: If someone proposed stripping marriage rights from heterosexual couples who were known to be infertile you'd shit yourselves inside-out with rage.

I already shit myself inside-out with rage over all the infanticides our Supreme Court has dictated. There's only so much shitting myself inside-out with rage that I can do in a day.

I am truly not worked up about infertile people who are Forced To Live In Sin. What's wrong with living in sin, anyway? "I need authorities to validate my lifestyle." You do?

I take it from your failure to mention all the sex discrimination in your own life that you Concede My Point. Thus I will take the high road. No, wait. I will kick the shit out of you while you crumple to the ground weeping in despair!; 6/28/13, 9:16 PM
edutcher said...: somefeller said...

Yes, edutcher, you did respond to Ann, point by point. And your response is valued and validated, no matter what it said. Because you are validated and valued here and this is your safe place. Even if others won't copy the sentence saying so.

Y'know, I don't recall Ann requiring your help or commentary on this issue. Maybe you ought to take your drivel directly to her and see what she says.

Matter of fact, if this is the level of your "commentary", I can understand why you spend an entire "vacay day" hanging around the comment boards of a blog, rather than go out and actually do something. It's a wonder Mom lets you out of the basement at all.

Inga said...

Why not just have marriage between two unrelated people who love each other and then they can decide for themselves if they want to have children, not asking too much, right?

Why not just tell the people who cruise the baths to keep it in their pants so they don't get AIDS?; 6/28/13, 9:16 PM
ricpic said...: Roberts (my take) would never have the backbone. But let's say he did call Tony out for labeling opposition bigotry. Does a collegial atmosphere in chambers trump everything? IMO Tony's extraordinary lack of judicial temperament, in this decision at least, warrants a reprimand.; 6/28/13, 9:18 PM
Iconochasm said...: I'd been waiting for an excuse to link this here, and with all the discussion of the difference between strait and gay sex, I think the time is now.

Samesies; 6/28/13, 9:18 PM
Saint Croix said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/28/13, 9:18 PM
Anonymous said...: " No, wait. I will kick the shit out of you while you crumple to the ground weeping in despair!"

6/28/13, 9:16 PM

Damn, St Croix! That's so manly, kinda hot.; 6/28/13, 9:19 PM
somefeller said...: Thank you for your response, edutcher. It is valued and validated, including the cliche part. For this is your safe place, even if the host of this blog won't treat it as such.; 6/28/13, 9:21 PM
bagoh20 said...: This has been said a thousand times, but they could always get married, they just didn't get the government recognition for the sake of opening all the doors in the the byzantine castle of a thousand school marms handing out tiny thimbles of porridge from the tiny spillage left after the dinner of the elites.

Well, I guess that hasn't exactly been said a thousand times.; 6/28/13, 9:22 PM
Revenant said...: Why only people?

Marriage under our legal system requires consent among the parties to the marriage. Animals can't consent to legal contracts, or at least we can't figure out if they have.

If we returned to a more old-school, "I captured this woman in battle and made her my wife" type of approach then I guess you could raid your neighbor's house, rape his granite countertop and claim it as a spouse? And five bucks says you'd get a reality TV show out of it, too.; 6/28/13, 9:24 PM
Saint Croix said...: Thanks, Inga! I thought your crying at the wedding was very girlie.; 6/28/13, 9:26 PM
Revenant said...: This is truly stupid.

For a guy who spends as much time kvetching about abortion as you do you sure are late finding out that unmarried women get pregnant.; 6/28/13, 9:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Nobody better assault my granite countertop, or else.....; 6/28/13, 9:27 PM
cf said...: been busy, my dear friend had 10-hour, front and back sided surgeries, and I come back and stuff has been happening at the Cafes. shoot. I missed it.

and Inga's back.

sigh. going back down underwater, glub glub; 6/28/13, 9:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, I AM a girl.... At heart.; 6/28/13, 9:28 PM
bagoh20 said...: "Thus your attempt to say "reproduction is different, therefore marriage is different" is objectively wrong on both a logical and factual basis."

Just saying it doesn't make it true. Marriage is about reproduction: historically, mostly, and logically. Only in the last few years has that even been dented. Now, it seems we are saying that since the thing has a dent, It's the dent that is it's nature. The truth is most marriages are pursued for the sake of children, including many gay ones.; 6/28/13, 9:30 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Golf ball sized hail coming down here. It sounds like glass is shattering.; 6/28/13, 9:30 PM
Revenant said...: I already shit myself inside-out with rage over all the infanticides our Supreme Court has dictated.

I was not aware of that. Thank you for being kind enough to bring it up in response to every single subject discussed here.; 6/28/13, 9:32 PM
Revenant said...: Nobody better assault my granite countertop, or else.....

The little hussy was asking for it, Inga.; 6/28/13, 9:33 PM
bagoh20 said...: Sorry Inga, but I need to confess that I got a little nasty with your countertop while you were passed out after reading that novel about the little boatman. I was bored and felt a little neglected.; 6/28/13, 9:35 PM
edutcher said...: somefeller said...

Thank you for your response, edutcher. It is valued and validated, including the cliche part. For this is your safe place, even if the host of this blog won't treat it as such.

Yes, I know, you keep repeating it.

I take it you think this is in some way brilliant repartee.

Gay repartee, I'm sure, but by no means brilliant.

Another wasted day for you.

All drivel, no substance.

Make sure Mom doesn't let you near the valium again.

PS Do you need all your comments written for you?; 6/28/13, 9:35 PM
bagoh20 said...: That is some slutty granite.; 6/28/13, 9:36 PM
bagoh20 said...: "Well, I AM a girl..."

Link?; 6/28/13, 9:37 PM
edutcher said...: Here, let me do the next one for you.

somefeller said...

Thank you for your response, edutcher. It is valued and validated, including the cliche part. For this is your safe place, even if the host of this blog won't treat it as such.

So you don't have to take time out from jerking off.; 6/28/13, 9:38 PM
somefeller said...: Valium, valued and validated all start with the same letter, edutcher. And the last two v words are for you. Because cyberbullying is wrong and a stand was made here at the Althouse blog today for that principle, for you. Let it be noted in the blog archives.; 6/28/13, 9:39 PM
Simon said...: Revenant said...
"We don't need a return to the Reagan era. We need a return to the Calvin Coolidge era."

I would go further than that. I would repeal the twentieth century. That's glib, of course; the idea that there's a golden era to which we can return is a reactionary fantasy, but I'm using rhetorical overtstatement to be clear that the problem here isn't just the new deal. The rot set in with the first progressive movement, and the truth is that there's a lot of good stuff, a lot of improvements that followed the progressive era. There was good stuff in the sixties, for goodness sakes. Even black holes output a little radiaton! But the rot set in with the first progressive movement, and the only way that we're going to fix it is to strip it back to the studs and then try to figure out how to reimplement the good stuff that was previously built on a rotten foundation. You've got to tear out every layer to which the rot has gotten, unfortunately, and as a conservative that terrifies me, but I don't see what other option there is.; 6/28/13, 9:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Baggie, you are my one of my special friends here, no need to feel neglected, my granite counter tops are indestructible after all.; 6/28/13, 9:40 PM
Revenant said...: Marriage is about reproduction: historically, mostly, and logically.

The correct form of that sentence is "marriage was about reproduction, historically, for rational reasons".

Prior to the discovery of reliable birth control, hetero sex inevitably meant marriage. Raising a child alone when you live as a hunter-gatherer or subsistence farmer is essentially impossible, and thus marriage became a precursor for sex, and sex inevitably led to babies. Even then, of course, there were childless couples and out-of-wedlock births.

Now, note the use of the past tense? Right. Now, when you're ready to discuss 21st century America, where marriage and reproduction are only loosely related and in no way requirements of one another, we can continue.; 6/28/13, 9:41 PM
harrogate said...: In that way, the granite countertops clearly are superior to marriage and family, which now are being destroyed in an Apocalyptic deluge that no happy pills, no Valum, no speech by Rick Santorum can abate.; 6/28/13, 9:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Ermagherd!; 6/28/13, 9:44 PM
Iconochasm said...: Revenant said...
Marriage is about reproduction: historically, mostly, and logically.

The correct form of that sentence is "marriage was about reproduction, historically, for rational reasons".

Prior to the discovery of reliable birth control, hetero sex inevitably meant marriage. Raising a child alone when you live as a hunter-gatherer or subsistence farmer is essentially impossible, and thus marriage became a precursor for sex, and sex inevitably led to babies. Even then, of course, there were childless couples and out-of-wedlock births.

Now, note the use of the past tense? Right. Now, when you're ready to discuss 21st century America, where marriage and reproduction are only loosely related and in no way requirements of one another, we can continue.

You're totally right. We should start stripped out the archaic, unnecessary legal benefits of marriage. Where would you suggest we start?; 6/28/13, 9:44 PM
Saint Croix said...: Legally as well as biologically, child-bearing is not an inherent part of marriage and marriage is not an inherent part of child-bearing.

It's true there's an animal model, of single moms and runaway dads. But we can do better than that. Children need fathers and mothers. Plenty of social science backs that up.

The reason we have marriage, and have always had marriage, is for the raising of children. None of this is to say that we can't marry for other reasons. But it does show a startling lack of appreciation and respect for the institution of marriage. You apparently have no idea why there is such a thing.; 6/28/13, 9:45 PM
Michael K said...: Blogger Revenant said...

"Homosexual relationships, by and large, are notoriously unstable.

Relationships where marriage is impossible and the parties involved are in constant danger of arrest are unstable?

Damn. That IS shocking."

Too bad you weren't there to help me explain to the nuclear engineer why he had AIDS after he told me it couldn't be true. He had been in a "committed relationship" for ten years.

You would have been a big help.; 6/28/13, 9:45 PM
harrogate said...: I actually favor marriage benefits. And I cheerfully prophesy that since the vast majority rightfuly support them as well, they're not going anywhere just because teh gays will be accessing them as well.; 6/28/13, 9:47 PM
Revenant said...: Damnit, harrogate, if it wasn't for Rick Santorum fighting the good fight my granite countertop would have already married my dog. I won't have you make light of this situation.; 6/28/13, 9:47 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: I agree with Bagoh20, in part. For me, as a practical matter, marriage was largely about raising children. I would not have married if I hadn't wanted to provide a stable environment for raising children. Maybe my attitude would have changed if I had thought through the legal implications of not being married to my partner, end of life issues etc. but my primary impetus for marriage was definitely linked to child care.; 6/28/13, 9:47 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Fancy shmancy Granite gets what it deserves.

Better to have utilitarian, plastic counters, like those in Meadehouse,; 6/28/13, 9:48 PM
Saint Croix said...: Now, when you're ready to discuss 21st century America, where marriage and reproduction are only loosely related and in no way requirements of one another, we can continue.

Wow. You're really glib about children. Please don't have any.; 6/28/13, 9:48 PM
Sprezzatura said...: P.S. normal granite sucks

Get Quartzite (not to be confused w/ Quartz).; 6/28/13, 9:49 PM
harrogate said...: For bedrooms though, as we all learned from Pulp Fiction, "oak's good." I'm an oak man myself.; 6/28/13, 9:50 PM
bagoh20 said...: I realize that what has really changed is marriage itself. It's just not the same as before, less necessary, less useful, less important. My comments are actually more directed at what marriage will be in the future if we just abandon what it has been completely. We don't have much further to go with that. So once it's nothing like what it was at all, and maybe you can do it with just an electronic transfer over your Google Glass units as you pass on the subway stairs, we can then call it something else other than marriage. Naaaa, I bet someone would say that's discriminatory.; 6/28/13, 9:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes to hardwood!; 6/28/13, 9:52 PM
Sprezzatura said...: "as we all learned from Pulp Fiction"

You can't believe everything you hear in Pulp Fiction. The Grand Royal meal doesn't really come w/ straight mayonnaise for the fries. It is some sort of seasoned mayo thing, and you can get good old ketchup, too.; 6/28/13, 9:54 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: bagoh20 said...
I realize that what has really changed is marriage itself. It's just not the same as before, less necessary, less useful, less important. My comments are actually more directed at what marriage will be in the future if we just abandon what it has been completely.

This is unnecessarily pessimistic. For couples raising children marriage will continue pretty much unchanged for the foreseeable future. There is a dynamic to this process that has biological and practical constraints that are largely invariant over time.; 6/28/13, 9:56 PM
harrogate said...: pbAndj,

But is reel to reel still a foundation for a helluva stereo system, or was that bunk too?; 6/28/13, 9:57 PM
Revenant said...: Too bad you weren't there to help me explain to the nuclear engineer why he had AIDS after he told me it couldn't be true. He had been in a "committed relationship" for ten years.

Amusingly, you seem unaware that nothing about that sentence tells us whether the guy was heterosexual or homosexual.; 6/28/13, 9:57 PM
edutcher said...: It took those 3 morons all evening to come up with that idea.

I wonder, if I stayed up all night commenting, would those assholes stay up as well just to keep regurgitating their nonsense?

Ah, well, happy bandwidth.; 6/28/13, 9:57 PM
Sprezzatura said...: You cons seem to be missing what Althouse is saying.

In the past it was essentially unthinkable for blacks and whites to marry. Now, most folks don't have a problem w/ this.

Get it?

Or, still stumped?; 6/28/13, 9:57 PM
Revenant said...: Wow. You're really glib about children. Please don't have any.

Don't be ridiculous, Croix. I'm unmarried. As we all know, that means I can't have children.

And yes, I'm glib. If I didn't try to keep a sense of humor dealing with you people I'm wind up drinking bleach.; 6/28/13, 9:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Rev, just don't mix it with ammonia.; 6/28/13, 10:01 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: tweedle tweedle do tweedle tweedle do tweedle tweedle dooooo

Oh they sa-ay she died one winter when there came a killing frost
And the pony she named Wildflower busted down its stall
And Chip said, "All is not lost ."

Come and have some cheeeeeer-ry pie
Come and have some cheeeeeer-ry pie
Come and have some cheeeeeer-ry pie; 6/28/13, 10:02 PM
harrogate said...: "Don't be ridiculous, Croix. I'm unmarried. As we all know, that means I can't have children."

God. There went my ice water.; 6/28/13, 10:02 PM
Saint Croix said...: Don't be ridiculous, Croix. I'm unmarried. As we all know, that means I can't have children.

What it apparently means is that if you get a woman pregnant, she'll either be having an abortion or raising the kid on her own. Because marriage has nothing to do with children.

You are a disaster of liberal engineering. And there are a lot of men like you, I don't mean to pick on you specifically.; 6/28/13, 10:07 PM
harrogate said...: Revenant and liberal engineering. Not often you see those two ideas put together, to be sure.; 6/28/13, 10:09 PM
somefeller said...: Actually, I was at an ACLU meeting wherein we discussed how Revenant was the illegitimate child of Saul Alinsky and raised by two academics named Cloward and Piven as one of our liberal engineering experiments. Sorry to break the news to you this way, Rev.; 6/28/13, 10:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Somefeller, bwhahahahaah!; 6/28/13, 10:15 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: somefeller said...
Actually, I was at an ACLU meeting wherein we discussed how Revenant was the illegitimate child of Saul Alinsky and raised by two academics named Cloward and Piven as one of our liberal engineering experiments.

Based on the outcome, 'liberal' engineering is an inexact science.; 6/28/13, 10:15 PM
bagoh20 said...: ". For couples raising children marriage will continue pretty much unchanged for the foreseeable future."<

The current rate of transition is pretty fast. I know a lot of people with kids who are not married, and I would guess that 30 years ago nearly all of them would be married or not had the children. People think nothing of having kids out of wedlock today, and not just one but as many as they want.

I can't imagine another 30 years won't make things very different. Marriage is just too hard if you don't have to do it, and the government will foot your bills.; 6/28/13, 10:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Women will continue to have children, the men who are worthwhile will be their fathers and marry the women. SSM won't change a thing, except maybe more couples will be raising children together.; 6/28/13, 10:19 PM
bagoh20 said...: The reason people don't stay married is because there simply is no reason you have too. The women and children get supported by the state, so neither the man or the woman feels really pressured to stick it out, women can make good money now (working or not) and men don't feel that much pressure to support them since they know they will be supported anyway. It all works together to make any difficulty between the parents enough to split over. She says "get out". He says "fine", and that's it. Fill out some forms, and off you go.; 6/28/13, 10:26 PM
somefeller said...: The current rate of transition is pretty fast. I know a lot of people with kids who are not married, and I would guess that 30 years ago nearly all of them would be married or not had the children. People think nothing of having kids out of wedlock today, and not just one but as many as they want.

On a serious note, this is an important point, but it has a lot to do with social class and education, both as cause and effect. Educated upper middle class people generally don't have kids out of wedlock while as you go down the ladder, that becomes more common. That's both a cause and effect of social stratification. Charles Murray wrote a definitive book on the topic recently and people like David Brooks (I know, RINO bastard!) have noted the trend. Gay marriage didn't cause that and won't affect it one whit.; 6/28/13, 10:27 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/28/13, 10:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Sorry to be a Pollyanna, but if one loves their partner, they stay married through thick and thin (unless one of them is abusive) children or childless. Full stop.

It's the ones who no longer love each other who split, it is THAT simple..; 6/28/13, 10:32 PM
Anonymous said...: And if one loves their partner, they don't abuse them.; 6/28/13, 10:33 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: bagoh20 said...
The reason people don't stay married is because there simply is no reason you have too. The women and children get supported by the state, so neither the man or the woman feels really pressured to stick it out, women can make good money now (working or not) and men don't feel that much pressure to support them since they know they will be supported anyway.

I think you are wildly underestimating the difficulty of being a single mother. As Inga said, woman will continue to have children, there is a biological imperative and relatively narrow window in which to do this. It is the rare woman who wouldn't prefer to do this in the context of a stable supportive marriage.; 6/28/13, 10:35 PM
Sprezzatura said...: "The women and children get supported by the state, so neither the man or the woman feels really pressured to stick it out"

Is this "story" fact, or dogma.

I don't doubt that the government provides for kids sans food and such. But, I can recall some fathers bitching about their compulsory child support payments. Anywho, I don't have any first hand knowledge re deadbeat dads. But, it seems like some of them can't just walk away w/ Uncle Sam running for Huggies in their place.; 6/28/13, 10:39 PM
edutcher said...: somefeller said...

The current rate of transition is pretty fast. I know a lot of people with kids who are not married, and I would guess that 30 years ago nearly all of them would be married or not had the children. People think nothing of having kids out of wedlock today, and not just one but as many as they want.

On a serious note, this is an important point, but it has a lot to do with social class and education, both as cause and effect. Educated upper middle class people generally don't have kids out of wedlock while as you go down the ladder, that becomes more common.

As those of us who live in the real world know, the upper classes have as many bastards as the hoi polloi. They just make their payoffs under the table.; 6/28/13, 10:45 PM
edutcher said...: Inga said...

And if one loves their partner, they don't abuse them.

Unfortunately, the She Devil of the SS' motto is, "You always hurt the one you love".; 6/28/13, 10:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Ed, don't make me say it, I've been trying sooooo hard to be kind to you, but..........

Edutcher is ALWAYS wrong. Sorry Hun.; 6/28/13, 10:49 PM
Revenant said...: She says "get out". He says "fine", and that's it. Fill out some forms, and off you go.

That works if you're poor, sure.

If you're middle-class... uh-uh, not so fast buddy. First of all the government isn't going to be stepping up with much in the way of assistance -- it is almost all means-tested -- and secondly, they're going to be coming after the father with hammer and tongs to extract as much money as possible.

It isn't just that the state helps care for kids. It is also that you can't refuse to take care of your kids on the grounds that the mother isn't your wife.; 6/28/13, 10:49 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Elsewhere more will have to happen, but the endpoint is so predictable that I advise conservatives to find a different position.

Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, Environmentalism narrative says that there is only one position that counts... the position of saving the planet.

Why should I change my position to anything other than trying to sound the alarm, against what I believe is going to further damage an institution that's already down?; 6/28/13, 10:51 PM
rcommal said...: a link

une autre; 6/28/13, 10:51 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: somefeller said...
it has a lot to do with social class and education, both as cause and effect. Educated upper middle class people generally don't have kids out of wedlock while as you go down the ladder, that becomes more common. That's both a cause and effect of social stratification.

And this is due to the decline in the ability of working men to maintain stable incomes that can support a family. Conservatives bemoan the decline of marriage and routinely blame it on liberals but refuse to acknowledge the primarily economic basis of these trends.; 6/28/13, 10:55 PM
bagoh20 said...: "I can recall some fathers bitching about their compulsory child support payments."

Yes, and it's pretty hard to avoid paying these days. I have a number of employees who I have to take it out of their checks every payday. But even that still makes separation easier than marriage. The wife gets a check without an argument or it getting spent first, and the guy probably thinks only having to pay money is a good deal. The end result is it helps facilitate separation rather than sticking it out. She would be much less likely to give up on it if he didn't get forced to pay. Both people can still have romance, get laid, and all that with other people while still supporting their children through the system. Most importantly, there is little shame in it.; 6/28/13, 10:55 PM
Revenant said...: Why should I change my position to anything other than trying to sound the alarm, against what I believe is going to further damage an institution that's already down?

For starters, it puts you in the position of arguing that you're just like Al Gore.; 6/28/13, 11:00 PM
rcommal said...: The reason people don't stay married is because there simply is no reason you have too. The women and children get supported by the state, so neither the man or the woman feels really pressured to stick it out, women can make good money now (working or not) and men don't feel that much pressure to support them since they know they will be supported anyway. It all works together to make any difficulty between the parents enough to split over. She says "get out". He says "fine", and that's it. Fill out some forms, and off you go.

WTF, bagoh! (?!) Based on all the evidence I have seen over, now, many years, you yourself could fisk this one as well as anyone here, not least on grounds of reckless, rampant conflation of the irresponsible sort. Dang, man.; 6/28/13, 11:01 PM
rcommal said...: Sorry to be a Pollyanna, but if one loves their partner, they stay married through thick and thin (unless one of them is abusive) children or childless. Full stop.

It's the ones who no longer love each other who split, it is THAT simple..

This, also, contains great elements of nonsense, the writer of which is well able to fisk herself.

WTF?; 6/28/13, 11:04 PM
Revenant said...: And this is due to the decline in the ability of working men to maintain stable incomes that can support a family.

We're lucky that the human race survived to reach the golden age of the 1950s American worker's paradise, what with it being impossible for men to support a family on poor wages and unstable employment.; 6/28/13, 11:06 PM
rcommal said...: Why should I change my position to anything other than trying to sound the alarm, against what I believe is going to further damage an institution that's already down?

OK, Lem, I'll bite: What would be your answer to that question?; 6/28/13, 11:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Don't love your partner enough to stay married? Divorce. It need not be more complicated than that. It's when there isn't love between the partners, that is when married life gets needlessly complicated.; 6/28/13, 11:11 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Conservatives going wobbly on gay marriage, is not going to make the boondoggle that is gay marriage, work.

It would be like saying... you know you guys won, so, go ahead and continue using the IRS for your political purposes.

If the Supremes say its ok to use the IRS that way... what are we going to do?

Ok then. Go ahead and use the IRS that way, and when we win, it will be our turn... Oh that's right I forgot... conservatives are never going to win anything again because we don't embrace amnesty.; 6/28/13, 11:11 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Revenant said...
We're lucky that the human race survived to reach the golden age of the 1950s American worker's paradise, what with it being impossible for men to support a family on poor wages and unstable employment.

Woman have children, married on not. The human race will survive just fine. It is the institution of marriage that is weakened by the reduced economic competitiveness of working men.

Try to keep up.; 6/28/13, 11:12 PM
Dante said...: Woman have children, married on not. The human race will survive just fine. It is the institution of marriage that is weakened by the reduced economic competitiveness of working men.

Not knowing what the actual causes are, it seems Western Civilization is dying out.

Once gone, who knows what the world will be like. I suspect not as accommodating as Western folks have been.; 6/28/13, 11:30 PM
bagoh20 said...: rcommal,

What's your explanation? Couples are broken like never in history. I'm not repeating something I read about. I repeating what I've seen. I know these people. I know how they broke up. It's most often simple boredom, immaturity or even minor incompatibility. All things that in my parents' generation would rarely lead to divorce. They would just stick it out, and usually outgrow it.

Today, they have a few fights, and they move out. Someone starts seeing someone else, and it's over. It may take a year, but it happens just like that in time lapse for many many couples. The big difference I think is shame. It's so easy now, cause everybody is doing it.; 6/28/13, 11:32 PM
bagoh20 said...: "Don't love your partner enough to stay married? Divorce."

Love is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once you give up on it, it's gone, and as you fight to keep it, it grows.

I know about this stuff because I was almost in love once, I think maybe kinda, but that was a long time ago, and on second thought, it might have been lust.; 6/28/13, 11:39 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: I already ate 1/4 my cherry pie.; 6/28/13, 11:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Life is difficult, it less difficult with a partner you love. Love is a powerful motivating force. In my experience in my own marriage and other succesful marriages that lasted many years till deth did them part, was the level of love and respect between the partners didn't diminish. I feel sad for those folks out there that haven't experienced that.; 6/28/13, 11:43 PM
Anonymous said...: *Death*; 6/28/13, 11:44 PM
Revenant said...: Woman have children, married on not. The human race will survive just fine. It is the institution of marriage that is weakened by the reduced economic competitiveness of working men.

That explains why people seldom got married prior to the Golden Age of the 1950s.; 6/28/13, 11:56 PM
William said...: I don't think gay marriage will in any way subvert the institution of marriage. I can't think of any reasonable objection to it. We'll see how it plays out, but the guess here is that it will not provide much solace to gays in the long run. Lonely gays will feel lonelier, and married gays will discover how ruinous our divorce laws can be. Single gays will discover how much nagging can be inflicted by mothers who think their precious will have less chance of getting AIDS if he gets married. There will be more losers than winners. File this under AnsweredPrayers.; 6/29/13, 12:05 AM
Revenant said...: I like you, William. You may be even more cynical than me.

Let's go bowling sometime and hang out.; 6/29/13, 12:06 AM
William said...: Rev: I enjoy your comments but I'm not into having relationships with carbon based life forms at this time.; 6/29/13, 12:11 AM
rcommal said...: One of the things almost never talked about anymore is that marriage, in terms of family and the very institution of it over time*, served not just to create, raise and care for children, but also to provide for the care of various kinds and sorts (also over lifetime) of family members--now referred to as [mere]relatives--related to it. This included the married partners themselves, the generation just before them [and sometimes the one before that], the generation just after them [and sometimes the one after that], and even--certainly historically--sometimes some members within the generation of the married partners themselves. This was, and even sometimes now is, the richness of most fruitful marriage between two people, joining families to extend the net of care and obligation, as well as love, which always was the fundamental point of gathering folks into family groupings large enough to tend to things in more than a mere-survival way.

I think that so much of the debate over marriage now is so sparse. It's interesting to me that ***so many now*** say that both the main and major (and sometimes, nay, often, I think: only!--at least by implication) interest that society has in marriage is for the birthing and raising of children. This betrays, I think, a fundamental bias on all parts, all along the political spectrum, toward the relatively recent (in time) bias toward the **nuclear** family, a very recent concept itself and most definitely NOT one with deep roots in history.; 6/29/13, 12:19 AM
Dante said...: I'm on PTO (Paid time off), after a long project. And I find myself completely mesmerized by the Zimmerman case.

Particularly the defense seems to have a big picture they are leading to, and are putting in place random pieces of color that will eventually become clear.

The need to subvert all emotions, such as frustration, etc., during the trial, such as when trying to get to the truth from Diamond, which never seemed to come. Yet, the careful undermining of the witness without being confrontational, except in rare moments.

Dealing with the judge, who prefers the use of "May I," vs. "Can I" from the lawyers, like some proper mother who never realized others are equals. And who seemed to feel protective of one of the witnesses, though she is a self admitted liar and perjurer.

The careful piecing together of different perspectives, on imperfect information, to try to paint a picture of "Truth."

The little games the defense is playing with the prosecution, such as opening doors before the prosecution is ready for them.

It's frankly riveting.; 6/29/13, 12:25 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Revenant said...
That explains why people seldom got married prior to the Golden Age of the 1950s.

The concept of stable romantic love-based marriages extending across the entire economic spectrum is relatively recent, shaped by a prolonged period of economic growth and relative wealth. It doesn't reflect most of human history.

Marriage remains stable amongst the upper middle class. It declines with declining economic fortune. Peasants in the middle ages didn't have stable marriages either.; 6/29/13, 12:26 AM
Dante said...: "Don't love your partner enough to stay married? Divorce."

And if you love your kids a lot, and feel it is better for them to have your spouse around as well? Then what.

Perhaps it's a valley. Who knows.; 6/29/13, 12:38 AM
Guildofcannonballs said...: edutcher is, after S.T., the best comment-I-am-prone-toward-appreciating author on this site or any other.

You people, including the host or hosts however you wish, simply don't understand what a troll or an anti-troll is. You shouldn't. Separation of labor and whatnot.

Trolling involves fighting. Dirt. Nasty nastiness done nastily. The only regret being it wasn't nasty{i}eshly done enough.

Through this, by virtue of edutcher as it were, a cleansing via enlightenment occurs.

It is unique in a world becoming less so.

I liked Yasho or Yashu or Yoshu or something like that avatar's name was a lot too.; 6/29/13, 12:57 AM
Guildofcannonballs said...: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=Nasty+nastiness+done+nastily&btnG=Submit&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22Nasty+nastiness+done+nastily%22&oq=%22Nasty+nastiness+done+nastily%22&gs_l=serp.3...6310.9710.0.10096.2.2.0.0.0.0.65.113.2.2.0...0.0...1c.1.18.psy-ab.OXrD8SxdJoc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48572450,d.aWc&fp=8d62265e05ed9c5b&biw=1567&bih=752; 6/29/13, 1:09 AM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Oh and really the nastiness is mostly, but not all, on your side.

So the "nice phrase but improper logic due to invalid premise" is unfit at this juncture, per se.; 6/29/13, 1:11 AM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Years ago I saw Protein Wisdom destroyed by what destroyed it.

I saw it and don't know; can't describe it.

Shouting Thomas and eductcher and others have described it.

Warren Fucking Bonesteel.

So I applaud, as loud as I can now, the Althouse Hillbillies.

Wow that hurts. That phrase. Lots and lots. Very creative and damning with pith such that suicide seems likely any moment now; this was what Hannibal Lecter surely said to his cell-neighbor in The Silence of the Lambs right: "you a hillbilly" he whispered and what followed by not Hollywood Magic but the magic of the word "hillbilly" to frighten and enslave whitey was simple death.

WELL NOT ACCORDING TO EDUTCHER.

I am serious you guys. Take your meme's and shove em'.; 6/29/13, 1:25 AM
Dante said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/29/13, 4:28 AM
Dante said...: A reluctant witness testifies in the George Zimmerman case. Defense Lawyer says, "You called 9/11, not something you do every day."

Reluctant witness "Well, since then, yes."

2:16:24.

And this case is about a "white guy" killing a "black guy."

No it's not.; 6/29/13, 4:30 AM
edutcher said...: Inga said...

Ed, don't make me say it, I've been trying sooooo hard to be kind to you, but..........

Edutcher is ALWAYS wrong. Sorry Hun.

That's "hon", as in honey.

Huns were the enemies of this country in 2 world wars.

So I can see how you'd be confused.

PS For somebody who's always wrong, I seem to end up with more people agreeing with me than you do.

rcommal said...

One of the things almost never talked about anymore is that marriage, in terms of family and the very institution of it over time*, served not just to create, raise and care for children, but also to provide for the care of various kinds and sorts (also over lifetime) of family members--now referred to as [mere]relatives--related to it. This included the married partners themselves, the generation just before them [and sometimes the one before that], the generation just after them [and sometimes the one after that], and even--certainly historically--sometimes some members within the generation of the married partners themselves. This was, and even sometimes now is, the richness of most fruitful marriage between two people, joining families to extend the net of care and obligation, as well as love, which always was the fundamental point of gathering folks into family groupings large enough to tend to things in more than a mere-survival way.

Good point, but government is trying to replace both the extended, as well as the nuclear family, in that respect.

I think that so much of the debate over marriage now is so sparse. It's interesting to me that ***so many now*** say that both the main and major (and sometimes, nay, often, I think: only!--at least by implication) interest that society has in marriage is for the birthing and raising of children. This betrays, I think, a fundamental bias on all parts, all along the political spectrum, toward the relatively recent (in time) bias toward the **nuclear** family, a very recent concept itself and most definitely NOT one with deep roots in history.

In terms of sociology, you're probably right, but there's no extended family without first nuclear families.

I'd also add vastly increased mobility has made extended families harder to maintain.; 6/29/13, 5:23 AM
Meade said...: rhhardin said...
"Surveillance drone crash site on my bike route.

Probably it was brought down by tea partiers.
6/28/13, 7:37 PM"

lol; 6/29/13, 6:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Gawd, Ed, no sense of irony, have you?; 6/29/13, 10:35 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/29/13, 1:20 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/29/13, 1:23 PM
rcommal said...: Life is difficult, it less difficult with a partner you love.

As for the first clause: no argument. As for the second: no, that's not always true. Sometimes it's quite a bit more difficult on account of a partner whom you love. How unimaginative, how so little endowed with the skills of observation and empathy, are you, anyway, Inga?; 7/1/13, 10:36 PM